More Thoughts on Research
The state of our Investigation
Click here for MAIN INDEX

As of:

April 25th, 2002
Updated on June 20, 2002

Constructive Criticism

General Observations

Specific Contributors

Barrie Zwicker

Michael C. Ruppert
(major section)

Cynthia McKinney

Emperor's Clothes

Michel Chossudovsky

What Really Happened


April 25th, 2002

What follows here, is a brief summation of where, (according to this author) we who seek the truth, (behind the events of Sept. 11, 2001) stand, in terms of our unfolding investigation.

This update takes up where Thoughts on Research left off; namely, with a summary of the main sources for the evidence laid-out in SEPT. 11: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, (Part 1).

[Of course, these are only sources which I presently know about. There are undoubtedly many other competent contributors out there -from whom we are all anxious to hear].

We move now, to update readers on where these sources appear to be "at," in terms of the 9/11 investigation... include new sources that have made themselves known, and make some general comments for the short-term.

In doing so, we should be very clear about the meaning of the term,

"constructive criticism"

Constructive criticism means to praise as well as criticize, to point out virtues as well as limits; and criticism is not leveled in this direction or that, as an expectation that each participant must meet some kind of all-round ideal; rather, it is to assess the overall character and development of our dialogue itself -by taking stock of the various strengths and weaknesses that we participants bring to it.

In this light, contributors are not judged -so much as they/we are given a chance to see their/our contribution in a broader light; and far more importantly, this may give interested observers, (who have yet to get involved, i.e. "the many," upon whom any chance of our success lies) a chance to see the larger dialogue more-clearly; and then, where they/we might jump in.

The fact that no one "owns" this conversation, means that we all can, (and to some extent, should) don the cap of critical observer, from time to time -that each of us may gain from the reflection provided.

The fact that this writer now steps forward to offer such observations, in no way implies that I feel myself immune to, or not in need of, critical feedback; only that, beyond a certain point of self-criticism, this is something best done by you... who may feel moved to make it publicly and/or privately known.

If there is anything that qualifies a person to offer criticism of others, perhaps it is the willingness to receive it, as well.

On that account, my computer and I are "all ears."

"In general"

momentum is building.

While we long ago passed through the stage where the vast majority of the population ceased wondering how Sept. 11th could have happened, (at least, temporarily) we have also passed the point where waves of wild "conspiracy-theories," and dis-information have flooded past, washing away the attention-span of those whose eyes did not penetrate deep beneath the surface.

Those of us who have not wavered in our determination to find the truth in this matter, now find ourselves with a wealth of well-worn evidence upon which to take this to the next level.

If the social conditions which created the attacks have not changed, and given the governments denial of negligence, responsibility, and/or complicity in the affair, we can confidently predict that the questions will not die away, and that the public's attention will continually cycle back to re-think what "new" evidence has been found.

New challenges, opportunities confront us.

We are poised to really look deep inside the designs of this monstrous event, in such a way that it will become clear to larger and larger pools amongst the general public: what really happened.

The great challenge, in my view, is threefold:

first, we need to try and focus, as much as possible, on the gritty details of the case, (that is, what actually happened on the day of September 11) and only secondarily, on the larger context, wherein a vast web of circumstantial evidence resides.

(I discuss the reasons for this at some length below, and in the General overview of the "New Evidence" section ofFurther Unanswered Questions, part 2).

second, in order to achieve this focus, a core of "researchers" must commit them/ourselves to overcoming the general tendency amongst observers -whereby, we focus on the "latest news," events, etc. for our sense of connection to what's "going on."

While I also discuss this at some length in the Preface to FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (Part 2) a few comments here may be helpful.

It is more or less commonly understood in the ranks of business, politics, and even the movement for grass-roots citizen-empowerment, that only a very small percentage of people will initially see a certain opportunity, and work to make it happen, while the many wait until it becomes self-evident.

This is not to say, of course, that "the many" are without vision; rather, that we each have our unique contributions to make; and it is imperative for us to recognize that, when we feel we are being called to do something, it is quite likely that few other people are hearing the same "call"; and that, without our input, the task "ain't gonna get done."

