A Review Of "9/11 Truther: The Fight For Peace, Justice And Accountability" By Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD). It is an independent, non-profit transdisciplinary research network promoting equality, sustainability and security. The IPRD (www.iprd.org.uk) analyses violent conflict in the context of global economic, ecological and energy crises.

He is a bestselling author and international security analyst, specializing in the historical sociology & political ecology of mass violence. Currently focusing on the intersection of global ecological, energy and economic crises, and their linkages with terrorism and state-militarization. His blog is available here, and his latest book and film are available here.

Nafeez was very influential to me over the years. Thank you for this wonderful review.

A bitter dose of heartfelt rationality in a field muddied by conspiracy industry dimwits

Source: Amazon.com

By Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
September 24, 2012

Jon Gold's '9/11 Truther' is a must-read for a number of reasons. On the one hand, I hate the title. Although I've done my part in challenging the official narrative around 9/11 and international terrorism for the last decade, I've never been a great fan of the language of the 'truth movement', which, to me, smacks of an almost religious, cult-like sensibility. And I've been increasingly perturbed by the proliferation of ridiculous theories masquerading as activism, much of which has simply served to distract from the hard task of challenging power. In particular, I've been revolted by the conspiracy theory industry itself that has grown up around the 9/11 question, generating endless proportions of speculative nonsense which obscures the task of holding the 1% to account in pursuit of progressive social transformation for more just, equal and sustainable communities, while generating profits for the proponents of these theories.

But that's what makes Jon's book, with its annoying title, so appealing. Because he confronts all of this, right from the start. Jon Gold is an unabashed 9/11 Truther. But he hates the conspiracy theory industry as much as anyone, has been witch-hunted by a variety of fanatically deranged self-styled 'Troofers', and writes passionately about the 9/11 issue not as the be-all and end-all of activism, but as a critical issue which opens up fundamental questions about politics and society today.

The book opens with Jon's own story, and it's a really heart-wrenching, inspiring narrative of a young man, an average American, a typical 99 percenter, faced with the troubles that so many face in a society that is crumbling under the weight of lack of opportunity, inequality and corrupt government. And we learn how Jon has struggled to overcome his problems, and moreover, how the anomalies and questions around the almost total collapse of the US national security complex that facilitated 9/11 and the events leading up to these horrendous, world-shaking terrorist atrocities, changed Jon.

From a man demoralised by the pressures of living in the rat race of modern capitalism, Jon finds within himself a new spirit, inspired by the extraordinary struggles of the 9/11 Jersey Girls to demand answers from a Bush administration keen to close the book without accountability. And thus begins a story of Jon's journey into the 9/11 movement. Throughout, though, we find the crucial distinction between that minority of people who cling fast to an ethic of rigour, fact-checking, constant questioning, and persistent self-criticism; compared to an unfortunate minority who jump to kneejerk conclusions, indulge in rampant and unverifiable speculation, and perpetually pass judgement on others who disagree with them.

His books sets out not only a map of the most salient and verifiable facts and anomalies around 9/11 and the official narrative, based on solid checkable data, but also catalogues how his refusal to endorse any particular conspiracy theory of 9/11 let to several face-offs with certain individuals who, shall we say, ended up exposing how morally compromised and intellectually challenged they really are. Some of these dialogues are fascinating, and for anyone interested in studying the 'truth movement' as a sociological phenomenon, will find interesting first-hand information here on the conflicts and diversity therein.

But more importantly, we learn a few lessons about what real activism is all about. Unlike his detractors - accusing him invariably of being a "Zionist", a "state agent", among other silly accusations which say more about the people making them than Jon himself - Jon's approach is simple. Check the facts, ask questions, demand accountability, support those doing the same, defend the 9/11 families, remember the victims, recognise the bigger picture, remain engaged in wider social campaigns. From this, we learn that activism is very much about being the change we want to see in the world. If we want to create a world free of violence and war, we need to look at our own ethic. Do we accuse others without evidence? Do we conjecture absurd unverifiable theories and then use them to level unproveable slanders at others? Do we indulge in hysteric personal ad hominem assaults on people we barely know? Do we harbour personal grudges for years, if not decades, for no good reason other than our egos have been fundamentally challenged? If so, then we're not part of the solution, no matter what we believe, or what 'truth' we think everyone else should believe in order to be considered 'worthy'. We're very much part of the problem, part of the system of self-aggrandizement and egoistic acquisition that has led to the world we see around us, led to events like 9/11.

