In the US on September 11, 2011, the 10th
anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans
with "A Day of Remembrance," a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies
into dogma. Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day
International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at
During the four days of hearings, distinguished
scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the
results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a
distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme
Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three
distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel's
task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the
The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the
Internet. I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I
was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific
competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality
rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.
As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11
Jim Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher
into 9/11. I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with
the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age. My generation was raised
to believe in evidence and the scientific method. George Orwell and other
writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a
result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one's
My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific
evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a
Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the
University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor
was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the
1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, in order to provide together with Polanyi to
the science students at Berkeley a course in Polanyi's unique contributions to
knowledge. Polanyi's illness prevented the course from happening and condemned
me to being a mere economist.
This does not mean that I am infallible or that my
reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations,
which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD
will be available. Try this
As one whose own contributions to economics, now
belatedly recognized, are "outside the box," I am responsive to those who can
escape peer pressure in order to advance truth. Here are some of the important
things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.
The NIST (National Institute of Standards and
Technology, a government agency) reports on the twin towers and building 7 are
fraudulent. Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that Building 7 was a
standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down
the twin towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares
the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the
official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.
A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen,
who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical
and physical properties of dust from the towers, found evidence of nano-termite
in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal
building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.
These findings explain the extreme high temperatures
that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the
orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence
is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires
Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt
that building 7 fell over its visible part (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) at
free-fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all
supporting columns simultaneously. There is no possibility whatsoever according
to the laws of physics that Building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The
NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.
Many other powerful points were made at the
conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the
revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a
challenge to their emotional and mental strength.
Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of
authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high
positions in the government. The belief that "our government wouldn't lie to us"
is pervasive, especially among patriots. The other source of authority is
experts. However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and
open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly
In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly
authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to
evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to
"elitists," that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does
not support Tea Party emotions.
In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who
tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as "the enemy." Much of
the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an
independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only
"conspiracy kooks" challenge the government's story. Even on the Internet, this
is a main theme on Antiwar.com
and on CounterPunch.org
, two sites that protest
America's wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the
This is the reason that I think that the US is
moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by
government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the
abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from
terrorists is more important.
The fact-based world in which "we are not afraid to
follow the truth wherever it may lead" is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who
doubts "our government" is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal
commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that
he is a terrorist.
The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact,
science, and evidence. It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war
crimes against Muslims and their countries.
Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and
Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the
official "truth," should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to
shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.
When a law professor at our two most prestigious law
schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government
veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.
The notion that a country in which truth is dead is
a "light unto the world" is an absurdity.