So what is the task? The vision? the imperative before us?

I put it to you that Sept. 11 represents THE pivotal mechanism by which to peel the roof off of the domed-stadium of mass indoctrination in which our society presently stands.

I cannot provide any more proof of this, beyond the 140 pages of Unanswered Questions (part 1) and beyond what you know already, or what you're feeling as you read this. If you can see that there's a possibility that this may be true, then please follow my logic.

From a visionary perspective, we can see that a certain action within society can have huge implications over time, once a critical mass of collective activity is reached.

Imagine a pebble dropped into a still pond, ripples spilling out: if the pebble is dropped from a great height, in the centre of the pond, (made more-still for the absence of an emotional or ideological agenda) the visual effect can be far-reaching.

We cannot do it alone; yet neither need we start large; and what defines the character of success above all, is the commitment of a core of people to do what is necessary -to make the vision a little more self-evident to others, that they may see the opportunity as their own, and so expand it in ways we could not have imagined.

You who understand this, may have seen the way that a spirit of liberation can sweep through a community, a nation, igniting long-suppressed care, courage, compassion -the thick skin of privilege and suspicion burning off in the heat of a sudden celebration.

Or perhaps you've felt the creative force within you, guiding you to act in ways that you could not explain, nor comprehend -beyond your remembrance of unshakeable truth.

You see the world around you, torn between the promise lost, and the desperate past grasping to drag us down, and you know that we, (humanity, and all the creatures of the earth) are heading for something BIG.

Sept. 11, 2001 was a battle-call, for loving arms to embrace a terrible truth, knowing that what had gone on before could not last.

No more can we sit on the fence, contemplating our options, lest we lose them.

Is it not now more clear than ever? -this long-standing need to commit ourselves to something, as if our lives depended on it? As if our next breath could be our last?

Again, many are already doing this, in different ways. We need not all do the "9/11 thang." Some may contribute this or that; yet a certain core of people need to seize upon the opportunity, so as to make room for others to come in; and if you see the possibility here, and do not at least explore it to make sure, (one way or another) how could it come to pass: but that the cycle of amnesia and denial which finds us spiralling towards oblivion just continues on to the next degree?

In other words, we need to organize the info.

While a wealth of illuminating, solid information is now available to us; it is, for the most part, scattered in a labyrinth of repetitive fragments which tire the most eager mind.

We need to bring the vast body of available information together, into a clearly-organized whole... that other researchers/readers can more-easily find what they are looking for.... and help to move the whole process into higher gear.

We don't need to do this collectively, by consensus; we are each free to decide the way in which we want to work; but we do need to dialogue, communicate with one another -that we can coordinate our efforts and make the best use of our resources.

To this end, here are some more-

Specific Contributors

In terms of clearly-organizing a mass of relevant information, a few sources stand out, (though this remains but a beginning).

The archive page can be found under the heading, "Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks"

The scope of the material here is quite wide; almost all of it's material appears to be of a high quality, touches on practically all the bases; and it is well organized.

The site features an online petition for a senate investigation into the oddities surrounding Sept. 11th, which already has about ten-thousand signatures on it.

An important limitation to this site, (as far as I can see) is that it has no e-mail by which someone may be contacted. Try or

An exceptionally straight-forward, well-organized source of information is located at:

Or its mirror site, at

A site which I have only recently come across is,

It features a very lucid, comprehensive overview, and a great quantity of information covering many aspects.

An extraordinary site is located at:

Though the scope of this site's inquiry is largely limited to one aspect of the Sept. 11th events, the author is exceptional in his/her avoidance of wild speculation: meticulously gathering together a rich archive of referenced material, carefully organized so as to tell a clear, compelling story... empowering us wee readers to think for ourselves.

This has to be the model for how individuals and groups can attempt to tackle one aspect of the case, thereby empowering those of us who are trying to bring all the aspects together as a whole.

