Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Friday, September 27, 2013


Kabuki and the Unanswerable Question by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization ** “Kabuki is a classical Japanese dance-drama. Kabuki theatre is known for the stylization of its dramas and for the elaborate makeup worn.” – Wikipedia Exactly! Not necessarily Japanese. See Ballywood. The dual purpose of such staged productions is to provide a storyline to replace utter chaos, so that too many don’t freak out and go stark-raving berserk, and to lull and perhaps move the audience in an intended direction. And thus, what was fleetingly billed as the Information Age has rapidly become a Stimulus Age controlled by the management. What I talked about last time was the indispensable and irreplaceable role of evidence for moving our agenda to change the narrative. Case in point: No matter how convinced any of us (or even all of us) might be that Israel and Israelis played the leading or exclusive operative role in 9/11, we must not give into the temptation of descending to doing exactly what the other side has done (and continues to do) and dispense with the need for evidence specifically tending to prove that this (or whatever other) theory we’re convinced of as unnecessary. This is true in part because our conclusion is simply not objectively self-evident to most, if at all. And we need only to recall that nearly everyone was so convinced OBL and the 19 had done it at the outset as to lead to the prevailing circumstance that an honest investigation and a trial (i.e., due process) was considered at practically every level of society to be an utter waste of time. And thus have lynch mobs been summoned and herds stampeded from the shadowy depths of time to this week. That’s not the sort of outcome we ought to seek. In this present case, those who are so sure of themselves regarding the Israelis or at least the Zionists as the driving force and chief operatives to be blamed for 9/11 could well be right. Circumstantial evidence appears to support that suspicion. But, those who scoff or sneer at the need to step back and wield specific gathered evidence of specific actions or involvement, and so rail at the suggestion that spot-specific evidence is seriously needed, simply cannot succeed in ever convincing anyone who’d rather not know what they claim to know. And so, they’ll fail, unless to rail is their only purpose. They’ll only convince themselves by their unsubstantiated insistence that their theory’s equal to a proven fact, and, in the process, taint and discredit our enterprise. And such is true only in part because there is another equally-suspected familiar cast of characters plausibly implicated. (I refer to Cheney, Rumsfeld, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, J. Bush, M. Bush ...) who are not all known Israelis and are known to be perfectly capable of dire deeds. It’s simply never a good idea to dispense with the requirements of due process, warranted though the suspicions of many may prove to be. Until someone enlightens me, one way or the other, I share the suspicions but have yet to see the convincing evidence of Israeli overlordship of the operation. (Actually, I think both the U.S. and Israel are puppets at that level – but I can’t yet prove it.) And I might add that my drawing attention to the matter of an apparently powerful Israeli connection of some sort would hardly qualify me as a Zio flak, or whatever it is, in any case. Part of our role, if we are to be successful, must indeed be to assemble proof of our assertions, if possible, that will sway the public as a whole, or at least any part that we can get to listen. And many among us continue to maintain that our role is only to demonstrate that the official conspiracy theory is impossible or highly suspect of so being – which is surprisingly easy, as I will explain at the end. And I believe we have another needful (and contributory) role to seek to fulfill, too. We need to strive to convince the public to be wary, to consider any and perhaps even virtually all major occurrences to be at least possibly productions of Kabuki instead of spontaneous. Regarding the Nairobi terrorist attack, an explanation circulated that’s superficially plausible is that the Somali attackers wanted to punish Kenyans for occupying part of Somalia. But then, there’s the implication by the U.S. media that Somali (Muslim) American immigrants might be involved, and that the whole thing might somehow or other be a proxy-attack on America. Hence, Americans might do well to keep their distance from and remain more-than-wary of Muslim-Americans. “Could the CIA (or other U.S. alphabet agencies) be involved here?” is what we’ve got to convince the masses to wonder and ask, every single time something happens. Because, such suspicions as that have proven supremely apropos, well-founded, and useful to harbor at all times in order to make even a little bit of sense of the post-modern world. Until that every-day sort of suspicion (note: not certainty necessarily) becomes well-implanted and routine, the public’s response to any related suggestion we make – and you can hear it from virtually anyone still these days – will, going forward, no longer be outright denial in a given instance, but something like, “What we don’t know can’t hurt us.” Huh? Or, “That can’t be, they wouldn’t do that.” Really? Or, from the more sophisticated, “What’s your source?” That one’s harder. I myself got blocked last week – I wish I knew how and by whom – from a discussion on Facebook started by, of all people, James Bamford, almost a legend in left guardian circles, for suggesting something to a “suit” who suggested we wouldn’t want uninformed people who didn’t follow the news voting. I suggested that, since it was reported that the world’s tip-top richest family owned both of the wire services providing our “news”, that he might not be as well-informed as he thought himself. Of course, he immediately accused me of anti-Semitism. And I denied it, telling him that “facts are facts” and providing a link, one of several available. Then, Bam! I was blocked from the island! If the noble family in question had been Methodist or Atheist or Wahabi, it wouldn’t have made a smidgen of difference – at least to me. True, the links to sources I managed to dredge up weren’t the most sterling imaginable, and perhaps the stunning suggestion I cited isn’t even literally true. Perhaps. Yet, I am convinced that any unbiased halfway-deep assessment of the worldwide financial system and media must reveal that, even if that commanding, top-dog family doesn’t actually own both of the wire services, the results of whatever linkages and arrangements are in place are substantially the same – rigid top √©lite control and total manipulation. Still, I wish I could find that elusive irrefutable source if that particularly engaging attribution of ownership is accurate. And, in fact, that’s the sort of irrefutable sources and links we all need to come up with – when they’re there – to make headway with what strike many as bold and startling claims – precisely the kind we have nailed down in some instances and still lack or need to strengthen in others. Now, what did I mean that proving the official story unbelievable is relatively easy? I meant that we can all begin to pose what I call the unanswerable question to those who refuse to doubt the Official Story. Here’s how: First, point out that, in western law, the burden of proof always properly rests on the affirmative (meaning that no one is obliged to prove the negative, that the Official Story is false – even though some of its claims can be proven physically impossible, etc.) Then, ask if your debate or discussion partner can provide even a single shred of credible evidence that the Official Story is true. They can’t, because it’s not. Accordingly, what evidence do they have that it’s true? They have none. And everyone should know that. JH: 9/27/13

