9/11, Arts and Entertainment, book reviews, Essays, Reviews
Comments 47

The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Edward Curtin

A Review of 9/11Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth

If you want to fathom today’s world, absolutely nothing is more important than to understand the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the definitive book on the subject.

For seventeen years we have been subjected to an onslaught of U.S. government and corporate media propaganda about 9/11 that has been used to support the “war on terror” that has resulted in millions of deaths around the world.  It has been used as a pretext to attack nations throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

It has led to a great increase in Islamophobia since Muslims were accused of being responsible for the attacks. It has led to a crackdown on civil liberties in the United States, the exponential growth of a vast and costly national security apparatus, the spreading of fear and anxiety on a great scale, and a state of permanent war that is pushing the world toward a nuclear confrontation.  And much, much more.

The authors of this essential book, David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, and all their colleagues who have contributed to this volume, have long been at the front lines trying to wake people up to the real news about 9/11.  They have battled against three U.S. presidents, a vast propaganda machine “strangely” allied with well-known leftists, and a corporate mass media intent on serving deep-state interests, all of whom have used illogic, lies, and pseudo-science to conceal the terrible truth.  Yet despite the establishment’s disinformation and deceptions, very many people have come to suspect that the official story of the September 11, 2001 attacks is not true.

With the publication of 9/11Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation, they now have a brilliant source book to use to turn their suspicions into certitudes.  And for those who have never doubted the official account (or accounts would be more accurate), reading this book should shock them into reality, because it is not based on speculation, but on carefully documented and corroborated facts, exacting logic, and the scientific method.

The book is based on the establishment in 2011 of a scientific review project comprising 23 experts with a broad spectrum of expertise, including people from the fields of chemistry, structural engineering, physics, aeronautical engineering, airline crash investigation, piloting, etc. Their job was to apply systematic and disciplined analyses to the verifiable evidence about the 9/11 attacks.  They used a model called the Delphi Method as a way to achieve best-evidence consensus.

This best-evidence consensus model is used in science and medicine, and the 9/11 Consensus Panel used it to examine the key claims of the official account(s). Each “Official Account” was reviewed and compared to “The Best Evidence” to reach conclusions. The authors explain it thus:

The examination of each claim received three rounds of review and feedback.  According to the panel’s investigative model, members submitted their votes to the two of us moderators while remaining blind to one another.  Proposed points had to receive a vote of at least 85 percent to be accepted…This model carries so much authority in medicine that medical consensus statements derived from it are often reported in the news.

They represent the highest standard of medical research and practice and may result in malpractice lawsuits if not followed.

This research process went on for many years, with the findings reported in this book.  The Consensus 9/11 Panel provides evidence against the official claims in nine categories:

  1. The Destruction of the Twin Towers
  2. The Destruction of WTC 7
  3. The Attack on the Pentagon
  4. The 9/11 Flights
  5. US Military Exercises on and before 9/11
  6. Claims about Military and Political Leaders
  7. Osama bin Laden and the Hijackers
  8. Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights
  9. Insider Trading

Each category is introduced and then broken down into sub-sections called points, which are examined in turn.  For example, the destruction of the Twin Towers has points that include, “The Claim That No One Reported Explosions in the Twin Towers,” “The Claim That the Twin Towers Were Destroyed by Airplane Impacts, Jet Fuel, and Fire,” “The Claim That There Were Widespread Infernos in the South Tower,” etc.  Each point is introduced with background, the official account is presented, then the best evidence, followed by a conclusion. Within the nine categories there are 51 points examined, each meticulously documented through quotations, references, etc., all connected to 875 endnotes that the reader can follow.  It is scrupulously laid out and logical, and the reader can follow it sequentially or pick out an aspect that particularly interests them.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel members describe their goal and purpose as follows:

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.

The goal of the Consensus Panel is to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.

As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie.  It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.

A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.

As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers.  One may follow endnote 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.

On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor.  Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building.  But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying.  They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.

Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died.  But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist.  Only explosives could have brought it down.

A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion.  And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.

Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did.

In Miklaszewski’s words, “And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’”

The authors say correctly, “The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.” For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense.  And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.

Or the reader can start from the beginning and read straight through the book.  They will learn in detail that the official version of the attacks of 9/11 is fake news at its worst.  It is a story told for dunces.

Griffin and Woodworth and their colleagues simply and clearly in the most logical manner show that the emperor has no clothes, not even a mask.

Since knowing the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001 is indispensable for understanding what is happening in today’s world, everyone should purchase and read Unmasking 9/11: An International Review Panel Investigation.  Keep it next to your dictionary, and when you read or hear the latest propaganda about the 9/11 attacks, take it out and consult the work of the real experts.  Their words will clarify your mind.

It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century.


  1. Anthony Williams says

    What a shame, that once again the truth is obfuscated by yet another pair of gatekeepers who have allegedly written this book, and deliberately come to the wrong conclusions as to what brought the towers down on 911. The reviewer should have prepared himself better before putting his endorsement to this book, and if he had read ” Where Did The Towers Go?” by Dr. Judy Wood, he would have spotted the glaring mistakes in this tome, and thrown this book into the bin where it belongs.
    Two immediate facts destroy the veracity of the book, the first being that kinetic weapons produce energy and heat when used to sever steel girders, which would have lain inside the buildings footprint, There was no evidence of the half million tonnes of steel in the debris. Secondly, if the building hit the deck at freefall ( gravity) speed, there would have been seismic signals vastly greater than were extant. The buildings “dustified, which meant that virtually nothing hit the deck, which accounts for the lack of seismic signals, and the dust flying out for miles around upwards.
    No mention of directed energy weapons, or the presence of “Hurricane Erin” which may have provided the electrical energy for the DEW’s as Nikola Tesla predicted would happen one day.
    NO real science here, despite the claims for such. Dr. Judy Wood has the answers in her book, which is the most important publication of this century to date.

    • Are you Andrew Johnson perchance? If Wood wants her hypothesis taken seriously she knows what she needs to do. Until a peer-reviewed paper is produced on the subject of how DEWs could have taken down the WTCs it remains, of necessity, pure speculation.

      No point lamenting the lack of scientific credibility attached to her ideas if she refuses to follow the scientific methodology and submit her ideas to peer review in the accepted form.

      While on the subject can you tell us how we get to talk to Wood in person, or why this Johnson character (you?) acts like her minder/PR and fields all inquiries?

      • andrewjohnson911 says

        Anthony Williams posted a comment on here. The response from “Admin” mentioned my name. I can confirm that Anthony Williams is not me. I can also confirm that Dr Judy Wood submitted her research in a Court Case in 2007. This is much more serious than peer review, as it means one could go to prison for using false information. (I also submitted an affidavit for the case). If you are interested in finding the truth, this information is easily available – as are my contact details via http://www.checktheevidence.com/. In short, the towers did not burn up, nor did they slam to the ground – they mostly turned to dust in mid-air. Those that deny this have either not studied the evidence or are deliberately or accidentally covering up these facts. See here for further details: http://www.drjudywood.com/

    • http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html

      Thermite produces a blinding white light. The towers did not light up like sparklers on the Fourth of July! 😁 If they found chocolate chip cookie 🍪 crumbs in the dust would that be the cause of destruction? 😁

      Let me introduce you to Dr. J. Douglas Beason



      New weapons and how they may change war subject of talk Thursday at Museum

      Light-wave energy in the same spectrum of energy found in home appliances may soon be used in a new generation of weapons. On Thursday, the Laboratory’s Associate Director for Threat Reduction, Douglas Beason, will talk about America’s new directed energy weapons in a talk at the Laboratory’s Bradbury Science Museum.

      The talk is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and is free and open to the public. After the talk, Beason is scheduled to sign copies of his new book, “The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons will Change the Way Future Wars will be Fought,” at the Otowi Station Bookstore next to the museum.

