The Third Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture: ‘9/11 Truth Today’

On December 14, 2025, Professor Richard G. Ellefritz delivered the Third Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture, an end-of-year symposium hosted by the International Center for 9/11 Justice and UK Column in honor of the late Dr. David Ray Griffin.

Before the lecture, 9/11 family member Matt Campbell joined Ted Walter to discuss the latest breakthrough in his family’s effort to secure a new inquest into the death of his brother Geoff, and Dr. Madhava Setty gave introductory remarks.

Following the lecture, Dr. Setty facilitated an insightful roundtable discussion with Ellefritz and some of the most powerful voices in the 9/11 Truth movement today: Jason Bermas, James Corbett, and Sandra Laratonda.

Below is a video of the event divided into sections. Under the lecture and roundtable sections, we have provided detailed synopses to help viewers navigate and absorb the complex material and discussion topics. There are also links to various supporting materials related to Ellefritz’s lecture.

Opening Remarks

Ted Walter | 16 minutes

A 9/11 Family Goes to the UK Supreme Court

Ted Walter and Matt Campbell | 14 minutes

David Ray Griffin and 9/11 Truth Today

Madhava Setty, MD | 15 minutes

9/11 Truth Today: A Social Movement at the Precipice

Professor Richard G. Ellefritz | 1 hour 8 minutes

Speaker Bio

Richard G. Ellefritz is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of The Bahamas. He earned his Ph.D. in sociology at Oklahoma State University after successfully defending his dissertation on how the conspiracy label is used to avoid offering direct and rigorous rebuttals to empirical claims made by so-called conspiracy theorists. His research interests range from conspiracy discourse to pedagogical techniques, and his main occupational focus is on teaching a variety of courses in the social and behavioral sciences.

Resources

Abstract

Professor Richard G. Ellefritz’s lecture advances an epistemological critique of how challenges to official accounts of September 11, 2001, are delegitimized within contemporary public and academic discourse. Drawing on conflict sociology, stigma theory, and social-movement analysis, Ellefritz argues that the label “conspiracy theory” functions less as an evaluative category than as a boundary-maintenance mechanism that preempts empirical engagement. He contends that the 9/11 Truth Movement has been systematically mischaracterized as epistemically deficient, despite its ongoing empirical research, methodological pluralism, and engagement with institutional actors. By contrast, Ellefritz suggests that many anti-conspiricist frameworks rely on psychological pathologization and rhetorical dismissal rather than sustained evidentiary analysis. The lecture reframes 9/11 Truth as a legitimate, empirically grounded social movement and contributes to a growing body of scholarship that challenges prevailing assumptions about rationality, dissent, and knowledge production in politically sensitive contexts.

Section-by-Section Synopsis

1. Conflict Sociology and the Question of Power

Ellefritz opens by situating his analysis within conflict sociology, drawing on the early-twentieth-century work of Georg Simmel and Max Weber. From Simmel he takes the central analytical question “cui bono”—Latin for “who benefits”—and applies it to conflict, secrecy, and elite interaction. From Weber he draws a theory of social stratification, in which status groups maintain privilege through authority, honor, and institutional position.

A key concept here is social closure: elites create boundaries that separate insiders from outsiders, with outsiders typically serving or working for those in power. This framework establishes how authority and legitimacy are preserved and why challenges to dominant narratives are often treated as threats rather than contributions to knowledge.

2. The State, Crisis, and the Utility of Problems

Ellefritz then turns to the sociological definition of the state as the entity that monopolizes the legitimate use of force. He argues that crises are not merely endured by such institutions but are often organizationally useful, because problems justify solutions—and institutions that control solutions benefit from the persistence of problems.

Within this framework, the wars of aggression launched after 9/11 become a central concern of the 9/11 Truth Movement, whose call for investigation is framed not as abstract skepticism but as an effort to address questions of war, peace, justice, and truth that remain unresolved decades later.

3. Ideological Power and Structural Power

Ellefritz distinguishes between two broad sociological approaches to power. One focuses on ideology, drawing on Steven Lukes’s argument that the most effective form of power is preventing certain issues from arising at all by shaping discourse and perception. Media, education, and other ideological institutions play a central role here.

The second approach focuses on power structures, drawing on the work of C. Wright Mills, G. William Domhoff, and Peter Phillips, and includes analysis of elite networks and institutional interlocks. Ellefritz notes that concepts such as the “deep state,” often dismissed today as right-wing rhetoric, actually originated in left-wing critical scholarship (notably Peter Dale Scott), illustrating how ideological framing itself serves elite interests.

4. Framing, Recruitment, and Political Insiders

At a more micro-sociological level, Ellefritz examines framing processes and the importance of recruiting institutional insiders. He highlights figures such as Senator Ron Johnson, whose call for new Senate hearings on 9/11 represents a potential institutional mechanism for reopening investigation, and former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose engagement with 9/11 Truth goes beyond symbolic endorsement.

Media framing, however, often neutralizes these developments through selective representation and stigmatizing labels, reinforcing boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate discourse rather than engaging the substance of the claims.

5. Stigma, Labeling, and Moral Panic

Drawing on Erving Goffman’s work on stigma and Howard Becker’s labeling theory, Ellefritz explains how the label “conspiracy theorist” functions to spoil identity and disqualify individuals as reasonable interlocutors. This process creates insiders and outsiders of permissible discourse and parallels earlier sociological analyses of moral panics and symbolic crusades.

Rather than addressing evidence, the label “conspiracy theorist” itself performs the work of exclusion. Ellefritz emphasizes that this stigmatization is not accidental but a routine feature of how controversial claims are managed in modern societies.

6. Media, Propaganda, and Cascading Narratives

Ellefritz situates 9/11 within established communication studies frameworks concerning the agenda-setting and propaganda functions of mainstream media including Robert Entman’s cascading activation model, the work of Michael Parenti, and the manufacturing consent paradigm (see The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness, eds, Joan Pedro-Carañana).

Fear-based messaging—such as color-coded terror alerts—played a key role in reinforcing these official narratives. Within this context, Ellefritz characterizes the 9/11 Commission Report as a text that can be analyzed sociologically as a propaganda artifact rather than a neutral investigation.

7. Authority, Debunking, and Popular Mechanics

Using media examples such as Popular Mechanics and televised appeals to institutional authority, Ellefritz examines how debunking often substitutes credentials and tone for substantive engagement. He notes that successive editions of Debunking 9/11 Myths failed to address direct rebuttals, including David Ray Griffin’s later responses, while continuing to recycle earlier claims.

Here, Ellefritz implicitly advances an important analytical point: although the 9/11 Truth Movement is often accused of operating outside empirical standards, it is anti-conspiricist efforts such as Popular Mechanics that more closely resemble a degenerating research program—avoiding anomalies, declining to engage counter-evidence, and relying increasingly on rhetorical dismissal rather than explanatory development.

8. Network Power and Interlocking Directorates

Ellefritz introduces network analysis to show how media institutions are embedded within broader corporate and defense-industry structures through interlocking directorates. He stresses that this form of analysis is standard sociological practice yet is frequently dismissed as conspiratorial when applied to sensitive political topics, reinforcing the very stigmatization he has been describing.

9. Pathologization, Anti-Conspiricism, and Epistemology

A major portion of the lecture critiques psychological and social-scientific approaches that pathologize belief in conspiracy theories. Ellefritz explicitly aligns his analysis with Lee Basham and Matthew R. X. Dentith, referencing Basham and Dentith’s co-authored article “Social Science’s Conspiracy Theory Panic” and Dentith’s book Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously.

These works challenge the tendency to presume irrationality in advance of investigation and to rely on survey correlations, belief clustering, and stigmatizing concepts such as dysrationalia, crippled epistemologies, or degenerating research paradigms without engaging primary evidence.

Ellefritz makes clear—sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly—that the charge of being “not empirically grounded,” so often leveled against the 9/11 Truth Movement, more accurately describes anti-conspiricist scholarship itself, which frequently avoids empirical engagement in favor of psychological dismissal.

10. State Crime, Delegitimation, and deHaven-Smith

Ellefritz’s analysis converges with Lance deHaven-Smith’s concept of State Crimes Against Democracy, which emphasizes how large-scale abuses of power are obscured through institutional denial and delegitimation rather than lack of evidence. Within this framework, stigma and ridicule function as tools that protect official narratives from scrutiny.

Together, Basham, Dentith, deHaven-Smith, and Ellefritz articulate a shared epistemological position: The conspiracy label operates as a mechanism for avoiding empirical confrontation, not resolving it.

11. The 9/11 Truth Movement as Ongoing Research and Activism

Ellefritz characterizes the 9/11 Truth Movement as empirically engaged and methodologically diverse, citing ongoing work on seismology, structural analysis, and the free-fall collapse of World Trade Center 7. Drawing on Laura Jones, he situates the movement within the sociology of social movements and emphasizes its redefinition of patriotism as a constitutional obligation to question power.

Concepts such as “conspiratorial imaginaries” are clarified as cultural frameworks that sustain collective action, not indicators of irrationality.

12. Conclusion

Ellefritz concludes that the 9/11 Truth Movement remains a multifaceted, evolving effort to challenge dominant definitions of reality. Far from being empirically vacuous or socially deviant, it exhibits the features of a progressive research program, continually engaging new evidence and recruiting institutional allies despite persistent stigma.

The lecture ultimately reframes the debate: the central issue is not whether conspiracy theories are dangerous, but whether power can be questioned without dissent being pathologized.

Roundtable Discussion

Professor Richard G. Ellefritz, Jason Bermas, James Corbett, Sandra Laratonda, and Madhava Setty, MD | 1 hour 11 minutes

Discussion Topics

1. Teaching Critical Thinking Rather Than Prescribing Conclusions

Richard G. Ellefritz explains that his pedagogical focus is on teaching students how to think critically about power and authority rather than teaching specific conclusions about 9/11. Madhava Setty reinforces this framing by stressing the broader educational importance of cultivating discernment rather than indoctrination.

2. Straw-Man Debunking and Guilt by Association

Jason Bermas describes how 9/11 Truth is routinely discredited by being associated with fringe beliefs such as Flat Earth or QAnon, allowing critics to dismiss serious evidence without engaging it.

3. Hijacker Anomalies and Ignored Early Reporting

Jason Bermas outlines early mainstream reports indicating alleged hijackers’ ties to U.S. military bases, intelligence-linked individuals, and FBI informants that later vanished from public discussion.

4. The Mechanics of Straw-Man ‘Debunks’

Jason Bermas explains how debunking outlets rely on claims of “retractions” without demonstrating how the original reporting was disproven, thereby avoiding engagement with the broader evidentiary record.