New WTC Dust Study Looks Set to Confirm Nano-thermite

By Ziggi Zugam and John-Michael Talboo

September 26, 2013

Did you know that a recent survey concludes that nearly half of everyone that sees the video of the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 suspects controlled demolition? Now is the perfect time to remind you of the 2009 peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This is a summary of our extensive essay that covers the paper and the attempts to discredit it. We need your help to fund the completion of an independent study that is verifying the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust, so please donate to support chemical engineer Mark Basile.

The thermitic red layer of the reported tiny red/gray bi-layered chips found in the dust belongs to a novel class of energetic materials that government funded US laboratories have been developing since the 1990´s. Even the federal agency in charge of the supposed investigation of the collapsed towers helped to develop this type of material, which may help to explain why it refuses to look for evidence of it in the dust.

Our essay exposes unscrupulous internet sites that have been spreading false rumors to discredit Harrit et al., the paper, and even the publisher. The members of one such forum actually organized a study that was supposed to refute the paper on technical terms, but the resulting 2012 preliminary report by Dr. Millette remains unpublished because it is invalid, as we are about to explain. The essay is pending its second major revision (version 1.3) which will also include minor repairs such as the re-installment of missing pictures and graphs, but it is presently in five main parts plus the introduction and the final discussion:

- The introduction puts Dr. Harrit´s data into context and presents some of the experts behind the 2009 paper, their impressive credentials, and the unusually thorough peer-review process. Harrit´s paper is essentially flawless according to one of the referees that reviewed the paper on behalf of the journal, which explains why no-one has been able to challenge the explosive conclusion with published data. The introduction also gives you an insight into the mentality of the so-called "debunkers".

