Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, argue, “If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn’t keep something like that secret.”
While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense.
Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been “no 9/11 whistleblowers” is entirely specious.
In his groundbreaking 2006 research paper entitled “Where Are The 9/11 Whistleblowers?,” 9/11 researcher Gregg Roberts addresses the subject in painstaking detail. At one key point, Roberts notes that “physics trumps armchair psychology.” That is, the evidence—not an assumed theory about the power of the whistleblower—is what determines whether 9/11 involved more than what officials are telling us. However, for the sake of those who adhere to the baseless 9/11 whistleblower theory, let’s examine the alleged power of the 9/11 whistleblower by first defining “whistleblower”. . . and then adapting that definition to the 9/11 context.
Merriam-Webster online defines “whistleblower” as “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.” An example would be the 40 whistle-blowing technical experts who present evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center in AE911Truth’s powerful documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. In addition, we could include the eyewitnesses, government officials, and litigants listed in James Corbett’s report, “A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers.”
Another definition of "whistleblower," provided by FindLaw, is “an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation.”
A prime example of a person meeting this definition of a non-insider whistleblower would be Kevin Ryan, the chemistry laboratory manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters’ Laboratories (UL), who began to investigate 9/11 and publicly ask questions about UL’s testing of the structural assemblies used to construct the World Trade Center towers as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). UL fired Ryan in 2004.
Like Ryan, former JP Morgan IT consultant Indira Singh suffered persecution when she investigated the money trail behind 9/11 and brought her concerns to her superiors.
Neither of the above definitions fits the context of the claim that since there have been no 9/11 whistleblowers to date, the official story of 9/11 must be true. There is, however, an online definition of “whistleblower” from TheFreeDictionary that is readily adaptable: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Regarding the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we can narrow this definition to say, “A potential 9/11 whistleblower would be someone who was (wittingly or unwittingly) part of the organized effort to destroy the Twin Towers and Building 7 via controlled demolition, and who is willing to reveal what he or she knows about that event to the public or the authorities.” In short, a classic “insider.” This is the type of whistleblower to whom proponents of the theory are referring.
Note that this definition implies that a potential 9/11 whistleblower has the power to actually inform the public through, for example, the mainstream mass media. But who would have the stature to command the mainstream media (which had already censored AE911Truth and others who attempted to publicize the WTC evidence) and somehow prompt them to accurately publish the inside story on what actually happened? Most likely, it would be only senior members of the 9/11 operation’s chain of command—the very people who would have been actively engaged in planning, execution, and/or cover-up at the highest level.
How likely would it be for any one of them to have a change of heart and openly confess to participating in the mass murder of 3,000 people and creating a treasonous pretense to draw America and other nations into two major wars?
For someone below the upper echelon to come forward, the problem would be, “To whom do I turn?” Since, as mentioned, the mainstream media were nothing short of complicit in propagating the official myth about what happened on 9/11, an underling blowing the whistle on his or her fellow 9/11 co-conspirators via the media would hardly be likely.
For a moment, put yourself in the position of a potential 9/11 insider. Let’s say you have your own Facebook or Blogspot page or an account at YouTube, and you want to tell the world how and when the explosives were rigged in Building 7. Who would protect you and your family from retaliation if you went public? Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, if there were—as the evidence clearly shows—a concerted effort to rig the New York City towers for controlled demolition, what we are talking about here is pre-meditated mass murder. Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely. What would inspire you to come forward, at a minimum, would be assurance that you and your family would not be harmed.
Nevertheless, let us say that you are that potential 9/11 whistleblower who feels that you must step up. Why? Perhaps you helped install electronics needed to detonate the explosives at Building 7, while being told that all you were doing was installing a high-tech alarm system or some other harmless device. Having learned what you were really part of has made you determined to bring your 9/11 insider knowledge to light. You know that the media would be of no assistance and you wonder, "Where else might I turn?” At this point (or maybe at the outset), you would consider contacting someone in a position of authority, someone who could protect you from retaliation. But who? How about—
- the office of the President of the United States and/or the Attorney General? Obviously, as the chief sponsor of the war on terror based on the official 9/11 myth, the President (assuming you could reach him) might target you for assassination under the pretext that you aided and abetted terrorists. The head of the Department of Justice, of course, supports his President’s policies and position on 9/11.
- Congress? The same Congress that annually approves the financing of “wars against terror” that are rooted in the 9/11 myth? You might come forward if one of the few seemingly honest former members of Congress, like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, had actually succeeded in forming a committee to investigate what really happened on 9/11. But not before. Not with your life and the safety of your family at stake. You would be further discouraged from turning to a congressman or senator because, as a 9/11 insider, you would have done your homework and known that Senator Tom Daschle, who proposed investigating what really happened on 9/11, and Senator Pat Leahy, who disagreed with the Bush Administration and advocated fair trials for those accused of participating in 9/11, were both targeted victims of the anthrax attacks, and that the anthrax used has been linked to U.S. military labs.
- the Manhattan District Attorney? Surely Cy Vance could get you into some sort or witness protection program, right? Probably. But Vance has not even bothered to reply to the requests by the Remember Building 7 campaign, which produced overwhelming evidence indicating that WTC Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. Why, then, would he listen to you?
- the New York City Council? While somewhat receptive to the pleas from the Remember Building 7 campaign, they ultimately preferred not to get involved.
- the NYPD? Not without the support of the Manhattan District Attorney (see above).
- the FBI? Hardly. Consider the case of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
- the CIA? No. Consider the case of whistleblower Susan Lindauer.
- the 9/11 special prosecutor? There is none. The attacks on 9/11 were declared an “Act of War” instead of a crime.
- the World Court? Not a likely venue. “After the court ruled that the US’s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law. . . the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.” Additionally, most 9/11 researchers have concluded that the World Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
So, in summary, there is nobody in a position of authority to whom you, as a 9/11 insider, could turn and simultaneously insure the safety of your family and yourself.
How about Wikileaks, the not-for-profit media organization, whose alleged goal is to bring important news and information to the public? Whatever you believe regarding Wikileaks’ real motivations, you could not find a more unreceptive audience than founder Julian Assange, who is “constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11.”
Dealing with Assange could be dangerous as well. Let’s assume you could get Wikileaks to accept that your insider testimony conclusively proves how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and who was involved. What kind of treatment might you expect? A hero’s welcome, perhaps? Well, let’s consider the case of Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who has acknowledged releasing classified military data, including the so-called “Collateral Murder” video that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and a series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by WikiLeaks. As of this writing, prosecutors seek to lock Manning away for life for “aiding the enemy,” even though chat logs attributed to Manning by the FBI clearly show his intent was only to inform the public and promote “discussion, debates, and reforms.”
As a 9/11 whistleblower, would you be encouraged to bring your story to Wikileaks, given Assange’s position on 9/11 and the experiences of Bradley Manning?
So, why have no 9/11 insiders blown the whistle? In short, no effective way to reach the public, no one in a position of authority to turn to, and no assurance of adequate protection from retaliation.