5. Public Awareness as a Precondition for Institutional Action

Jason Bermas recounts Senator Ron Johnson’s view that evidence must gain public traction before official investigations or hearings become politically viable.

6. The Long Absence of Executive Accountability

Jason Bermas situates 9/11 within a broader historical pattern of impunity, noting the lack of meaningful accountability since Iran-Contra.

7. Internal Skepticism and Self-Correction Within the Movement

James Corbett challenges the stereotype that the 9/11 Truth Movement lacks internal critique, explaining that serious researchers regularly revise or abandon claims when confronted with better evidence.

8. Cognitive Dissonance and Psychological Resistance

James Corbett discusses the emotional difficulty many people experience when confronting evidence that threatens their worldview. Madhava Setty adds that such resistance is a common human response to existential threat, not a sign of intellectual deficiency.

9. Sociological Perspectives on Resistance to Evidence

Richard G. Ellefritz supplements the psychological discussion by describing interviews with activists who initially rejected 9/11 Truth but found certain evidence—especially regarding World Trade Center 7—impossible to dismiss.

10. Algorithmic Suppression and Platform Gatekeeping

Jason Bermas provides firsthand examples of age restrictions, warning labels, and algorithmic suppression applied to 9/11-related content on platforms such as YouTube.

11. Partial Openings and Persistent Failures in Alternative Media

Jason Bermas critiques alternative-media figures who reopen discussion of 9/11 while repeating serious errors or omitting crucial context.

12. Unexamined Documentary and Legal Evidence

Jason Bermas highlights extensive court records, intelligence documents, and civil-litigation material that remain largely unexamined by both mainstream media and academia.

13. The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing as Precedent

Jason Bermas draws parallels between the 1993 bombing and 9/11, particularly regarding FBI informant involvement and institutional misconduct.

14. Prospects and Limits of New Senate Hearings

Richard G. Ellefritz questions whether any credible experts could publicly defend NIST’s explanation of WTC 7, while Jason Bermas emphasizes that hearings would primarily establish a public record rather than deliver immediate prosecutions.

15. Is the Movement at an Inflection Point?

James Corbett argues that structural resistance has remained largely constant, with recent changes driven more by shifts in the media environment than by institutional reform.

16. Evolution of the 9/11 Truth Movement Over Time

Sandra Laratonda traces the movement’s progression from early street activism to credentialed organizations such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, followed by fragmentation and maturation.

17. Grassroots Organizing Versus Information Saturation

Sandra Laratonda emphasizes that while information is widely available, motivating people to take sustained action remains a central challenge.

18. Internal Dynamics, Gatekeeping, and Fragmentation

Sandra Laratonda and James Corbett discuss factionalism, accusations of gatekeeping, and the difficulty newcomers face navigating competing theories and organizational divisions.

19. Evidence-First Engagement Versus Broader Worldview Framing

Richard G. Ellefritz argues for prioritizing concrete physical evidence—particularly WTC 7—when engaging newcomers, warning that broader geopolitical implications can overwhelm audiences if introduced too early.

20. Fragmentation and Public Confusion

Sandra Laratonda explains how the proliferation of theories and organizations can make it harder for newcomers to distinguish strong evidence from speculation.

21. Distribution as the Central Bottleneck

Jason Bermas maintains that distribution, not discovery, has long been the primary obstacle to wider public understanding.

22. Post-COVID Shifts in Public Skepticism

Jason Bermas notes that COVID-era government and media behavior has increased public openness to questioning official narratives.

23. Defining “Victory” for 9/11 Truth

James Corbett frames success in terms of historical recognition and preventing future wars, while Sandra Laratonda emphasizes cultural and educational impact.

24. Internal Discord as the Greatest Obstacle

James Corbett warns that internal conflict could undermine genuine breakthroughs, including hearings or high-profile films.

25. Objective Evidence Versus Relativism

Jason Bermas forcefully distinguishes physical evidence—such as free-fall collapse and molten metal—from subjective interpretation, rejecting relativism in matters of science.

26. Psychological Courage and Democratic Responsibility

Richard G. Ellefritz closes by emphasizing the courage required to confront institutional deception and frames this as a civic responsibility necessary to prevent future harm.

9/11 Truth Ascending: Taking Stock after a Watershed 24th Anniversary

In Episode 4 of the IC911 Podcast, Ted Walter is joined by Richard Gage, Madhava Setty, and Piers Robinson to discuss the state of the 9/11 truth movement in the wake of the 24th anniversary and the Turning the Tide conference. Their conversation highlights new political openings, shifting public consciousness, and the growing unity across issues once treated as separate.

Topics Covered:

Reflections on Turning the Tide 2025 and the strategy of building broad alliances.
The Charlie Kirk assassination and how real-time public analysis is reshaping awareness.
Senator Ron Johnson’s proposed 9/11 hearings and the report he has tasked the 9/11 truth movement to prepare.
Tucker Carlson’s five-part series and its role in mainstreaming 9/11 skepticism.
The convergence of COVID, JFK, pro-Palestine, anti-war America First, and 9/11 truth communities into a shared movement.

Three Days, Three Dozen Talks: Your guide to every moment of Turning the Tide 2025

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice in 2025 brought together many incredible speakers for three unforgettable days of personal testimony and compelling evidence.

Soon, a dedicated website — TurningtheTide911.org — will serve as an archive of the conference. Each talk will be available as a stand-alone video published on Redacted’s Rumble channel and embedded on the new site. This resource will ensure that the voices and insights shared in Washington, D.C., on September 10th, 11th, and 12th, 2025, will reach people everywhere for years to come.

In the meantime, you don’t have to wait. Every presentation can already be viewed in the livestream videos from each day of the conference.

Below, you’ll find a complete guide to all 40 talks and discussions spanning a wide range of topics — from truly groundbreaking scientific findings to moving personal testimonies to urgent calls for accountability.

IC911 Research Director Piers Robinson on the role of watchdog organizations in war propaganda

In a timely interview following the recent Israeli and US attacks on Iran, IC911 Research Director Dr. Piers Robinson explains how international watchdog bodies like the OPCW and IAEA have been manipulated to justify Western regime change wars — from earlier assaults on Iraq and Syria to today’s mounting pressure on the Iranian government.

Speaking to Pascal Lottaz of Neutrality Studies, Robinson outlines how these institutions have served as tools of deception rather than as impartial investigators. Over the years, they have suppressed dissenting scientists, relied on politicized evidence, and perpetuated false official narratives surrounding known false flag events — as in the case of 9/11.

Robinson’s analysis offers a glimpse of the type of propaganda operations that are necessary — above and beyond the foundational deception of 9/11 — to manufacture consent for war.

9/11 Family Goes Before UK High Court in Fight for New Inquest

In the latest episode of the IC911 Podcast, Executive Director Ted Walter sits down with Matt Campbell for a behind-the-scenes recap of his family’s June 18 preliminary hearing in the UK High Court.

Matt, whose brother Geoff was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, has led a years-long effort to secure a new inquest into Geoff’s death — challenging the original 2013 inquest’s conclusion that the building collapse was caused by the airplane impact.

In this episode, Matt reflects on the hearing, in which two High Court judges heard arguments on whether the attorney general’s refusal to permit a new inquest is subject to judicial review. Matt shares how the day unfolded in court, what’s at stake legally, and why this case could set precedent for government accountability in England and Wales.

A ruling is expected within two to three weeks. Should the decision go against Matt and his family, they will have the opportunity to appeal — either to the Court of Appeal or, potentially, directly to the Supreme Court — keeping open the path forward.

The discussion offers a vivid look at one family’s relentless pursuit of truth and justice nearly 24 years after that horrible day. We hope you find it informative and, in its own way, uplifting.

Unscientific Method: How NIST Sidestepped the Evidence of Building 7’s Demolition

With the 9/11 truth movement currently making major strides and a powerful Senate committee chaired by Senator Ron Johnson potentially about to hold hearings on NIST’s “corrupt” investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, we would like to bring special attention to a very informative video presentation about NIST’s investigation.

IC911 Executive Director Ted Walter gave this presentation in 2022 following the conclusion of a “request for correction” process aimed at getting NIST to correct its final report on Building 7, and the presentation draws substantially from that process.

The presentation starts with a methodical summary of the foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse juxtaposed against the decades-long inability of federal and private investigators to explain the collapse after it happened — a concept Walter refers to today as “Foresight is 20/20.”

The presentation then goes on to explain the arguments made in the request for correction and NIST’s responses to those arguments, revealing the ways in which NIST sidestepped the key evidence of Building 7’s demolition.

Here are the chapters if you wish to jump to a specific part of the video:

Introduction — 0:00
Foreknowledge of Collapse — 3:30
The “Mystery” of Building 7’s Collapse — 12:13
Request for Correction Overview — 21:59
Area of Evidence 1: Structural Behavior — 25:51
Area of Evidence 2: Explosions — 52:19
Area of Evidence 3: Incendiaries — 1:20:40
Recap and Conclusion — 1:34:05

We hope you find it illuminating and a useful resource for your activism.

Watch on YouTube >

Setting the Record Straight on the North Tower Antenna: David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, PE

Seventeen years after he forced NIST to backtrack on its false claim that Building 7 did not come down in free fall, retired physics teacher David Chandler has produced yet another measurement that blows the NIST World Trade Center investigation out of the water.

This time around, Chandler has taken aim at NIST’s unproven assertion that the vertical drop of the North Tower’s antenna, which began a half-second prior to the downward motion of the building, was merely an illusion caused by the top of the building along with the antenna tipping southward as the exterior columns on the south face allegedly gave way before the rest of the structure.

In his recent paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Chandler proves that the antenna did indeed experience a vertical drop prior to any significant tipping, which must have been caused by the simultaneous failure of all of the core columns prior to the failure of any exterior columns. This finding invalidates NIST’s scenario that the collapse of the North Tower initiated along its south face. It also solidifies yet another piece of evidence for controlled demolition.

In this episode of IC911’s new podcast, IC911 Executive Director Ted Walter speaks with Chandler and civil engineer Jonathan Cole about the significance of Chandler’s new paper. We hope you find it informative!

About the Guests

David Chandler has been actively researching the scientific aspects of 9/11 since 2007. He is currently the coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth in addition to serving on the board of the International Center for 9/11 Justice. Chandler is best known for his research into the dynamics of the World Trade Center building collapses — which is documented in the many analytical videos he produced and narrated as well as in papers — and for forcing the National Institute of Standards and Technology to admit that WTC 7 underwent more than two seconds of absolute free fall. He has also extensively studied the attack on the Pentagon.

