Clarifying the Historical Record

By John Albanese:

There is a great passage in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 in which history is shown to be a tool of the state. Events and facts are regularly scrubbed from the public records, rewritten and adjusted to reflected the needs and will of the ruling party. Wars and alliances are themselves subjective events:

“……..the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened -- that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.”

Such is the case with 9/11. For years 9/11 researchers have toiled under the handicap of certain deleterious names and attacks. We have been called “conspiracy theorists” by the mainstream media and public alike, for doing nothing more than seeking a clear historical record of the events of 9/11.

Now, after 5 years we have proof positive from the 9/11 Commission itself that what 9/11 researchers have known and espoused for years. NORAD’s accounting of the events associated with our failed air defenses on 9/11 was simply not the truth.

“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

- Washington Post August 2, 2006

And as legitimate scholars such as David Ray Griffin come out of retirement to step forward, (possessing an unblemished thirty-year career in academia, a professor emeritus and a leading exponent of the process of philosophy and theology) to produce impeccably researched, footnoted and scholarly documented books on the subject of 9/11, it remains in some strange virtual form of limbo in the publishing world – inexplicably not reviewed (which is unheard of) and not acknowledged as even existing by the mainstream media.

And so, like the fictional Winston in Orwell’s 1984 who is confronted by a state-sponsored reality directly antithetical to the truth, we must all become historians in a sense, because when clarifying the historical record becomes a revolutionary act, we have become a society in dire need of a revolution.

Cheney's wife must be the

Cheney's wife must be the head of PNAC's history department:

If Lynne Cheney doesn't like a history book she destroys it:

Must teach the children:

It appears that this was

It appears that this was edited down for some reason.

For the complete editorial check out the link at the top - but this is what was left out:

So what did happen to our air defenses on that fateful day?

Does the American public have a right to know?

But it doesnÂ’t stop there. 9/11 researchers from around the world now know that nearly every aspect of 9/11 is just as mired in confusion and deceit. Nothing appears to add up. Voluminous amounts of evidence, compiled by independent researchers and independent journalists, and readily available to the general public, appears to simply be ignored by the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media.


Putting 9/11 aside, we are confronted with many profound questions regarding the efficacy and integrity of our very society when scholars and historians are discouraged from doing their jobs, and relegated to being referred to as “conspiracy theorists” for doing nothing more than attempting to clarify the historical record.

That is, after all, what historians do. They compile facts and clarify the historical record.

Historians document and explain the idiosyncrasies and unknown facts surrounding momentous events in history. Some historians have made entire careers of examining the precipitating factors leading up to World War 1 or the Civil War or the Depression or Pearl Harbor. Historians research, compile and document.

Yet, a veil of mystery enshrouds AmericaÂ’s darkest day. It appears that the subject of 9/11 is simply off limits. Even the 9/11 Commission itself, charged with reporting the truth to the American public, went forward with its report based on information that it now openly acknowledges was inaccurate, and possibly intentionally felonious.

“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.”

- Washington Post August 2, 2006

Is the 9/11 Commission also complicit in knowingly deceiving the American public by publishing its report based on this deception?

Great piece, John.

Great piece, John.

Cheney's wife must be the

Cheney's wife must be the head of PNAC's history department:
If Lynne Cheney doesn't like a history book she destroys it:

As per Orwell, she throws it right down the memory hole!

Where the heck is Mr. Cheney

Where the heck is Mr. Cheney anyway? I haven't heard anything from him in a while.

He off getting drunk and hunting again?

Or planning the next attack?


Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, "the deliberate dumbing down of america".... Skinner's dream, and why so many of our peers are incapable (by design) of understanding "the fix" we are in.

Earlier this week when my

Earlier this week when my Fourth Amendment Right was blatantly violated, I extended the utmost courtesy to the actual man with the badge and gun, for he in no way exhibited ANY cognition of his extraordinary violation. Trying to "inform" him on the road-side as to why, would have been futility in the finest.

I did not, and still do not imagine some clever radio telephony to point the officer in my direction in order to "harass" me for my activism. Not that that is improbable, but I wore my attitude on my bumper for any lawman to see regardless, and he did.

Now with my property stolen (in highway robbery fashion) and thus my means of travel greatly diminished, I sit here contemplating my next move and/or theirs.

Unless my country men and women break from their spell of delusion, I suspect it will be the few of us "truthers" hauled off for our less-than-patriotic gall in questioning authority. Good luck, everyone..... the clock has just about run out.

The questions remain, Was

The questions remain,

Was 911 a crime?

Should crimes be investigated?

Should investigations be thorough and based on available evidence and sworn testimony?

Are the findings of a taxpayer funded investigation by a taxpayer funded agency the property of the public?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we do not live in a nation of laws and that the citizens should be made aware of this fact in order to best provide for their future.

I do not see why there is any disagreement over this. If the government is the possession of office holders rather than the citizenry, then we are subjects. If it belongs to the citizenry and the office holders serve at our pleasure, then they are criminals.

Was 9/11 a crime? I recall

Was 9/11 a crime? I recall Betts' taxonomy at the 9/11 People's Commission.

How about the amazing

How about the amazing history-erasing 911 truthers such as Barrie Zwicker who LIES LIES LIES by telling us that Bush, in his repeated incriminating 9/11 witness statements said "ordinary TV" and/or "regular TV", WHICH IS A FLAT-OUT LIE.

We should have zero tolerance for self-proclaimed, silver-tongued-devil professional-journalist 911 "truth" advocates who choose to try to rewrite history by repeatedly telling lies about 9/11 evidence!

Bush's statements are well-documented. So are Barrie Zwicker's blatant, twisted, Bush-neck-saving lies.


The 9-11 Commission pretended that Bush never made the statements. So do Republicans. So do Democrats. So did Michael Moore ([not] in F911). So do fake 911 truthers Carol Brouillet and Bob Bowman, who want people to vote for them to "oppose" (ha!) Bush.

Bush's statements are too hot for them to handle, so they leave it to lying Barrie Zwicker to tell lies about the evidence they've ignored...

Investigators have the right to follow their hunches, but no honest investigator has the right to disregard/ignore evidence -- the only thing worse than that is telling lies about the ignored evidence.

Barrie Zwicker is part of the "state-sponsored reality directly antithetical to the truth". What Orwell said of "victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'" pertains directly to the treachery of Barrie Zwicker.

Am I mean to tell the truth about lying Barrie Zwicker? Was it mean for Paul Revere to wake people up and tell them that the British were coming?

Wake up, people. Most of the 'leadership' of the 911 truth movement constitutes the enemy within. They ignore (same as the 9-11 Commission) and/or tell lies about the most incriminating 9/11 evidence. If we can't recognize, or, worse, if we tolerate (or, like Jon Gold, adulate!), such treasonous behavior, then we suck, and don't deserve to get our stolen Constitution back.

Blimp, you have nothing

Blimp, you have nothing better to do than try to bash Zwicker? You are a shill.