- Part One goes over the data and explains the process the authors went through to come to the conclusion that the chips are not paint. The red/gray chips have the required nano-thermite ingredients and they work like a thermitic material, hence the conclusion. We note that Harrit et al. document the sample collection and the chain-of-custody of the samples, so there never was any issue with the integrity of the samples or risk of  contamination, despite the rumors on certain internet forums.

- Part Two explains the importance of the molten iron spheres in the residue and distinguishes the opposite processes that lead to reduced iron spheres on one hand and oxidized iron spheres on the other. The red layer contains iron-oxide and aluminum before ignition, but upon ignition it converts those ingredients into molten spheres of iron and aluminum-oxide via an aluminothermic reaction. Conventional combustion would leave behind iron-oxide and we document many failed attempts to belittle or avoid this key evidence. Here is an update to part two, which expands on the debunking of Dave Thomas´s pseudo-scientific attempts to discredit the iron spheres.

- Part Three introduces the miserable saga of Rev. Chris Mohr and his attempt to hire "an independent scientist" to study the red/gray chips, and the resulting 2012 preliminary report by Dr. Millette. We highlight the main problems with the report, including the fact that neither the red nor the gray layers match Harrit´s chips when closely examined, and Millette´s refusal to even address the key evidence: the iron spheres. The main theme of this part is the suspicion that Millette has not been studying the correct chips, and this has now been confirmed (see update to part five below).

- Part Four is dedicated to the discovery of elemental aluminum in the red layer of Dr. Harrit´s chips. Dr. Millette does not clearly identify unbound aluminum in his chips, but he does not attempt to actually refute the aluminum data for the chips in Dr. Harrit´s study. Some authoritative members of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum have attempted to discredit Harrit´s aluminum data, but we refute them by taking a close look at their methods. This chapter reminds us that there is a big difference between valid data published in refereed journals and anonymous chit-chat on certain forums.

- Part Five addresses the key piece of evidence in Dr. Millette´s preliminary report: the FTIR spectrum. Our essay is pending updates, including an update to part five, but a recent article offers a sneak-peak and explains that Dr. Millette has not published his report because it is invalid. From the article Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIP

...I am happy to announce that the revision will include a positively identified Harrit et al. FTIR spectrum for the red layer. Rev. Mohr and his crowd have been clinging to Millette´s FTIR spectrum because it is supposed to debunk Harrit et al., so it is appropriate to use that crown-jewel of the report to render Millette´s preliminary report null and void. Ryan´s FTIR spectrum for the red material confirms the suspicions laid out in our article, as it is quite clear that it does not match Millette´s red layer FTIR, so Dr. Millette failed to study the correct red/gray chips, and Rev. Mohr has of course been notified.

Below: Kevin Ryan´s spectrum for the red layer studied in the 2009 Harrit et al. paper is the spectrum in the upper window below, where it is compared to the spectrum of a known nano-thermite material. Below that is Millette's FTIR.

- The discussion part of our essay sums it up and introduces Mark Basile´s study, which has already replicated and confirmed most of Dr. Harrit´s work. Basile will include additional tests and "blind testing" by an independent lab that will confirm his results. This new study is going to be a real game-changer because the replication is necessary to confirm controversial research conclusions in the world of science, so please donate at We have added a PayPal option that goes directly to Mark Basile, as demonstrated in a screen shot of a test donation. We did this for anyone that was perhaps weary to donate to a third party collecting the funds.