Jonathan Cole, PE, has been a registered professional engineer for over 35 years. In 2010, he began conducting real-world experiments in his backyard to either prove or disprove the official explanation of the Twin Towers and Building 7’s destruction. He is well-known for the videos he made documenting these experiments, all of which can be found at his YouTube channel physicsandreason and at 911speakout.org.

Exploring the Mind-Body Question as a Pathway to Peace

We at the International Center for 9/11 Justice are excited to announce the launch of a new podcast that will be a venue for conversations about research and current events related to the pursuit of 9/11 justice.

Episodes will feature a variety of hosts and guests and will air whenever there are timely topics to discuss.

For the inaugural episode, hosted by IC911 board member Marilyn Langlois, we were delighted to welcome physician Madhava Setty, MD, and historian Dr. Daniele Ganser for a conversation about “the mind-body question as a pathway to peace.”

Their discussion was a follow-up to Dr. Setty’s talk last December at the Second Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture. At that event, he covered several existential topics, including the possibility of reincarnation and its implications for human progress. He also spoke about the prospect of a “humanitarian revolution” that could lead to an unprecedented sense of togetherness and a rejection of the idea that war is necessary.

Recognizing the connections between these themes and the ideas often explored by Dr. Ganser in his own talks, Marilyn Langlois invited Dr. Ganser to have a conversation with her and Dr. Setty. The result was a stimulating and refreshing exchange, untethered from our usual focus on evidence-based analysis. We hope members of the 9/11 truth community will find it inspirational and thought-provoking.

Sections

(0:00) Langlois: Introduction
(2:15) Langlois: Guest Introductions
(7:04) Setty: How Our Thinking About Awareness Can Help Build Peace
(10:51) Ganser: Reaching a Position of Spiritual Power
(15:10) Setty: A Fearless Population Is Hard to Control
(16:10) Setty: Barriers to Looking at Things Clearly
(19:00) Setty: 9/11 a Gateway to Understanding Mass Deception
(21:14) Langlois: Only the Worthy Can See the Emperor’s New Clothes
(23:08) Ganser: 9/11 a Unique Opportunity to See We’re Being Deceived
(26:10) Ganser: More People Questioning Their Own Beliefs Post-Covid
(29:13) Setty: How Do You Know Which Experts to Agree With?
(32:22) Setty: We Should Not Impugn Our Opponents’ Motives
(35:50) Setty: Movement Toward Greater Consciousness Is Irrepressible
(37:55) Ganser: The Human Family
(46:10) Langlois: Distinguishing the Individual from Their Behavior
(47:15) Setty: The Reality of Both Light and Shadow
(52:00) Langlois: The Asset of Our Attention Span
(54:15) Ganser: Channeling One’s Attention Toward Reading and Nature
(57:05) Ganser: Dancing with the Shadow and Reincarnation
(59:45) Setty: Reincarnation Mindset as a Pathway to Peaceful Behavior
(1:04:40) Langlois: Altruism, Not Self-Interest, Motivates Positive Behavior
(1:06:45) Setty: Reincarnation Mindset as Potential Double-Edged Sword
(1:09:23) Setty: Smart Phones as Weapon and Tool
(1:11:08) Setty: Don’t Embody the Puppet, Embody the Puppeteer
(1:15:25) Ganser: Peace Movement Needs to Emphasize the Good
(1:19:10) Setty: Exercise Your Ability to Recognize Your Own Biases
(1:22:00) Setty: Let’s Not Take Ourselves So Seriously

About the Guests

Dr. Setty is science advisor to IC911, author of the book Woke: An Anesthesiologist’s View, and former senior science editor for The Defender, the online publication of Children’s Health Defense. His Substack is called “An Insult to Intuition.”

Dr. Ganser is a historian based in Switzerland and author of the books NATO’s Secret Armies and USA: The Ruthless Empire. His website is DanieleGanser.ch.

The Second Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture: ‘My Post-9/11 Awakening’ by Dr. Madhava Setty

On December 15, 2024, Dr. Madhava Setty delivered the Second Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture, an event hosted by IC911 and UK Column in honor of the late eminent scholar who contributed immensely to the pursuit of truth and peace during his lifetime.

In this thought-provoking lecture entitled “My Post-9/11 Awakening: A Path to Self-Liberation and Unity,” Dr. Setty, an anesthesiologist and former engineer, spoke about several related big-picture topics, including the possibility of reincarnation and its implications for human progress as well as the view among astrologers that humanity is headed for a sustained period defined by cooperation and an emphasis on the collective.

Dr. Setty imagines that this “humanitarian revolution” will lead to an unprecedented sense of togetherness and widespread rejection of the idea that war is necessary, which he argues humans have been programmed for centuries to believe.

Before the lecture, Dr. Piers Robinson gave opening remarks and Dr. Niels Harrit shared moving reflections on the truth-telling of Dr. David Ray Griffin. After the lecture, there was a lively roundtable discussion featuring Dr. Setty, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Harrit, along with Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, Dr. Josh Mitteldorf, and Frances Shure.

Video of the event is now available here, together with a transcript of the opening remarks and lecture. We hope you find the Second Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture as stimulating and inspiring as we did!

Proceedings

Opening Remarks

By Dr. Piers Robinson | 8 minutes

Remarks on Dr. David Ray Griffin

By Dr. Niels Harrit | 17 minutes

My Post-9/11 Awakening: A Path to Self-Liberation and Unity

By Dr. Madhava Setty | 53 minutes

Roundtable Discussion

Dr. Piers Robinson, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Madhava Setty, Mary Holland, J.D., Dr. Josh Mitteldorf, Frances Shure, L.P.C. | 83 minutes

Speaker Bios

Dr. Madhava Setty has been a board-certified anesthesiologist since 2003. Prior to receiving his medical education and training at Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Setty was an engineer in the aerospace and defense industry, where he designed software interfaces between graphics engines and real-time combat training simulation and acoustic data acquisition systems under contracts with the Bundeswehr and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Setty holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from MIT. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he left his clinical practice to serve as the senior science editor for The Defender, the online publication of Children’s Health Defense. Dr. Setty is the author of WOKE: An Anesthesiologist’s View, a systematic examination of the bias in science, history, the media, and our own minds. He writes “An Insult to Intuition” on the Substack platform.

Dr. Niels Harrit served as associate professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen 1971 – 2009 and published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers. Since 2007 he has been actively involved in the global movement for 9/11 truth. He was the leading author of a scientific paper, published in April 2009, describing the findings of active thermitic material in the dust from the collapses of the three (!) skyscrapers of the World Trade Center. He was a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel. Over the years, Dr. Harrit has given 400 presentations on the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland. Since 2020 this activity has been extended to cover the false narratives of the so-called Covid-19 pandemic from a scientific perspective.

Mary Holland, J.D., is CEO of Children’s Health Defense. She has been writing and advocating for better vaccine law and policy for many years, including while she served on the faculty at NYU School of Law from 2002-19. She is co-author of two books on vaccines, “Vaccine Epidemic” and “The HPV Vaccine on Trial,” as well as several law review articles.

Dr. Josh Mitteldorf was 34 years old with wonderful adventures under his belt but no career focus, when a wise statistician friend told him, “finish your PhD in physics. Then you can do whatever you want.” He took the advice to heart. Mitteldorf is best known for two controversial but insightful books on the biology of aging. He was a statistician for election integrity activists in the era when voting systems were being computerized, and he was a founding member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth in 2010. He plays piano in chamber ensembles and French horn in a community orchestra. His two daughters were among the first to be adopted from China in the 1980s. His prescription for a long life can be read at AgingAdvice.org, and his Substack is UnauthorizedScience.org. He is a local board member for Children’s Health Defense (PA), and his pieces are occasionally featured in The Defender. Some of his poetry can be found at PoemHunter.com, and this month he has launched a book and web site with classical sonnets for each of the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching, available at I-Ching.guru. He has taught a weekly yoga class for 47 years.

Frances Shure, L.P.C., is retired from being a psychological therapist specializing in early trauma. She is one of the co-founders of Colorado 9/11 Truth and currently on the governing board of that group. She was featured as one of the group of psychological professionals who contributed to the video, 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out, and helped to produce the video, The Demolition of Truth-Psychologists Examine 9/11. She is the author of the renowned essay series, Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?

Dr. Piers Robinson is research director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice as well as co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He is also co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global “War on Terror,” member of PANDA and BerlinGroup21, and co-editor of Propaganda in Focus. His most recent academic appointment was Chair/Professor in Politics, Society and Political Journalism (University of Sheffield 2016–2019). He is author of The CNN Effect: the myth of news, foreign policy and intervention (Routledge, 2002), lead author of Pockets of Resistance: British news media, war and theory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (Manchester University Press, 2010), and co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Media, Conflict and Security (2016).

Transcript of Remarks and Lecture

Dr. Piers Robinson:

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. It’s a great pleasure to welcome you to our Second Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture from the International Center for 9/11 Justice, in cooperation with UK Column.

Today we have a fantastic lineup of speakers. We have Dr. Madhava Setty, who’s going to be delivering the lecture today. Madhava is an anesthesiologist and an engineer as well.

Joining us after his talk for a roundtable discussion, we have Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry — very well known within the 9 /11 truth movement. We have the great pleasure to have Mary Holland with us from Children’s Health Defense and author of two books: Vaccine Epidemic and The HPV Vaccine on Trial. We have Josh Mitteldorf, PhD in physics, best known for two controversial but insightful books on the biology of aging. And last but by no means least, we have Frances Shure joining us. She’s a retired psychological therapist specializing in early trauma and a major figure in the 9/11 truth movement.

For people who are not familiar with the International Center for 9/11 Justice, just to say a little bit about the organization before we come back to the annual lecture.

The International Center for 9/11 Justice was established two years back. Its priority is to increase public understanding and awareness of the events of 9/11 and to raise public awareness of a whole variety of issues which are now linked to 9/11: the global war on terror, the conflicts that we see in the international system, and also other events, such as Covid-19, is an area of research and inquiry.

We’re set up both as an academic research organization and also a public engagement organization. We have The Journal of 9/11 Studies. We are home to The Toronto Report and to the 9/11 Consensus Panel. We have a Debated Topics Forum, and there’s a range of research activities going on. And obviously, we are people who have been for a very long time cognizant of the issues with the official story regarding 9/11. That has driven us as an organization in terms of our mission and our goal.

