Handling the Truth

By Frank Moher

On the weekend we began posting daily updates from the three-day Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference. You can check out my dispatches on the special 9/11 conference page we’ve created for this purpose.

The 9/11 Truth community — and you’ll note that I haven’t put Truth in ironic quotes — wonders with varying degrees of outrage why the mainstream media ignores alternate theories as to what happened that day. Or why they treat the movement strictly as a social phenomenon, without going on to investigate just what it’s saying.

But the reasons aren’t that hard discern. As anyone who’s worked in a newsroom knows, the very facility that in theory gives journalists access to the wider world more often functions as a cocoon, insulating reporters in a combination of orthodox news sources, conventional wisdom, camaraderie that often congeals into a distrust of “civilians” (and their crazy letters and phone calls), and the natural conservatism of corporate structures. Then there are the long working hours that pretty much guarantee reporters won’t be exposed to much beyond home life and office culture.

And, of course, newspapers are struggling simply to find a way to survive lately. So even if a reporter managed to verse herself in the wide range of research being done on 9/11, much of it producing results that are at the very least intriguing, and overcame the natural disinclination to be labelled the newsroom’s resident conspiracy nut long enough to propose writing on the subject, it’s unlikely any editor these days is going to shell out the $$ necessary to really do the job — to investigate the investigation. I’m not saying that if somehow it did happen, there aren’t evil publishers and executives waiting to spike the whole thing. I just don’t think it’s likely they’d ever get the chance to.

And yet the 9/11 movement is becoming a social phenomenon, in part because a significant majority of people in the US and Canada think the government is lying about what happened that day. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t (though can anyone imagine that what the White House says about the matter could be wholly the truth?). Nevertheless, a major constituency is going unaddressed.

And if even a fraction of what various scientists, architects, engineers, airline pilots, political scientists, and others who have aligned themselves with the movement proves out, it is almost certainly the biggest story of many lifetimes. An odd thing to turn away from. (The Truthers would say, I think, that it’s important not because it’s a great story but because it has seismic global implications. They would be right.)

I have read and heard and even researched enough of what the 9/11 Truth movement has uncovered to say that their call for a new investigation into the events before, during, and after that day is entirely justified. Other than that, I present the information in our report on the Vancouver conference without comment. I don’t know enough to say with any integrity that they’ve latched onto something real. But I certainly don’t know enough to say that they haven’t. And the more I listen, the more I think that such a place of dubiety is, for now, the only defensible place for a journalist to reside.


  1. Anonymous says

    I feel considerably more certain about what the sound members of the 9-11 Truth Movement (9-11 TM) have arrived at for theories, and believe that some of these theories are actually more than theories; having surpassed guess and then hypothesis, long ago, and being I’d say somewhere between theory and fact, now. However, some theories remain still theories; while the sound members of the 9-11 TM spent a fair amount of time debunking bogus “theories” or claims, and some of which strongly appeared to be deliberate attemtps to try to make a mockery of the 9-11 TM, to try to damage the credibility of the sound members and therefore the true 9-11 TM.

    David Ray Griffin’s latest book or books, and from what I’ve read on this or these, it seems to be a very good source for people to very carefully read and think about. From what I read, this book or these books make it rather a certainty that 9-11 had to be an inside job, f.e.

    And then we have Tom Engelhardt and other authors on the topic of the MANY, over 700 according to the US DoD, and over 1,000 in total permanent US military bases around the world, and some of the articles by Tom Engelhardt, starting in at least 2004 or 2005, explain that many of the newer bases are established and planned for countries on and near the equator, all countries that are rich in oil and/or other sought natural resources.

    As former and long-careered USMC Major General Smedley Butler wrote his book on, “WAR IS A RACKET”, that all of the US wars he had participated in, and many enough these were, they were ALL about racketeering.

    Anyway, then we have important authors on what’s been long enough and really going on in Africa, and about which the corp. msm news media have again been very SILENT about, as well as providing channels for propaganda based on lies, disinfo. Some or many enough of these authors can be found in the ‘Sub-Saharan Africa’ and ‘Oil and energy’ sections of GlobalResearch.ca.

    Those authors I’ve so far read on African context are Keith Harmon Snow, Larry Chin, F. William Engdahl, and Steven da Silva, all very good, complementing each others’ writings; and while there are plenty of other authors with articles in that Africa section of GR. We know from these four that the US involvement in the Darfur region of Sudan, f.e., is about NOT genocide, and that only the US is claiming that there’s genocide going on there, no one else doing so; but OIL. It’s about Darfurian region OIL. We additionally know for a fact that OIL is a major interest to the US govt and the many enough rich and powerful people and corporations that more or less run the US govt. We also know that the military industrial complex loves war, for it means BIG MONEY for the industry.