      Beason, who was named Los Alamos’ Threat Reduction Directorate (ADTR) leader in January, is a leading expert in directed energy research. At the talk, he will describe the development of a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy. The technology that supplies the same spectrum of energy found in microwave ovens or television remote control devices is a revolution in weaponry, perhaps more profound than the atomic bomb. Beason will discuss these new weapons and answer the questions that everyone is asking: What is directed energy? How do these new weapons work? How lethal are they?

      According to Beason, the first directed energy weapons are being tested now and their deployment is being planned for today’s battlefields.


      The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed-Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will be Fought

      In science fiction, futuristic soldiers are often shown wielding light emitting weapons – Flash Gordon’s ray gun, Captain Kirk’s phaser, and Darth Vader’s light saber. Today, this imagined future of science fiction is on the road to reality. After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave or in your TV remote control. They’re called “directed-energy weapons” – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps, more profound than the atomic bomb.


      Those who control the energy control the people. But those who control their perception control everything.

      The oil industry (leaded gas), tobacco industry (lung cancer), and more recently the NFL (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), have all spent millions and millions of dollars marginalizing scientific findings and the scientists that find them by way of “public relations” which is another word for propaganda. Lead in the food chain, carcinogens in the air, and brain damaged football players are all good for you, right?

      What Sound?

      The mass of each WTC tower was around 500,000 tons or 1,102,311,310.9 pounds.


      Garbage trucks weigh around 33,000 pounds empty.


      The destruction of each tower would equal the sound of 33,403 empty garbage trucks raining down. (a little over one quarter of all U.S. garbage trucks in service) That didn’t happen. The towers were turned into dust in mid air never hitting the ground. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

      Both the super-duper thermite gang 👥 and the super-duper nuclear gang 👥 are covering up the lack of high heat 🔥 when a careful observation of ALL the evidence concludes that the destruction was cold molecular dissociation produced by a type of directed energy. There is also the CGI/Remote controlled plane coverup gangs 👥 – when it was actually image projection of some kind. There are also gangs 👥 that coverup both lack of high heat and image projection technology.


      What high heat?

      High heat is part of the government’s official conspiracy theory and is as relevant as “19 bad guys with box cutters”. Using water and dirt to quench cold molecular dissociation is not evidence of high heat.

      High heat? Why hasn’t the steam cooked these workmen alive? Why are the pressurized hydraulic hoses on the heavy equipment still working and not bursting under high heat?


      Why is wet dirt fuming?


      Steam? If this were steam, these workers would have been cooked. If this were as hot as a grill, these people would become something that looked more like a grilled-cheese sandwich. The hoses to their torches would melt and ignite the fuel.


      On September 27, 2001, the four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.





      A fallacy is an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. Decredentializing a highly qualified expert like Dr. Wood by appealing to spite, ridicule, or willful ignorance does nothing to support a valid argument. Also, an opinion and an Internet connection does not qualify someone as an expert in forensic engineering and science, nor nuclear physics, nor structural engineering, nor materials engineering science, nor engineering mechanics (applied physics). The empirical research Dr. Wood performed is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience, not by performing experiments. Steven Jones [Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies or J.O.N.E.S.] and Greg Jenkins used to ridicule Dr. Wood by claiming that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL What experiments would Dr. Wood perform? What are the experiments for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence! A forensic scientific investigation involves the collection and analysis of ALL of the evidence. Even though A&E911truth appeals to authority and popularity, a controlled group is not synonymous with evidence.

      Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave at the University of California, Berkeley [available here at timestamp 1:53:47

      https://archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2 ],

      telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

      At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

      In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

      • @phahrenheit451 – we have already pointed out to you that Judy Wood DID claim the theorised beam came from ‘space’ back in Nov 2006 on James Fetzer’s radio show. Your allegation this is a misrepresentation by Dr Jones is a falsehood and you know it, yet you still repeat it.