It would be remiss of me not to raise this, given the seismic changes we’re seeing in the international system, particularly in the Middle East — the fall of the Syrian government: What we’re seeing, what we’re living through at the moment, is essentially several years down the road from 9/11 — 9/11, the event designed to instigate conflict in the international system.

And of course, famously, Wesley Clark revealed this a number of years ago — 2007, I think it was. He revealed the list of regime change wars which were being planned prior to 9/11, after 9/11. All of this was further documented in the Chilcot report, for example.

The Western war machine was embarked upon an aggressive militaristic campaign in the international system in order to shore up its position as the world was changing. And 23 years on, here we are and we’re seeing the ongoing, very direct consequences of the 9/11 false flag and a very direct consequence of all the regime change wars. As we see Syria in the last week has fallen to a 14-year regime change operation to overthrow the Syrian government and now the question is being raised as to whether that attack will, as Wesley Clark pointed out in back in 2006–2007, end up with a targeting of Iran itself. So more than ever,

I think the work of the International Center for 9/11 Justice is highly relevant.

Just to give you a little bit of an idea about the range of work we conduct here:

We engage in academic research into issues surrounding 9/11.

We had a symposium, for example, in September, looking at questions around the aviation aspects of 9/11.

We’re involved in legal processes.

We’re involved in supporting the Campbell family in their battle to get an inquest into the death of their son on 9/11. And that’s recently had some good news — successful news in terms of pushing that issue forward with the British Attorney General.

We’re involved in media engagement. Ted Walter, our executive director, recently gave an interview with Neil Oliver, who many in the audience will be familiar with, recently.

And we’re also actively putting out publications, both academic-orientated publications and publications orientated at engagement with the wider public.

So, we do an awful lot in IC911. We also need support in order to do that.

And I just wanted to flag up before we move to the lecture event itself: We are in a major year-end fund drive to try to get support for all of the work we’re doing, to allow us to continue the research, continue the public engagement, continue the legal battles.

People can see there on the screen, the web page. If they go to the home page of IC911, in the top right-hand corner, I think, they can click on “Donate.” We welcome all donations large and small and, as I say, it is essential for us to be able to continue our work and the work we’ve been doing for the last two years and beyond that.

So, now, let’s bring ourselves to the event itself today.

David Ray Griffin. Many of you will be familiar with him, perhaps not everyone. Professor David Ray Griffin, who passed away in 2022, was one of the first and was to become one of the most prominent academics who raised substantive questions about the official story of 9/11 — the claim that Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11.

He made a major contribution in terms of books and in terms of public engagement, battling with the mainstream media, trying to get them to cover the issue.

This lecture series was established in order to pay homage to him, to make sure his name is remembered, and to also use it as a platform for these annual lectures, where we can explore a wide range of issues beyond the immediate issues surrounding 9/11 — immediate issues surrounding global war on terror, Covid-19, and so on.

That’s what we’ll be having today with Dr. Madhava Setty. A very rich, deep talk about questions of how we know about the world, which I think people are going to find very inspirational and very fascinating. So, he’s the reason why we’re here today: David Ray Griffin.

Now, Niels Harrett, whom I briefly introduced before, former associate professor of chemistry at University of Copenhagen, major figure within the 9/11 truth movement, published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers. He was a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel. And in the last 15 or so years, he’s given talks in many, many countries around the world about the destruction of the buildings in New York on 9/11.

Niels also knew David Ray Griffin well. And before we get to Madhava’s talk today, Niels wanted to say a few words about David Ray Griffin. So, the floor is yours, Niels.

Dr. Niels Harrit:

Thank you very much.

Now the headline for today’s second annual David Ray Griffin Lecture and panel discussion is “My Post-9/11 Awakening.” That’s the headline. But the most popular example of what an awakening can look like is the famous folk tale by Hans Christian Andersen called “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” in which some [inaudible] to have made clothes of a cloth, having a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who is unfit for office or who is unusually stupid.

It will be illustrative to quote the last section of this fairy tale, where the emperor has decided to put his people and government officials on a test. Quote:

So, off went the emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the window said, “Oh, how fine are the emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!”

Nobody would confess that he or she couldn’t see anything. For that would prove him or her either unfit for their position or unusually stupid. No costume the emperor had ever worn was ever such a complete success.

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said. “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said his father. But one person whispered to another what the child had said. “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

At last, the whole town cried out, “But he hasn’t got anything on.” The emperor shivered, for he suspected that they were right. But he thought the procession has to go on. So, he walked more proudly than ever, as his nobleman held the train that wasn’t there at all.”

Now, apparently nothing happened, but something definitively had happened. Everyone had seen the emperor’s legs. Many had had a big laugh. Everybody knew that everybody knew that everybody had seen the emperor’s legs. The genie was out of the bottle, and genies cannot be put back into bottles.

Some things happened after 9/11, but on a different time scale.

In the real-time reporting on the day, the mainstream media commentators actually recognized the enormity of the event and that only state actors would have the capacity to do that.

Not only was it said openly, but their body language and face revealed this realization. But as Ehud Barak — the former Israeli Prime Minister who in the morning accidentally came by the BBC newsroom in London — dropped the name Osama bin Laden, it took the global media only a day and a half to disregard the obvious and get in line with what should be the official narrative.

The launch of that narrative was possible due to the state of shock and awe we all were in. You cannot think when you are in shock, and you cannot see what you cannot think.

So, in the beginning, only a few people could think the unthinkable and dared to speak up. Like Thierry Meyssan, a French journalist and author, who published a book, The Pentagate, as early as 2002. Speaking truth to power comes with a price, and he had to flee to the protection of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In 2004, Michael Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts came out with the book, Crossing the Rubicon.

But it was another book that also came out in 2004 which came to be the starting signal for the 9/11 truth movement. I am, of course, referring to David Ray Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor. Together with the advent of YouTube and videos on the internet, The New Pearl Harbor became an eyeopener and a source of factual evidence for many.

Many people went “What?” An illustrative story was that of Richard Gage, later of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who heard an interview with David Ray Griffin on his car radio on the occasion of the book release. Richard had to stop the car. “What?” His life was changed in that very moment, and so have many other lives been changed by that book.

More books on 9/11 were to follow from Griffin’s pen. And many books on the subject appeared from other authors. But Griffin’s books stand out as the most thorough and comprehensive. The impact was so profound that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2008 and 2009 and was named among “The 50 People Who Matter Today” by the New Statesman in 2009.

The main reason why these books remain the primary reference for all research into 9/11, in my opinion, is Griffin’s acknowledgement of evidence as the only basis for dealing with the physical world.

I remember at the time, I found it remarkable that he, as a theologian, was so thorough, so rigorous in his quest for the evidence. But to keep track of the references and their validity is quite an academic challenge when you are dealing with a subject like 9/11. One thing is the kind of reference everyone calls “the hard evidence.” That is what comes out of physics and chemistry. And when natural science is performed correctly and honestly, it provides the best hypothesis of the day. Like gravity. You cannot dispute gravity.

But the whole narrative is covered by the fog of war. Not only is the subject vast and complicated, but it also was and is deliberately swamped, flooded with dis- and misinformation, digressions, and red herrings. It is hard work to identify and list the valid information and references. So, David Ray Griffin was in need of a good librarian, and God sent him Elizabeth Woodworth.

She amplified Griffin’s already-enormous capacity for collecting evidence, evaluating it and transforming it into highly readable, meticulous prose, which [inaudible] the many books on 9/11 that continue to come out.

To clear the fog of war and settle some of the disputes about what to believe and what not, Griffin and Woodworth launched the 9/11 Consensus Panel project in 2011. In this project, a panel tried to evaluate the available information of many 9/11-related topics and eventually reached consensus as to what was the best evidence.

On some topics, it was not possible to reach consensus, and they had to remain open, the topics. But on 51 topics, they reached consensus, which allowed them and the readers of the collective report to make up their minds and to believe, for example, where Dick Cheney was on 9/11.

For a [inaudible] account of David Ray Griffin’s life and body of work, I recommend Elizabeth Woodworth’s obituary on www.consensus911.org.

In David Ray Griffin’s presentations, we saw a man of ultimate integrity, laying out the facts and the consequences with great clarity. He could raise his voice, yes, but he never yelled at people. Griffin always tried to unite, never divide. He did not reject the mainstream journalists but tried to interact and address their audiences on their premises.

I agreed to that strategy. It was right at the time. We needed the press and should try to get them on our side. But time has changed. Now, the only thing left for journalists and politicians is disdain.

As David Ray Griffin also pointed out, truth is a one-way street.

For instance, once you have understood the implications of gravity and have seen Building 7 go down in free-fall acceleration, there is no way back.

There will always be an internal child who tells the truth. Yes, it can’t be hushed up. If you want to make a living out of lying, if you want to be a politician or mainstream journalist, you must compartmentalize the inner voice. You must lock up your internal child. This is what George Orwell calls “doublethink.”

Except for psychopaths, people don’t want to lie. Deep within, most people, journalists included, don’t want to lie. But once they have lied the first time, they are trapped. There is, namely, a tribal thing called shame — even for emperors. Admitting that you have lied becomes harder than telling the truth. So, you lie a second time instead. And as you repeat your lies again and again, you start believing them yourself. You carry on like the emperor. That is the life of our politicians and mainstream journalists. But we know now that they know that we know they are lying.

David Ray Griffin was everything our mainstream journalists and politicians are not. He spoke truth to power, as many great men and women have done through the ages.

One particularly famous truth-teller was Galileo Galilei, who is eerily connected to the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

The fate of these buildings can be boiled down to a tale about gravity. And Galileo’s two laws about gravity signaled the birth of natural science in the beginning of the 17th century. His work illustrates maybe the most important feature of the Renaissance — namely, the shifts in how nature, our physical world, was addressed.

Instead of being something you philosophized about, nature became something you looked upon. You made quantitative observations, and you did experiments. Galileo did both. He collected evidence. He was very good at making telescopes, so he could see Jupiter’s moons and the faces of Venus, which implied that the planet circulated around the sun as did the planet Earth. To believe, to say, and to write that the earth revolved around the sun was downright heresy at that time. Nevertheless, that was what Galileo wrote in a book in 1632. He was tried by the Inquisition in 1633, found vehemently suspect of heresy, and forced to recant. He avoided being burned at the stake.

All Galileo’s writings were put on the church index of forbidden books. The ban was gradually lifted over the years. But it wasn’t until 1835 that all traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared when these specific works were finally dropped from the index. Very recently, in 1992, the Pope acknowledged that the Inquisition had erred in condemning Galileo for asserting that the earth revolves around the sun. Talk about censorship!

