Citizen Action Requested

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is urging citizens to contact their members of the U.S. House of Representatives this week to become co-sponsors of the Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.

The Act would empanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to re-investigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. It is named for a man killed by an explosion as he entered the North Tower that morning.

An email to Massachusetts recipients identifies three Boston-area U.S. Reps as possible sponsors — Stephen Lynch of District 8, Michael Capuano of District 7, and Katherine Clark of District 5. They were co-sponsors of House Resolution 14, which successfully called on President Obama to release 28 pages redacted from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11. Lynch and Capuano later co-sponsored the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA.

The message adds that although U.S. Reps. Seth Moulton of District 6 and Joseph Kennedy III of District 4 “were not sponsors of H. Res. 14 or JASTA … that doesn’t mean we should pass them up. Please make the call!”

More information here.

— Mark

The Over-Mile Effect

One commonly walks only limited distances. What is a long walk for you? A mile? Half-mile? Ten miles? Whatever it is, your body adapts to your foot-milage pattern; exceeding accustomed mileage activates the over-mile effect.

One can exceed one’s habitual or often-done mileage by the simple expedient of putting one foot ahead of the other. It works. However, it only works on the flat road. Even a curb can become a minor challenge to negotiate. Uneven ground more so, and downhill grades. One has to slow down. This is the over-mile effect.

— Bruce

From ‘Down East’?

In the absence of anything specifically concerning our walk across Massachusetts this spring to demand a new, honest and independent investigation into the crimes of 9/11, here’s the second recommendation this month of a website bearing the name of the state of Maine.

The site opens with:

“It’s not an easy thing to revisit the details of the day September 11, 2001. Yet our responsibility to justice and to posterity suggests that this effort is now needed.”

All of that introduction is at So are other informative sections including one titled “Fifty Reasons to Doubt the Official Account of 9/11.”

— Mark


What Bothers Me Most About 9/11

Complacency about the USA Patriot Act and its successor laws

Many people think: “9/11 happened a long time ago. It’s over. It doesn’t affect us now.”

Except it does.

Follow-on versions of the Patriot Act have gotten more severe, not less, to the extent that now any U.S. citizen (never mind non-citizens) can be detained for any reason and held indefinitely without charge, deprived of outside contact. That it has not yet been widely applied is cold comfort; that can change at any time. Wait until the next “crisis.”

— Bruce

No No, Northrup!

In place of something about 9/11 truth or our walk across Massachusetts, here’s a quote.

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

— Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, U.S.M.C. (1881-1940)

Caitlin Johnstone chose it to lead off her post about a recent news item at

Thanks to Mark Crispin Miller (no relation), who recommended it today.

— Mark

Some Resources

Considerable activity in the United States and abroad focuses on getting a full and accurate account of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The names of nine organizations and their URLs are listed below.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

9/11 Truth Action Project:

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry:

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity:

9-11 Review:

Imagine Peace and Plenty:

Maine 9/11 Truth:

Boston 9/11 Truth:

–   –   –

CORRECTION: The third bulleted item in yesterday’s entry should read, “To raise awareness about the complete nonsense of the U.S. government’s official narrative about the attacks, which the news and opinion media (outside of the Internet) have endorsed by their failure to challenge it.”

— Mark

Hello Again

Here’s re-introducing the website.

It got started as an extension of the trans-Massachusetts walk, which began from Provincetown at the eastern tip of Cape Cod on April 13 and ended at the New York State line at Hancock on May 14. We wore “9/11 TRUTH” signs on our backpacks and chests. Go to and scroll down for some pictures.

Among other reasons, we walked:

  • To call attention to widely unknown information about the attacks of September 11, 2001, known as “9/11.”
  • To demand a new, honest and independent investigation of the crimes that resulted in the deaths that day of nearly 3,000 people in the United States.
  • To raise awareness about the complete nonsense of the S. government’s official narrative about the attacks, which the news and opinion media (outside of the Internet) have endorsed by their failure to challenge it.*
  • To gauge public opinion along the way.
  • To talk with people we came across and hand them copies of a folder headed “Why 9/11 Truth Still Matters” put out by the 9/11 Truth Action Project.

Who are we? Two citizens. Bruce, nearly 79, is a former engineering analyst for GE Defense Systems and a retired member of the Worcester State College mathematics department faculty. Mark, 72, is a former newspaper co-owner and retired reporter and editor for several western New England newspapers and United Press International and Agence France-Presse.

Most of the thousands of motorists and hundreds of pedestrians we encountered along the way indicated neither approval nor disapproval about our signs — perhaps regarding the truth of “9/11” as a settled matter. Those indicating approval upon seeing or talking with us outnumbered those indicating disapproved by a ratio of 15 or 20 to 1.