        Please do not allege this lie on here again.

        • Dr. Wood does not present a theory. She presents evidence that leads to ONE conclusion. A discussion with agent Fetzer 🤡 is just hearsay 🗣️ and is not admissable in court. However, ignoring all the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that Dr. Wood presents 📖 while focusing on “spacebeams” is a form of a cover-up. The only people this benefits are those that committed the crimes of 9/11. Just the mention of “spacebeams” reveals who those people are.

          • Stop this nonsense. Wood was the first to mention ‘beams’ from ‘space.’ Your claims that she didn’t do so are a lie. You’re free to repeat that lie elsewhere but if you do it here it will be removed.

            • Those who control the energy ⚡ control the people. 👥 But those who control their perception 💻 control everything. Douglas Beason would be proud of you❗Keep up the good work. The powers-that-be are counting on you.😀

              • Normally speaking people don’t object so strongly to being asked not to lie.

                • The super-duper nanothermite 💥 cover-up is old and boring. 💤 Try a new cover-up theory. Why not claim Kryptonite dustified the WTC into particles smaller than red blood cells by gray lizard aliens 👽❓❓❓🤡

                  • Nanothermite exists. There are registered patents for its use as an explosive. Putting sneer-words like super duper in front of it does nothing to change that.

                    Space beams strong enough to vaporise a massive building, however, are completely unproven – just like kryptonite. So, your point is defeating your own position.

                    As for the thermite theory being old – maybe you don’t know this, but scientific theories remain in place until replaced by something better, not until everyone gets bored and wants to try something new.

                    Write that paper about space beams. Get it peer-reviewed and maybe it will kick the thermite theory off the pedestal you obviously resent it occupying.

                    • Anthony Williams says

                      The invitation that you offer, to write a paper about “space beams” bringing down buildings, is a distraction from the fact that the reviewer of this book has shamefully endorsed a work of fiction claiming that it is an erudite piece of research.

                      The categories chosen for the research are telling in their inadequate selection, with subject matter such as ” Osama Bin Laden” , “phone calls on 911 Flights ” ” Insider Trading” being examples of obfuscation and distraction.

                      The subject that might have caused all the so called “experts” to ponder for a long time, would have been : “Why did SIX Magnetometer stations in Alaska record ABRUPT changes in the Earth’s magnetic field during the collapse of the towers ?”
                      Or another difficult question : ” Why did the upper 80% of each collapsed building turn to fine dust, and NOT hit the deck, which might explain the lack of significant seismic signals ? ”

                      The focus on the claimed use of explosives to achieve these phenomena is fraudulent , and deliberately directs the reader to a conclusion that has been predetermined by the authors of this tome. The reviewer quotes from the book : ” Only Explosives Could Have Brought It Down “. Who said that ?

                      Dr. Judy Wood is fully justified in remaining silent on these flawed statements and publications, her work has been done, and those that have read her book ” Where Did The Towers Go” have yet to read any contradiction to the conclusions drawn in the book that address the fact that the wider public have not yet been told authoritatively by any United States academic department , WHAT HAPPENED on 911 .

                      Science fiction writers use the term ” Space Beams ” but academics can only stay within limited terminology to describe what is without doubt a form of Directed Energy Weapon, that was used to effect the collapse on 911, and NOT explosives.

                    • If you’re going to dodge serious discussion in favour of seeding dog fights at least try to make it less obvious. Your sole focus seems to be discrediting others, your interest in promoting Wood’s work only goes as far as necessary to achieve this primary objective apparently. There is simply NO rational reason for Wood not to present her hypothesis in a scientific form unless she and her handlers are aware it simply could not stand up to such analysis. Period.

                      This thread is closed

        • While we would not suggest Wood is ‘an agent’, and we don’t consider such ad hom helpful, it’s only fair to point out that in the past you have made similar allegations/implications about others, and used inaccurate or misleading evidence to do so.

          You can’t rationally complain of receiving treatment you’ve already dished out.

