Feb 272014

Now Availble through Amazon.com

David Ray Griffin’s new book:

41AInhghezL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_9/11 Ten Years Later is David Ray Griffin s tenth book about 9/11. Asking in the first chapter whether 9/11 justified the war in Afghanistan, he explains why it did not.In the following three chapters, devoted to the destruction of the World Trade Center, Griffin asks why otherwise rational journalists have endorsed miracles (understood as events that contradict laws of science). Also, introducing the book s theme, Griffin points out that 9/11 has been categorized by some social scientists as a state crime against democracy.

Turning next to debates within the 9/11 Truth Movement, Griffin reinforces his claim that the reported phone calls from the airliners were faked, and argues that the intensely debated issue about the Pentagon whether it was struck by a Boeing 757 is quite unimportant.

Finally, Griffin suggests that the basic faith of Americans is not Christianity but nationalist faith which most fundamentally prevents Americans from examining evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by U.S. leaders and argues that the success thus far of the 9/11 state crime against democracy need not be permanent. <Click Here>

Feb 262014

J.T. Waldron

Recently, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley decided it was politically expedient to bring fraudulent researchers under intense scrutiny. Grassley declared how he would like to see prosecutions for the faked HIV vaccine findings drawn from falsified research materials and data files. Dr. Dong-Pyou Han, working under an NIH grant at the Iowa State University School of Science and Technology, spiked rabbit sera with antibodies to make it appear like his formula was capable of neutralizing a broad range of HIV-1 strains. Prosecution for this type of fraud is warranted. Should Han have succeeded with ‘ginning up’ his lab results, he would have misled over a million U.S. citizens infected with the HIV virus. A phony successful HIV vaccine would also mislead other researchers into pursuing a line of treatment thought to be successful. Senator Grassley states:

This seems like a very light penalty for a doctor who purposely tampered with a research trial and directly caused millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fraudulent studies

If only we can see such rigorous scrutiny for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They lied about the annihilation of the three Word Trade Center buildings on 9/11. According to an assessment made three years ago, the war on terror has cost the lives of one million persons and the monetary sum of 1.8 trillion dollars. If NIST would have chosen to do its job instead of lie to the public, they could have been a significant intervening force affecting the so-called “war on terror”. Instead, NIST committed the following acts of fraud:

  1. NIST makes the false claim that fire caused the collapse of WTC7 and presents a computer model that shows fire spreading in an uneven, unlikely fashion that contradicts all available photographs of the fires in WTC7.
  2. NIST presented the now discredited “Thermal Expansion Theory” that fire caused WTC7’s symetrical free-fall collapse on the fires inside the building. To do this, they ‘ginned up’  the inputs and methods behind the computer model to promote the appearance of a key girder initiating total collapse
  3. NIST made the false claim of missing shear studs in WTC7 between columns 44 and 79. In their August 2008 report, NIST simply omitted the existence of sheer studs to make the collapse of a key girder seem more feasible.
  4. NIST presented fictitious debris damage of WTC7. The supposed “10 Story Gouge” was based on a doctored photograph presented by Popular Mechanics to to the television show, “Inside Edition” in 2006. Eyewitness testimony, citizen photographs and video footage find that specific area of the building in tact after both towers collapsed. Despite the available contradictory data, NIST actually constructed a graphic illustration derived from the bogus photograph in their report.
  5. NIST fraudulently asserts that diesel fuel fires contributed to the collapse of WTC7. This was a very early tactic by NIST, despite FEMA’s 2002 statement that such a phenomenon had a low probability of occurrence. NIST continued to push the diesel fuel theory in 2004 and 2005 reports. In 2007, NIST finally admitted that the diesel fuel had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7..

“On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”

All of this activity by NIST indicates an effort to cover up and protect those who facilitated the 9/11 terror attacks.  They engage in large scale efforts to defraud the public about the World Trade Center buildings and attempt to cast doubt in the public mind about whether the attacks of 9/11 were facilitated by those who had prior access to these buildings. Thanks to the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (particularly Chris Sarns), there is no doubt about the fraudulent nature of NIST’s reporting and research concerning the destruction of three WTC buildings on September 11th, 2001.


“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel, uh, I know of no absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so nobody has produced it.”

NIST’s 9/11 shenanigans are a prime example of how fraudulent research is tantamount to terrorism . NIST’s refusal to examine WTC wreckage for explosives and their continued denial of their use in the demolitions served the political agenda behind the acts of terror on 9/11. By promoting continued ignorance of the way the buildings were destroyed, NIST violated their professional duty to provide truthful information. That particular piece of information could have undermined U.S. retaliation in the Middle East.

Political consequences should never have an affect on the outcome of scientific research.

Feb 252014

J.T. Waldron


Homeland Security terrorists create young willing Orwellian accomplices through hysterical campaigns like Janet Napolitano’s “see something/say something”. In Michigan a young student obliged with a clumsily secretive cellphone recording of a substitute high-school teacher giving information about U.S. funding of Pakistan’s ISI prior to 9/11. True to form, mainstream media pounces on the footage of this useful idiot with the type of free press never afforded to groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This unwilling strawman of the 9/11 truth movement is a boon to the establishment as his well promoted story circumvents the usual need to pay shills to infiltrate and “taint the well”. The real story behind this incident is not the fact that Jason Flicker, the substitute teacher, introduces concepts like MKUltra, 9/11 truth and false flags with a mix of more dubious conspiracies. The story worth our attention is how Flicker’s cavalier approach to introducing 9/11 truth gets massive press when so many credible 9/11 truth presentations never see the light of day.

