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 email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
An exceptionally straight-forward, well-organized source of information is located at:
It features a very lucid, comprehensive overview, and a great quantity of information covering many aspects.
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 www.copvcia.com 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, http://www.globalresearch.ca -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.