Monday, September 16, 2013


Call-Shot Pool and Evidence by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization ---- Mark Twain advised us to “always do right – it will please some and astonish the rest.” For a 911 Truther, doing right means making only such assertions as can be backed by evidence. Don’t misrepresent of bring us, an important, even vital, though vanishingly rare, fortunately noisy minority of first-responders in the world of discourse, into disrepute by spreading innuendo, rumors, cheap shots, or divisions among fellow 911 Truthers. Always strive to establish a reputation of credibility by guiding people to real, solid evidence that what happened, going purely by the evidence, which relatively few of our fellow denizens of earth are acquainted with at all, was really what happened. And that what the evidence proves conclusively could not possibly have happened (though that’s what we’ve all been told) didn’t. Diluting the potent impact we can exert by wielding established evidence by adulterating it and assaulting our fellow bearers of it who happen to disagree with us on some point or other is a form of obstructing justice, impermissible, and frequently the mark of an infiltrator, not a fellow Truther. If you want to ostracize people for something other than being outright impostors and phonies, it should be for them attacking fellow 911 Truthers who deserve our support and thanks overall even though we might slightly disagree. As Kevin Barrett pointed out recently, it seems that, all of a sudden, with the coming of the controversy over the Syrian poison gas attack, the use of the term “false-flag” has become very fashionable at least among the American punditocracy and mid-level elected officials. This is in itself a very good development that weights in our favor, perhaps paving the way for the widespread or general association of the term 9/11. President Obama asserted last night on TV – and probably correctly – that the rebels in Syria lacked the wherewithal to have mounted such an attack on their own, as some have charged. And the Syrian government certainly has now admitted to having a sizable stockpile of such weapons. However, such assertions, though doubtless true, do not constitute proof or even strong evidence of guilt in this instance, as we are told to accept in lieu of access to the full evidence. For one thing, if both Iraq and Syria had stockpiles of poison gas at different points, it seems likely that numerous other countries have or have had such stockpiles as well, openly or secretly, without being guilty of deploying them. And so, we must ask, other than the Syrian regime, who else could have mounted the documented attack? And who – unlike the Assed regime, which manifestly didn’t want to bring American bombs down on its own head, especially after being warned, might have had an interest in perpetrating such an attack (and its attendant consequences for Syria)? Well, it seems interesting that the Obama administration would have telegraphed the incident out of the blue a year in advance – warning that such an evil deed, if it were to occur, would constitute “crossing a red line”. Amazingly accurate prophesy, I would say. Or else, the U.S. itself through its clandestine special forces (“special” because they specialize in things like that), or America’s “Grand Chessboard” ally, the Israeli Mossad, may have done it, per usual, as a false-flag pretext for retribution against Assad. If so, the scenario would follow the same pattern as that employed in the 9/11 attacks, where the open declaration of requiring a “new Pearl Harbor” was telegraphed by the plotters prior to the deed. Why they would ever have made such a startling declaration openly to a world that would have scoffed at the likelihood of such a thing materializing tailor-made without their in any way abetting it anytime soon has always been a mystery to me. But, as in calling the shot mysteriously seemingly at random many months in advance with Syria, they did! And, just from likewise narrowing the list with regard to the Syrian poison gas attack to those who might have been a) interested and b) capable, it may well have been the Mossad that done it. But, with regard to 9/11, as I have opined here previously (see “The Hot Rock of Zion”,, 12/1/12), while the Mossad could conceivably have pulled the operation (including Larry Silverstein’s notorious Building 7), and while the evidence of Israeli foreknowledge is overwhelming, and while Israel may have been diabolical enough – for logistical and operational reasons, and due to lack of operational evidence, it seems to me more likely that, as Barbara Honegger speculated in her recent video “Behind the Smoke Curtain”, that key modern operation was done for and probably at the bequest of Israel, than by Israel. Because I have yet to see a shred of actual, credible evidence that the Israelis or Mossad did it. Please provide me the same, and I’ll feature it next time. JH: 9/16/13