Jon's inspiring journey shows us that there's another way, dignified, and based on real, personal integrity. And because of that, his book offers us a powerful guidebook to people not familiar with these issues, to get a firsthand insight into why asking questions about state-narratives of terrorism remains ever more critical over a decade after 9/11, and most of all, to grasp the difference between asking with inner sincerity and lashing out due to inner fragmentation. Thanks Jon, for taking the time to share with us your journey; and bon voyage!

The book is available here.


Lotta criticism of truthers in that review. Not a good way to build a strong coalition IMHO. "Be the change you want to see?" Much of the tone of that review doesn't sound anything like the Gandhi I know. Seems to me he's attacking truthers as much as he claims truthers attack the irresponsible who either let or made 911 happen. He made some good points. Too bad he had to slam some of us along the way. There is certainly a lot of crazy shit that has been espoused over the years. But we are an infiltrated movement filled with trolls, spooks, agents, plants and disinformation. In that regard we are victims. I, for one, am not into blaming or criticizing victims.

I think ALL OF US need to read Gandhi a little more carefully a watch not just what we say, but how we say it..... Nafeez included.


Why is it that you thought he was talking about you?

What if the movement wasn't as fragmented as your perception? Are disagreements a healthy part of the whole? I agree that there is a rampant perception of infiltration.


"Why is it that you thought he was talking about you?" I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together (Lennon/McCartney)

"What if the movement wasn't as fragmented as your perception?" Then our disagreements would be a healthy part of the whole, as you say. But it is, so it isn't.

"This group (911truth), more than any other I can think of as a movement, is going to be infiltrated, is infiltrated, and there are going to be all kinds of efforts to subvert your work, all kinds of efforts to corrupt your work, and all kinds of efforts to discredit you." --William Pepper

In many ways, Pepper implores the same message as Nafeez, except Pepper says it in a way that inspires without criticizing. We need more of that and less of the other.

Pointing out errors in fact

Pointing out errors in fact and logic are a critical part of a healthy movement.

Claiming that everyone has to nod and say good try even if they are spreading garbage is a failed big tent mentality.

The change we want to see is in telling the truth right? So you have to point out falsehoods to tell the truth. It is not negative. Peacenik's reaction on the other hand...

Gold's Envy & Ego Driven 9/11 Researcher Bashing

One can insert into Gold's "conspiracy industry dimwit" term, the name of any of the many figures within the so called "9/11 Truth" movement who have figured more prominently than Jon Gold.

"Conspiracy theorist" is mainstream code for the skeptical researcher. And "dimwitted" are those who believe that simply declaring America was lied to about 9/11 will yield truth and justice.

Let's Just Call Them Out

I think Nafeez Ahmed and Pat Mastelotto (the more recent Crimson drummer) are in a conspiracy with Jon Gold to let the 9/11 perps off the hook, in order to satiate their egos.

Hi Aidan...

If you're trying to say that people who get more attention than me in the "9/11 Truth Movement" are automatically a part of the "Conspiracy Theory Industry" in my view, then you would be wrong. I don't care about being famous. I do care about people being told bullshit however.

Aside from declaring that America was lied to about 9/11, how about my calls for accountability? The great thing about accountability is that it applies to both "incompetence" and "criminality." If they want to say that people were "incompetent," ok... then let's hold those people accountable for their "incompetence." If you have a business, and someone "incompetently" costs that business millions of dollars, do you reward them, or hold them accountable? You hold them accountable of course. Once you start holding people accountable for "incompetence" I suspect that we will start to hear about some of the "criminality" that some of us suspect.

By the way, Nafeez is one of those brilliant individuals who was chastised by those who think there were no hijackers, that the buildings were brought down in a Controlled Demolition, that a missile hit the Pentagon, etc... and so on. It's a shame really because he was a valuable asset. Like many that were driven away from this movement by people like you. Good job.

driven away?

there isn't anyone I know who has either attained some notoriety or made major contributions or both in this movement who hasn't been chastised, ridiculed or attacked by the lunatic fringe amongst us. If that's all it takes for Nafeez to be "driven away" from the movement, then he was never really in it. To quote William Pepper again, we need to "steel or spines." Serious activists know that. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask people like Cynthia McKinney. She's been attacked way more than Nafeez will ever be. But she's still with us. There's countless others...... yourself included.

Show "I have been..." by Jon Gold

Your childishness repels


Show "Snitchjacketing..." by Jon Gold

Snitchjacketing - definition

Snitchjacketing is a term not often used (except on another forum which has a lot of sardonic critics).

Here is the definition by one of those forum members.

empty comments like yours hear joe

define childish.

driven away?

Then why are you here right now? UR so selective in your condemnation. Regarding Flight 93, for instance, even one of your "godesses," Sibel, entertains the possibility and commented more than once in her podcasts that she heard from a Pentagon General that 93 was shot down. I challenged you once on McGovern's openmindedness toward CD and you retorted with an "exception" in differing opinions. I'm sure you'll conjure up another "exception" on Sibel's openmindedness, too.

Like I said, if you've been driven away, then why are you here? Your actions beg the question.

I'm here...

Because I know that people interested in 9/11 read this site, and nothing more. My comments are moderated whereas others are not. This site is a joke to me. However, again, people interested in 9/11 read this site. So, since I care about justice for 9/11, here I am posting about 9/11. Because people interested in 9/11 read this site. I hope I answered my question for you. As for Sibel, she wouldn't chastise me for not agreeing with her, now would she? No. She wouldn't. But you keep acting like this atrocious behavior doesn't exist. It does wonders.

"This site is a joke to me."

Hmmm?? You "know that people interested in 9/11 read this site," and here you are telling them that "this site is a joke."

2 + 2 = 4

It's time for me to model myself after the people who are not contributing to this thread.

Gold's Conflicted Positions

Gold: "You think I associate with anyone from ... the "mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement" who thinks that there was a Controlled Demolition ... there were no hijackers."

Gold claims the government lied about 9/11 and that there is an urgent need for an investigation, yet apparently also believes that accused hijackers crashed airliners on 9/11 (with virtually no supporting evidence) and that the WTC towers collapsed as advertised.


Strange is as well, that you

Strange is as well, that you make the impression, that there were no hijackers on the planes. The phone calls from the planes are valid evidence.


I think there had to be "hijackers" on the planes. It would seem too difficult to pass this lie off without them. Who they were exactly is in doubt in my eyes since we know identities stolen. Also, I think what the hijackers thought the plan/mission was certainly wasn't what the real plot was. They were likely setups. Just my conjecture anyhow.

together in truth..




Ever read a Nafeez book, or seen him speak? He was one of the few sharp minds around the movement when it was strong. He was one of the few who could build a bridge with the real thoughtful skeptics. Then we Nafeez wouldn't accept peoples unprovable theories he was attacked and called names. He tried for years to build a legit case. Nafeez isn't necessarily speaking about you, unless you spread your theories around as though they are provable facts. A decent theory is not a fact until it is proven. Nafeez is the man and has always stuck to his guns. I see no legitimate critique of him in your post.

2B or ProzaKc Blues

Perceive the IT you want as changed, lest we all focus on our victim-hood to no end in sight.


Lennon McCartney

War is over, if you want it
Let it be

Choose brilliance

If UR gonna use King Crimson to make a point, next time pick an example that shows their brilliance, as when Bill Bruford was their drummer, rather than that lame track that sounds like a Frank Zappa wanna Be. Yes, brilliance in our activism is what we need to strive for

At least

At least you're consistent.

Good stuff

Bruford is a guru. I'm glad yall are into real music.

This song is dedicated to those who get a little to upset at people being critical. Sorry but logic is the only thing that will allow the truth to out. Apologizing for and making excuses for lying theorists is not.


Elephant Talk

I guess this is more to the point:


altered states

A request to reset my password has been made. brilliant! I guess someone's trying to alter my perception :)

Corroboration Please

"Strange is as well, that you make the impression, that there were no hijackers on the planes. The phone calls from the planes are valid evidence."

Although I tend to believe the accused were probably on the 4 flights (if only to eliminate them), where is the proof?

And the alleged in flight calls prove nothing. Were these alleged calls authentic? 11 years later and official story proponents still can't even produce a simple billing statement or invoice establishing the alleged on board calls happened as advertised.

And for example, there is absolutely no supporting evidence for the repeated claim that Mohamed Atta piloted AA 11.

Some cannot distinguish between allegation and fact.


Just curious, how could you then tell if the billing statements or invoices were authentic? As you know, the telecomm industry has had no qualms about breaking the law with impunity. (Thanks, Obama, for looking forward!)

Personally, I think there is a lot of evidence of an MO of the US using terrorists for the past 30 years, at least.

I also trust Sibel when she says she has multiple sources who can document the flight 93 shoot down. And that she doesn't chastise those who disagree.


Hoping that people would forget about this article Aidan?


You are bring up debunked points.

Hey check out this video by Jon Gold, some of the quotes in it are from Aidan himself.