Perhaps one of the most-startling developments in the last few months of this debate, has been the work of VisionTV's Barrie Zwicker.

Vision TV is a Canadian-based, religious network, with millions of viewers. Mr. Zwicker has produced a remarkable six-part, forty-minute video program, in which he very carefully examines the main components of the case.

His delivery is calm, his questions reasonable, his logic compelling; and he does back up what he says with a wealth of well-chosen references to established documentation.

The main drawback to this contribution is the virtual absence of referenced back-up, online; that is, links, web-sites, resources, etc.

This may be especially significant for those people who watch the television program/video, perhaps hearing these ideas discussed in public for the first time. Without immediate access to more information, it's very difficult for viewers to take the doubting air that Barrie establishes in the mind, and bring it down to the ground of answering those doubts for them/ourselves.

All it would take would be a links page with a half-dozen quality sites listed, (and the value of this offering would go up immeasurably); still, for those of us already familiar with the material, (we who can provide readers with access to more information) having Mr. Zwickers contribution available is invaluable.

Also unfortunate is that the author appears to make a significant factual error at the very beginning of the very first piece, where he says that problems with the Flights started occurring at 7:45am, when the first plane had not taken off until 8:01. This should not dissuade listeners/readers from reviewing this material with confidence -only to know of something which detractors may seize upon.

The entire series can be purchased from VisionTV, at

Click on the "Programs" icon, then select "VisionTV Insight."

The transcripts of all six programs are available at this site, online for viewing, and in PDF format for printing. (The transcripts are also available at the above-mentioned falloutshelternews).

Also available, is the transcript of a rather brilliant piece Barrie did on the sixth-month anniversary of the attacks.

The first eight-minute segment of this series is also available for viewing, online, (in RealPlayer format) at the following site:

Click on "Archived Shows," then, "2002," then scroll down to Show #67, where you'll see the "Operation Northwoods Video."

Incidentally, BlackOp show #67 is an interview with author and researcher, Jim Fetzer, who gives an impassioned, compelling overview of the unanswered questions in this case, (including a glowing reference to yours truly, :)

The BlackOps Radio site, and its companion Fletcher Prouty Reference site, represents a leading-edge point of reference for investigations into unanswered questions of all kinds; yet, as of this date, the hosts have not chosen to tackle this issue in a specific, organized manner.

Related to the above video series, (which visitors to the VisionTV page may instantly notice) is another remarkable program entitled, "Asking Tough Questions: The War on Terrorism."

Here, Michael C Ruppert, another exceptional researcher, joins a small panel to discuss the issue, (two of whom are openly sceptical of any doubts).

In short, Mr. Ruppert kindly destroys the positions of his ill-informed opponents, with what can only be described as a masterful performance.

Michael's capacity to retain relevant facts, numbers, people, and connect them together into a description of society which is both, disturbing, yet believable, refreshing, is inspiring to observe.

"Like Daniel in de Lion's den."

This video can be purchased at VisionTV. It can also be viewed online, (in RealPlayer format) at the following site,

Michael Ruppert himself has become something of a phenomena in the past few months, giving sold-out seminar performances in cities across North America.

Insofar as his ability to make complex, (often unseen) social relationships and forces understandable to people, (in the living moment) Mr. Ruppert appears to be without peer.

On the research side of things, it must be said that he is not as consistent.

Now, there is no doubt that he and his colleagues make important breakthroughs, and sponsor some compelling documents, such as the Insider Trading series by Tom Flocca, (also interviewed, by the way, by BlackOpRadio); yet on the whole, Mr. Ruppert's online contributions are not nearly as convincing as his "live presentation."


Perhaps it is a challenge of translating from one medium of expression to another; where Mr. Ruppert's brilliance in person is not as well expressed in print.

He appears to writes like he talks; with confidence, a few references here and there, never losing sight of the larger picture.

With the use of overheads, video clips, and a complex, yet coherent narrative, Ruppert's analysis is most convincing. Persuasion in print, however, is another matter.

