Is the 9/11 Truth Movement becoming mainstream?

Once again, congrats to all those involved with NYC CAN. Such an initiative forces mainstream media to take notice.

by Kimberly Wilson

With the eighth anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, new life was breathed into the fight to discover the "truth" about the events of that day. The movement is known as the 9/11 truther movement. Individuals and organizations have been working for years to force the government to form an independent investigating commission. A previous investigation was performed; however, the group believes many questions have been left unanswered. On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 people were killed in the World Trade Center buildings in New York City.

Members of the group, known as "Truthers", are comprised of individuals and organizations that question the government's explanation of the events of September 11, 2001. Members blame the U.S. government for planning or having advanced knowledge of the attacks. Truthers believe the government used the attacks as an excuse to launch wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The attacks also gave the U.S. government a reason to enact several laws that aimed to curtail civil liberties. Members of the movement believe the main objective of the attacks was to ensure America's future supply of oil.

So, is the movement on the fringe? Has the truther movement made it into the mainstream? Many argue that the movement is - and always will be - on the fringes. Recently, a high ranking member of the Obama administration resigned after it was discovered that he signed a petition in support of the movement. If Van Jones is any indication, the movement is not widely accepted by the masses.

On the other hand, NYC CAN (New York City Coalition for Accountability Now) recently submitted a petition to force the New York City council to hold a referendum concerning the creation of an independent investigating commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the events of 9/11. NYC CAN was able to amass 30,000 valid signatures to bypass the council and get their agenda placed on the November 2009 ballot. Assuming the group's efforts are not derailed due to legal maneuvering by it's opponents, the November 2009 election results should answer these questions.

Here's a "mainsteam" article

I wrote this to be used in a mainstream publication and a neutral academic format. Fred Burks at the Examiner has direct articles. Use it if it's helpful:

I can edit the article at any time. E-mail me with any suggestions:

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

911 Truth WOULD be mainstream...

...if it were not so heavily censored.

It's obvious that the MSM is following Bill O'Reilly's recommendation: "Marginalize, marginalize, marginalize. Never give these people any air time."

What else can they do? The evidence is so overwhelming that 911 was an inside job whose details remain hidden.

Personally, I think the motive for the 911 false flag attack was this:

The Oily Road To 911

The geopolitical stakes are so high that the mainstream media has been used as part and parcel of the overall invasion strategy. To tell a huge lie like the official explanation for 911, you have to combine truth with falsity in just the right balance of confusing misinformation (like Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911, etc). In the case of 911, the physical evidence for falsity is SO utterly powerful, that news media has no choice but to shut down any serious, detailed discussion of it.

How else would the peer-reviewed, scientific paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered In The Dust Of The WTC Catastrophe" , have already made it onto for 2009-10?

It's weird. The other morning, I heard Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", MSNBC, claim that 34% of the American public believe that George Bush had something to do with 911. Heh, heh... Television media cannot even attempt to disperse that notion without upsetting the whole hornet's nest of FACT that they would necessarily have to deal with. So the cowards keep mum about it even though 1 in 3 Americans independently smell a big, stinking rat.

That may be it

Personally, I think the motive for the 911 false flag attack was this:
The Oily Road To 911

That may very well be it... But it may also be something more fundamental. Have you seen the documentary "Why we fight?" by Eugene Jarecki? It just may be that our economy is so much geared towards military spending that without it it would collapse. Since Soviet Union had been dead for a decade prior to 9-11 and there was no other boogey-man to blackmail American taxpayers with into massive military spending, they had to fabricate an event and invent an enemy to re-start the engine.


Sadly, I highly doubt that 911 Truth will ever become mainstream in a positive way. Nobody from either side of the government wants it to. No large news organization or major company wants it either. Think about it, they have too much of a vested interest to keep the status quo. The actual truth-cause becoming mainstream, with the further possibility of eventual exposure, would literally destroy them all. Financial markets and the current power balance would collapse. Even Steven Jones briefly talked about this once (back in 2006). It'd surely be a really crappy day for exactly the same people who now deny it.

