Home » 9/11, blog, Featured, Headline

9/11 ten years on: there are no excuses for buying the myth

10 September 2011 16,140 views 13 Comments

By the Editor.

New York City, New York. On September 8, 2011 – three days before the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement warning of a ‘credible, specific, but unconfirmed‘ terror threat in New York City and Washington DC. Most obviously, a terror threat that is at once credible and specific, and yet is unconfirmed, is self-evidently contrived.

Keeping true to the decade-long history of scaremongering based on the mythical ‘war on terror’ narrative, the al Qaeda ghost has been recruited again, as has the fantasy of the bin Laden raid of May 01. We are told that the ‘threat’ emanates from Pakistan (as predictable as the clumsiest of scripts), and is as a result of the killing of long-dead Osama bin Laden – an event so obviously staged it makes one question the mental health of any person subscribing to the myth.

The staunchly pro-Israel New York Times is running the most vile, racist scaremongering propaganda one could imagine. Short on specific details of course, but heavy on racist, vague alarmism. The paper warns of two “American citizens of Arab ancestry” who are both between 5 and 6 feet tall, one of whom has a first name that is common in the Middle East.

Owing to this tide of fearmongering and hateful rhetoric, there is now an escalated police presence in Manhattan, with police officers carrying M16 rifles. Police checkpoints stop vehicles in rush hour. A 3,000-flag memorial in Battery Park. Tearful Americans pay their respects; the emotion and the fear is palpable. Never Forget.

‘Never Question’ is the true underlying meaning of this emotive, Orwellian motto that has been seared into the American psyche like brands on the hides of cattle.

Rational thought has been obliterated by emotion, fear, and psuedo-patriotic jingoism. The ‘Never Forget’ mantra, and the flags and plaques in Manhattan attest to the exceptionalism of ‘American suffering’, a concept so disingenuous it makes any honest, aware person sick to their stomach. Every shade of human life, from America to Afghanistan, and from Iraq to Libya, is precious. But the tears shed at Ground Zero are not rooted in universal compassion; they are rooted in a grotesque sense of false victimhood and superiority, and a resounding ignorance of the most important event of this generation.

The emotion, fevered patriotism, jingoism, racism, and fear. The Manichean myth of good versus evil and America’s unique role in it. These are the metaphorical strands of wool that are weaved tightly together and hauled over America’s eyes, shielding the lies from scrutiny and keeping the truth shrouded in darkness. The truth is not palatable to those who believe in the inherent goodness of their leaders and their supposed allies. If the Iraqi and Afghani victims of 9/11 were honoured, flags would cover every square inch of Manhattan and more.

Alas, it is important that Americans be distracted. They must be kept in an emotional haze, deterred from questioning the official account, because even the most cursory inspection exposes it for the monstrous lie that it is.

The official narrative is so bizarre and fantastical, it is an absolute wonder that so many fail to question it. The most basic, central elements of the story stretch even the most childish imagination. The laws of physics, immutable as they are, are the arch enemy of this fantasy. In this ‘idiot’s guide’ of sorts, I will focus mainly on the events in New York, in spite of the reams of lies and contradictions relating to all events that day. The events in New York City comprise by far the most obvious ‘smoking gun’, and I hope that the reader will be spurred to perform their own objective research.

The official myth

What are the chances of the world’s most advanced military infrastructure being thwarted by ‘camel jockeys’ who could not even fly small Cessna-type private aircraft? NORAD – the body responsible for America’s airspace defense – is hugely adept and experienced at intercepting hijacked aircraft. Still, it was thwarted by men using not technological weaponry or physical sabotage, but nothing more than box cutters.

Aside from the inexplicable failure of America’s air defenses and the Pentagon’s unrivalled military defense system, what are the chances of these inept and inexperienced amateurs stepping into the cockpits of gargantuan, advanced commercial jet aircraft for the first time, only to slam at high speed into their respective targets with clinical precision?

What are the chances of jet fuel melting steel into a liquid – a scientific impossibility? What are the chances of steel-framed skyscrapers disintegrating into dust in their entirety due to localised fire and damage – yet another physical impossibility?

What is the probability of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and leaving no physical evidence? What is the chance of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon – the most guarded structure in the world, covered by a no-fly zone and anti-aircraft missile batteries – at all? Flight 93’s ‘crash’ in Pennsylvania stays firmly within this realm of fantasy. Not a single aspect of the official narrative can stand up to scrutiny.

The Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center

At 08:46 on the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex. At 09:03, United Airlines Flight 175 impacted the South Tower. At 09:59 the South Tower underwent a global, immediate disintegration wherein violent explosions reduced the entirety of the 110-storey steel-framed structure to nothing but dust in under ten seconds – the approximate time it would take a solid object to fall the equivalent height in a vacuum. The North Tower was to undergo a ‘collapse’ in an identical fashion at 10:28.

The two 110-floor steel-framed Twin Towers each contained forty-seven steel columns that ran through the structures like a series of spines. Not only were these gigantic steel columns sheared and broken down from top to bottom, but the entirety of the concrete, masonry, and building materials contained within the towers were reduced to dust in violent explosions. This is impossible as a result of a gravity-driven collapse caused by localised aircraft impact and the resulting fires.

