911: Independent Investigators Challenge ‘The Official Story’


“We refuse to let our knowledge, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.” 
― David Ray Griffin


Anyone who types the words “9/11” and “conspiracy” into an online search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old  David Ray Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. “For the first year and a half I just accepted the conventional view … that this was blowback for our foreign policy. When a colleague suggested to me … forces within our own government had arranged it, I didn’t accept that. Then several months later another colleague sent me a website that had a timeline. Once I … saw all those stories drawn from mainstream sources that contradicted the official account,  I decided I needed to look into it more carefully, and the more I looked, the worse it got. The fact that Building 7 … collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane … that’s a smoking gun. The fact that standard operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we’ve gotten three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did not intercept the planes, that’s a smoking gun. The 9/11 commission simply ignored those questions. The official account itself is a conspiracy theory. It says that 19 Arab Muslims…conspired to pull off this operation. The question is not whether one is a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. It’s which conspiracy theory do you find most supported by the evidence?”  (source)





Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Scholars For 911 Truth

 The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

ebook preview: Cognitive Infiltration