  2. Laurence James Howell says

    Dear Sir,

    911 was the catalysing event to foment war against the Muslims. "If your not with us you are with the terrorists", and with these words Bush the Simple consigned millions to death and misery. Why? because General Albert Pike, the senior Freemason in the US had written in his book Morals and Dogma 1882, that the third world war would be arranged so that unlike WW l and WW ll which ware wars of ideology the third, last and most destructive would be a clash of civilisations Islam v Christianity.

    The destruction of the seven countries, slated for regime change, started well before the 1991 gulf war. Even before WW 1. The Project for a New American Century [PNAC] committee reads like a hit list of the deep state Illuminati Freemasons, tasked with providing a form of words that would coverup the real reason for the wars so thoughtfully laid down by General Pike years before.

    Westminster Bridge to Manchester Arena starting with 7/7 and ending in the Novichock fiasco, all false flags used for other purposes. The creeping censorship and destruction of our right to freedom of speech tries to hide the worst Human Rights abuses in history in Palestine. As Voltaire once famously stated ” To find out who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”

    Its the Russians, its the Russians they are going to kill us all. Just like in Crimea, all dead.

    In many cases it would be a service to Humanity.

    Wake up people

  3. I have always been curious as to why all the local security cam footage from gas stations etc. around the Pentagon immediately seized by the FBI has remained sequestered for 17 years as though it were a national security secret that would put lives at risk if publicized. To date only one example footage has been released in which the nature of the “aircraft” is entirely indiscernible.

  4. Yr Hen Gof says

    Interestingly described on Amazon.com (US) as ‘Out of Print’, available here in GB.

    • Alan M says

      Where from?! – ‘Normally ships withing 1-2 months’ from Amazon UK…available second hand (allegedly) from someone in Poland ‘only two copies left’!! WTF is going on??

    • We’ve been informed by the authors that the book was shipped later than expected and should be available very soon.

        • We are monitoring the situation. Amazon is now listing availability on October 6. We have no explanation currently for the delay. Amazon apparently has the book in stock but its order page is not reflecting this.

          The book is available for purchase now directly from the publisher. We’ll provide a link to that in an update of the article.

  5. Hugh O'Neill says

    Firstly, I cannot thank Offguardian enough for blitzing this most patently False Flag crime of the century. Edward Curtin has done a superb review of this wonderful book. I admit, I have not had time to read all the articles and comments yet but I would offer this thought (my apologies if other have already). It appears that the whole 9/11 scenario was carefully scripted: the 1998 “academic paper” entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism” written by Zelikow, Carter & Deutz positively lusts after another Pearl Harbor event which kills thousands and permits wars of choice and the removal of domestic liberties (apologies for my poor paraphrasing). Philip Zelikow is an expert in myth making and likewise the assassination of JFK. The fact that he was then appointed to micro-manage the 9/11 Truth Commission parallels Allen Dulles’ role in the Warren Commission. And then of course there is the BBC report prematurely announcing the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7): “We understand that the structure was weakened by fires….”
    Zelikow’s reference to another Pearl Harbor suggests to me that the transformative event which brought America into WWII was likewise scripted and the PR campaign carefully constructed well in advance. Finally, when governments hold inquiries into their own malfeasance, they will always exonerate themselves. Ten inquiries into Pearl Harbor, One Warren Commission, One 9/11 Commission. In the UK there was Chilcott which exonerated Tony Blair and co.
    Miracke can sometimes happen: there was a superb essay on the AE911 website about the recent Savile Inquiry which overturned the verdict of the 1972 Widgery Tribunal into Bloody Sunday when the British Army shot unarmed civilians. The message there was to keep up the pressure and not lose hope. The emperors are stark naked and we need to start laughing at them.