The true nature of the ‘collapse’ of the World Trade Center towers is revealed in the presence of molten steel underneath both sites. We are not talking about steel heated to the point of weakness; we are talking about steel being converted into a liquid. Steel melts at approximately 1,500 degrees C (or approximately 2,700 degrees F). Even under optimum conditions and given all the time in the world, it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to melt steel, as jet fuel burns at approximately 280 degrees C (or 550 degrees F).

Indeed firefighters and first responders have witnessed molten steel at the sites.

This video is also instructive. NIST engineer John Gross desperately tries to deny the presence of molten steel when told of witness tesimonies together with NASA thermal imaging photography that demonstrates the intense heat present at Ground Zero weeks after the event.

The third skyscraper to collapse at freefall speed that day was World Trade Center 7. WTC-7 was not hit by a plane, and yet it fell in an identical fashion to the two towers: freefall, through the path of greatest resistance, and exhibiting all of the telltale signs of controlled demolition including multiple explosions before and during ‘collapse’.

Suggesting foreknowledge, the BBC reported the fall of building 7 twenty minutes before it had even happened, at which time they promptly cut their news report.

Countless eyewitnesses have testified to explosions in the WTC buildings even before the impact of the planes, and nowhere near the impact points of the planes, including the basement levels.

Why have these testimonies not seen the light of day since the events ten years ago?

It is painfully obvious that the three towers were demolished with explosives. No rational adult can disagree with this in light of the evidence. ‘Al Qaeda’ could not possibly have rigged the towers with explosives for a controlled demolition. Not only would this require technology and expertise that is far beyond their capability, but it would require unfettered access to the high-security buildings beforehand – something which could only be attained with official complicity.

Following this line of inquiry, a rational person will conclude that the same party that planted the explosives, also flew the jets into the targets; even if it was known that ‘al Qaeda’ was planning to fly jets into those targets, it was simply not guaranteed that they would pull it off and indeed it was extremely unlikely given their extreme piloting inexperience. This left the possibility of one or more towers being rigged with explosives from top to bottom, without a plane having hit and therefore no basis on which to demolish the structures.

This seems to be precisely what happened to WTC-7. Flight 93 was destined for this structure, but it was shot down over Shanksville before it could reach its target. As a result they had to ‘pull’ building 7 and simply use the excuse of ‘fire’ to explain this staggering event.

This is why WTC-7 has already been rebuilt and recommissioned with practically zero press attention; they wish to remove this event from history altogether.

For answers we must look to ardent Zionist and Rabbi Dov Zackheim, then Comptroller of the Pentagon under Bush. From 1987 – 2001 he was CEO of Systems Planning Corporation – a company making advanced aviation systems one of which was the Flight Termination System, used for remote piloting large jet aircraft.

Owing to media censorship by omission, staggering numbers of people continue to accept the official account of the 9/11 terror attacks whether relating to the events in New York, at the Pentagon, or in Shanksville.

Following is live TV coverage of the ‘crash’ of Flight 93. Witnesses tell of no debris that could identify a plane crash, nothing larger than a phone book, and debris that is spread over an area of many miles. None of this is consistent with a plane crash. Again, this has not been mentioned on a single mainstream news outlet since that day.

Aside from the overtly obvious cover-up of the events in New York and Shanksville, the FBI refuses to release its 80 videos showing what really hit the Pentagon. No physical evidence of Flight 77 having hit it exists, and it’s downright embarrassing to think that so many believe a commercial airliner could have simply flown into the most guarded military structure on the planet.

Contrary to prescribed opinion, Osama bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the attacks; he outright denied it a mere two weeks afterwards. Three months later the CIA asset would be dead, leaving the way clear for the media manipulation that would ensure the al Qaeda apparition was alive and well.

If the real perpetrators of 9/11 were identified to indignant Americans, righteous tears of bereavement would morph into tears of uncontainable rage. Congress would be purged, government would be dissolved from top to bottom, and the $3bn in annual aid to the Zionist entity would be halted in the blink of an eye. 3,000 innocents died on 9/11. Ten years on and millions are dead, maimed, orphaned, displaced, tortured, humiliated, and subjugated as a direct result of the Zionist ‘War on Terror’. We all must stand up and be counted, there really are no excuses for continuing to buy this abominable lie.


  • adam said:

    Excellent article.

  • Rolland said:

    Martin!, really enjoyed reading your article. Hope you are having a good time in the USAs.

  • Joe said:

    This article is fantastic, except that it has an Achilles’ heel. The statement “No physical evidence of Flight 77 having hit it exists, and it’s downright embarassing to think that so many believe a commercial airliner could have simply flown into the most guarded military structure on the planet.” is the only one in the article that seems immediately and provably false. That is its only real weak point.

    Many military and civilian eyewitnesses (who could not all have been ‘in’ on a conspiracy) have mentioned physical evidence. Photographs of physical evidence also exist. It should be noted that when an aircraft strikes concrete, very little solid material remains except for the densest, hardest objects.