Print demands a more-meticulous, anal-retentive presentation of reference and resource, that the solitary reader, with no living, breathing person in front of them to distract from the cold logic on the page or computer screen, ultimately must insist upon.

Perhaps this represents both, the limitation, and strength of a text-based medium like the internet; a limitation, because it is harder for readers to FEEL the inter-connected meaning behind the facts, ("the story") as it's laid out in front of us; a strength, because the dry text compels us to put the pieces of the puzzle together, FOR OURSELVES, planting individual seeds of consciousness in many distant regions, perhaps, with the potential to flower into many Michael Rupperts -each honing the ability to "tell the tale."

Nor is this to say that the material at is not well-referenced, worthwhile research; on the contrary, it is of a very high quality; only, it is not as consistently well-referenced as it could be... as a few, (and only a few) other resources appear to be.... and as we must be here.

In this, we may recognize the valid distinction between uncritical devotion, constructive criticism, and sectarian derision. To say that we recognize the importance of someone's work does not mean we avoid expressing criticism; on the contrary, it may be precisely due to the work's importance that we shower it with more attention, more care, more critical precision, for the greater significance that such limitations may represent.

Let's look at the matter a little more closely.

Another of Mr. Ruppert's virtues is that he does recognize impeccable research when he sees it; and he has been a great champion of both, the "explosive" Emperor's Clothes series, ("Guilty for 911") and of the Michel Chussudovsky site, -featuring both on his own.

Insofar as research into the events of Sept. 11th are concerned, Mr. Ruppert was the first to break the "insider trading" story wide open -making the links between the covert intelligence community, banking, money-laundering, drugs, and the stock-market.

Perhaps the most significant literary document he has produced about 9/11 is his timeline of the events leading up to it, entitled, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do."

You can read it here,

Readers will be impressed by the overwhelming weight of evidence provided, suggesting that the military and government elites were well aware of, and well-prepared for, what was going to take place; yet insofar as the timeline of what actually happened on that day, (i.e. the airforce not responding, the military "uninformed," the hijackings, etc,) the document says surprisingly little.

The overwhelming weight of Michael Ruppert's evidence, however, suggesting the above scenario, is circumstantial.

This is where we need to make a critical distinction.

By circumstantial evidence, we mean to say, in general, the circumstances surrounding an event, rather than the factual evidence of the event itself.

More specifically, we refer to the political, institutional, (systematic) landscape, within which an event occurred, and those social forces especially connected to it.

Circumstantial evidence speaks to the fundamental question, "who benefits?"

Also, it often sheds light on that part of the political landscape which, relatively speaking, does not change; where we can say, "ah yes, this is how the world REALLY WAS before Sept 11; only now, we see it more clearly."

By itself, a wealth of circumstantial evidence is capable of providing a convincing case in a trial, by jury; yet only if the jurors accept the explanation of what those circumstances mean.

In a public investigation such as ours, (where the entire public citizenry of a nation is the jury, and where the more-or-less entire structure of society is under review) it is asking a great deal for the general public to accept a certain view of the complex, governmental apparatus, especially if that view is highly critical, controversial, perhaps frightening, and certainly contrary to what is expressed in the mainstream media.

In other words, even if the circumstantial evidence provided is enough to convince ourselves that 'certain key elements within the ruling elite knew that an attack was coming, and did not stop it,' (for 'such and such a reason') we must ask ourselves: is this sufficient to convince the general population? -upon whose acquiescence a deceptive authority depends?

At this point, the answer must be a resounding "no."

Even if we, (ourselves) are convinced that the above explanation is true, it is quite another matter to establish a line of credible communication between ourselves, that information, and the general population.

Far more disturbing and obvious to the general public is the shocking fact that the event itself actually happened, and the weak or contradictory "official" explanations which accompanied it, (leaving many doubts lingering). What actually happened is the solid ground, the clear, common construct, upon which to resolve the uncertainty and speculation in the minds of ALL, including the many not familiar with sophisticated political analysis.