If 911 truth was to ever become remotely "mainstream", it (sadly) needs some positive spin. Somehow (I scratch my head on this often) it needs to become not just a trend or a cause, but rather something wholly attractive to all (or at least most) with the exception of the actual perpetrators. Too much is at stake for everyone's way of life with the unpredictably impending shift that would result (unpredictable only in that things would be immeasurably bad for just about everyone initially, including ourselves)

MSN (india)

I was quite surprised to just see Sheen's video reported neutrally on MSN (though it was the Indian version, but in English. It was also in several major Indian newspapers a few days ago)

I would like to hope I was wrong, and 911 truth does indeed become mainstream. (but awakening the sub-continent is still a far cry from gaining credibility in the States. Bangladesh reported last week how Armstrong had admitted the moon landing was a hoax- then retracted it cause the source was The Onion.)

I really do not agree at all!

Yes things may need to get worse before it breaks into mainstream but in my view from recent experience on the street and talking to journalists it will happen in time. Two reasons for this will be the stick and the carrot....

1. If it does not become "Mainstream" the MSM will slowly destroy it self by a complete loss of credibility due to "blow back".

2. We can put a whole generation of war criminals in jail and take their spoils for the poor!

I will remain optimistic because I have faith in good over evil!

Reasons for failing will not get us to victory, we must have faith and just keep on trukin:)

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Sorry, still a reluctant skeptic

Hey, I have optimism for a brighter future, I am active with getting the truth out, but I am trying to tackle reality as well (bear with me on this, I'm NOT suggesting you or anyone here is being unreal/irrational) as the hurdle on this is beyond measure.

As we've seen in the past several days, many international reports (pro, con, and neutral) have seeped through regarding both Sheen and NYCCAN, but pretty much nothing came from US sources (and only a relatively few hit pieces compared to the first time Charlie came out in 2006)

John, I take it that you hail from Australia. A lovely place indeed. As with every other developed country on earth, and most developing countries as well, you enjoy a form of universal health care. Not so in the US. I'm sure you are abreast of the "debate" going on right now about this? Who is the main proponent for keeping the status quo? Simply put, the wealthy insurance lobby and their donation recipients in the government are creating the derision. I need not get into how absolutely flippant people are about this (and, ironically, they've also got the support of many 911 truthers, ie Alex Jones), and its almost certain Obama will capitulate to some degree. Regular people who are suffering aren't in the debate. People who can't afford insurance are hardly heard from. As with 911 truth, every basically intelligent human on this planet may agree that something like the health of the nation is a inalienable resource that should be guarenteed by their elected government, but when a wealth lobby decideds a derision campaign, forget about any logic coming through (especially since, like 911 truth, there is no wealthy lobby to support the opposition). Money and power are great manipulators. Most elections proves this.

So its the rich and influential (insurance companies, private hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals) VS common sence (poor and unbacked by any wealthy lobby)
Same goes for global warming: Rich and influential (oil, coal, gas, auto, pipeline builders) VS common sence (Greenpeace simply can't compete)

Now with 911 truth, what wealthy lobby wants the truth? (I'm at a loss...) Who doesn't want the truth? To be honest, I could argue that nearly ever lobby and corporation in the US, as well as many int'l ones, not to mention the entire established government and military, would be entirely against it. THEIR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT. This is basic risk management, since the realization of any from of compliance and /or cover-up will undermine the gov/military, totally screw the dollar and anything related (just about every stock market worldwide), and create a depression that could, conceivable, result in the deaths of millions simply from starvation. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I reccomend reading this:

it is a bit overboard at times, but it is quite sobering when you see the big picture of what could happen if the truth emerged. For most people/governments/companies the truth is NOT an option. Period. Understandably, they will do whatever it takes to stop it. (allowing government health care is a peanut compared to this beast)

In my opinion, the truth will emerge (in a way we could live with) when it is no longer scary, when it won't ruin those involved with ultimately revealing it (Journalists may want the truth, but nobody "credible" will print it. CNN may not have committed 911, but they will certainly suffer/go bankrupt if they expose it). So, serious consideration must be put towards such a campaign of making the truth a viable option, or else nobody with power or influence would ever allow the truth due to the consequences it currently holds. The US media blackout only proves this.

