As a trained historian, I am interested in lots of major events in history that served as national or worldwide turning points. I ask the following questions:
1. What happened?
2. How do we know what happened?
3. What led up to the event?
4. How did the government report the event?
5. How did it subsequently explain the event?
6. How did the major media handle the government's explanation?
7. Who has benefited from the event?
8. Who has benefited from the official government explanation?
9. What are the alternative explanations?
10. Who would benefit if any of them became widely accepted?
These are all legitimate questions. The toughest one to answer is #1. You might not think that this is the case, but it is.
Let's consider the collapse of the North tower, the second to collapse.
The narrator does not notice the steel pillar. The person who edited the video added a call-out to show us what the narrator missed. The narrator was watching the falling building. He did not notice the pillar and its strange disappearance.
The pillar seems to disintegrate into dust. In any case, it does not topple. It falls straight down.
There are extended debates over what happened to the non-New York City planes. Where is the wreckage?
Here is the problem: there is no agreement about what happened. Where there is evidence of unexplainable events, the information does not get out. Only because of video sites has this ignored information reached a small segment of the population.
AN OUTLINE OF A 9-11 PROJECT
If a rich person or organization gave me a large amount of money to investigate 9-11, what would I do with it?
First, I would hire a lawyer to see what control the donor would have over the results. If I trusted him, I would advise him to set up the funding from a trust on the Isle of Man. That is because I would assume that the results would be damaging to the U.S. government and representatives of the government on 9-11.
Second, I would hire two or three programmers skilled at creating interactive Wikipedia-type sites. These sites would be the central resources of the project.
The most important resource for comprehending 9-11 (or any other complex historical event) is the division of labor. Wikis are the chief tools of this process. Wikipedia has taught us this.
I would begin with two sites: (1) a timeline site; (2) an engineering site. I would ask for submissions on two topics: (1) when did each part of the sequence take place? (2) What could not have taken place according to physics?
I would not ask how 9-11 was organized or why. I would ask only when events happened, where they happened, and what could not possibly have happened.
Why create these two sites? To shut down rabbit trails.
If you do not know the sequence of events, you cannot explain them accurately. Second, if you know what is impossible, you limit the number of false explanations. False explanations are rabbit trails leading away from the truth.
The timeline site would have subsites: each of the four flights. But these would feed into a single vertical timeline (Eastern Daylight Time). Click any entry on a timeline -- horizontal line with an ID box -- and it takes you to an entry on a separate Wiki.
It would be a long and growing timeline. I might need more Wiki site programmers.
I would have these sites hosted in Switzerland or another neutral country that would resist interference from the U.S. government. I would have lots of backup hosts. I would have the programmers write manuals on how to create a secondary site.
Third, I would hire at least two historians noted for their expertise in historical sequencing. I would have them create videos and manuals four researchers on how to evaluate evidence regarding time. This is not an easy process. It involves the sifting of evidence. Not everything in life is time-stamped. Not everything that is time-stamped was time-stamped accurately, especially if a government agency had first dibs on the evidence. (The words "birth certificate" come to mind.)
I would then hire them to moderate the timeline site.
Fourth, I would hire eight experts: two jet fuel chemists, two experts on the physics of skyscrapers, two experts on flying commercial jetliners, and two experts on plane crash sites. Their initial job would be to produce manuals and videos on conducting such research.
I would hire them moderate the "what could not have happened" site.
Fifth, I would hire an expert in website marketing and email list development. I would provide a list-rental budget. His job would be to get the word out to as many interested researchers as possible. The goal is to get people volunteering.
I would start with ongoing groups of the relatives of those who died in the crashes and the towers. They want to get to the bottom of this. They have an incentive to volunteer time.
Sixth, I would hire an expert in DimDim, the software that allows large group meetings on the Internet. I would do my best to host meetings, as well as get the other experts involved in discussion forums.
Until we know what happened and in what sequence, we should not expect to discover the truth about who did it, why they did it, and why the United States government has actively suppressed certain lines of inquiry.
Therefore, I would adopt this rule: no theories on what motivated the participants. Offering theories of why events happened should be attempted only by researchers after they know what happened and when.
In the old list -- what, where, when, who, and why -- I would rule out "why."
I would also rule out any consideration of the statistical results of Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project's report on 9-11. Some things are just too far out, epistemologically speaking, even though they are measurable and refuse to go away.
On what this icon
means, and how it
can help you, click here