Those of us familiar with the nature of long-standing "western" foreign policy, (plunder inc.) the democratic facade of a police state in the making, (and so on) should be very careful of our tendency to assume that, 'because "I" am convinced, that this would be sufficient evidence to convince the rest of society.' We must guard against the temptation to let the events themselves become secondary to our analysis of them.

Now, of course, it's not necessary for ALL of society to be convinced, immediately, for the broad sweep of the population to eventually "get it."

Small groups may become enlightened to what is really going on, and eventually have a profound cumulative effect; so this is not to take away from what Mr. Ruppert is saying and doing.

On the contrary, he is performing a vital role; and I highly recommend readers obtain a copy of the Michael Ruppert video of the 911 seminar he gave in Portland, Oregon, available at,


Ultimately, it is true: the explanation of what all the various "facts" mean, shall prove to be the most convincing component of the case; and it is for this very reason that I'm tempted, dear reader, to simply recommend that you cease reading this page, that you may inquire into purchasing the Ruppert video, right now.

The video reveals things which text alone could never hope to. I personally found it most thought-provoking, and feel moved to declare M. Ruppert an inspired being standing tall in our midst.

In fact, all that appears necessary -for to bring about a groundswell of change- is a demand for full disclosure; and for this, nothing is easier to achieve or more effective, than sufficient basis for DOUBT in the "official story," (i.e. a dangerous and uncontrollable epidemic of independant thought).

It is another matter entirely, whether his particular approach will be as convincing to the general population, as it is possible (and necessary) to be.

So I would ask those of you who do put these words aside, (to review Ruppert's video) to return here afterwards, that we may begin the process of making such insights relevant to a wider audience.

In the critical appraisal of another's work, the relevance of reaching a small community of people first, then larger and larger pools of the population, is recognized; as is the notion that we all have different contributions to make; for no one of us is perfect, nor able to do all things at once.

To make a critical departure from the work of another, does not, (necessarily) mean, in any way, a rejection of a constructive working relationship, or a movement towards common goals, (as yet, vaguely defined, but for the contributions of the many still to make yourselves known). I suggest here but a slightly different focus, slightly more-refined tools of online communication.... so as to reach, (in combination with the work of M. Ruppert and others) a more strategically-important community, with ultimately greater social implications.

It is perhaps no coincidence that certain parts of the strategic community of which I here speak, have recently begun to mis-represent and censure Michaal Ruppert's work. For a fairly in-depth review of this, and of the "left" response in general, (to 9/11) click here for What's "LEFT" to talk about?.

All that appears necessary, in fact -for to bring about a groundswell of change- is a demand for full disclosure; and for this, nothing is easier to achieve or more effective, than sufficient basis for DOUBT in the "official story," (i.e. a dangerous and uncontrollable epidemic of independent thought).

We need to recognize that,

the interpretation of ALL the evidence is the icing on the cake, the final measure of meaning in a long process of discovery, the moment of pleasure where we finally make sense of a muddle of disturbing data.

In the case of such a monumental event as Sept. 11, it's very tempting for us to seize on a few specific details, add in an impressive array of circumstantial evidence, and come up with an explanation; when there is still far-more convincing evidence to be had, if we dig for it.

It is, in fact, the direct evidence that compels people to look more closely at the circumstantial evidence, (not the other way around).

It is the fact that the hijacked planes got through civilian air defense, and that the Airforce did not behave as it normally would have, which causes people to ask, "how come?"

It is the fact that the Pentagon put on it's goofy hat to say, "duh, we didn't know that gosh-darn plane was coming our way, hyuck, hyuck," that compels people to ask, "how did the military get to be so irresponsible?"

It is the ridiculous FBI investigation which cause people to ask, "What are they trying to cover up?"

There is no theory required here. No elaborate system of interpretation.

The facts themselves are sufficient; and we need more of them.

This is what far more citizens are prepared to hear: what "went down," who said what, and when. "Let me decide."