Given that the 'high perps'

Given that the 'high perps' freely murder, lie, invade, destabilise and pillage to their own satisfaction, I find it hard to envisage the revelation of the truth ever being a viable option, in their view.

Not to mention the associated shredding of civil liberties, the advance of the totalitarian state and monitoring of everything from where you put your empty soda cans to where you went today.

I'm not AJ's biggest fan, but the term 'Prison Planet' is dead right. The truth will be a viable option when enough citizens realize just how awful the alternative is.

9/11 Truth booklet PDFs:

I Concur

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

John I concur with you completely. Sept. 12th, 2009 the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran a story in its Cue section called "Delving into Sept.11 Conspiracies. I was interviewed for the story and they put my picture in the paper with my big screen TV in my living room showing the Towers burning. The story covered some of Michael Ruppert's opinions he gave the reporter concerning the 9/11 Truth Movement. Ruppert said, "The 9-11 movement is now a circus". The reporter also stated that Michael Ruppert finds aspects of it absurd. I've been involved in this movement for over 4 years now and even though I agree with Michael that some aspects of it are absurd I disagree totally with his statement that the 9-11 movement is now a circus. I for one have worked religiously to help this movement grow and thousands of others have done the same. It offends me when someone who was in this movement can just come out and say the 9-11 movement is now a circus. I will stay positive and keep the faith because 9/11 Truth Movement is just too important to be described as a circus. I can't find the article yet on JSOnline, but if I do I will post a link.

Take Care Matt

Consolidation needed

Again, I REALLY hope I am wrong about the US mainstream media someday soon cracking this walnut in an objective way, however at this point we should be accepting that they won't (but IF they do, great!) and instead work to move the cause ahead without them. Getting mainstream media attention should not be the single nor final goal.

I was thrilled to read this new piece from New Zealand and I see it as one of the best instances of reporting on the whole Sheen issue and its (un)acceptance in the media (as well as the potential reactions of Obama). I will post it separately on my blog here, as it is very well done and provides a good example of real reporting. Spread it around.

Sorry to seem like a downer with my skepticism, but as I stated, I am reluctant to be this way. I truly don't intend to give up either, but I do feel that there should be a more organized approach to 911 truth (wait, hold your reaction!). Yes, the movement is getting more and more impressively organized, but compared to the perpetrators (gov,media,military,industry), 911 truthers are still relatively rag-tag, with comparably small centralized/agreed-upon directives. (some groups have meetings, that one makes a video, this one trots around with cardboard signs, that one gives a lecture).

PLEASE don't lambaste me for saying this. I am stressing the words "relatively" and "comparably" in regards to the opposition, and NOT saying the 911 movement is overly disorganized. For all its perceived failings, one must admit that whoever committed 911 definitely runs a tight ship, backed by power, influence, and finances which we do not have. Not to mention they can employ a wealth of other tactics (hit pieces, blackmail, counter-intel, media blackouts, death threats) which are not available in our arsenal.

Put simply, I think some MAJOR coordination needs to be installed, with the heads of the 911 groups somehow singularly organizing their focus and consolidating their approach. Spreading randomly like a virus will only go so far, presents many obstacles, and can be combatted more easily than a collective charge.

I had a pleasant surprise on

I had a pleasant surprise on Friday evening on WPFW in DC (Pacifica radio). Around 6:30 PM an interview with Dylan was aired. I sent the station an email to thank them and comment that they had done a great service for the people who were sacrificed that day. It was only about 10 minutes but a lot of was said. Cabs all over DC play that station even with their passengers in the car.

Here's mainstream from Norway : )

(how do I embed youtube videos here?)

16 minutes piece on the biggest channel in Norway, state sponsored NRK1, aired Sept 10th. prime time right after the evening news. A kind of a popular science program called Schrödingers Cat. Niels Harrit got to speak freely for about 10 minutes, then a chemistry professor had something to say against the article, but concluded it was interesting and that it raised alot of questions. Some old architect said stuff like "The WTC just had to come down because of all the gypsum in them. If it was built by norwegian manners with concrete it would've withheld......." And "WTC7 went down the way it did cos the earth foundation was weak from the twin towers falling". Too bad Harrit didn't have the chance to rebut those crazy arguments.