Tuesday, September 3, 2013


Taboos and A Sheeple Transfigured by James Hufferd, Ph.D. * At a crucial point in the Civil War, President Lincoln met with his cabinet and called for a vote on a matter he was pushing. Announcing the results, he said, “One Aye, nine Nays. The Aye’s have it.” We could see a repeat of that scenario with regard to the Congressional vote on whether to authorize the proposed military action against Syria, but probably for a different reason. Unlike Lincoln, Obama is almost certainly not his own man. The international bankers and financiers who get their way now on everything by one means or another are probably not chewing their nails over his or Congress’s decision. The U.S. military, like the covert operations capable of deceiving practically anybody about Assad or anything else, are part of their ever-more-precise mechanism. They (the central bankers, or, rather, their faceless Unitary Executive, to borrow a rather apt term) at the very top is the concentrated world “power that be”, the decider, the true commander-in-chief of our present age. And, looking around, such is hardly deniable. What it/he commands, be it in 2001 and the year of OKC, be it in the more-recent global rise and collapse financially, be it tonight, is pretty much decided and made certain in advance. That’s the beauty of a vehicle infinitely controllable – no suspense, no uncertainty for those in control – unless in case of a beaut of a solar flare or a stray comet or something undreamed. And a third component of the mechanism by which they keep tight rein on humankind and resources, alongside Arms and Intrigue, is Mythos, essentially thought control. And the fourth central bank monetary control itself, the key source of torque. Speaking from a point of logic, there are gigantic flaws in the operation and particularly the beneficence for humanity as a whole of all four components of the grim cubic mechanism of and for control, and none of them would ever come anywhere close to winning out if put to a fair popular vote. Hence they’re never debated openly as such and their meaning and operation as presently configured are simply taken as not up for discussion. Ever. Until one day we force the issue. Instead, rival systems and entities, whoever is our enemy or competitor of the moment, are saddled with the giant, disqualifying flaws the components of the NWO’s mechanism of control itself most clearly exhibits, in spades. Kill our own people? We won’t discuss or brook question of 9/11. Ever. That’s the rule. And maintaining the vital myth going forward is actually the main reason, far more important, obviously, than protecting their culpable (expendable) human agents. No, the others are always the bad guys, in the wrong. And we alone may use and legitimately threaten to use WMD, in WWII, in Vietnam aplenty, threaten to use “low-yield nuclear” against Iran and a couple of other times. And hardly anyone seems to notice the contradiction, and it’s not politely brought up. And if it is, while undeniable, it’s justified – because we’re different, exceptional. The U.S., and also Israel, are special cases for the puppet-master NWO, regarding whom, for one thing, UN resolutions are never enforced. And, of course, the U.S., despite the tenet of its creed that “all men are created equal”, can at times use WMDs on non- or un-Americans, just (supposedly unless it’s anthrax) not on its own people. A curious rule; but people, by and large, buy it. If there are a hundred killed somewhere, the pressing question is: “How many American dead?” And I wonder, by the way, if Israelis also enjoy special immunity from World Court actions, or if that has to come with Israeli-American dual citizenship. But, we’re apparently special because we’re the global repository of mass NWO international violent force and the myth maintains that public opinion counts for something here. We must be coddled and lulled; for it is feared that if the control mechanism were to be laid bare, the whole system would fail. And it might; and good riddance! The financial set-up with central bank control and its vassals’ sole benefit that overcomes and boggles our economy increasingly by forcing us to pay for every big thing twice as a nation, with our ever-worsening failure to stay apace enriching the faceless ones (in fact, chartered counterfeiters)in charge must never be questioned. Another taboo! If someone is impolite enough to bring it up, the warning is repeated that the whole economy would somehow implode without it. Crude control of the news outlets by having them all owned by corporate NWO affiliates is apparently not secure enough in itself, because there are always rogues and whistleblowers lurking. The cruelest punishments, leading often to “suicides” and fatal “accidents” must be meted for these, lest the leaks become unmanageable torrents. But still, this is not enough to keep the truth from the “peasants” (so-called, honest to goodness, in major insurance litigation documents). No, the two wire services that feed the information outlets must be absolutely in-house: hence, the world’s tip-top richest family owns both the AP and Reuters. (Look it up!) And whoever rules that family of overlords is my candidate for the world’s Unitary Executive ultimately responsible for directing from above all of the fore-mentioned crimes of virtual or actual enslavement and deprivation. They’re a family probably with a garage and a game room and a solarium, pets; probably without a mortgage. And to them should our plans reasonably be laid. Because their mechanism of control operates preposterously counter to the laws and flow of the universe, openly producing suffocation, smashing, and blockage; no wonder there are taboos! But there’s a song about a ram and a dam that favors us. JH: 9/3/13