    But the Darfur matter is only one example, a new one, but only one of plenty of others in Africa; spanning several countries there, and for … what … 15 years or more, now.

    How the corp. msm news media would not have eventually become aware of those types of realities, I haven’t a clue; it’s unimaginable for me.

    Anyway, there are other websites where plenty of writings by the above named authors can be found.

    Keith Harmon Snow writes also for TowardFreedom.com and has his own website, one with a whole section on Africa, at AllThingsPass.com .

    Larry Chin writes a lot for OnlineJournal.com .

    And F. William Engdahl has his own website at, Engdahl.Geopolitics.net , although I noticed little there on Africa.

    The articles by Tom Engelhardt and on the US military bases around the world, in at least 130 countries, and I believe Engelhardt at least says that this number is on the increase, well, one way to find at least four of these articles is to search the index of his articles and on the keyword of ‘bases’, LewRockwell.com

    Here’s an article by Chalmers Johnson on this topic of these bases.

    Chalmers Johnson on garrisoning the planet: ‘America’s Empire of Bases’, by Chalmers Johnson, Jan. 15 2004, with a short enough intro. by Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com

    Following is a recent video article and for a video documentary produced and/or presented by Chalmers Johnson and Dahr Jamail.

    Iraq: The Bases Are Loaded, by Dahr Jamail and Chalmers Johnson, AlternateFocus.org, Jun 25 2007, GlobalResearch.ca

    When we carefully consider all of what all of these people provide, and add the KNOWN history of despotic US aggression and corruption in South American countries, f.e., then we have ever more certainty that the 9-11 attacks very, very likely are an inside job matter; that the US govt is certainly capable of such a crime and false flag terrorism.

    Then we can carefully consider the story about US forces in Afghanistan having been prohibited, by the Cheney-Bush administration, from pursuing their hunt for Usama Bin Ladin and other high-ranking al-Qa’ida members through a certain part of Afghanistan that is often if not always referred to as a corridor, one going from Afghanistan to Paksitan. During this period, US forces, some of them anyway, observed people boarding flights, helicopters or airplanes (I forget which) and then flying through this corridor and then in to Pakistan. Of those people it has been minimally claimed that there were plenty of high-ranking al-Qa’ida members.

    Well, it seems that we know for a fact that the FBI has no warrant for Usama Bin Ladin and that when the FBI was asked about why, the questioner was told that the FBI or rather US govt had no charges to lay against UBL. Very, very odd, given that UBL and al-Qa’ida were the stated cause of the the 9-11 attacks, according to the at least initial statements of the Bush administration, the statements used to try to pretend that the war on the Taliban govt was justified; because they supposedly refused to hand UBL over. Well, it seems that it’s been proven that while the Taliban initially refused to do that, it was only because they wanted to be assured that UBL would be given a fair process, and I guess the Taliban were finally provided with this assurance, for they finally agreed to hand over UBL; while Pakistan then and immediately refused to receive or take him, the Pakistan that was then ally of the Cheney-Bush regime in the WoT, War OF (state) Terror(ism).

    But even if the Taliban hadn’t finally agreed to hand over UBL, then there still is NO WAY that the war on them and their govt could ever be legally justified, for in order to be able to do that, we’d have to first and integrally say that it would be alright for state to do that in our own neighbourhoods, provinces, etc., which we would most certainly REFUSE, or object to.

    Then we have the histories referred to in the Vancouver 9-11 Truth Conference this past weekend, like the Okla. City and WTC Bombings of the 1990s, f.e. We also have the story of what happened with the USS Liberty in 1967, and the US Navy sinking its own naval war ship during I believe the 1890s and then telling Americans back in the US that it was the Philippines that had committed this act of war against the US; in order to again, though in precedent form, get Americans in the US to support the US warring in truly aggression terms, but while Americans in the US were left to believe that it was about defence.

    And, and, and, and, and, …, and there’s a LOT, very much to give very, very careful consid
    eration to. And when we do that, then we can get a much better idea of what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Physics professor Steven E. Jones provides scientific details that MOST of us would not guess, certainly not easily anyway, on our own, but there’s much we can discern for ourselves, too. F.e., I knew before the war was launched on the Taliban govt that this war could not be justified and it’s Bush who made this totally clear, when he said that the Taliban had had absolutely nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks and were simply or only guilty of allowing Usama Bin Ladin to be located somehwere in Afghanistan, and that they had some relationship. KEY was that the Taliban had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

    That’s all we needed to know in order to know that the war on them could NOT be justified; NO WAY, JOSE.