Trouble for you guys is that it is in danish and norwegian, except when DRG talks at the end :/

Thanks for the news!

Thanks for the update please keep them up!

Kindest regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

youtube clips

Simply insert the "embed" code into your message.

(how do I embed youtube videos here?)

go to youtube video page of video you want embedded, look to right of video where you see info about the video, at the bottom of the rectangle locate "URL" and "EMBED", highlight (copy) the EMBED code then EMBED (paste) into your comment here. the EMBED code will be 100s of characters long.


Great, thanks. I'll keep that in mind next time.

In France First professional article in France-Soir

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
excellent professional article in France-Soir

If case the article is taken off the internet, I have put a complete and Google_translation at

Perhaps someone can take the time to translate them it into good english. In the same newspaper , the France-Soir has many other interesting articles

I am disappointed that my newspaper LIBERATION has not done the same work. But at least this year they did not insult the 911 truthers as in the past.
Same thing goes for the french communiste newspaper HUMANITE.
The "Le Parisien" has not reported on the 911 truth movement as far as I could see in the paper or on internet but as the newpaper is not the same if you live in Paris ou in Toulouse they may have in some other regional copies.
Howerver their article "Fright after shootings exercises near the Pentagon" permits to promot the fear with Al Qaeda
as do the others

Good blog entry and hoping that other world citizens will put up info on how the 911 truth movement was covered by their mainstream media.




...for having the courage to go it alone!! That's no easy thing!

I just got a call from a

I just got a call from a friend who watched a clip from something she called KB TV (British TV) which showed on her regular tv (not cable). They were at the We demand transparency event in NY and they were interviewing people. What they found was that (of course the people in the rally question 911) outside the rally 50% of the New Yorkers believe something is wrong about the 911 story. Hopefully the reporting will continue.

I'd like to get reports from Both Coasts.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

in France 911 is starting to break into the mainstream media.

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
in France 911 is starting to break into the mainstream media. Please will someone will put a copy of the text below ( see °1) into english
This text came from
Also english subtitles on the video would be welcome.

Yours John

°1 _ _ _ _ _
Mathieu Kassovitz et le 11 septembre : « Il y a beaucoup de choses à questionner sur cette journée »
Published on septembre 16, 2009 par Spotless Mind

Pour la première émission de la nouvelle saison de "Ce soir ou jamais", hier soir sur France 3, Frédéric Taddéï a organisé un débat autour du livre du journaliste Eric Raynaud : "11 Septembre. Les Vérités cachées", un ouvrage qui conteste la version des attentats de 2001 délivrée par l’administration américaine et les médias depuis 8 ans (et cite le travail de ReOpen911 ou les livres sur le sujet parus aux éditions Demi-Lune, notamment ceux de David Ray Griffin).

La question du débat : « Peut-on contester ce que l’on dit du 11-Septembre ? »

La réponse de Mathieu Kassovitz ne souffre pas d’ambiguïté et fait l’effet d’une bombe sur le plateau (nous vous recommandons de regarder la vidéo jusqu’au bout: un point du débat des plus intéressants se situant à la fin) .

11 Septembre: Matthieu Kassovitz chez Taddeï par ReOpen911

href="">11 Septembre : Matthieu Kassovitz doute ! ===== 2001 taddei
envoyé par ReOpen911. - href="">L'info internationale vidéo.

La durée du débat était bien courte au regard de la complexité du sujet et la qualité des interventions a malheureusement été inégale.

On passera rapidement sur l’écrivain Hélene Cixous (qui, de manière évidente, ne s’est pas renseignée sur le sujet) et ses propos ridicules sur l’anti-américanisme et la paranoïa en France. Elle semble ignorer que les livres et les documentaires les plus fouillés qui remettent en cause la version officielle des attentats sont l’œuvre de patriotes américains ou que faire montre de scepticisme envers une administration américaine qui a menti à plusieurs reprises à son peuple et à la communauté internationale n’est pas la preuve d’une affection psychologique. Bien au contraire, comme le notait récemment Pascal Froissart, “il est sain de douter”.