This gives people the opportunity to stand on firm ground, (as they step across uncertain waters) without compelling them/us to make giant leaps of trust in the speaker's/writer's certainty as to the dark nature of modern government.

So while it's clear that Michael Ruppert is playing a vital role; it must also be clear that there is an equally vital role that remains to be done.

We are now at a point in our investigation where we need to make a priority of gathering more evidence, more fact, more details.

Our interpretation of the available facts, (and inclusion of contextual evidence) should temporarily take a back seat to our interpretation of what makes a good piece of evidence, in the interests of gathering more of it together; for, in truth, the facts are drying up fast.

I invite you reader, to help change this, now.

An important new voice in the call for a meaningful inquiry into the events of 911 is member of Congress, Cynthia McKinney.

On March 25th, she appeared on a California radio show, and publicly expressed doubts about the official story.

This was reported in the Washington Post,

and unleashed a storm of denunciations from many public officials and media commentators, including calls for her censor.

But for all the attempts to discredit her insistence that questions be asked, it appears there is a great deal of public support for her stance, (outside the mainstream media).

The Atlantic-Constitution apparently felt compelled to "pull" their online poll, when it was discovered that almost fifty percent of respondents supported her call for an investigation.

According to Bill Douglas, ( -who has been a very active participant in the call for an investigation- McKinney spoke to the 70-100,000 people who gathered in Washington D.C. on April 20th... to great applause. He says the recent financial support for McKinney, (amongst the general public) has been tremendous. Readers who want to be kept informed of this development, should e-mail BILL at the above address.

This is a very important development, for McKinney's public position brings the "unanswered questions" that many may be thinking, into the realm of popular, (living) discourse. The danger here, of course, is that, isolated, she can be made into such an object of public ridicule as to seriously discredit the call for an inquiry.

We must remember that the basis of our search for the truth can never be grounded in the efforts of one person alone. (It may be argued that the halls of Congress may be one of the last places in America where the call for disclosure will get a fair hearing). The success of any such call must be based on a real movement of many.

It is for this reason that I have not highlighted McKinney's efforts at the top of this list.

Another significant development is the interest that best-selling author Michael Moore has begun to express in the subject.

As of yet, however, both Moore and McKinney, (like Michael Ruppert and most other commentators) having been speaking about the circumstantial evidence, surrounding the intimate ties between the Bush Administration, Bin Laden, and the CIA. They have said very little on the factual details of the day, (the absence of Airforce response, the Pentagon avoidance of responsibility) -which, to the informed observer, is far more disturbing and irrefutable.

The website most-responsible for putting the question of AirForce negligence on the table, (and the foundation for UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, (part 1)) is called "The Emperor's New Clothes."

It was these authors, with their compelling logic and impeccable referencing, which allowed numerous other researchers the ground they/we needed to look into this matter more-closely.

Since then, the editors at "Emperor's New Clothes" have moved their razor-sharp attention elsewhere, to the trial of Milosevic, the coup in Venezuela, and so on.

Perhaps this is partly due to limited resources, and partly due to what I discussed at some length in the Preface to FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (part 2) and above; namely, that we tend to fix our criticism on the "latest events," which ultimately leaves us unable to penetrate deep beneath the surface, save ever-so briefly, (ever in response to those events which powerful forces seem to place in our path).

None of the editors at Emperor's Clothes have sought to reply to any of my inquires and invitations to collaborate further in this investigation.

It is hoped that if we keep these fires burning bright, then such writers will once again find a reason to turn their attention to the anomalies of 9/11.

Michel Chossudovsky, for the most part, and his associated website,

has said little about the actual events on 9/11, beyond a number of important articles detailing the intimate ties between Bin Laden, Pakistani Intelligence, and the CIA. Yet we understand that he will be presenting a seminar in April, in Ottawa, Canada, with VisionTV host, Barrie Zwicker. So we look forward to hearing any news of that event, association, and any documents, videos, etc. that come from it.

One of my main sources of relevant information for Sept 11: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, was

and now, most of the relevant 9/11 information is stored here,

A quick perusal of this page will likely tell the reader that there is a massive amount of information here, (much of which I also still have to sort through).

