But when we're called upon to support a serious legal endeavor -- what may be our only chance at justice -- we may realize how lazy we've been in our thinking.
As reported on our Home page and here, last year the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry filed a petition for a grand jury to hear evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Centers (WTC) on 9/11/01. And in November 2018 the U.S. Attorney agreed to comply.
Some of us here were involved in the research for evidence and leads to witnesses the grand jury could call. That research led to at least a partial debunking of some of the Truth movement's myths. This didn't change the core premise that the official story is a lie and the American people deserve a real investigation. But it was a good reminder that we must remain vigilant in seeking and sharing the truth, and be courageous enough to admit and correct the record when we've been wrong.
One myth addressed in this quest was the answer to the question: Who was in charge of security at the WTC on 9/11?
For most of us, the answer to that question would be a no-brainer: "Securacom/Stratesec with Bush family fingerprints all over it." Right?
But it's not that simple. Yes, Securacom had previously been involved in some aspects of security at the WTC, and had suspicious contracts with airports and airlines at the heart of the 9/11 attacks. But they were certainly not "in charge" at the WTC on 9/11. And it was unexpectedly difficult to find out who or what organization was.
Of course the real question went beyond simply, "Who was in charge?" on 9/11, to include questions of who could have had unlimited access to the buildings and the power or authority necessary to grant access and waive normal security logins and escort procedures to others on, and especially before, 9/11.
The first surprise was that Securacom was nowhere near the top of the food chain of security on 9/11, if they were even on it at all. The second surprise was how complicated that food chain really was.
When Silverstein Properties took over responsibility for the WTC on July 24, 2001 a three-month transition period began to hand off control of the property. On 9/11, a transition team made up of key members of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) staff and the new Silverstein team were jointly responsible for all aspects of the WTC, including security.
To make things more complicated, the Silverstein team was brand new, and in many respects, it consisted of layers of subcontractors.
We all know about John O'Neill, the former FBI agent, expert on bin Laden and all things al Qaeda. O'Neill was hired as the new person "in charge of security at the WTC" under the Silverstein regime. His first official day on the job was 9/11/01 - the day he died. But O'Neill certainly was't the only one "in charge," or with the authority to override security procedures and allow unidentified persons into the buildings unescorted in the dead of night in the weeks leading up to 9/11. In fact, O'Neill was among the least likely to do so.
But who DID have the clout and the authority to give orders to conscientious operating engineers and other WTC security personnel to disregard the protocols they took so seriously? There were a number of players who had that power, not all of them technically "in charge of security at the WTC."
And who really selected and hired O'Neill? Was it Silverstein or one of his subcontractors? More important, who might have influenced that hiring decision, especially if O'Nell was hired deliberately to silence him in the WTC attacks?
These are questions for the grand jury to pursue. In the Committee's evidence, the jurors have leads to a great number of witnesses, who can, in turn, expose new evidence and possibly lead to more witnesses. Will the jury take the ball and run with it? Will they pursue the whole truth all the way to a series of indictments?
Or will they only consider the facts handed to them? Even those facts are sufficient to prove, at minimum, a lie and cover-up of monumental proportions, as well as criminal negligence in many respects, including the handling of a crime scene and investigation of a crime. And those charges must inevitably lead to individuals who made decisions and took actions that had such terrible consequences.
But since the grand jury process in America requires a prosecutor to issue indictments, could the grand jury find overwhelming evidence of crimes through their probes and yet still be unable to trigger arrests and prosecutions of suspects revealed to them because corruption has a choke-hold on the judicial branch of government?
We can only hope there is enough positive energy focused -- from the U.S. and around the world -- on getting the truth out and prosecuting those who either acted or failed to act in a way that contributed to more than 3000 deaths... to ensure that the pressure for justice will finally overwhelm the pressure to conceal the true nature of these horrific crimes.
In the end, will we all give up our addictions to whatever "candy" that reinforces our existing beliefs, and instead open ourselves to the REAL truth?