Ismaïl Kadaré a le mérite de défendre son opinion. Cependant, il nous semble que c’est une erreur d’appliquer au 11-Septembre le prisme de 40 ans de dictature communiste car cela n’est pas seulement “subjectif” comme il est le premier à le reconnaître, mais hors contexte ! Par ailleurs, nous rappelons que des écrivains tout aussi reconnus que lui (citons Dario Fo et Gore Vidal qui ont tous deux participé au film documentaire Zéro, enquête sur le 11 Septembre) ne partagent pas son point de vue, bien au contraire…

Mais c’est surtout le caractère odieux des propos de Marin Karmitz que l’on retiendra. Le producteur tente en effet de conclure le débat en assimilant ceux qui doutent de la version officielle du 11-Septembre à des négationnistes. Mathieu Kassovitz a heureusement pu récuser cette accusation (rengaine qui deviendrait lassante si elle n’était pas aussi abjecte) en établissant très justement la différence entre le questionnement légitime d’un mythe qui ne repose sur aucune preuve (scientifique, technique, physique…) et la remise en question d’un fait historique prouvé, attesté et documenté de manière indubitable que constitue l’existence des chambres à gaz. D’ailleurs comme le souligne Frédéric Taddeï dans son introduction, “la loi n’interdit évidemment d’aucune manière de discuter de ce que l’on sait jusqu’à présent des attentats du 11-Septembre” alors qu’une loi, dite Gayssot, interdit la remise en cause de l’existence de la Shoah.

Enfin, on s’étonnera que l’on puisse parler d’un livre sans en inviter l’auteur (journaliste français, donc parfaitement… francophone et disponible !), et poser dans le même temps ingénument la question “Peut-on contester ce que l’on dit du 11-Septembre ?”, c’est-à-dire précisément: "Est-ce que l’on peut mettre cela en débat et est-ce que cela a de l’intérêt ?" Pour l’association ReOpen911, la réponse est bien évidemment positive tant les conséquences de cet événement sont grandes (nous vivons actuellement dans un monde post-11-Septembre). Il n’est apparemment pas inutile de rappeler que ces attentats ont servi de prétexte à une dérive ultrasécuritaire, liberticide et antidémocratique de nos sociétés au nom de la "guerre contre le terrorisme".

Ces réserves étant faites, nous ne cacherons néanmoins pas notre plaisir d’avoir pu suivre un débat à la fois posé et équilibré où la parole des intervenants était respectée, à des années-lumières du simulacre de débat auquel nous avons pu assister dans l’émission de Franz-Olivier Giesbert sur France 2. Bravo donc à Monsieur Taddei pour son professionnalisme qui permet de briser un peu plus l’omerta et d’ouvrir le débat plus sereinement. Nous remercions au passage le journaliste d’avoir indiqué, une fois n’est pas coutume, que la version officielle est elle-même une théorie du complot.

Pour finir, un grand merci et un grand bravo à Mathieu Kassovitz pour la qualité de ses interventions d’une part, mais surtout pour son engagement et son courage. Après le lynchage médiatique subi par Marion Cotillard et Jean-Marie Bigard suite à leurs déclarations publiques concernant le 11-Septembre, il fallait oser ! Nous regrettons simplement que Mathieu Kassovitz, après avoir répondu avec une réelle émotion aux accusations (infondées et déplacées) de "négationnisme" de Marin Karmitz , n’ait pas eu le temps de remettre en perspective l’affirmation péremptoire de ce dernier, selon laquelle ben Laden a revendiqué les attentats car avant la découverte de la cassette de ses “aveux” et son authentification par la CIA, ben Laden avait par 2 fois nié toute responsabilité dans ces attentats. Pourquoi passer cela sous silence ou ne pas en tenir compte ?