Now, is this a universal story — or have the times changed?

Yes. The lies are no less abundant. In fact, they are blatantly dominating the public domain.

Yes. The judicial system is still a power tool for the elite.

And yes. Many truth-tellers are still paying the ultimate price.

But no. Among other important achievements, we have had the first American Revolution and the Bill of Rights.

So, no. While Galileo’s books were banned for 200 years, David Ray Griffin’s books are still available on Amazon — most of them.

And now the internet allows for the citizens of the town and the world to watch the emperor’s thin legs on Twitter, now X. Many have had a good laugh. And humor is a strong antidote against power.

Now, the deep state is getting stripped naked by the day. I have never believed that 9/11 as a single course could break the hegemonial empire of lies. I still expect that everything will come down in an avalanche. That 9/11 truth can be an important driving force in that process is understood when you recognize that the subject is still one of the rock-solid taboos in the public domain.

An even stronger force and a more painful taboo prone to be dismantled is the so-called Covid-19 pandemic. It was and remains an attack on humanity. So, there is some serious post-9/11 awakening yet to come.

But the beacon of David Ray Griffin still shines.

Thank you for your attention.

Dr. Piers Robinson:

Thank you, Niels, for those words of truth and courage. It’s very inspiring. Thank you very much.

Before we go to Madhava, I just want to quickly note that we will try to include some questions from the audience. We’re going to have the roundtable discussion, obviously, after Madhava’s talk. But if people send questions to the email “Questions@IC911.org” we will endeavor to at least engage two or three of them after the talk.

Now to the main event. It is my great pleasure to welcome Madhava Setty. I gave a little bit of an introduction before: anesthesiologist, engineer. Quite a few strings to his bow. He was senior science editor at The Defender. He’s also the science advisor to IC911, very proud to say. Involved with Children’s Health Defense. Author of Woke: An Anesthesiologist’s View, which is a systematic examination of bias in science, history, the media, and our own minds. So very appropriate, therefore, the issues that Madhava’s going to be exploring in his lecture.

Without further ado, I welcome you, Madhava. Thank you very much for giving the Second Annual David Ray Griffin talk. The floor is yours.

Dr. Madhava Setty:

Well, thank you very much, Piers. And thank you, Niels, for that most appropriate introduction to what I’m about to offer today, as you will all see very shortly.

It is a distinct privilege for me to offer my thoughts on this occasion, to honor a truly honorable person, a man with a prodigious mind and patience, Dr. David Ray Griffin.

I had never heard of David Ray Griffin seven years ago when my wife casually showed me a 7 second video of the Salomon Brothers building dropping like a stone on 9/11. We were hosting an intimate dinner with two of our closest friends on a chilly New England evening in October.

I watched the clip over and over again in silence. I finally muttered, “It’s being blown up”.

“Yes. They blew up the twin towers too”, said our friend Nick. I pried my eyes off of my wife’s iPhone and looked at him.

“Who are They?”

“You know, The psychopaths in our own government and other governments. They’re part of a cult that has been slowly working to control humanity for centuries if not longer. You know, the illuminati? The CABAL?”

I looked him in the eye and asked,

“Dude, What the hell are you talking about???”

Two weeks later after learning everything I could about the official explanation and how it failed miserably to explain what was observed, the first thing I said to my wife was,

“Dear God. What are we to do?”

For the next week we would lie in bed at night, sheets over our heads wondering who else knows about this? And what might happen if we say something? If “they” could blow up three skyscrapers in Manhattan and get away with it, they surely have been silencing anyone who has tried to speak up about this, right?

It didn’t take long to realize that I wasn’t alone–that people have been very public about demanding an independent reinvestigation of those events. Those of you in the audience. Those of you participating in this round table. Piers Robinson, Kevin Ryan, Neils Harret, David Chandler, Ted Walter, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Frances Shure, Graeme Macqueen. The list is very long indeed. And for every person who has had the opportunity to have their voice heard on large public forums there are ten thousand more who are aware and have been endeavoring outside of the public sphere to tell the secret and expose the truth.

However it was David Ray Griffin who led the movement to expose the machinations of those who operate behind the scenes, outside of oversight and with limitless impunity. It was his courage that allowed me to pull the sheets from off of my head and begin writing and talking about it without fear of reprisal or worse. By taking such a bold stand so early on Griffin offloaded the requirement for courage. After all, you don’t need courage if there is nothing to fear but public rebuke as opposed to a midnight visit from a SWAT team or a drone strike.

In the years since I have been most interested in understanding why when confronted with the same evidence, some will ponder it and ask more questions while others will discard it out of hand. I have spoken to more than my fair share of engineers who accept the absurdities of NIST’s final reports on the Twin Towers and Building 7. I am surrounded by medical professionals who continue to support the CDC’s PSAs around the need for Covid-19 boosters despite the fact that their guidance resulted in the worst Covid outcomes of any country.

I have also spoken with hundreds of people outside the medical field who met unrelenting pressure to inoculate against Covid with unshakeable resolve to not comply and folks without a mechanical bone in their body who have had no problems accepting the fact the twin towers did not fall down, they blew up.

David Ray Griffin is the primary example of how one doesn’t need to be a structural engineer to know what a building being blown to smithereens should look like. Why did it take a philosopher of religion to speak out against the pundits and talking heads so early on?

The most obvious reason is because we are living in a world that is defined by doctrine and not logic or objectivity. One that has been crafted not by science, as much as scientism.

In the end my best answer is this. It’s not a matter of one’s understanding of kinematics, exothermic chemical reactions or the pitfalls of transfecting our cells with modified RNA. Most people are not experts or even have a working knowledge of science yet they have to decide for themselves what is valid and what isn’t, what is information and what is disinformation.

For most the only way to do this is by asking “does it fit into my overarching model of everything, my world view”. But what is a “World View”?

For most, a world view is no more than a collection of beliefs around a limited scope of topics AND … trust. Trust in third parties. The government. The CDC. Their teacher. Their pastor. Their Rabbi. Fox News, The Washington Post. There is little chance that anyone would be able to recognize misinformation if most or all of these trusted voices champion the same false narrative.

This is precisely why David Ray Griffin was not thrown in the slammer for speaking the truth. It wasn’t necessary. They knew few would believe the truth if they heard it. That is why organizations like the International Center for 9/11 Justice are permitted to exist. That is why we are allowed to come together today and broadcast our seditious signal to those who have the ears to hear and the mind to understand.

The intent of my commentary today is to ask you, how can we transmit a more effective signal? I suggest that in order to tweak it, to make it more penetrating and transformative, we need to first take a closer look at what we are really up against.

We commonly consider the unnamed people who sit in institutions of science, media, the military industrial complex, foreign governments, central banking as our direct adversaries. But I believe that our real adversary is a distortion in our collective cognition. In other words, ultimately, we have to change the way people think about things at a very profound level before any enduring change is possible.

There is no question that the public is very confused. This fact is being used to weaponize censorship as the antidote for misinformation. There are many who buy into the idea that some signals need to be suppressed for the greater good. If we are not vigilant, there may be a time very soon when commentary like this may not be permitted to disseminate outside of small gatherings or conversations between trusted friends.

History has shown us that this can happen. And we don’t have to look far back in time or far from our own doorsteps. The last four years should have shown us that a public exposed to an intense fear campaign will be driven into a frenzy to act in irrational ways and demonize those who don’t go along. Highly credentialed and published physicians and scientists became pariahs overnight. They lost their affiliations, their board certifications, their medical licenses, their reputations earned from a lifetime of doing the right thing.

We may be wishing for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11 or accountability around the pandemic response, but ultimately if we have a population that cannot be discerning we will continue to be driven to act against our own inalienable right to speak freely and exist as sovereign individuals or be lulled into complacency around the status quo. What we are really up against sits deep in the psyche of the collective.

We are a planet of billions of individuals who believe that the world is too complicated to understand because that is what we have been taught. Trusting the experts and authorities is easy. It requires no effort. Breaking free from this way of thinking is not easy for most people.

This is why it is taking some time for the world to see things clearly.

My Own Story

Before getting too full of ourselves under an assumption that we have the whole picture and others do not, I am going to tell you a story, my own story, of what happened to me after that otherwise unremarkable evening in October seven years ago.

When it finally sunk in that there were forces that were, up to that moment, invisible to me my whole life that were orchestrating tragedies, misleading the public through their control of a media complex, I was struck by the fact that I was oblivious to something that big and pernicious for so long.

What else had I been unaware of? What else had I been taking as true out of trust?

I am going to take you down the rabbit holes that I explored and explain where it left me. A disclaimer: what I am about to share with you are my own opinions and conclusions, not those of IC911, or any other organization I am or have been affiliated with as an engineer and physician.

Another disclaimer, most if not all of what I am about to share is speculative and impossible to validate given our present abilities to measure and verify. But even more importantly, what I will be sharing is also impossible to invalidate for the same reasons.

And before we discount the utility of speculation, let us not forget that the first step of the scientific method is the formation of a hypothesis which is a purely speculative endeavor. A hypothesis, by definition, is an explanation that has no evidence to support it.

Forming hypotheses is how our understanding advances.

The rest of my commentary today is an invitation to see what comes up for you. No doubt that for some of you, everything I share has always been obvious. Some will find it new and intriguing. For others it may seem preposterous and almost blasphemous to even consider.

If you find you are in that last group, I suggest that you may be confronted with the same barriers that arise for those who cannot accept that we have been misled around the events of 9/11 when we attempt to offer them information that runs counter to their programming.

Please understand I am making no demand that you agree with me. My intent is not necessarily to change minds. My intent is to change the way we think and to challenge you to discover where you may be stuck and perhaps find compassion for those who cling to their ideas out of their need for certainty or safety.

So, with that said, I went searching for the real reasons for why a reasonably intelligent and educated person like myself had been wrong about very big things. It led to the first distortion: equating “Knowing” with “Believing”.

Knowing versus Believing

Is there a difference between the two? In the way I define it, there is a huge difference. For the purposes of this presentation and the discussion that follows, I define Knowing as being aware of an immutable fact. Believing is trusting in a third party or holding an opinion that can be refined or dismissed when more information becomes available. The problem I noticed is that if my beliefs do not change for a long while, I regard them as things that I “know”.

What’s the problem with that? The problem is that believing carries with it an element of uncertainty, the possibility that I could be wrong. That possibility, no matter how minute, offers me the possibility of shifting my understanding if necessary. Knowing, by my definition, offers no such flexibility. Remaining stuck is the price we pay for the comfort of certainty.

