Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11 – Documentary

Η ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΗ ΟΡΘΗ ΕΞΗΓΗΣΗ  ΑΛΛΑΧ ΑΧΜΠΑΡ!!! Φώναζαν οι 19 τζιχαντιστές που οδήγησαν τα 2 Μπόινγκ στους δίδυμους πύργους. Τους έδωσε ο Αλλάχ τις 1.368 παρθένες που δικαιούνταν και από τους κραδασμούς που ακολούθησαν, έπεσε ο πύργος WTC 47…

(Produced and directed by Adnan Zuberi1)
As the academic year begins, and the 13th anniversary
of 9/11 draws near, it seems timely to review this eye-opening
documentary about the failure of academia to explore the evidence about
the events of September 11. Indeed, there are literally dozens of
peer-reviewed science articles challenging the American government
narrative about 9/11 that academics simply do not talk about.  These
articles stand published in the science literature – for the most part
unreported, unexamined, and unrefuted. 

I.                  9/11 Academic Failure in the Context of Traditional Scientific Publishing
In view of the magnitude of the 9/11 tragedy, and the persistent
public doubts about its cause,[1] the scientific academy has been eerily
silent.[2]  Although many studies questioning the official account have
been published in peer-reviewed science and engineering journals,[3]
they have not generated debate in the literature, or reports in the
media. This is virtually unprecedented, for new scientific research
always stimulates a trail of discussion – be it through letters,
rebuttals, or further studies.
Two examples of peer-reviewed articles that should have made
sensational headlines and stimulated major academic discussion simply
faded into obscurity:

1. An article published in the Journal of Business was
   reported by econometrician Dr. Paul Zarembka as showing a 99%
   statistical probability that high-volume insider trading occurred with
   American Airlines and United Airlines stocks in the days before 9/11;[4]
2. A nine-author article published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal
   (2009) reported that unreacted nanothermite, which can be tailored to
   behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,
   was found in four independently collected samples of the World Trade
   Center dust.[5] Nanothermite is a high-tech substance not found in
   nature, yet there has been no published research follow-up to this
   landmark article’s astonishing conclusions.

In short, the subject has been untouchable.
II.               Glaring Anomalies in the Government Narrative That Should Have Aroused Academic Concern
This documentary interviews a group of ten current and former
Canadian and American university professors[6] about eye-opening
contradictions in the official account.
Some of these include:

1. Ground Zero was the biggest crime scene in US history, yet the
   telltale steel girders were quickly trucked away before forensic
   examination could take place.
2. Originally there was to be no investigation, and only following
   intense political pressure from the families was an investigation
   mounted in 2003.
3. Paradoxically, the 9/11 Commission Report (2004) stated that its
   purpose was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events,” but
   “not to assign individual blame.”[7]
4. Nonetheless the Report accused al Qaeda of responsibility, basing
   25% of its supporting footnotes on torture testimony, and providing no
   spokespersons to represent the accused.
5. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow – a
   White House insider – framed the Report’s narrative in advance by
   providing an outline to the findings before the investigation had begun.
6. The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
   conclusions regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 were
   based on simplified models that defied Newtonian physics and were in
   conflict with direct observations.
7. After seven years of study, NIST granted that free-fall acceleration
   had taken place in 47-story steel-framed WTC Building 7, which was not
   hit by an airplane – but could only cite office fires to explain this
   unprecedented event.

III.           Cultural Pressures to Delegitimize Inquiry into 9/11
How could these extraordinary anomalies have been ignored and
overlooked by the academic community? The term “conspiracy theory” was
first introduced into common use by the CIA following the publication of
the Warren Commission report on the assassination of JFK, when “a
public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public
did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those
polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved.”
The document, released following a FOIA request in 1976, outlined the
CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American
government.”[8] The
term “conspiracy theory,” which had formerly held neutral connotations,
began to acquire a derogatory sense that identified certain topics as
off limits to inquiry or debate. It has even been referred to as a
“weaponized term.”[9]
One of the professors in the film referred to “the spiral of
silence,” and another to “thought stoppers” – such as the charge of
“conspiracy theory.” A third referred to 9/11 as “one government story
that’s untouchable.” Another said that raising the subject in academic
circles is somehow forbidden, unmentionable – that it sullies and
profanes a person to bring it up.  Sometimes persons who raise it are
themselves attacked. Indeed a number of professors who persevered with
research were vilified, harassed, and even dismissed for attempting work
in this area.
IV.           The Fallout from 9/11:
Although 9/11 itself has seldom been questioned within the academy,
its implications and fallout have been permissible fields of study, and
include:

1. The perpetual, ubiquitous “global war on terror,” starting with the
   2001 occupation of Afghanistan, and the loss of billions of dollars and
   hundreds of thousands of lives;
2. The 2003 occupation of Iraq (believed by many soldiers to have been
   justified by 9/11), with the further loss of billions of dollars and
   hundreds of thousands of lives;
3. The ongoing military involvement in Middle East countries such as Libya and Syria;
4. The fear and mistrust of Muslims caused by the Saudi identities of
   the alleged hijackers – which has undermined any possibility of global
   harmony and unification;
5. The suspension of US constitutional guarantees such as Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus (forbidding US army intervention in state and municipal affairs since 1878);
6. The introduction of electronic surveillance in violation of the US
   Fourth Amendment (1789) – confirmed in 1967 as applying to electronic
   surveillance as a violation of  “the reasonable expectation of privacy”;
7. Inconvenience and congestion in air travel worldwide.

It is uncanny that in spite of these horrific impacts, the academic
community has remained silent about the trigger event itself – barring a
few courageous professors who have researched the glaring incongruities
of 9/11 and the subsequent violations of international law. As
mentioned above, these people have met with derision, discipline, and
even dismissal.In summary:  30-40% of the population suspects that 9/11
was a false flag operation, constituting a state crime against
democracy. Rather than exploring the evidence that is visible in plain
sight, most of the academy simply looked the other way. One can only
hope that the academy will reverse its position and work to remove the
long shadow it has helped to cast over 21st century human civilization.
V.               Addendum: Success of the Documentary Since its Release in late 2013
A winner at the University of Toronto Film Festival, “9/11 in the
Academic Community” has been widely hailed as essential viewing:
Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University Professor of Public Policy, writes:
“This documentary confronts the academy’s uncritical response to the defining event of our times.”
Morton Brussel, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has stated:
“The main thesis of the film concerns the silence of the academic
community on this vital issue. I think it is extremely important and
very well produced.”
Prof. Kenneth Westhues, Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology
and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, and a Member, Society for
Academic Freedom and Scholarship, has written,
“Canadian academic historian Michiel Horn has observed that as a
rule, professors are milquetoasts. Here is documentary proof of Horn’s
observation, on the subject of this century’s first great day of infamy.
This film also documents exceptions to Horn’s rule: professors with
guts enough to raise critical questions. Highly recommended, especially
for provoking reasoned political discussion and debate.”
Paul Almond, Officer of the Order of Canada, and Award Winning Former Director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):
“People can benefit from learning about the event which clearly
changed not only American consciousness, but that of the whole world. I
believe this documentary should be shown as widely as possible.”
Dr. Roger W. Bowen, General Secretary of the American Association of
University Professors, and Professor of Political Science and President
of the State University of New York at New Paltz:
“Academic freedom protects scholars who report inconvenient truths
from the uninformed, but, as Adnan Zuberi reminds us, academic freedom
is also the responsibility of scholars to pursue the truth.”
Friedrich Steinhäusler, Professor of Physics at Salzburg University,
Former Co-Director of the NATO ARW on Catastrophic Terrorism, and Past
Chairman, US/German Transatlantic Expert Group on Terrorism:
“I hope that this material will be made available to the wider
international academic community in order to foster a wider, fact-based
discussion among researchers and students alike.”
Alvin A. Lee, President Emeritus, McMaster University:

“Whatever else is done by the men and women who work in
our universities, it is essential, I believe, that large numbers of them
stand sufficiently outside society intellectually to see, understand,
and interpret what is going on. I find it troubling that so few—there
are credible exceptions—have seriously engaged with the question of what
actually happened on 9/11 and why. There are so many holes and
limitations in the official version that it calls out for rigorous
intellectual fact-finding and analysis.”

This film reveals a new pathology that infests our society, in which
it is taboo for even academics to pursue politically disturbing truths.
 Let us hope that the film will continue to open the way for more open
discourse on 9/11, and the overwhelming body of research that
contradicts the official narrative.