* This page and all of my pages are getting near the final, save for many badly needed re-writes. Long form web pages don't seem to make much difference. (It's a Twitter world.)
* There seems to be a red line --one not to be crossed --by people whose opinions matter. I wonder for how much longer --otherwise brave and socially motivated commentators like Noam Chomsky, Thom Hartmann and Chris Hedges, --must go on pretending that the events of 9/11/2001 did not involve engineered demolition?
* If the damn of silence breaks during living memory of 9/11, a large portion of the population is going to feel dreadfully crestfallen for having been taken in for so many years --oblivious to the obvious (or in worse degrees of knowing complicity). The value of my latest video link (and see below) isn't in Peter Ketcham's past employment at and collegial respect for NIST. Although that makes his 15 year slumber more understandable, it's his blinking bewilderment at having been blind and deaf to the facts for so long that many might relate to: sort of a lifeline to those who are still adrift on the Official Conspiracy Theory.
* Even investigative journalist Bill Moyers and an iconoclast like Christopher Hitchens base their comments on the staple "facts" of the WTC towers' destruction having been due to Osama bin Laden's hijack crew. ("Building 7" is seldom brought up, nor the building which left a crater --all supposedly due to contagious "office fires".)
* Thom Hartmann allowed a 9/11 truth call to his show on the morning of 12/23/2016, followed by an Official Conspiracy Theory backer, who debunked the "idiot" first caller. In-between, Hartmann pretty much cited a chapter and verse defense of the OCT, leaning heavily on the "blacksmith video" meme.
I can't imagine that Hartmann lives in a bubble on this issue. He's too intelligent and well informed to be duped and too principled to simply be bought off (IMHO). I try to imagine that his going with the flow on 9/11 (plus limited hangout trimmings concerning Saudi complicity, Iraq and such) --has been a thought out compromise. Had he publicly sided with the obvious realities of the matter, Hartmann's voice would have surely been --somehow-- marginalized. I expect that, upon the eventual denouement of 9/11 (should we all live long enough), he'll come clean as to why he had to play ball with the establishment.
* There are exceptions, of course. PODcaster Peter B. Collins is
not only realistic about the events of 9/11, he's a well read/informed
and sensitive talk show host with a great voice.
* We'll finally pass a point (2051?) at which historians find the political environment safe enough to question the Official Conspiracy Theory. We're seeing admissions that Pearl Harbor appears to have been anticipated, heresies in higher places about the JFK assassination and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. There must be hundreds of "leading intellectuals" who privately know the truth (at least in their bones) --who are not looking forward to the day when they have to own up to their silence.
Then there's the simple and honest enough: "I don't want to go there" response. I can understand that --from a decent and sensitive person. Anything but the Official Conspiracy Theory (du jour) might be waaay outside of a person's comfort zone.
However, if you do have the courage to open your eyes, to look, to see and to remember, I think the following brave video links --pretty much say it all:
(A 5 minute summary of the events of 911 --from the Corbett Report)
(Best WTC-7 short video)
(Best Dr. David Ray Griffin video)
(Mr. Chandler's high school physics analysis)
(Commentary by Gore Vidal)
And here's a recent video narrated by ex NIST employee Peter Ketcham, who broke ranks from his fellows:
Ketcham is in reference to an article that appeared in the previous (2016) issue of Europhysics News: "15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses", to which he responded with a letter-to-the-editor, to be found on page #43 of the current issue. That letter was sandwiched between a NIST supportive letter from an engineer in Uruguay and an effective it-won't-happen-again unsigned apology from the editors of EPN. In part: "It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views. In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles." (Sounds like bully dictated stenography to me.)
Interestingly, and from the (current issue's) lead editorial: "The publication of a controversial article on the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center buildings in our last issue of EPN has generated so much interest and so many downloads that the host server broke down for a short time. A first-time experience for our journal. Some reaction comments are published in the present issue. This shows how vivid this dramatic event remains in our collective memory but also how quickly the scientific community and the media can critically react in such a case. And this is a good thing."
Quickly? Eight years after the NIST study? Was that deliberate irony?
After that paragraph, European Physical Society President Christophe Rossel launches right into: "This brings me to the important issue of science denial, ---", and proceeds to go on at length about climate change --but I feel that Rossel made another (plausibly unintentional) point as well.
* No: I won't suggest that we read anything into the announcement: "EPN Science Editor, Prof. Jo Hermans of Leiden University will leave this position on January 1st 2017".
* Nor will I speculate about the other announcement: "The European Physical Society is pleased to announce that Rüdiger Voss has been elected as the next EPS President-elect. He will take up office as the President of EPS in April 2017, when the term of the current President, Christophe Rossel comes to an end. R. Voss was elected during the Extraordinary Council meeting of the EPS held on 14 October 2016 at the EPS Secretariat in Mulhouse."
* As "15 Years--" lead author Prof. Steven Jones experienced, 9/11
Truth can be professionally costly. He was a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.
* In his book: 9/11 - Ten Years Later (page 54), Dr. David Ray Griffin sums up the Official Conspiracy Theory in one long sentence (echoed by Corbett's 5 minute video):
"Inexperienced Muslim hijackers, armed only with knives and box cutters, took control of four airliners, then outfoxed the world's most sophisticated air defense system, then used two of these airliners to bring three skyscrapers down (indeed, straight down, in virtual free fall), and then, almost an hour later --when the US air defense system would have been on highest alert-- flew a third one, undetected, from the midwest back to Washington DC, where --thanks to heroic piloting by a man who had never before flown an airliner and who was, according to the New York Times, known as a "terrible pilot", incapable of safely flying even a tiny plane-- this third airliner went through an extremely difficult trajectory (even too difficult for themselves, said some experienced airline pilots) in order to strike the first floor of the Pentagon --surely the most well protected building on the planet-- without scraping the Pentagon lawn."
* You well know how much this matters.
Millions of people have been and are being maimed, displaced or killed in our (the USA's and NATO's) name. Previously unthinkable damage has been done to legal process, privacy and Constitutional rights --all justified by sanctimoniously intoning: "9/11".
It was clear to anyone following those events at the time that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It's also become clear that Sadaam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was a contrived reason to invade. (Do I recall correctly --that the day after our allied forces installed Iraq's new government, contracts were let to divvy up their oil fields?)
So: who among us can admit (at least in hushed tones) that 9/11 looks like an ugly, false flag hoax?
That does not (of course) excuse the imperialism, slaughter and venality of the "West" and its elite "interests" --which have been driving events for the past 35 years --the past 16 in particular. (Or maybe we should trace back to 1842, 1879 and the Brit's sorry experiences in Afghanistan?)
** Yes: when we finally admit to what happened on 9/11, the fall-out will be costly --perhaps as costly as what we've been inflicting upon some distant nations. Not only will our confidence in the integrity of the United States be shaken, our confidence in our leadership class --plus the basic ideas which underpin the United States and democracy itself will be shaken to the core --since both the voting public and our natural leadership/elites ended up in such abject failure and moral turpitude.
The USA must either restrain its corporate/capitalist interests --or be collared by outside forces (our strengths, courage, confidence and credit having been spent). Let's hope we don't end up in a Nuremberg type trial, then fall under the dominion of distant hegemonies (thanks in part to "globalization").
Without restraints, corporate "interests" might drive us down to become a muddling along 3rd rate nation, but also with an entirely new take (at least within academia) on what should be, and what should have been, our nation's approach to governance --as well as to the franchise for participating in it. (The choice we ended up with for our 2016 presidential election --alone-- should be enough to redefine that political franchise, and especially as to equating money with protected speech.)
"Politics as usual" ain't getting it.