Equally obvious may it be that it would take a great deal of time to figure out what's here, because it's not well-organized.

It appears the website operator, Michael Rivero, has his hands full just maintaining the massive amount of information he daily loads onto his "breaking news" page.

In lieu of this, I sent him the following suggestion for how he might organize his archive material on the page.


On a separate page, under the Banner of
"Sept 11 Attacks," the following categories.
The Hijackings, (the failure of Civilian Air Defense)
The WTC Attacks,
Attack on the Pentagon,
Flight 93
AF Stood down, Guilty for 9/11 (Emperor's Clothes series)
George W. Bush
The Hijackers
The Collapse of the World Trade Center
Engineering Magazine
Psyopps News

under the Banner of Terrorism,
Historical Terror
Operation Northwoods,
Oklahoma City
Fake terror,
Third Party Terror,
Bio-Terror Profits,
Terror Good for politics,
Terror as response to Foreign Policy,

Under the banner of

Jim Marrs
Vision TV series
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions

My organization of the above main categories follows from the following considerations:

TERRORISM -as context
ANTHRAX -as aftershock, aftermath (perhaps include in this section reports on John Walker, and the "shoe bomb terrorist," the fifteen year-old suicide pilot on acne medication, and the murder of the woman connected to false ID's)
OVERVIEWS -to help reader see the integration of the various components
RESOURCES -as a research aid, to highlight sources that may have not been included under another particular heading
DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION -as call for action, our ultimate goal.

Michael said that he would consider my suggestion, and he may have made some adjustment; yet perhaps the time involved is not worth it to him, at present.

Perhaps at some point, if someone were to offer to help him with the time-consuming organization of the page, he may invite such input.

It's becoming clear, via discussions with fellow researchers, and through my own efforts to move on to Part 2 of Unanswered Questions, that we need an extremely well-organized LINKS page; which would still requiring sifting and sorting for relevant facts; yet which would allow us to organize our efforts efficiently, hone in on a particular topic of interest, and tell one another what we discover.

To this end, I make it my highest priority that, by the first or second week in May, I will have posted a substantial links page for just such a purpose. Readers will be able to link to it from the MAIN INDEX page.

[Note: As it is now June 20th, I must laughingly re-adjust my calendar to accommodate what still remains to be done. One way or another: it is happening].

NOTE: upon visiting the main page of, readers may clearly see a strong criticism of Israel in the content. As the Israel/Palestine question is very controversial at present, I want to make it clear that the author of "whatreallyhappened" does make a clear distinction between criticism of Israel and "anti-semitism." His comments and material on all kinds of subject matter, (beyond this one issue) are consistently "anti-fascist"; and so, for the moment, I have no problem in recommending this site.

Since 911, the content of has become more and more focused on this one particular issue. Some readers may assume by this, that the scope of this author's contributions is limited to this one area, which would be unfortunate; for the archival material, covering a wide variety of issues in society, is impressive, and often insightful.

The reality is, that the way we present material on the Israel/Palestine conflict, (and our own association to the source) is of great importance, in the way that our work may be received. Many layers of conflicting content compete for our critical attention: the underlying anti-semitism, racism in society; overwhelming support for Israel from the U.S. government, military, media; justifiable sympathy for Jews and their historical persecution; the need to resist fascism in all its forms and guises; and so on.

I encourage readers to remain open to examining perspectives before passing judgment -and to remain vigilant in the determination to think for yourself.

So ends this update.

Naturally, there are a good number of resources out there which I have not mentioned here, which should be. I apologize in advance to any who have been overlooked.

This merely reflects the present state of the investigation, (my own limited grasp of it) -shining a light upon you, dear reader, that you might let myself, and others, know of what you've seen that you think is valuable.

Get after these various website operators.

Let us know what you think. Bug us with suggestions. Offer to help in whatever way you can, that we all make this rough journey a little easier to ride.

Good luck to us all.

Click here to return to Top of Page