    And that made the Bush administration IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT; and when anywhere near as suspect as this made them, then the only correct way to procede is with strong questioning with required answers, and not just any answers. The answers have to make sense, to be reasonably verifiable.

    From what I vaguely recall, and maybe I have the wrong year in this, but believing to have it right; well, before the Bush administration launched the war on the Taliban, and which occured in Oct. 2001, Ms Cynthia McKinney loudly enough demanded explanations, she was like stomping full of energy, and at least seemed angry about the talk of recourse to war on Afghanistan. She said questions needed answering and was demanding for the answers to be provided, but she was very ignored.

    If that’s accurate, then the question is why, why was she so majorly ignored? After all, if there’s nothing incriminating to hide, then there’s no problem in answering the kind of questions she was referring to or inferring (which ever applies). It’s not like postponing the launching of the war on the Taliban govt would’ve jeopardized US national security to any degree whatsoever; it would not have, at all. There was therefore plenty of time to safely answer the questions that would have been posed, but she instead was very majorly ignored, basically totally.

    Why? Because there had to be something that needed to be covered up, or denied without speaking the denying words, which would or could potentially lead to the opening up of a can of “nasty” “worms”, “worms” with “bite”. She was ignored and very silently, from what I recall.

    It’s a manner of dismissing others while making it all the easier for the story to be forgotten, left unnoticed, whatever. Treating her non-silently would have made the story bigger and therefore one that would have the potential for attacting a lot more attention. Etc.

    The Cheney-Bush administration has often enough been very, very obvious in their criminality, while subtle or cunning enuogh at other times. They’re overall so obvious though that we can rest assured (not that it’s something to feel comfortably restful about though) that they most definitely are extremely guilty of EXTREME WAR CRIMES, including many of them; and most definitely without any reasonable doubt, without a single shadow of doubt, absolutely NONE.

    When we consider ALL of the above, we can very easily see or realise that these people are among the very most ruthless in the world, though they aren’t the kind to get the blood literally on their own hands, and really are COWARDS, as well as idiots. They have to be idiots, for only idiot criminals are even half as obvious as the Cheney-Bush administration has been and is.

    Intelligent, brilliant criminals are NOT obvious and are truly and steadfastly cunning. There’s not a or one trace of that in the Cheney-Bush administration. The sole people they have been able to fool are FOOLS, and it doesn’t take a brilliant person to be able to do this.

    And that makes the whole matter all the more frustrating for the rest of us.

    Corp. msm news media, many of the workers of these businesses, are very guilty of war crimes too. There are LAWS we can refer to in order to be able to realise that this is indeed THE CASE.

    Congress (US) is also very guilty, and as I believe Ron Paul, Congressman, R-TX., and I believe some others have stated, Congress may even be, if not is, more guilty than the Cheney-Bush administration is; for Congress unconstitutionally abdicated its Constitutional role, which is a rather anti- or at least un-constitutional thing for Congress to do. Congress should never do this. It also needs to be held fully to account for its decisions or rulings.

    That’s just yet another reality that makes the whole matter all the worse, uglier, darker; and more frustrating, especially since Congress does not relent in this abdication.

    But there’s some history we can refer to in terms of perhaps understanding what Congress may possibly be up to. If true, then an article, and I forget who it’s by and what the title is, so won’t be able to easily find the bookmark, well, the author states that the Democratic Party (DP) of the US actually has a longer history of warmongering, involving the US in wars (of aggression, which rather is the only kind the US involves itself with, as the aggressor, with at least some exception in the case of WWII); it has a longer and worse history of this than the RP does.

    Bill Clinton’s war on Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and former President Milosevic certainly was or is a war of criminal aggression; and all of the continued aerial bombings on Iraq during his two terms as US president were also war crimes. And it’s very credibly, minimally, that he is guilty of some act of war in the context of what happened in Rwanda in I believe 1994. And these are only some of the extreme crimes of his administration and therefore presidency; for that administration is guilty of other extreme crimes against humanity, as well as less but still grave crimes, including also in the USA, against some or enough US citizens.

    Jimmy Carter’s presidency and based on a recent enough article, though also more than only one, its was not a holy, perfect presidency, either. He apparently did some good things, but also some very bad, grave acts.

    And people are very right to say that there’s AWFULLY little difference between the DP and RP of today.

    Keep adding up all there is for DIRT on the US govt and we can easily arrive at the understanding that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks very credibly were or are an inside job matter. For one thing, Bush finally said that there were explosives employed in the destruction of the WTC Towers on 9-11, though without saying that the US was guilty of the explosives being planted.

    Interesting. We’re therefore left to understand that the explosives were either on the planes and therefore planted there by the hijackers, or people not among the hijackers but working with them, the overall plot. Or, we’re to believe that they managed to plant the explosives in the WTC Towers.

    Well, we can easily discern that neither of those are possibilities. How on earth could they have planted the explosives on the planes, for to cause the kind of destruction that occurred to the WTC Towers would require plenty of explosives, nothing that could be carried in ordinary suitcases, unless a person was boarding with a lot of sizeable suitcases, and which is rather never the case. Of course there were perhaps five or six hijackers per plane, and each could have had a sizeable suitcase, but that would surely not be sufficient explosives to be able to cause the destruction that happened to the WTC Towers. If enough explosives were loaded, then it would have had to be done by people working for the airports, and those have security, so I doubt that this is how the planes would have been loaded with enough explosives to cause the damage done to the WTC Towers.

    Of course we then would consider that the explosive destruction to the WTC Towers did not happen where the planes hit the towe
    rs; the destruction at those points having been from what the planes themselves caused.

    And to load enough explosives in the WTC Towers themselves, there was plenty of security at these towers; there’s no way that just anybody, like al-Qa’ida, etc., could just enter with large bundles and have time to plant significant amounts of explosives.

    But security was considerably and rather inexplicably, normally anyway, shut down and for enough time for people to be able to enter and exit without being bothered by tower security people. I think it’s CBS or CNN, some corp. msm news media that had reported on having found this shutdown of security at at least one of the two WTC Towers, 1 and/or 2, while other people also provided testimonies, perhaps informally, about the security shutdown. One of the latter people worked for some computer company that had an office, perhaps head office, in one of the towers, 1 or 2, and he had been working in I believe Norway, somewhere around there anyway, but had to return to do some urgent work, network cabling or something to do with the office’s computer network. To get all of the work done a.s.a.p., he spent most of the weekend prior to 9-11 in the building to do this work, and during this time he heard what he said sounded like explosions, on floors adjacent to the one or ones he was doing the work on.

    He explained how he found the security was shutdown; in terms of both security people, and the electronics.

    WTC 7. There was, overall, relatively little fire in this tower, and there’s NO WAY that the fire could have caused the collapse. And the hole that was made in a side of the building, south or south-east side, if I am recalling correctly, this has been well explained in terms of not being sufficient to cause the tower to collapse.

    You remember the video or telecommunication of purportedly UBL in I believe it was Nov. 2001, right? The one in which it was immediately easy to see that this was NOT him. We didn’t have to know him for years to be able to immediately see that this was NOT him. Peculiarly though, the US govt has known UBL for roughly 30 years, has seen his face MANY, many, many times, definitely knowing very well what he looks like, yet the Cheney-Bush administration wanted us all to believe that this was really UBL. Peculiar, n’est-ce pas!

    No, not really peculiar. “Truth is enemy of state”! If that’s true, and it obviously is very, very much so, then it inherently means that “Lies are friend, ally of state”!

    It is, however, peculiar that Cheney, Bush, and so on are as severely dumb as they clearly are, very; powerful, sure, but plenty of powerful people are awfully dumb. And plenty of brilliant people are not powerful; in terms of intelligence, sure, powerful, okay, but the ruthless, brutes, …, they don’t care about that intelligence “stuff”, only caring about applying and enforcing their wills on or against others. A dumb way to choose to exist, but having the power to enforce the way, well, the rest of us are then and therefore vulnerable, say. We don’t have police and military forces ready to serve our will(s) or commands, while the ruthless, brute, despotic, … state “leaders” do. Yuck; very lousy situation, to say the least (of what’s fitting).

    I think we can rest very uncomfortably but nonetheless assured that the 9-11 attacks were or are INSIDE JOB matter. And the above is only a little sampling “off of the top of my head”.

    Oh, we most of course should not forget to mention Sibel Edmonds and what she’s greatly provided for very important information.

    There are rather very many people grandly contributing to the real, true 9-11 TM; and it seems that the anti-9-11 TM’ers have ceased coming up with their bogus theories that definitely did appear to be a likely attempt to try to turn the real 9-11 TM into a subject of widespread ridicule. They could not win with that, for the real 9-11 TM has plenty of sharp minds working; and now has plenty of supporters. We want the supporters and contributors to increase in number, sure, but the real 9-11 TM has plenty of supporters today. The number will surely keep rising; I believe, anyway.

    I hope that this is not too long, and that there aren’t too many typos.

    Mike Corbeil
    Hatley Township, Quebec, Ca

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *