When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.
The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked.
Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.
- What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?
- Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?
- What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?
The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following.
- National Archives (NARA)
- National Security Archive at GWU
- 911 Document Archive at Scribd
- History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline
- Internet Search Engines: These are more useful for those who learn how to use search operators.
- University libraries
- The WayBack Machine: Wonder what a web page looked like 15 years ago?
It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions.
Interview with Charles & Mary Ann Strange
Interview published 20 February 2016
MP3 & Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2016/829-int100
We are honoured to speak with Charles and Mary Ann Strange, whose son Michael—Cryptologic Technician and Petty Officer (Collection) First Class Michael Strange—was tragically killed in a suspicious helicopter shoot-down in Afghanistan.
Michael had served as a member of SEAL Team Six when it was reported to have assassinated Osama bin Laden at the beginning of May 2011. But on August 6, 2011 Michael was killed—along with fourteen other members of SEAL Team Six, two other Navy SEALs, thirteen US Army and US Navy support personnel, seven Afghan commandos, one Afgan interpreter and one US military working dog—when the CH-47D Chinook helicopter in which they were travelling was shot down by the Taliban.
But this was no ordinary tragedy in the horrific course of warfare; it was a deeply suspicious event. And many of the families who lost loved ones that day continue to press their catalogue of serious questions that the authorities seem unwilling to answer.
For the undying 9/11 MORONIC STEEL = AIR ARGUMENT
Published on Jan 26, 2016
Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong —
Debunker Debunked: Blacksmith Unwittingly Proves Controlled Demolition-AE911Truth Statement
Auckland University of Technology
January 10, 2016
Emory International Law Review, Forthcoming
In a three-step process, this Article seeks to connect the international community to the possible reality of 9/11-as-false-flag. First, it shows that it is highly rational to question the official 9/11 account given the historical record of the first half of the twentieth century, which reveals a pattern of false flag attacks over which the international community openly fretted and tried to exercise jurisdiction. Second, it analyzes the reasons why intellectual elites and the statesmen they influence are behaving irrationally in not inquiring into the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag, deconstructing a multi-faceted motive into all its unsavory parts. Third, it argues that the means for ceasing this irrational behavior is readily available, as the United Nations need only carry out its core and incontrovertible “jury” function of determining the existence of aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.
United Airlines Held an Exercise So Realistic That Its Personnel Had to Be Reassured That the 9/11 Attacks Were 'Not a Drill'
United Airlines personnel were subjected to a surprise training exercise 12 days before 9/11 in which they were led to believe that one of their planes had crashed. The exercise was so realistic that some of them ended up in tears or became physically sick. Consequently, on September 11, 2001, when two United Airlines planes were hijacked and then crashed, the manager who organized the exercise apparently thought his employees had mistaken reports about the terrorist attacks for part of an exercise and therefore told them, "This is not a drill!"
Furthermore, United Airlines had previously conducted other exercises that were based around scenarios resembling aspects of the 9/11 attacks, which may have caused its employees to be confused on September 11 over whether the crisis that day was real or simulated. The scenarios included hijackings and planes crashing into buildings.