International Relations Scholars Fall Silent on 911 Attacks

Editor's Note:

The facts that contradict the government conspiracy theory along with the family members' unanswered questions have been on the public record for 19 years.

You may wonder as you read this paper why you were not aware of many of these facts. It is widely known that the mainstream media has worked hard to suppress them. Less appreciated, however, is the role that academia has played in making sure that 9/11 truth remains buried.

The breakthrough article below focuses on International Relations, the academic discipline that ought to be most familiar with the phenomenon of false flag terrorism. It demonstrates that International Relations scholars have ignored the inconvenient truths about 9/11 and seeks to explain why that is the case. It challenges academics to defend the official 9/11 narrative against the charges that have been brought against it, lest they be accused of cowardice and complicity in the horrors that have flowed from 9/11 in the "War on Terror."

Below the paper are links that chronicle the initial academic reaction to the article on Twitter. The responses received by the author only confirm what he argues in the article, i.e. that academics either ignore 9/11 truth or resort instinctively to the "conspiracy theorist" smear. With very few exceptions, academics have nothing of substance to say about the events of 9/11 despite the massive body of evidence compiled by the 9/11 truth movement.

So far, after six months, the article has zero academic citations despite having been downloaded thousands of times. The academic silence remains deafening.

9/11 truth and facts remain a suppressed reality based on ignorance, denial, avoidance and ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with objective factual reality.

Please share this paper widely.



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 supported 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 U.S. 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.

9/11 attacks poll: Do you the the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

The consequences of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have been catastrophic. In addition to the estimated 3,000 people who lost their lives during the attacks themselves, millions more have been killed in the “War on Terror”; there has been an aggressive worldwide expansion of U.S. military power, including the introduction of drone warfare; the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has been destabilized, leading to massive flows of migrants; international law has been violated (most egregiously with the Iraq War); domestically, there has been a draconian scaling back on civil liberties, including historically unprecedented levels of surveillance, arbitrary detention, and torture. All of this has worked to undermine the post–1945 liberal internationalist order and has contributed to mounting concerns about liberal democracies being transformed into police states. It would not be difficult to defend the claim that “9/11” represents the most significant political event of the post–Cold War era.

These consequences rest on the fundamental premise that the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. Upon that premise are erected the moral and legal bases of the War on Terror, that is, that “civilized” states have the right to defend themselves preemptively against terrorist barbarism in an age where terrorism is networked, transnational, and more threatening than ever before owing to new technologies of destruction. Yet, what if the fundamental premise were false? As Benjamin (2017) observes,

Were this claim ever to be proved false—were it ever to be shown that the United States was not in fact attacked by “others” on 9/11 but rather attacked itself (or let itself be attacked) for the purpose of blaming others and justifying international war—then its war would not be one of self-defence but of premeditated and carefully camouflaged aggression. (p. 373) [pdf below or follow links to download the paper]

The paper can be downloaded here and here.


Conspiracy Theorist: One Who Questions the Statements of Known Liars

Academics, scientists and researchers continue to face ad hominem attacks from those unwilling or unable to address the uncomfortable facts that contradict the official narrative of 9/11.

Here is a sample of some of the reactions to David Hughes scholarly exploration of the subject:

Peer Review vs. Trial by Twitter

Hostility Ensues

Ignoramuses in academia

The F in PhF stands for fake or failure.

Do you believe in democracy? Then this debate is relevant and worthy of your attention.

The German translation of this paper can be found here.

Editor’s Note:
If you want to show appreciation for the article, you can contribute to Duchenne UK and help to spread awareness of this cruelest of diseases. It is a registered charity and the money goes to scientific research into DMD. UK contributions are tax-free.

SOURCESage Publications on 2/27/2020
Previous article“Fraud and Apocalypse” Presentation by Richard Behan
Next articleFBI agent sought CIA help to investigate Sarasota Saudis who fled U.S. before 9/11
David Hughes

Born and raised in Lincolnshire, David's academic career took him around the world before he finally came home. After completing undergraduate and Masters degrees at Oxford, David did his first Ph.D. in German Studies at Duke University (USA) and was awarded three seperate 12-month research grants to study in Germany, including a Humboldt Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Berlin.

Prior to coming to Lincoln, David obtained a second Ph.D. in International Relations from Oxford Brookes University. He then worked at the University of East Anglia, Royal Holloway, University of London, where he won a Teaching Excellence award, and Nottingham Trent University.

A Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, David has taught the gamut of International Relations modules and is a strong believer in getting students to think critically. In July 2018, David took several undergraduates for a week-long study trip in Berlin on the Santander Mobility Scheme. He has also participated in the work of the Lincoln Social Science Centre, a cooperative higher education venture.

David's research interests focus on International Relations theory, Marxism, and US Exceptionalism. His is currently working on a two-volume book titled, International Relations Theory: A Marxist Critique. In terms of US exceptionalism, he is interested in the disjunction between US propaganda and the practice of US foreign policy. In November 2018 he led an ESRC-funded Social Science Festival event, "Scrutinizing the Media: Fake News, Censorship, and War."