To demonstrate how easy it is even for an alert and careful mind to slip from believing to knowing, I like to refer to a poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the United States in 2012. They asked approximately 2,200 Americans a series of questions, one of which was this:

Does the sun orbit the Earth, or does the Earth orbit the Sun?

26% of respondents answered incorrectly; they believed that the Sun went round our home planet once a day. To my friends in the UK, I am sorry to say that a different survey conducted in 2005 in the EU found that 1 in 3 got it wrong.

Though 26% seems like an embarrassingly large percentage of people who maintain an idea that Western societies have rejected for over four centuries or longer, my question to you is this: if you know that the Earth orbits the Sun which sits in the middle of our solar system, how would you prove it to the 25% who got it wrong, without referring to a third party?

If you are unable to at least describe how we arrived at this understanding, I suggest that you don’t know that the Sun is at the center of the solar system, you only believe it. You believe what you have been told by your teachers, your community or what Neil De Grasse Tyson says about it.

By the time I was in the fifth grade I had read every book on astronomy in our school’s library. While my classmates memorized stats of their favorite MLB players, I was able to cite the orbital periods of the planets and their approximate distance from the sun. I would do so unprompted, earning me the label of a nerd, a label that I secretly enjoyed.

In high school I worked at our local observatory, photographing and cataloging the constellations. As an undergraduate at MIT, my thesis was part of a project involving wide area X-ray CCD satellite cameras to make them able to detect celestial events automatically and relay the information to the ground when they happened. My first job out of college was with McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company which was tasked with building one large module of the ISS.

And yet I was in the seventy five percent that got it right but I still couldn’t fathom how anyone could prove, using their powers of observation from the surface of the Earth, which model was correct.

How were the early stargazers equipped with rudimentary telescopes able to prove that we live in a heliocentric, or Sun centered solar system? It’s a fascinating problem that has relevance to what we are confronted with today.

You see, it is impossible to know with certainty what is going on in the heavens purely from observations from the Earth’s surface alone. Although Galileo could show that Jupiter’s moons orbited the giant planet and not the Earth, this could easily be dismissed as an exception to an overarching concept, a world view–literally.

Four tiny dots clinging to a pale disk when seen through a looking glass is enough to topple the Earth from its exalted state in the eyes of God?

Microscopic particles of unignited explosives found in the dust at ground zero is enough to abandon my trust of my elected government and the free press?

That is why the central authority in Europe was able to insist, for 12 centuries, that they had it right and people like Kopernicus, Galileo and others who could use their heliocentric model to make predictions with increasing accuracy, were in fact heretics.

While a heliocentric model offers a far more elegant explanation which explains how relatively simple movements of our celestial bodies reconciles with what we can see in the night sky from our own backyards, the ascendant authority, the papacy, insisted that the Earth had to be in the center of God’s creation.

To put it in classic philosophical terms, the Church’s Earth centered universe was an axiom, or a statement that is so evident that it is taken as true without question. Two thousand years prior to Galileo’s day, however, a Greek mathematician, Aristarcus of Samos, also proposed that the Earth and other planets orbited the sun. At that time, there was no Church that decreed what could and couldn’t be questioned.

And so, Galileo was confined to house arrest at the end of his life because he would not recant. It took another fifty years before Sir Isaac Newton put forth his theory that we could reliably predict how objects with mass move and the Church was finally forced to concede. Interestingly, it is these laws of motion that undermine the official explanation of the destruction of the twin towers.

In other words, if you believe in the official explanation of the destruction of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, you may as well believe that all the planets, stars and galaxies orbit the Earth everyday.

Prior to Newton’s time, those who believed that the Church was infallible could not accept that they could be wrong about what was unfolding in the sky every night. The point is that authority must confine the way we think before they can confine the way we live. In this case, the people were sold an illusion not about what they were seeing but in how to interpret it.

Choosing a wrong axiom will result in a model that looks like this:

To describe this:

And so, as I put everything I knew up for reconsideration, I found that I knew almost nothing but had a broad understanding that was based almost entirely upon beliefs. This kind of deconstructive process was an effort to obtain what Zen Buddhists refer to as beginner’s mind, an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions.

In my opinion, beginner’s mind is necessary to approach a subject like 9/11. Unfortunately, seeking beginner’s mind requires a gram of curiosity and a metric ton of humility. This is likely the reason why so many with letters after their names seem to be stuck.

As I sorted out everything, separating what I knew from what I believed I found that there were very few things that I knew. In fact there was only one immutable fact, something that was so evident that it could be universally accepted as true and unquestionable. It boiled down to a single axiom.

At any given time, I may know that I am hungry, tired, in pain or happy, but only if I am aware of such sensations and emotions. In other words, underlying everything that I know at any given moment is awareness itself.

Though we each are experiencing different things at any given moment we can all agree that if we are able to ask ourselves, am I aware, the answer will always be yes. I am aware. That is self-evident. When I got right down to it, that is the only thing that I know. In order to be aware of an immutable fact, I first must be aware.

Anesthesia and the Mind-Body Problem

Perhaps you are asking yourself, what on Earth does this have to do with 9/11 or David Ray Griffin?

I will tell you, but we must take one more step to unpack the statement “I am aware”. What do we mean by “I”? More specifically I am asking, are we biological systems that are aware? Or are we awareness itself inhabiting a biological system which we call our body?

This is where all the rabbit holes led for me. This is the axis upon which my understanding of reality spins. Here I am approaching a fundamental question asked by all philosophers from Descartes to Kant from Plato to the Buddha. In the West, this is called the mind/body problem. How are the mind and body related?

Are they two entities that influence each other? The answer must be yes. An emotional state can result in the production of certain neurotransmitters and signaling molecules in the brain and body. Similarly, injury or the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body will influence a person’s thoughts and emotions.

There is no question that we have a body, but what exactly is the mind? It must exist, but can it be measured materially? If it cannot be measured materially, how then does it interact with the physical body? This is what philosophers and more recently neuroscientists have been scratching their heads about.

One of the last books David Ray Griffin wrote prior to the events of 9/11 was titled, “Unsnarling the World Knot: Consciousness, Freedom and the Mind-Body Problem”. I have not read the book and I am unfamiliar with his perspective on this topic. It turns out, coincidentally, that I had been contemplating this topic for some years prior to waking up to 9/11.

The mind-body problem in philosophy is at the core of perhaps the biggest mystery in medicine: the mechanism of anesthetic gases.

Anesthetic gases are of the oldest class of medications being used today. It was in 1846 when a dentist named William Morton gave the first public demonstration of anesthesia just a few miles from my home at the MGH. He anesthetized a young man with ether so that a surgeon could excise a tumor in his neck. When he came to and reported no recollection of the event, it is said that many of the surgeons in the audience wept after witnessing this feat.

Though some would argue that vaccines or antibiotics are the greatest contribution of western medicine to humanity, I believe it is anesthesia. Without it, none of the marvels of surgery could be possible, at least mercifully. From hip replacements to transplant surgery to heart bypasses, none would be possible without modern anesthesia.

The stunning thing is, 178 years later we still do not understand how a gas like ether works. To explain why this is, I must first explain what the word understand means to the medical orthodoxy. You see, western medicine is actually based in a philosophical doctrine called materialism, the idea that everything, including awareness, is the result of matter interacting with itself. It is an axiom decreed by the medical orthodoxy and challenging it expels you into the realm of pseudoscience.

The most logical explanation as to why we have been able to map our own genome but not understand how and why a person breathing one part in fifty of a modern anesthetic gas like sevoflurane is rendered unconscious is because awareness is not a material phenomenon.

Although we have identified certain structures in the brain that are active in awake people and dormant in the unconscious, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these structures are the source of awareness, they are better thought of as structures that are active when consciousness is present in the body.

When we apply the deconstructive approach of western medicine to our brains, we will eventually find molecules interacting with other molecules. Does it make sense that our dynamic, multisensorial experience of being awake could be expressed materially? 178 years of searching has gotten us nowhere because our assumed model is incorrect. When you go looking for molecules, that’s all you will ever find.

If we broadened our examination of human experience to consider more extreme situations, another wrinkle appears in the Western paradigm. Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are all characterized by lucid awareness that remains continuous during a period of time while outside observers assume the person is unconscious or dead. Sometimes patients who have experienced an NDE in a hospital or in the operating room can accurately recount what was said and done by people attending to them during their state of clinical death. They are able to accurately describe the event from an observer’s perspective, often viewing their own body and those around it from above.

There are thousands of such accounts which come from interviews with hospitalized patients who suffered a cardiac arrest. Dr. Bruce Grayson, Emeritus professor at the University of VA and others found that a significant percentage of patients who survived resuscitation could recall some of the event. A smaller but not insignificant portion had very detailed recollections that cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence.

This is more evidence that our bodies are not the source of consciousness AND that consciousness is not confined to our bodies.

And if that weren’t enough, we must contend with the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others.

Dr. Ian Stevenson was a physician and professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine for 50 years. He served as the Chair of Psychiatry for ten of them. He is best known for his research into the study of reincarnation. During the course of his career he assiduously compiled over three thousand case studies of individuals who reported living on this planet as a different person prior to their current life.

What is fascinating about these cases is that the subjects are not adults that claim they were Pharaohs or Knights that served King Arthur in a “past” life. The subjects are children who caught the attention of their families when they were very young. They would insist that they had lived rather average lives before, had families of their own and recalled their previous name, details and location of their previous home and occasionally, the circumstances around their death. Often they would go ignored for some time but their dogged refusal to recant their peculiar tales was a matter of some curiosity to their families.

The fascinating part of many of the children in Stevenson’s extensive case series is that the child’s parents or others familiar with their story eventually stumbled across convincing evidence that the person the child claimed to have “embodied” in a previous life actually lived and died before their birth. Dr. Stevenson would attempt to authenticate the child’s account through interviews with the surviving members of the family of the deceased person the child claimed to have been. Sometimes extremely specific details of the previous life were confirmed, such as secrets that were kept between their old self and their spouse or physical details of their previous home that would only be known to those who lived there. When the child was “reunited” with the family of the deceased they could identify many of those in their old family, and pick out the imposters that Stevenson had planted to test the specificity of their recall.

His 2200 page, two volume tome, Reincarnation and Biology contained 225 case reports of children who remembered previous lives and who also had physical anomalies, like birthmarks, that matched those previous lives, details that could in some cases be confirmed by the dead person’s autopsy record and photos. More convincing evidence that we are awareness first and our physical bodies secondarily.

