I have been in occasional contact with Dr David Hughes at Lincoln University, UK. He works in the discipline of International Relations and has been one of the few scholars to try and tackle the issue of the implications of the truth about what happened on 9/11 in his own field of study/research. His paper was reviewed by 2 critics and he had to “tone some things down” for it to be published where it has.
He has already experienced some negative feedback, so I hope that he is not discourage from further discussion of the topic. His paper, whilst covering quite a bit of ground that I went over in the “early days” of 9/11 research, including some references to the bogus Jones/Harrit and similar material, nevertheless is strongly (and rightly) critical of the compliance of the academic community and its widespread and “default” acceptance of the fake story of 9/11 – in all the most important aspects. He highlights, once again, the acceptance of the narrative by even the most liberal of politicians and commentators and rightly questions this.
He does reference Dr Judy Wood’s research in several places, and my own 9/11 books which is, as I have said many times, a rare occurrence indeed! Many thanks to Dr Hughes for “sticking his neck out” on this one!
Link to Paper on Journal Site:
Link on Academia.edu:
“9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline”
International Relations (IR) scholars uncritically accept the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 and refuse to examine the massive body of evidence generated by the 9/11 truth movement. Nevertheless, as calls for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11 continue to mount, with the International 9/11 Consensus Panel and World Trade Centre Building 7 Evaluation inquiries having recently published their findings, and with a U.S. Federal Grand Jury on 9/11 having been announced, now would be an opportune moment for IR scholars to start taking the claims of 9/11 truth seriously. A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be sup-ported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity. Various Quasi-government agencies appear to have had foreknowledge of the events and to have covered up evidence. Important questions regarding the hijacked planes need answering, as do questions about the complicity of the mainstream media in 9/11. IR scholars avoid looking at evidence regarding the events of 9/11 for several reasons. They may be taken in by the weaponized term, “conspiracy theory.” A taboo on questioning the ruling structures of society means that individuals do not wish to fall outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Entertaining the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag requires Westerners to reject fundamental assumptions that they have been socialized to accept since birth. The “War on Terror” has created a neo-McCarthyite environment in which freedom to speak out has been stifled. Yet, if IR scholars are serious about truth, the first place they need to start is 9/11 truth.