A quick and not best translation ( Google translation + )

°2 _ _ _ _ _
Mathieu Kassovitz and September 11: "There are many things to question on this day"
Published on September 16, 2009 by Spotless Mind

For the first broadcast of the new season of "Tonight or Never" last night on France 3, Frederic Taddei organized a debate around the book of journalist Eric Raynaud, "September 11. The Hidden Truths," a book that challenges the version of the 2001 attacks issued by U.S. government and media for 8 years (and cites the work of ReOpen911 or books on the subject published editions Half Moon, including those of David Ray Griffin).

The debate question: "Can we challenge what is said about September 11? "

Mathieu Kassovitz's reply was direct and has an effect like a bomb on the television set (we recommend you to watch the video until the end, one point of the most interesting debate occurring at the end).

September 11: Matthieu Kassovitz from Taddeï by ReOpen911

href = ""> September 11: Matthieu Kassovitz doubt! ===== 2001 taddei
sent by ReOpen911. --
href = ""> International News video.

The duration of the discussion was very short in terms of the complexity of the subject and the quality of discussion has unfortunately been uneven.

The word is quickly passed to the writer Hélène Cixous (who, obviously, was not informed on the subject) and her ridiculous ideas about anti-Americanism and the paranoia in France. She seems unaware that the most detailed books and documentaries which question the official version of the attacks are the work of American patriots, or to show skepticism toward an American administration which has repeatedly lied to its people and to the international community is not evidence of a psychological disorder. Quite the contrary, as recently noted Pascal Froissart, "it is healthy to question".

Ismail Kadare has the merit of defending his opinion. However, it seems that it is wrong to apply to September 11 the prism 40 years of communist dictatorship because it is not only "subjective" as it is the first to admit it, but out of context! Furthermore, we recall that writers also as recognized as him (include Dario For and Gore Vidal who both participated in the documentary film Zero, investigating September 11) do not share his point of view, quite the contrary ...

But it is especially the heinous comments of About Marin Karmitz that we retain. The producer tries in effect to conclude the debate by equating those who doubt the official version of September 11 to Holocaust deniers. Mathieu Kassovitz has fortunately been able to reject this accusation (refrain that would become tiresome if it was not as despicable) establishing very precisely the difference between legitimate questioning of a myth not based on any evidence (scientific, technical, physical ...) and the questioning of a proven historical fact, attested and documented beyond doubt is that the existence of gas chambers. Besides, as pointed Taddeï Frederick in his introduction, "the law in no way forbids to discuss what we know so far the attacks of September 11" whereas a law called Gayssot, prohibits the questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.

Finally, it is surprising that one can speak of a book without inviting the author (French journalist, speaking perfectly ... and available!) and pose frankly at the same time the question "Can we challenge what ones says on September 11? ", that is to say in plaine words:" Can we put this subjet to debate and does it have any interest? " For the association ReOpen911, the answer is obviously positive as the consequences of this event are large (we currently live in a world post-September 11). It is apparently worth remembering that these attacks have served as a pretext for a ultrasécuritaire, liberticide and undemocratic drift of our societies on behalf of the "war against terrorism".

Having made these reservations, we do not hide our pleasure to have followed a balanced and thoughtful debate where the participant's parole were met with respect. compared to the light years of mock debate in which we assisted in the Franz-Olivier Giesbert programme on France 2. So bravo to Mr. Taddei for his professionalism that can break a little code of silence and to open the debate more serenely. In passing we thank the journalist for having stated, which does not happen often , that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory.

Finally, a big thank you and congratulations to Mathieu Kassovitz firstly for the quality of his and especially for his commitment and courage. After the media lynching suffered by Marion Cotillard and Jean-Marie Bigard following their public statements about the September 11, he was daring! We regret only that Mathieu Kassovitz, after responding with genuine emotion accusations (unfounded and inappropriate) of "denial" of Marin Karmitz, has not had time to put into perspective the peremptory assertion of the latter, that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attacks before the discovery of the tape of his "confession" and its authentication by the CIA, as Bin Laden had twice denied any responsibility for these attacks. Why leave it in silence and not take it up ?