  6. Gary Corseri says

    As I began to read thru this article by always-impressive Edward Curtin, what first struck me and impelled me to read further was this:

    “The authors of this essential book, David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, and all their colleagues who have contributed to this volume, have long been at the front lines trying to wake people up to the real news about 9/11. They have battled against three U.S. presidents, a vast propaganda machine “strangely” allied with well-known leftists, and a corporate mass media intent on serving deep-state interests, all of whom have used illogic, lies, and pseudo-science to conceal the terrible truth.”

    At last, I thought–balanced reporting and analysis! No partisanship. No hawking for or against for the sake of advancing one’s own precious career. Simply, the best kind of journalism!

    The next high note in this cogent review is Curtin’s outline and exposition of the methodology of the Consensus 911 Panel; i.e., how David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth assembled and adjudicated the facts, and, indeed, separated the facts from fiction.

    Curtin’s laudatory review of Griffin and Woodworth’s essential book merits praise and gratitude itself, and one concurs wholeheartedly with his conclusion:

    “Since knowing the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001 is indispensable for understanding what is happening in today’s world, everyone should purchase and read Unmasking 9/11: An International Review Panel Investigation.”

  7. Some of the best work unmasking the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is to be found at Ryan Dawson’s site
    He focuses his attention on a thorough analysis of the redacted police interviews of various Mossad connected individuals arrested in NY after the event and later (of course) safely repatriated to Israel, where some even felt free to brag on live TV about their foreknowledge of the attack. Some of these were caught in possession of explosives on the day, some had been seen gleefully waiting with their video cameras in a suitable vantage point minutes before the first tower impact.
    For me, not enough attention has been given to the obvious revelation of media collusion & coordination on the day. One small (well actually very large) glitch perfectly exposed the BBC’s involvement for instance, when with crossed wires (or some problem with the coordinated feed), they confidently reported the collapse of building 7 a full 20 minutes before it actually occurred, while showing us the ‘still standing’ building 7 in the background of their ‘live’ report.
    I’ve mentioned this fact to a couple of trusting committed BBC watchers, but they refuse to believe it could ever have happened…

  8. Yes, they’ve done a great job, however, the claim that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 were injured needs investigation.

      • Flax has actually said quite a lot more about this BTL on various recent 9/11 articles. Might be worthwhile looking over our 9/11 section (scroll down the front page)

  9. vexarb says

    Curtin`s review gets my vote. As for Oddis, he can first “virulently” oppose as in his review of two years ago, or come round to thinking it’s time to sit on the fence as in his present review, and so on by gradual progression for as long as he likes. Meanwhile, reality grinds on.

    “The truth rarely, if ever, convinces its opponents; it simply outlives them”. — “Mad” Max Planck, physicist.

  10. “No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
    ~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

    The ability to pull so many strings in both planning and executing the event and its controlled narrative is a proclamation of power. Broad spectrum dominance from the inside out.

  11. Haven’t read this yet – but I do hope they demolished the idea of any hijacked planes hitting any buildings. ‘No planes’ is not theory, but demonstrable fact.

    • Stephen Sivonda says

      Paulcarline, I’ve been over the years skeptical of the whole original story. Over time , reading the many articles and youtube videos…it has garnered my opinion that it was a pack of lies. About 5 years back I joined the AE911truth.org group.. Just recently I saw a post about the picture of a jet engine lying on the sidewalk outside the building before it came down I recognized that picture as the same one I originally saw about 5 years ago. Back then I recognized it as NOT belonging to the model of the plane that purportedly crashed into the tower. How did I know that? My 32 + years working for the jet engine manufacturer of those engines. The photo can ,no doubt, be found on a search. In any case the recent article said the same as I just did…that engine was not on a passenger plane ,but on a drone . That is a plane set up to be flown by remote control. So…that is what was used….BTW the military uses drones like that for testing the “ground to air ” missile defenses. So, there was no need to actually hijack real planes with people . The pentagon hit by a missile and there was no plane in PA that went down in that field. Both the pentagon and Shanksville PA had NO real remnants of aircraft parts. And believe me there should have been jet engines. they are too big and tough to burn up into nothing. Persevere for the truth.


Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole