The Facts Of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed
The towers didn’t fall down. They blew up.
One day when I had nothing to do, I watched a video in which John McMurtry tried to explain why the facts of 9/11 are suppressed.
McMurtry expresses himself in long sequences of long words, in complex paragraphs peppered with academic jargon but no explanation of what these specialized words mean. It’s easy to see why they call him “Professor.”
The video runs for almost an hour, and I suppose he finally comes to a coherent point, but I can’t tell you for sure, because I fell asleep long before the end. But that’s probably all right, because I must have needed the sleep.
I don’t mean to be harsh on Professor McMurtry, for I admire what he’s doing. Too few of our smartest people have said in public what they all must know in private: that the official story of 9/11 is impossible to believe if you know anything at all about it.
It seems to me that those with academic credentials ought to be leaders in all realms of thought, especially the search for truth, and certainly including the truth about 9/11. Too many of them have failed us by pretending we already have the truth, when clearly we don’t.
I give Professor McMurtry a world of credit for standing up and speaking out. I only wish we could all understand what he has to say.
Why the Facts of 9/11 Must be Suppressed
I have my own notion of why the facts of 9/11 must be suppressed, and I can explain it in five short paragraphs:
(1) The official story of 9/11 has been used to justify drastic military actions by the United States and its allies, actions which have brought death, destruction, and chaos to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and many other countries.
(2) The same story has also been used to justify drastic changes in domestic policy, in the United States and in much of the world. These changes have resulted in the persecution, incarceration, torture, and death of many innocent people, not to mention the erosion of civil rights and the perversion of the democratic process in every nation that once enjoyed these things.
(3) If it were widely and clearly understood that the official story of 9/11 is not only obviously false but a carefully crafted fiction, the military actions described above would be seen as unjustified acts of mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity; the policy changes would be seen as acts of treason; the people responsible for these actions might be in danger of accountability; and the new policies themselves might even be in danger of reversal, in which case the people who benefit from these policies might need to find a new way to feed at the public trough.
(4) If the official story were true, the facts of 9/11 would support it, and independent research would confirm it. Therefore the facts would be widely publicized and independent researchers would be encouraged. But none of this is happening, and that’s because the facts of 9/11 undermine the official story, and the independent researchers destroy it.
(5) Therefore the facts and the independent researchers must both be suppressed. Otherwise the new policies would be in danger, the people who implemented them would be in danger, the people who profit from them would be slightly inconvenienced, and the perpetrators of 9/11 might actually be brought to justice.
Some Facts of 9/11 that Must Be Suppressed
We now come to the part of the story that cannot be told in an hour, or even six hours.
The following list contains some facts of 9/11 that defenders of the official story wish you didn’t know, some questions they wish you wouldn’t ask, some thoughts they wish you wouldn’t entertain, some conclusions they wish you wouldn’t draw … and some hints that could help you talk yourself out of taking it seriously, which is exactly what they want you to do.
— It is not unthinkable, unknown, or even uncommon for a government to attack its own people, blame the attack on an enemy, and use the attack as a pretext for a war which would otherwise be considered unjustified. Such an attack is often called a “False Flag” attack, and the trick has been played again and again throughout American History. Fortunately, most Americans are well-enough educated to be virtually unaware of history, so they can’t even imagine such a thing.
— In 2000, a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published a position paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” (RAD) which called for enormous and rapid increases in US military spending in order to secure “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world, but noted that “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.” Of course, having called for a major attack, they sat back and waited to see what would happen.
— A year later, following the theft of the 2000 Presidential election, several PNAC members, signatories of RAD, occupied key positions in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney as Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary of Defense. These men were perfectly positioned to prevent the attacks, if they had wanted to do so. They were also legally obligated to prevent them, whether they wanted to do so or not. But patriotic Americans are smart enough not to know this.
— In July of 2001, the Italian city of Genoa hosted an international economic summit. The Italian government, fearing a potential terrorist attack, installed anti-aircraft batteries around the city. What could this mean? If your mind was warped, you might think that since no terrorist group has an air force, the Italians must have been worried about terrorists flying hijacked airplanes.
— During the Genoa summit, President Bush and the rest of the American delegation didn’t sleep at the hotel with all the other delegates. They stayed on an aircraft carrier offshore, where anti-aircraft security was even better. If you’ve had too much to drink, you might assume the Americans were even more worried than the Italians.
— Less than two months later, Bush and others in his administration claimed to have been caught by surprise, and said no one could have imagined terrorists using a hijacked airplane to attack a building. And you might wonder: if they were so afraid of it in July, why couldn’t they imagine it in September? But that’s a lunatic thought.
— According to the official timelines, the FBI knew the names of all 19 hijackers before the FAA knew that 4 airplanes had been hijacked. You might ask yourself how the FBI knew the identity of the hijackers before the FAA knew the planes had been hijacked, but only if you were hallucinating.
— We have never seen any credible video evidence that any of the 19 hijackers were in any of the airports from which the hijacked flights originated, on the day of the attacks. Shortly after the attacks, FBI agents were reportedly working double-shifts, scanning the airport security videos for signs of the hijackers. But later, we were told no security videos from those airports were available, because their recording systems had failed. If you were unreasonably suspicious, you might wonder whether this was true.
— Shortly after the FBI identified the dead hijackers, at least six of them contacted major news agencies to say that they were still alive, that they’d had nothing to do with the attacks, and that they were surprised to see their names and faces on the news. The FBI never changed its original list, nor did it acknowledge that its list could not possibly be correct. But fixation on such minor details is a sure sign of mental illness.
— The World Trade Center complex consisted of seven buildings, and all seven were destroyed on 9/11, although only the Twin Towers (Buildings 1 and 2) made an impact on the news cycle. But it would be silly to think the other 5 buildings were deliberately ignored.
— The official report of the 9/11 Commission, which claims to be a complete account of the events of the day, fails to mention the destruction of Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6, which were also never mentioned in any official reports. This is only to be expected, because these buildings were less than 100 stories tall.
— The 9/11 Commission also failed to mention the destruction of Building 7, which was the subject of a subsequent NIST report. The existence of the NIST report proves beyond any doubt that the 9/11 Commission did not tell us the whole story, although the Commission specifically claimed to have done so. But nobody in his right mind would be concerned about such an irrelevant detail.
— The destruction of Building 7 was reported by both BBC and CNN, more than twenty minutes before it happened. To this day we have had no credible explanation for how this could have happened. But only a crackpot would expect or require one.
— The jumbo jet that allegedly hit the Pentagon left a hole much smaller than itself, but immediately after the crash, no airplane parts could be seen outside the building. If you wonder why not, you are seriously deranged.
— We were told that the plane nearly melted on impact, flowed through the small hole in a semi-liquid state, and wound up inside the building, where none of it was found because it had vaporized. And you might wonder how the plane could have melted, when all the other planes that have ever crashed, in the entire history of aviation, have crumpled and broken apart — but only if you were unhinged.
— According to the official story, the hijackers who attacked the Pentagon were identified by DNA analysis of their remains. You might be tempted to ask: What can vaporize an airplane while leaving human DNA intact? But that’s a stupid question.
— After Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the first responders on the scene could find no wreckage, no luggage, and no passengers. But only a fool would ask whether an airplane had crashed there at all.
— Even though the plane dove so deeply into the Shanksville soil that none of it could be seen by any of the eyewitnesses, a passport and a bandana which belonged to one of the hijackers were recovered from the scene. If you were paranoid, you might wonder whether the passport and the bandana had been planted.
— The alleged hijacker pilots could barely fly single-engine Cessnas and had no experience in the cockpits of large airliners. And yet they are said to have flown with speed and precision that our most proficient pilots cannot match. If you have no imagination, you might wonder how they did it.
— All four of the alleged flight paths are dubious, because no jumbo jet can fly at the speeds claimed by the official story (more than 500 miles per hour) except at high altitude. Such speeds are not possible at or near sea level, for planes which are not designed for it. So if you are mentally ill, you might wonder what actually hit the buildings.
— President Bush and Vice-President Cheney testified before the 9/11 Commission on terms that they themselves set: behind closed doors, together, and not under oath, with no notes or recordings permitted to be kept. Therefore the Commission may have conducted the only criminal investigation in history in which suspects were allowed to stipulate the conditions under which they would cooperate. But you won’t allow this thought to cross your mind unless you are profoundly anti-American.
— The 9/11 Commission was nominally headed by Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, but it was actually run by Philip Zelikow, a specialist in the creation and maintenance of public myths who came to the attention of the PNAC crowd after publishing a paper about catastrophic terrorism and the political uses to which it could be put. None but the most unbalanced would see anything wrong with this.
— Zelikow began the investigation with a detailed outline of the final report, with chapter titles, section headings, sub-headings, and even sub-sub-headings. And he did his best to keep his outline secret from the Commission staff, some of whom thought they were engaged in a legitimate investigation. But why should he have shown it around? What good would that have done?
— When an independent researcher asked why the FBI’s Most Wanted list had an entry for Osama bin Laden but did not say that he was wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, an FBI spokesman revealed that the FBI has no hard evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. But hard evidence isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
— You may recall that Afghanistan was bombed, invaded, and occupied for allegedly harboring the mastermind behind the attacks. But you have never seen any evidence supporting the assertion that Osama bin Laden was connected to 9/11. The FBI would happily show you some, if it had any. But it doesn’t, so let’s not dwell on it.
— Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds testified to Congress for more than 3 hours. When she was finished, her testimony was stricken from the record and she was hit with a State Secrets gag order. Years later, she defied that order and revealed facts which had been kept under wraps for too long, including that Osama bin Laden had enjoyed “an intimate relationship” with the CIA until 9/11. She’s what you’d call a seriously disgruntled former employee.
— An extensive body of evidence indicates that explosives were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center. This evidence includes eyewitness testimony, mainstream media news reports, forensic examination of the remaining steel, and videos in which we can see and hear explosions. According to the defenders of official story, none of this evidence exists. Clearly it would be unpatriotic, and very rude, to contradict them.
— Five of the nine 9/11 Commissioners are on record as saying they didn’t get the story right, that they had been lied to, that the Commission had been set up to fail, and so on. And another would-be Commissioner resigned at the outset, calling the Commission “a national disgrace.” But only a madman would expect such honest people to believe the story they’ve been telling.
— Five young men were seen dancing and celebrating as the attack on the WTC unfolded. They were found, arrested, and interrogated, but ten weeks later, after considerable political and diplomatic pressure, they were released, having failed multiple polygraph tests. If you have no moral compass, you might see something unseemly in this.
— It turned out that these men were Israelis and some of them were connected to the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. After they returned to Israel, they appeared on television and explained that they were in NYC on 9/11 because “our purpose was to document the event.” You might think this indicates foreknowledge, but only if you’re anti-Semitic.
This list above is woefully incomplete, and some of the items I have omitted may be more important than any of the items I have included.
There are so many missing items that I wouldn’t have time to list them all, even if I tried. And you wouldn’t have time to read them all, either.
If I added another 20 or 50 items to the list, it would still only amount to the tip of an iceberg.
Furthermore, it could be argued that each item on my list is itself the tip of an iceberg.
For instance, the story of the five dancing Israelis is the tip of the iceberg called “Israeli complicity.” But I would have to be a raving Jew-hating anti-Semite to tell you more about that.