Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.


The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]

And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fight fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Monday, March 2, 2015

A Disgraced Forum Tested One Last Time

Ziggi Zugam is testing the remnants of the disgraced forum that once belonged to JREF, to see if anyone there can provide scientific support for NIST´s collapse initation theory for Building 7. The frontman of this forum, Skeptic Magazine writer Reverend Chris Mohr has been notified and encouraged to carefully observe the behavior and alleged knowledge of his forum buddies.

Interested readers are encouraged to observe this debate, and see if NIST´s story is as utterly unscientific and wrong as suspected. In addition, it should be interesting for "people on the fence" to discover how little scrutiny NIST´s story has received on this supposed forum of hard-core skeptics, or in other words, see how pseudo-skeptics have managed to bury the problems under the rug for more than 6 years. Yes, NIST´s final report on Building 7 was published in 2008.

It has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion, and that their troll friends will attempt to bury the discussion with BS, in an effort to divert attention.

Thursday, February 26, 2015


By James Hufferd, Ph.D.                                                                          Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
     There once was a small country, covering far less than 1% of the earth’s land surface, the home to a single percent of the earth’s people, which nevertheless occupied and firmly controlled the destiny of four or five of the seven continents and a myriad of islands spanning the globe. Its rousing paean hymn was this: “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never will be slaves!” Her vast sway – because either be slave-master or slave? – held and honored until, after WW II, it suddenly occurred  to people very widely across the world that ridding humankind of Nazi and Axis tyrannies, aggression, and attendant cruelties could conceivably suggest liquidating English-speaking and Allied captive empires, too.
     Yet today, Britain herself, and even far more so America, are, according to controversial author Christopher Bollyn and a host of others, on prima facie evidence, controlled by an even smaller and demographically-inconsequential slave-master, Israel. And our foreign policies from 9/11 on and even for over a generation before, as well as our media and elite establishments have been in Israel’s pocket and activated always expressly for Israel’s perceived benefit.
     According to Bollyn, 9/11, the capstone and keystone of America’s (and half the world’s) subsequent activities and woes, was entirely an operation planned and carried out by the Mossad, the Israeli security agency, using Israeli-American dual citizen Mossad assets infesting the entire U.S. government and management of the World Trade Center as agents, operatives, and pawns.
     I heard and saw Christopher Bollyn’s whole presentation keyed to prove his contention in person for the first time a week ago at my own local chapter of 911 Truth and found his argument powerful and very persuasive, but not fulfilling my usual criteria for judging explanations of the September 11, 2001 crimes.
     I have been looking for and pleading with those who have insisted that “Israel did it” to provide forensic proof such as would be routinely required in a straight-up court of law to substantiate their allegation. And I have never been provided with such – and perhaps regrettably, I still haven’t been. If the Mossad “did” it (a more than moderately believable premise, to be sure), all of the evidence supporting that to date is circumstantial, none of it operational or forensic.
     Even Brandon Martinez, in his opus on Zionist intrigue and 9/11 culpability, Grand Deceptions, is constrained to honestly admit (page 55) that “There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks…” I myself would, in fact, go a little farther than he did and state that there is ample circumstantial evidence that they may have been involved in the actual operation. There were certainly plenty of them hanging around the scenes, evincing foreknowledge and enthusiasm. Is that splitting hairs? For exacting legal purposes, I don’t think it is. Israel couldn’t be convicted of “doing” it based on lead-pipe evidence that any of us know of for certain now – again, unless one or more of you are holding out!
     Bollyn’s mode of “proof” – remarkable and brilliantly damning and with the ring of probability, but not proof in the jurisprudence sense – is that uncanny predictions and highly suspicious statements were made, before and aft, by various Israelis, in fact, a whole gallery of rogues, that could be construed to demonstrate intent and very likely planning as well and satisfaction afterward, together with a network of hidden instrumental Israeli ownership and control of this, that, and the other company within the United States. The matrix, if as described, was all there.
     Assuming guilt, what are the implications of Bollyn’s not “inside job”, but “outside job” theory, if it’s true that Israel’s highly-secretive and duplicitous espionage agency the Mossad did it all, employing Israeli-controlled businesses and enough dual-citizen U.S. government operatives to actually hijack the U.S. agencies, civilian and military, necessarily involved – as laid out in his classic, Solving 9-11?
     And, who do I think was ultimately responsible, as a plausible alternative? I think the Israeli government, like the American and today the British, is ultimately a puppet itself of an aloof higher consortium, or more precisely, an international cabal, that operates by possessing most of the world’s wealth and worships only power and both its spawn and sire, money. And I think that important and complex operations such as 9/11-- plus there are lots of additional instances by now – are assigned thereby either jointly or to whoever’s primary covert security agencies are best-suited or most convenient to execute the job. And, for post-mortem purposes, it matters little which outlaw in the global gang pulled the trigger. That designated outlaw may well have been the Mossad, but dual-citizens, observers, and bag men are not trigger-men or the “brains” – allegedly, that elusive Israeli government agency. For, plausibility is not legal proof.
     But yet, every country, including the United States, remains ultimately liable for safeguarding if possible its own security. And even to stand by and refuse to stop the execution of the great crime(s) or prosecute thereafter as a whole government or a whole society by due process whatever perpetrators after a mass-murderous attack, however both of those heinous refusals are rationalized or regarded, must still be seen as the lowest conceivable form of treason. An invader, foreign or domestic, will invade; but a sane and good society will not stand down.
JH: 2/26/15

Monday, February 9, 2015

9/11 Physics Debate 2nd Annual March 15, 2015

March 15, 2015 is the 2nd Annual 9/11 Physics Debate. 
It will be broadcast on Dr. Kevin Barrett's No Lies Radio Show.

Here is last year's debate.  No PhD in Physics with a 
Hirsch Index >=50 was willing to defend the Bush Story
of 9/11 (BS911) also known as the Official Conspiracy 
Theory (OCT), despite a $1000 prize.  

In fact, no one with a B.S, M.S. or PhD in Physics applied. 
Only one applicant, from JREF with a B.A in political science, 
applied to debate Dr. Griscom, but he had never taken
a college course in physics, and had a Hirsch Index = 0.

Please see if the Skeptic Forum can find a PhD in Physics. has lowered the Hirsch Index score to 40, 
to make it easier to find a physicist willing to debate. 

The honorarium for the winner, to be determined by an email
survey to 30 university physics departments,  is .911 Bitcoin.

Please see this web site for more details.

If you know of a qualified applicant please contact   Thank you.


“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11