While we may dismiss Stevenson’s lifetime of work as unscientific or a scheme to confuse us with fanciful ideas, on what grounds would we do this other than our sacred beliefs? These beliefs may be sacred, but they are merely beliefs and not immutable facts.

Moreover, we are still confronted with the centuries old mystery of anesthesia. We can package genetic instructions into lipid nanoparticles that co opt our cellular machinery to crank out perfect spike proteins weighing 200 thousand daltons each, yet we don’t know why a simple molecule like diethyl ether puts us to sleep.

I’m an anesthesiologist, and I have chaperoned 20 thousand patients to a state of deep unconsciousness and back to their baseline interactive state using modern anesthetic gases like sevoflurane, also a relatively tiny halogenated hydrocarbon, without knowing how it works. I believe we will never discover its mechanism using the paradigm we have adopted.

I believe we as a species are reincarnating. It’s a belief. It’s not an immutable fact. It’s a hypothesis that reconciles our inability to identify the mechanism of inhaled anesthetic agents, NDEs, and the uncanny stories coming from the mouths of babes.

Given the fact that we can’t KNOW, what working model should we adopt, given the nature of the horrific events that seem to be unfolding with increasing frequency? 9/11 was the most audacious of a long series of false flag events that pit armies and ideologies against each other with devastating consequences for humanity.

Each subsequent tragedy galvanizes our idea that we are a belligerent species, that new wars must be waged to avenge the lives lost from previous ones. Warfare is perpetuated. Each conflict reaffirms that peace is just a pipe dream that can never really be achieved because of our differences, while at the same time each conflict reifies those differences.

Imagine what would happen if we collectively agreed that we have always been reincarnating. Those of us alive today would have been responsible for at least some of the horrific events in human history. Some of us here today would have been the victims. Some the perpetrators. Some the bystanders who thought they were powerless and watched it happen. The problem is that we cannot know who is whom. The only reasonable course of action would be to drop our weapons and the labels we use to separate us from them and forgive each other, because we really cannot know who is more culpable today. Doing anything different would be pure insanity.

The truth of the matter is that in order to reap the benefits of this world view we don’t have to know we are reincarnating, we just have to believe it.

It begs the question, what is in our way besides our own heretofore unchallenged beliefs about these things?

“The wish not to believe,” Stevenson himself once said,“ can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.”

I am not an expert in the so-called secret societies that purportedly possess hidden knowledge they use to manipulate the rest of us. But if there were such societies and secrets, the understanding that we have been reincarnating might very well be a significant part of the hidden knowledge they possess. Imagine the power a small group could wield if it understood the intricacies of reincarnation upon a world that believed that death was the termination of their existence and that their identity was defined solely by their present race or religion.

At the very least, accepting that we are, in our essence, something that transcends the death of our bodies, offers us a potent weapon against the very real interests that use fear to extinguish our ability to reason so that we accept the only solutions they offer. A population that isn’t afraid to die is very, very hard to control.

Whether or not we are in fact reincarnating, it wouldn’t be in the interest of those who profit from the business of war, conventional or biological, for us to adopt it into our world view. I hope that that, in and of itself, will give us reason to pause and consider this openly.

There is another substantial benefit in accepting reincarnation. What kinds of decisions would we as a collective make knowing that it will eventually be we who will suffer the repercussions or enjoy the fruits of our policies a hundred or a thousand years from now? While we like to think that we act out of our concern for our children and their children, we really don’t.

The greatest attack on their prosperity is central banking, a diabolical system that allows governments to fund any expenditures they wish, especially wars. The price is always disproportionately borne by future generations, with their sweat and blood. We could dismantle central banks right now, but we don’t. Perhaps we would if we knew that we and no one else would be shouldering the debt that we are incurring today.

J.P. Morgan and Astrology

The Federal Reserve is the Central Bank of the United States. It was brought into existence almost exactly 111 years ago to this day through the efforts of the wealthiest men in the country. One of whom was JP Morgan. Morgan was a chief architect of the Fed and of the first false flag of the 20th Century.

The United States entered WWI after The Lusitania, a massive British liner with 195 American civilians on board, was sunk by a German U-boat attack. Prior to setting sail from New York, The Lusitania was loaded with tons of weaponry including six million rounds of ammunition purchased with funds raised for England through JP Morgan’s investment house. This was done in broad daylight with the ship’s manifest a matter of public record.

The German government protested that using such a ship to transport weapons was in direct violation of international neutrality treaties. The American government denied this was taking place. The German embassy then appealed to the American people directly, placing ads in newspapers urging them not to book passage on The Lusitania as it represented a strategic target that would fall under German attack. The U.S. State Department prevented these warnings from being run. Only one escaped the State Department’s censorship umbrella. It ran in the Des Moines Register:

At this time J. P. Morgan was profiting from selling English and French bonds to American investors to raise money for their war effort against Germany. In addition, the two countries spent significant sums on products purchased from companies in Morgan’s control. When it became clear that Germany was nearing victory through their control of shipping lanes in the Atlantic with their U-boats, Morgan’s income stream was threatened. England, France and the American investing house knew their causes would only be saved if the United States entered the war against Germany.

At the time this seemed a practical impossibility as Woodrow Wilson, approaching reelection, was riding a broad anti-war sentiment sweeping the country. This all changed when The Lusitania sank. The details of this disaster are disquieting. After crossing the Atlantic, the Lusitania was to be met with a flotilla of British destroyers to protect it from a certain U-boat attack. The destroyers never showed up and the fate of the ship, its civilian passengers was sealed.

Morgan had, in the meantime, purchased control over major segments of the media and flooded the public with pro-war editorial. The media and the USG worked together to see that America entered WWI on April 6, 1917. War expenditures were met by monetary expansion engineered by The Fed. Between 1915 and 1920 the monetary supply doubled and the value of the dollar dropped by nearly 50%.

Over 100 thousand American lives were lost in bloody combat or disease. Young soldiers who sacrificed themselves out of patriotism were in fact used, ultimately, to protect Morgan’s financial interests.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the JP Morgan character was his interest in astrology. He has been attributed to saying,

“Millionaires don’t use astrology, billionaires do.”

Whether or not this individual with the ability to impose his will over geopolitics actually uttered these words is up for debate, however Evangaline Adams, an astrologer claims in her 1926 autobiography that Morgan consulted her regularly.

Of course, astrologers say that Morgan’s interest in astrology should be of no surprise because he had Uranus rising in Pisces, which of course means that he would have been naturally drawn to astrology and metaphysics…

How a planet’s position can influence an individual person’s emotions or motivations is beyond my understanding, and most probably beyond anyone else’s, astrologer or not. This is why I personally, treated astrology as no more than a curiosity only to be entertained while waiting for a meal to be served at a Chinese restaurant.

However astrology, in one form or another, can be traced back thousands of years to Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Chinese and other cultures. Undoubtedly ancient societies could learn much from the sky about the rhythm of the seasons, when to plant, harvest or migrate. Advanced civilizations, those with the acumen to make more precise measurements, record them and most importantly, having the luxury of the time and freedom to raise their gaze from the shrubbery to the skies above and ponder, realized that the annual cycles of the seasons were part of much longer ones, where slow moving planets moved against the backdrop of constellations over centuries.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before cultures began to superimpose their own deeper meanings to the movements of celestial bodies and the cycles that take more than a human lifetime to unfold.

My attitude towards astrology has shifted. I no longer regard it as a fanciful set of ideations to be dismissed out of hand. Instead, I am more curious, a good sign that I am on my way to beginner’s mind. There are two reasons for this.

First, by accepting that humanity has been reincarnating, I’ve opened my mind to the possibility that we, the souls on the planet, could be changing and evolving over many lifetimes. Could it be possible that the planetary positions that change over the centuries and the precession of the equinox over thousands of years are more like timekeepers that signal inevitable shifts in the way we think and organize rather than having some kind of psychic control over us?

Earlier this year I had the good fortune of experiencing a total solar eclipse. This kind of event has some significance in astrology. Says one astrologer:

“Eclipses are times of unexpected changes. They’ll show you where in your life you’ve been holding on to something that is past its prime, trying to force something to go in a direction it’s not supposed to…”

The very next day, April 9, a senior level editor and reporter at NPR, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing article which criticized the bias in reporting he witnessed at the news organization favored by the intelligentsia in this country.

Within the next month at least three remarkable events took place. The New York Times published an article “Thousands believe they have been injured by the Covid Vaccine. Is Anyone Listening?” which acknowledged the possibility of Covid vaccine injuries for the very first time.

Former CNN anchor, Chris Cuomo who endlessly derided the unvaccinated and their foolish notions that Covid could be treated with repurposed drugs admitted that he was wrong and was taking Ivermectin to treat long Covid.

Peter Dazak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, the infamous organization funded by the NIH to do gain of function research was found guilty of obstructing investigation into the origin of SARS-COV2 by a congressional subcommittee.

Of course these could all be coincidences unrelated to the Solar Eclipse in North America. It did make me curious. What would happen to me next? Or what happened to me soon after I was witness to other solar eclipses in the past.

To my recollection, I witnessed two eclipses prior to the one this year. One was in May, 1994. Two months later, I quit my engineering job in Cambridge, MA, packed up my car, drove to Texas and began my education and new life in medicine.

The next occurred while I was in Maine on vacation. I remembered that I was riding a ferry boat between islands off the coast. I looked it up on Wikipedia. The date was August 21, 2017, once again two months before I became aware of something called the movement for 9/11 Truth.

More coincidences…

Last month, the former planet Pluto entered the sign of Aquarius where it will remain for the next two decades. To astronomers this is nothing to write home about. Planets (and lowly objects like Pluto) are constantly moving in and out of zodiac signs as they and the Earth orbit our Sun.

To astrologers, this represents an enormous shift in our collective psyche. They tell us that we are in for a ride. Pluto, they say, carries the energy of death, birth and transformation.

They say that the focus will shift toward dismantling outdated hierarchies, making way for a society that thrives on inclusivity, collaboration, and forward-thinking solutions. It’s a powerful push toward a future in which collective dreams take precedence over individual gains, challenging us to rewrite the rules and rally together for a better, brighter tomorrow.

Pluto into Aquarius signals a massive humanitarian revolution. Pluto in Aquarius has the potential to generate new government structures, groundbreaking technology and medicine, and social innovation that changes the course of history.

Is it all just feel-good gobbledygook? Maybe. However the last time Pluto sat in front of the constellation of Aquarius was at the end of the 18th century. Two decades that saw the rise of self-governance with the American and French Revolutions.

