A note from the SOTT.net editors:
SOTT.net recently published an English translation of Dr André Rousseau's analysis of the seismic data recorded on 9/11
during the impacts and collapses of the WTC towers. His paper is one more contribution to what is becoming a large library of scientific evidence that the official story of what occurred on 9/11 is completely bogus.
However, while the paper has now appeared in various places on the net, we have not been surprised to see numerous comments by anonymous, online personae warning of the "dubious" nature of SOTT's intentions and research. One of these comments, found on the popular website 9/11 Blogger, decries our coverage of UFOs. After all, if the 9/11 Truth Movement is to retain its "credibility" it should avoid being associated with other so-called "fringe conspiracists". Ironically, many UFO researchers avoid 9/11 research for the selfsame reason.
Our approach is radically different. The mainstream media rarely cover 9/11 Truth sincerely. Neither do they cover UFOs without a tone of ridicule. And yet in both cases, where there is smoke, there is fire. 9/11 is a real issue, a real conspiracy, as is the reality of UFOs. SOTT devotes itself to covering the truth no matter where it lies. As we demonstrate in our monthly Connecting the Dots series, SOTT asserts the reality that consciousness and matter are inextricably linked, that individuals, events, and realities are all connected in ways our present science can only begin to fathom.
Of course, this approach inevitably leads to accusations of being a "cult", another defamatory label applied to SOTT in responses to our publication of Rousseau's paper. One comment links to this ridiculous thread at truthaction.org
. Our research stands on its own, which is the truth that ad hominem attacks are designed to subvert.
The same above commentator finds fault in our position on the research of Jim Hoffman, one of whose articles was referenced in Rousseau's study. Many have accused SOTT of ad hominem attacks for our views on COINTELPRO in the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Daniel Hopsicker, Mike Ruppert, Christopher Bollyn, and Jim Hoffman. However, such statements are not ad hominem attacks. We base our conclusions on the validity of others' research in a field that has, by definition, a high probability of being infiltrated by government agents. Some of their research may very well be sound (and often is, as all good disinformation contains seeds of truth), but other lines of research may betray an important vectoring of information away from areas where critical research may prove too "sensitive". One such area is the Pentagon Strike.
Joe Quinn's analysis of Hoffman's position on Flight 77 and the Pentagon is still relevant. And as David Ray Griffin, arguably one of the most respected 9/11 researchers, wrote in his recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited
, "the case against the official account of Flight 77 and the Pentagon has become considerably stronger since the publication of NPH [The New Pearl Harbor, 2004].
Since the original article was written, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team
have investigated many of the claims by eyewitnesses to the Pentagon strike. Along with a paper recently published by Pilots for 911 Truth
, they have shown conclusively that the flight path suggested by the damaged light poles and generator trailer was physically impossible.