The blog is intended as a “continuing presence” over time and space. Few people saw us and our black, white and orange signs more than once, but some could easily imagine our “demonstration” carrying over many days and miles along our Commonwealth-crossing corridor.

This is the blog’s 42nd entry. The first, headed “Hello Massachusetts, and the World!” was made on April 6, followed by several entries per week. Earlier ones have cycled off for readers.

That’s it for today, the Fourth of July. In future entries, beginning tomorrow, we’ll intersperse details of the walk, including its planning and followup, with information related to the crimes of September 11, 2001, and news of and by the growing 9/11 truth movement.

— Bruce Henry and Mark Miller of Pittsfield, MA

* There has been some excellent reporting in the mainstream media on the crimes of September 11, 2001, and much of it has been cited by researchers focusing on the evidence So far, however, mainstream media organizations capable of committing themselves to the investigation and analysis required to expose the truth have not done so.


If you can, go see “A Blanket of Dust” before the remaining four performances of its initial off-Broadway run are over Saturday. If you can’t, animate someone who can to go see it.

I finally did, and found last night’s show riveting. I know that’s a cliché and won’t go into the details because I’m not a professional theater reviewer (for reviews by people who meet that description, see the June 18, 22 and 25 entries below).

Mainstream reviewers have stayed away from “A Blanket of Dust.” It wouldn’t do to review it because their organizations are dedicated to ignoring researchers’ increasing evidence burying the U.S. government’s impossible narrative about the mass murders of September 11, 2001–and its first scenes take place on that day. So they’re not free to review it.

The character around whom everything revolves, 9/11 widow Diana Crane (Angela Pierce) has been likened to Sophocles’ Antigone. More pertinent, “A Blanket of Dust” concerns liberation, hers and her journalist brother’s, and what is required for America’s liberation.

A video of the discussion after last night’s show may find its way to the Internet. But the play may not.


— Mark

Something coming?

A full-page house ad in Sunday’s New York Times  proclaimed the following in a bold three-line headline:

The truth / demands / our attention.

Then, in wispy sans-serif type, a block of seven lines of this prose:

“New York Times journalists are committed to / reporting deeply, delivering definitive coverage / of the critical issues shaping our nation and the / world, investigative journalism, expert analysis, / an unwavering focus on the facts and multiformat / reporting provide a more complete, undistracted / view of the full story.”


Read. Watch. Listen.

Imagine the above 53 words set in a broadsheet page of white space.

What do they mean?

What does the word “our” mean in the headline: the New York Times’s,  or Times readers’?

If the newspaper’s journalists are committed to the best reporting, do they decide what “the critical issues shaping our nation and world” are and what “the full story” is, or are those decisions made by non-journalists in another department?

What are “the facts” that need to be laid out for Times readers?

When are readers and listeners and viewers of Times “multiformat reporting” worldwide going to get “a more complete” picture of what’s really going on? Or are they expected to be “undistracted” by other perspectives than the Times presents?

The ad could mean that “the newspaper of record” has been quietly investigating, possibly for years and possibly in sync with a consortium of other news organizations, what actually happened before, during, and after the mass murders of September 11, 2001, thousands of those murders in its own front yard, and is preparing to start publishing a series of comprehensive reports laying out what it came up with, for the consumption of a world that has been waiting for nearly 17 years.

Readers and listeners and viewers are waiting.

— Mark

Freedom of Speech

Give me a good musical anytime.

Apparently Chan Lowe and his wife agree. They took in “My Fair Lady” at Lincoln Center and he got a column out of the excursion for The Berkshire Eagle. It’s not about the famous play, but rather about “A lesson in life from the streets of New York” (the headline). You can look it up.

But if I could get to the city this week I would head for The Flea and one of the seven final off-Broadway performances of “A Blanket of Dust” including tonight’s at 7 and the Saturday matinee at 2. It takes on a real-life international tragedy that badly needs exposure, a job that has been assiduously avoided by our “free press.” (For details scroll down to entries for June 18 and 22 below.)

An exception to this journalistic avoidance was publication in WestView News of a guest column by a member of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. (For details scroll down to the entry for June 20 below.) This encouraging development is a side drama to the subject of the play on stage blocks away — searching for the truth behind the mass murders of September 11, 2001, that go on murdering every day.

My apologies to those who are tired of the repetition. Some things bear repeating.

Congratulations to WestView News publisher George Capsis, colleague Dusty Berke, and all who have written in comments about the column. And to everyone involved in the play including those who go see it.

— Mark