, , , ,

Can you guess the The Jeffersonian’s most viewed post, among almost five hundred articles? It is Why World Trade Center 7 is significant, published in February 2014. It accounts for over two thousand views, by far more than any other article. It’s a simple, short post. Readers find it via their search engines, as I have not promoted it outside this blog. Thanks to everyone who has visited. Please send the link for this article to people you know. You will find more people who understand this point of view than you might expect.

Post the link at your own sites as well. The straight URL for the article is:


Many of you know I’ve written about conspiracies of the national security state for the last several years. These articles appear in The Jeffersonian under the category Infamy. I’ve also assembled this material in an online book by the same name:


For a couple of reasons I decided to publish this book under the pen name T. J. Hill, but as you can see, I don’t try to keep that a secret. I mention the pen name here so you won’t be confused when you see the cover!

Now we have to see if we can’t publish Infamy as a regular ebook, available on mobile devices. It’s not as easy as you might think, and I make my living in electronic publishing! In any case, the book underwent a lot of revision to prepare it for online publication. I need to tighten it up some more for the next stage. That’s where you come in. Please send comments and other helpful feedback, here at The Jeffersonian or anywhere else that’s convenient. Unless you send a morale-destroying rant, I’ll take proper encouragement.

Also use Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to tell your friends and other contacts about the book. Infamy is in its beta phase, which means you can read it for free. It also means you, as a beta readers, can send comments without worrying about whether the author might take them the wrong way!


Last night I took up the opening paragraphs of Independent research About 9/11. Before long I had another mark-up, with lots of blue ink on the page. The revised version of these paragraphs appears below. Before you continue reading, though, I want to make a few remarks about David Ray Griffin. He has done an enormous service for our country. The 9/11 truth movement depends on his energy and integrity. We should carry his work forward. Let other people know about what he has written and said.

David Ray Griffin: theologian, philosopher, political leader.

Now for that excerpt from Independent research About 9/11:

Let’s sum up quickly the current state of thinking among skeptics. They would agree on these general points: (1) evidence in hand demonstrates official accounts of 9/11 are false; (2) current evidence is insufficient to give a full account of what actually did happen on 9/11; (3) therefore, we need a new investigation. None of these points, not even the first, is particularly controversial. Become acquainted with David Ray Griffin’s work, and you’ll see why I say that. If government accounts had even half the integrity of Griffin’s, Americans might give official spokesmen benefit of the doubt. As it is, no reasonable person can read Griffin’s thorough work without concluding, “We have to find out what is going on here.”

Read chapter ten in Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, titled The Need for a Full Investigation. Read other chapters. You will think, “Griffin has a sure grasp of his logical and evidentiary tools, like a skilled attorney. I would not want to face this gentleman in a courtroom!” He handles evidence so well, so methodically and with such intelligence, that defenders of the official account appear careless, thoughtless, feckless or malicious – take your pick. By comparison with Griffin’s own care and thoughtfulness, his subjects have neither intelligence nor skill to accomplish the fraud he uncovers. Accomplish it they do. They radiate easy self-assurance about their excuses and evasions. Their lies seem reasonable until Griffin suggests, “Let’s have another look.”

In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates often makes his interlocutors look foolish. That’s why they avoided him, and eventually condemned him. So it is with Griffin, though interestingly, people who dismiss conspiracy theories simply ignore him. He patiently analyzes official claims to show how weak, self-contradictory, and ultimately groundless they are. Griffin is a philosopher as well as a theologian, and his training shows. If you want to argue with him, you need to be well prepared.

Griffin does not go against only weak and unskilled opponents, either. Cass Sunstein is a capable legal philosopher out of the University of Chicago. In Cognitive Infiltration, Griffin makes Sunstein look foolish and unprepared: like a student who did not do his homework, as a matter of fact. To Griffin’s credit, he does not send up Sunstein’s claims and proposals to add a notch to his own record. Sunstein’s arguments appear crude in light of Griffin’s critique. They are also weak and ill-conceived. They deserve a rebuttal. I am curious how Sunstein felt when he read Griffin’s book. Significantly, Sunstein chose not to respond to Griffin’s critique in writing. Perhaps he knows how to cut his reputational losses.

Let’s consider implications for skeptics’ point three: their call for a new investigation. Griffin, architects and engineers who agree with him, and many others have advocated research that accounts for all evidence related to 9/11. That would include what happened before that day, an account of the day itself, as well as what happened after the towers and WTC 7 fell. In short, they want an impartial examination of evidence that tries to uncover what actually happened on 9/11. How did nearly three thousand citizens die that day?

Related lecture

David Ray Griffin’s lecture at Boston University on April 11, 2009

Please watch David Ray Griffin’s lecture at Boston University on April 11, 2009 (9/11, Time For a Second Look) . Dr. Griffin meticulously presents the case for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks because as he states the 9/11 Commission Report on the “official” conspiracy theory is full of contradictions and apparent lies.