Below is the “spy footage”. Praise be to the budding young brownshirt!:

Feb 232014


J.T. Waldron

Last month, Greenwald/Scahill/Poitras and company acquired the “theintercept.com” domain from me for an adequate price. They conducted the transaction through a broker so I had no idea who was buying it at the time. Since domains mean less in the world of do-it-yourself bloggers, giving up the domain for my site (the original Intercept blog) to buy a new camera seemed like a good idea. The original site(s) can be found in its two previous incarnations:



It’s good to see the domain go to a cause that’s better than Fox News. I don’t see them going as far as I’m willing to, but a recent report by Greenwald over how his partner, David Miranda, was treated by the U.K. is a good sign moving towards the direction that American Terrorist is headed. For example, Greenwald states:

The UK Government expressly argued that the release of the Snowden documents (which the free world calls “award-winning journalism“) is actually tantamount to “terrorism”, the same theory now being used by the Egyptian military regime to prosecute Al Jazeera journalists as terrorists. Congratulations to the UK government on the illustrious company it is once again keeping.

We’ll go one better. Those perpetuating the true political agenda of 9/11 can be considered accessories after the fact. Back to Webster’s definition:

Terrorism:  the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

What about those who label David Miranda a terrorist for revealing how the United States government has violated the U.S. Constitution? This type of attack against journalism is fulfilling the true political agenda of 9/11. After all, it wasn’t nineteen men in caves that drafted the Patriot Act before acts of terrorism. Those who facilitated 9/11 put forth the shoddy excuse that Arabs risked large scale retaliation because “they hate us for our freedoms”. Recall the “United We Stand” mantra right after the WTC demolitions? Facilitators of this deadly 9/11 campaign frighten people in a way that the 9/11 attacks intended. This includes the goal of discouraging government transparency and journalistic integrity by nursing a culture of fear. Not only were victims’ families lorded over those who questioned the reported events of 9/11, but those who had questions were considered “unpatriotic”. A docile, brow-beaten crowd has allowed these conditions to remain to this day and spread throughout every corner of the globe.

Feb 182014

Actual terrorists must continue to draw attention away from themselves.

This video shows FEMA agents telling new recruits that our founding fathers were “the first terrorists” and that any activist civilians who are dissatisfied with their current government are considered domestic terrorists by the CIA.

Feb 032014

J.T. Waldron

Merriem Webster provides the following two definitions:

Terrorist:  a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism:  the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Starting with 9/11.  There are at least three anomalies involving the three World Trade Center buildings that cannot be explained without the use of explosives.

First, the pools of molten iron found in the foundations of all three buildings.

Second is the complete annihilation of all three buildings and their contents.

Third, the rate of descent of all three buildings is much too fast to be a spontaneous collapse resulting from fires.

These three anomalies on their own are enough to demonstrate that 9/11 was facilitated and prepared by people most would refer as “insiders”.  Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an excellent source for analysis and evidence verifying these events.  They highlight many additions like the tiny microspheres of iron and trace elements of explosives found in all the dust samples recovered from ground zero.

Honestly the first three items are enough to convince any citizen with a background in high-school physics that 9/11 was an inside job.  Any attempts to distract the public from these facts are intended to protect the political objectives behind 9/11.

The definition of terrorism has two main elements.  The first is the “use of violent acts to frighten the people”.  What was this violent act in 9/11?  It is the murder of over 3000 people in four commercial flights, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center buildings.  This event was timed to maximize television exposure and fear among one of the largest television audiences in history.  All eyes were affixed upon the World Trade Center buildings after the first plane hit the North World Trade Center tower, so a maximum audience was achieved to witness the second plane hitting the South tower.  The final act in this theatre of horror was the destruction of the Twin Towers and, for the patient viewers, WTC 7, the building collapsing at freefall within its own footprint while never hit by a plane.

WTC7: The smoking gun.

The second part of the definition of terrorism, “in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”  What is the political goal of 9/11?  9/11 promotes the false choice between security and liberty.  It helped create widespread apathy over torture, indefinite detention and rendition.  9/11 reunited modern America with German politics of World War II, complete with the re-emergence of “Homeland Security” and the “Patriot Act”.  It promoted widespread prejudice against Arabs and Muslims and tacit acceptance of unilateral attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria.  Using 9/11 for justification, modern leaders advance their perceived right to violate constitutional law with arrests and prosecution absent due process, complete and total surveillance of all electronic communications among U.S. citizens, and a unique star chamber calling for the assassination of U.S. citizens with or without the use of pilotless drones.

The term “terrorist” is a cliché used by every group hoping to invoke the fears of 9/11 to achieve their objectives.  Most recently, citizens who protest fracking were referred to as terrorists.  The FBI, CIA, NSA and TSA, along with any of the other organizations that have no business being a part of the U.S. governmental structure, find justification for their existence through 9/11.  Just as “Al Qaeda” was a label for a U.S. generated database developed after the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, the word “terrorist” is used as a brand to discourage home-schoolers, constitutionalists, 2nd Amendment advocates, preppers, “End the Fed”, and, ironically, the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Who are the terrorists behind 9/11?  We will begin by ignoring the patsies for whom the blame for 9/11 was so obviously intended.  Bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta and the other fools hopping planes on behalf of their handlers could not have initiated the various war games intended to distract interceptors nor could they have altered the chain of command for shoot-downs months before the event.  Our attention should instead be drawn towards two levels of participants.  First, the people who were most likely involved directly with this complex, deadly theatrical presentation and, second, those who continue to defend the lies of 9/11 and the very political objectives 9/11’s act of terrorism was intended to achieve.  It is these two class of participants that have truly earned the label “American Terrorist”.