I wonder if, at bottom, 9/11 skeptics want to place the imprimatur of prestige and authority on evidence we already have when they call for a new investigation. They crave the weight of a formal body behind evidence already collected but ignored, and explanatory narratives that skilled attorneys can fashion. That is why they mention Congress as a candidate to organize or sponsor the investigation. Quite often, skeptics mention the way mainstream media overlook their advocacy and evidence. Clearly people hope that if some body with prestige and authority undertakes a new inquiry, the overall effort to overturn official accounts might receive more attention from the media. Then, they hope, more people would hear and believe what skeptics have said for more than a decade.

That scenario is not realistic. The federal government will not release its information. All of the investigators’ energy would go into fighting the national security state for information it should have released on September 12, 2001. Even with rock solid credibility and abundant resources, such a body cannot win a contest for control over evidence currently classified. If an investigative body adds its imprimatur to evidence we already have, would that make a difference to people who currently regard members of the truth movement as nuts?

Such a change of opinion will not occur while mainstream media ridicule skeptics, and condemn anyone who voices these beliefs to lands beyond: the fringe regions reserved for paranoid extremists and everyone else liable to question authority when they shouldn’t. These social pressures help to maintain an orderly environment. They remain both strong and effective. Moreover mainstream media, mainstays of orderliness, cannot or will not change their well established positions about 9/11 unless their contacts in Washington call for a change, and no one expects that to happen.


Implications for a way forward are plain: essential research to discover what happened on 9/11 is already underway. No person or group with more authority and expertise than Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will appear. If existing researchers who operate outside of government and the media cannot persuade people to change their minds about what happened on 9/11, people will not change their minds. Current efforts must proceed, against government opposition, and certainly without assistance from mainstream media. Every day government demonstrates its ability to suppress evidence, intimidate witnesses, retaliate against whistle blowers, and maintain a political culture of denial. In light of these practices, we expect insiders who know even a bit of truth about 9/11 will keep quiet about government’s complicity in these crimes.

The same evolution from official suppression to gradual but persistent disclosure from independent researchers played out over fifty years after Kennedy’s murder. We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves, as well as future investigators who have courage and commitment. No one who has any association with the national security state – including Congress, the executive branch, and mainstream media – can mount the kind of investigation that members of the 9/11 truth movement would like to see. That leaves only one answer to our question. Who can conduct a truly independent investigation of what happened on 9/11? The people who are already doing so: us.

Related book

Remarks above are an excerpt from Infamy.