You may say, “Where’s the evidence you refer to frequently? I see a lot of good analysis here, but detailed evidence appears pretty scant.” I agree about that. I don’t like duplication. Infamy does not include more evidence than it needs to make its points. It does not try to assemble extensive evidence from other sources. Rather, it introduces analyses, arguments and comparisons based on work other researchers have already done.
Back when libraries served as our main information repositories, some expectation existed that writers like me would bring obscure evidence out of those libraries, to make it accessible in a book. Now a great deal of material, including video evidence, is available with a few clicks. Anyone, anywhere has access now to resources once available only to researchers able to spend many hours in a large library. Start with the resources in Infamy’s Bibliography and list of resources. These will lead you to more resources, more than you thought existed. Learn what others know about the subjects discussed here. If you start with the best, theologians and philosophers like James Douglass and David Ray Griffin, the learning process does not take long.
Keep in mind a second point as well. It is allied with my desire not to recapitulate evidence available elsewhere. Several arguments take some questions as settled. For instance, we needn’t revisit questions about the Warren Report’s veracity. We have accumulated evidence – more than fifty years of curated evidence – to testify that the document does not contain an adequate account of how President Kennedy died. When you perceive that alternate accounts supersede the Warren Report, open and encouragingly fruitful exchanges about what actually did happen on November 22 can begin.
A parallel question exists regarding the events of September 11. We can, in fact, take the 9/11 Commission Report as incorrect and incomplete. That is an easy call. Page through the report, and you will find virtually no evidence: no evidence about 9/11, and no evdence that the commission conducted an investigation as such. President Bush did not want the commission to conduct an investigation, and it did not. The commission produced a general report about how to prevent an attack like 9/11 from happening again. To undertake a report like that when you do not know what actually happened – and moreover, when you do not care to know – is absurd. The commission draws conclusions about 9/11 before it takes any trouble to gather evidence. It clearly assumes that official accounts – publicized days after the attacks and fixed in place during subsequent months – are true.
Evidence about Kennedy’s murder and the September 11 attacks differ in a key respect. We have had far less time to digest alternate accounts of the 2001 attacks. Our bodies – and minds – tell us we cannot rush digestion, but we can improve it. We can bite off small chunks. We can chew well. We can stay active and eat small amounts frequently rather than consume large feasts. We can stay calm and clear-eyed about our purposes, and reflect on what we know. We can rely on our friends for fellowship and help. If we follow these principles for ourselves and our research, our understanding of the 9/11 attacks will come along rapidly enough. We need to stay with the project, and digest steadily.
So even though September 11 happened less than a generation ago, not over two generations as in the case of Kennedy’s assassination, we have come a long way in understanding both crimes. For 9/11, a lot of well known, respected professionals in many fields have voiced doubts about conventional accounts of the attacks. Abundant photographic evidence, coupled with interpretive, analytical, historical, scientific and eye-witness accounts all confirm that we have a lot of work to do.
If we let conventional accounts settle in due to an irresolute, what’s-the-use lassitude, what do you think children born today will learn in their history classes fifteen years from now? It won’t be the truth, because the state exercises a lot of guidance about what we teach them. That is why we need to be extra energetic and persistent, to develop alternate accounts closer to the truth.
We waited nearly two generations for the best accounts of Kennedy’s murder to reach us. Even then, resistance to the truth remains. Some people even wonder why we should care about an assassination that happened such a long time ago. Those questions confirm why the struggle for truth about September 11 must remain urgent, focused, and active. The phrase never forget applies not only to victims of September 11 crimes, but also to revelation of truth about who committed them.