That period also saw the inception of the first vaccine, a new technology with enormous potential of protecting humans against deadly diseases. Pluto heralded a disruption in the hegemony of the ruling class and the idea that the only way a person can be protected from an infectious disease was to first survive it was challenged for the first time.

Is it just another coincidence that now both vaccines and self-governance are up for serious reconsideration? We are now waking up to the reality that neither are what we thought they were. Vaccines have the potential to both help and harm. Self-governance can liberate, but only if the individual isn’t fooled into advocating for restrictions upon their own freedom.

Finally, on a much grander time scale, humanity is entering the age of Aquarius. For the next two thousand years or so when we gaze East on the first day of spring it will be the constellation of Aquarius and not Pisces that will appear at dawn behind the rising sun.

Astronomically this gradual shift through the twelve zodiac signs over 26,000 years is due to the wobble of the earth’s axis, or axial precession. Astrologers have not come to any consensus about when exactly this new age will be upon us, if it isn’t already.

However there is agreement that the Age of Aquarius will see a rise in cooperative effort, an emphasis on the collective and not the individual. Intriguingly, this age will see a shift from top down to bottom up solutions to our problems.

Astrologers say that the tendency for the masses to follow leaders and institutions in the age of Pisces will be upended. I believe we are seeing this happen in front of our eyes. Trust in legacy media, political leaders and the medical orthodoxy is crumbling, making it necessary for us to make sense of things for ourselves. We are witnessing the growth of independent thought because the alternative is simply no longer acceptable as it once was.

The birth of the internet has made it possible for ideas to spread quickly outside of a hierarchical control. This is, perhaps the biggest bottom-up response to the control the top has had over the way we think. Sense-making no longer has to be outsourced to third parties.

Transactions which could until recently, only be validated by a centralized authority, can now safely, securely and anonymously take place through blockchain technology which leaves validation to the collective. It’s another bottom-up solution.

In other words, the arbiter of truth when it comes to the exchange of ideas and wealth will be the collective and not a third party. Authority becomes distributed and not centralized.

A massive shift is upon us and it is very possible that this shift has been inevitable. If the forces that have run the planet for the last two thousand years saw this coming, I suggest that their only play would be to see that the shift would work to their advantage.

Isn’t that why the WEF, which brings the most powerful and influential persons, politicians and private and public organizations together to set an agenda for the rest of us, has been talking about a Great Reset?

Top down solutions are quickly becoming antiquated. In order to cling to the old ways authority has only one strategy: to keep us divided and angry and fearful of each other.

Conclusion

I see obvious similarities between today and Galileo’s time when an inaccurate model of reality was being imposed upon a trusting public.

Today the public is being fed another inaccurate model of reality, that we live in a world that is divided by insurmountable barriers in the way we think, the way we live, the way we worship, the way we vote, the way we look. We have been programmed to think that these barriers make conflict unavoidable. If conflict is unavoidable, perhaps it is better to fight on our terms and not someone else’s. Preemptive strikes must be considered. Bombs and missiles become regarded as deterrents and not the instruments designed to destroy human life that they are.

If there were a way to achieve peace it would have to be through war, right? This insane model can only flourish in a species that has been deeply programmed.

Four hundred years ago the spell that the public was under broke because of a new understanding that came out of left field. Then it was the theory of gravitational attraction—an understanding that the objects in the sky were not just inextricably linked by an invisible force, but that they moved in concert with each other, with a predictable cadence in patterns that unfold over centuries or longer, in cycles.

What will be the radical discovery of our time that blows away the idea that war is necessary, that it is only logical to assume a competitive posture with everyone else?

Whatever it will be, it will undermine the idea that we are separate. That we are different from each other. Is there anything that transcends skin color, ethnicity, political affiliation and cultural identification? Whatever it is, it cannot be seen or measured. It has to be intuited.

Everything moves in cycles. All the stars we can see with the naked eye are the tiniest fraction of the billions of suns which all circle the center of our galaxy. The moon waxes and wanes over 28 days. Planets and constellations disappear behind the daytime sun until they reappear for another spell, over and over again. Is it so difficult to accept that we may also be appearing, disappearing and reappearing like everything else in nature? This is what some of the older souls on the planet are hinting at. These are the children whose recollections predate those of their own parents.

So to conclude, I want to say that I am extremely hopeful that we are headed for an incredible future. I think it is inevitable. It’s been only seven years since my eyes opened to the real state of the world through an open reexamination of 9/11. In that short time, I have seen a substantial shift in how people regard the idea that something fishy happened that day.

For those of you who have been on this road for two decades or longer, I applaud you and your persistence. 23 years is a long time, but I want to remind you that it’s only the blink of an eye when it comes to planet-wide transformations.

If the astrologers are correct, we have entered a new age where individuals will have to see things for themselves, using their own powers of discernment. How can we best nurture this shift?

We are trying to change minds on a large scale. What happens when we regard 9/11 not as a setback but as an event that has catapulted us ahead? Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars to prove that their products exceed the efficacy of a placebo—a benefit offered by a mind that expects to feel better. It’s a powerful benefit, much to the dismay of Merck and Pfizer.

What might happen if we collectively accept that our efforts are not in vain but have been destabilizing to a power structure that is quietly in full retreat?

What happens if we drop our frustrations around the pace of our progress and instead know that we will enjoy the fruits of our work in this lifetime or the next?

We are the pioneers of this time; we have no predecessors. We must take this responsibility seriously.

The bad actors need to be identified to be held accountable, but how will we move forward from there? If we are connected in ways that we have not fully apprehended or understood, punishment and retribution may carry unexpected consequences for everyone, including the innocent.

When I envision our planet free from the influence of hidden interests it’s obvious that we won’t be fully liberated until reparations are paid and our thirst for revenge has been quenched. But is this even possible? How would we ever agree on what would constitute just punishment for the horrific acts conducted over just the last century? There is only one antidote to hatred. It’s forgiveness. Finding it may be the biggest challenge that we will face in the years to come.

Two thousand years ago during the last transition between astrological ages forgiveness was a radical idea. It still is. Are we finally ready to embrace it and leave judgement to a higher power? Or do we need another two thousand years of suffering before we concede that we simply do not know enough to proceed under our same model of reality?

Thank you all for your attention this afternoon. Thank you to UK Column and to my colleagues at the International Center for 9/11 Justice. And my deepest gratitude to Professor Griffin. I would like to think that you tuned in today too.

Inside the upcoming preliminary hearing in the Geoff Campbell 9/11 inquest case

Matt Campbell, the brother of British 9/11 victim Geoff Campbell, and Ted Walter joined the 9/11 WarRoom earlier this week to break down the latest major development in the Campbell family’s effort to reopen Geoff’s inquest and establish that his cause of death was the demolition of the North Tower.

If you’re interested in an in-depth analysis of the British High Court’s unusual and encouraging decision to order a preliminary hearing, be sure to check out this interview. The run time is one hour and 15 minutes, but you can learn much even from watching just a portion of it.

Many thanks to hosts Sandra Jelmi and Gene Laratonda for having us and to everyone who participated in the discussion!

The Third Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture: ‘9/11 Truth Today’

Opening Remarks

Ted Walter | 16 minutes

A 9/11 Family Goes to the UK Supreme Court

Ted Walter and Matt Campbell | 14 minutes

David Ray Griffin and 9/11 Truth Today

Madhava Setty, MD | 15 minutes

9/11 Truth Today: A Social Movement at the Precipice

Professor Richard G. Ellefritz | 1 hour 8 minutes

Speaker Bio

Resources

Abstract

Section-by-Section Synopsis

1. Conflict Sociology and the Question of Power

2. The State, Crisis, and the Utility of Problems

3. Ideological Power and Structural Power

4. Framing, Recruitment, and Political Insiders

5. Stigma, Labeling, and Moral Panic

6. Media, Propaganda, and Cascading Narratives

7. Authority, Debunking, and Popular Mechanics

8. Network Power and Interlocking Directorates

9. Pathologization, Anti-Conspiricism, and Epistemology

10. State Crime, Delegitimation, and deHaven-Smith

11. The 9/11 Truth Movement as Ongoing Research and Activism

12. Conclusion

Roundtable Discussion

Professor Richard G. Ellefritz, Jason Bermas, James Corbett, Sandra Laratonda, and Madhava Setty, MD | 1 hour 11 minutes

Discussion Topics

1. Teaching Critical Thinking Rather Than Prescribing Conclusions

2. Straw-Man Debunking and Guilt by Association

3. Hijacker Anomalies and Ignored Early Reporting

4. The Mechanics of Straw-Man ‘Debunks’

5. Public Awareness as a Precondition for Institutional Action

6. The Long Absence of Executive Accountability

7. Internal Skepticism and Self-Correction Within the Movement

8. Cognitive Dissonance and Psychological Resistance

9. Sociological Perspectives on Resistance to Evidence

10. Algorithmic Suppression and Platform Gatekeeping

11. Partial Openings and Persistent Failures in Alternative Media

12. Unexamined Documentary and Legal Evidence

13. The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing as Precedent

14. Prospects and Limits of New Senate Hearings

15. Is the Movement at an Inflection Point?

16. Evolution of the 9/11 Truth Movement Over Time

17. Grassroots Organizing Versus Information Saturation

18. Internal Dynamics, Gatekeeping, and Fragmentation

19. Evidence-First Engagement Versus Broader Worldview Framing

20. Fragmentation and Public Confusion

21. Distribution as the Central Bottleneck

22. Post-COVID Shifts in Public Skepticism

23. Defining “Victory” for 9/11 Truth

24. Internal Discord as the Greatest Obstacle

25. Objective Evidence Versus Relativism

26. Psychological Courage and Democratic Responsibility

Topics Covered:

Day 1: Cutting-Edge Evidence

Day 2: Reflection and Action

Day 3: Pentagon Discussion

About the Guests

Sections

About the Guests

Proceedings

Opening Remarks

By Dr. Piers Robinson | 8 minutes

Remarks on Dr. David Ray Griffin

By Dr. Niels Harrit | 17 minutes

My Post-9/11 Awakening: A Path to Self-Liberation and Unity

By Dr. Madhava Setty | 53 minutes

Roundtable Discussion

Dr. Piers Robinson, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Madhava Setty, Mary Holland, J.D., Dr. Josh Mitteldorf, Frances Shure, L.P.C. | 83 minutes

Speaker Bios

Transcript of Remarks and Lecture

Dr. Piers Robinson:

Dr. Niels Harrit:

Dr. Piers Robinson:

Dr. Madhava Setty:

My Own Story

Knowing versus Believing

Anesthesia and the Mind-Body Problem

J.P. Morgan and Astrology