Sunstein

9/11 as False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care

Auckland University of Technology
January 10, 2016
Emory International Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:      

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified nearly fifteen years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinize the U.S. Government’s account of those attacks. Despite the impressive and serious body of literature that has emerged to suggest that 9/11 was a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have acted as if there is no controversy whatsoever. This disconnect between the growing (alternative) evidentiary record of state responsibility for the attacks and the focus of international institutions is impossible to sustain if those institutions are to maintain any semblance of viability and meaning. 

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.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2713267

September 11th and the Academy

The following article was recently published in a new
underground newspaper in Plattsburgh, NY, called
UnderCurrents,

The original can be accessed at http://undercurrents.webs.com/

September 11th and the Academy
By Kurtis Hagen                          

According to the website
PatriotsQuestion911.com, hundreds of professors
have publicly questioned the official story
of September 11, 2001. (Disclosure: I’m on that
list.) Also, two thousand architects and engineers
have signed a petition calling for a new investigation
into the destruction of the Twin Towers and
Building 7. Further, David Ray Griffin, a very
accomplished scholar, has written ten books challenging
the official 9/11 account. His books, full
of extensive and rigorous argumentation and clear
presentation of evidence, have been endorsed by
a long list of significant people, including Howard
Zinn. In addition, Peter Dale Scott’s Road to
9/11, published by the University of California
Press, is a meticulously documented analysis of
the “deep state” aspect of 9/11. And, technical
scientific papers challenging key elements of the
official story have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific
journals. (For a list of select academic articles see:
http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/.)

In the Houses of Shadow.

Open Letter
To the Office of Mr Cass Sunstein.
White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
Co Author of 'Conspiracy Theories' with Adrian Vermeule
[free download http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585 [Social Science Research Network]]

SIR.

With regard your paper "Conspiracy Theories" [University of Chicago Law School Law & Economics Research Paper Series #387],
In which you discuss the Mental Health of citizens seriously investigating alternative 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, [ie:those 'other than' the 911 Commission Report Theory]
as examples of 'Crippled Thinking' or 'Crippled Epistemology'.

Incumbent on you, sir, as co-author of the above; since the matter so important to our mental Health; would be to revisit the central premis of your paper - that the KSM 19-hijacker Commission Theory is the ONLY permissible account - given the TESTIMONY of Former FBI Language Specialist Behrooz Sarshar this January 2011 regarding his CENSORED testimony to the 911 Commission, that FBI fore-knowledge of the attack was well established and understood.