    If not for this sentence, the article could stand the test of time, but at the moment, the FBI only needs to release conclusive video evidence of an aircraft hitting the pentagon, and this article will lose all credibility.

    The sentence doesn’t significantly help the article, or make it stronger. It could easily say “conflicting evidence exists regarding what sort of object hit the pentagon” and it would be just fine, and retain all its strength.

  • george said:

    i agree 100% with joe

    watch War by Deception (Director’s Cut) by Ryan Dawson

    free on youtube (3 hrs)


  • nit2am said:


    Thanks for reading and thank you for the comment.

    With respect to your comments regarding my statement on Flight 77, I disagree. There is plenty of evidence of *something* having hit the Pentagon. However there is zero physical evidence of Flight 77 having hit it. This is an undisputable fact.

    Not a single part, scrap, piece, or component of Flight 77 has been produced from the Pentagon. If it had crashed there, there would have been literally tonnes of luggage, seats, and aircraft components identifiable by serial number. None of this was found.

    The video footage that has been released is inconclusive, but absolutely does not resemble a jetliner. The damage left at the Pentagon is not consistent with a jetliner.

    Though some eyewitnesses do attest to seeing a jetliner hit the Pentagon, it is important to note that some also attest to a smaller aircraft having hit. It is also important to note that human memory is fallible and can be extremely unreliable; while considering this testimony, ultimately we have to rely on the physical evidence.

    Regarding eyewitness testimony however, several from inside the Pentagon, including April Gallop, have attested to seeing no evidence of aircraft parts, luggage, bodies, or anything that would suggest that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Workers inside the Pentagon told of how they were stepping over dead bodies in Ring A of the Pentagon – an area which ‘Flight 77’ did not even reach. Although we are supposed to believe that the aircraft punctured three rings of the Pentagon (the E, D and C rings), no aircraft debris was found in this ‘tunnel’ of destruction.

    These eyewitnesses have also attested to explosives being planted within the Pentagon, and the distinctive smell of cordite.

    These eyewitness testimonies must also be taken in hand and considered in the wider picture, along with the physical evidence.

  • musings said:

    I suggest that in some neutral country a person or group obtain at least two jetliners to be flown by wire. They should be crashed into structures resembling the side of the Pentagon that was hit and also into a purpose-built structure like one of the twin towers.

    Better still – scale it down to manageable size and see how it plays.

    Nobody can afford to burn the kind of money involved in the twin tower thing. Perhaps choose a large existing building scheduled for demolition.

    I am surprised some place like China has not thought to do this – they certainly have a lot of buildings they don’t mind demolishing.

    But who cares to teach the American public such a lesson? Who dares?

  • Big M said:

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ. How can people still believe that commercial airliners were involved? A look at “Flight 175” should wake up the Village Idiot. Since the author is talking about physical impossibilities, does anybody believe that a plane that is largely made of aluminum can fly into a steel-framed building, and go right through it like a ghost or a hot knife through butter? With no crumpling or compression of the “plane” at all? Without one piece of the “plane” or the building blasting off, and no explosion until the “plane” is completely inside the building? WTF?

    Where are the corpses of the “passengers?”

    Where are the huge outboard engines?

    Where are the virtually indestructible black boxes?

    Where are the phone companies’ records for the fake cell phone calls?

    Who has heard of either one of those airlines filing loss claims?

  • George A Toronto said:

    This is my take–All 4 planes were forced to taxi into hangers. Work crew boarded and downed gas masks and released posion gas. All crew passengers dead. Mossad/CIA operatives took controls and headed into Quebec and desposed the bodies slaughter rendering plant. Dummy planes loaded with explosives and diesel/jet fuel. Recall : aircontroller managers destoryed all the videos and records?
    WTC 1,2 both exploded DOWNWARDS and outwards–CONCRETE BUSTING BUNKER BOMBS. WTC7 crashed bottom to top–normal Demo
    Day care alibi for Bush–ever read that a US president had ever gone out of his way–to read about his family’s goat make-up?
    Jr. Bush’it could NOT been the mastermind of 911 attacks–8 months in office. Bill Clinton and Arel Sharon were the masterminds/doers of the 911 attacks

  • Dave Mann said:

    Absolutely OUTSTANDING presentation. Regarding the Pentagon – I agree with you – but, since there is some room for doubt – plenty of discrepancy in the witness testimony and all – perhaps it would be wise to “hedge” the issue. Never thought I would hear myself say that, but in this case, it´s a damnable knot and mystery how they pulled that part off. Also, it (the Pentagon event) is being used as a wedge to divide the Truth Forces….

  • Bob said:

    These were drone planes. They were switched in mid-air with the real planes. This was done with drug planes commonly as described by Barry Seal to Terry Reed in his book “Compromised”. A legitimate flight takes off, switches place in mid-air with the drug laden plane and continues along the flight path to fool drug interdiction experts using a specific maneuver described in detail in the book. In this case attack drones were switched with legitimate planes. These GPS guided drones were built to fly faster and were more hardened than ordinary airliners (explaining the speeds that exceed standard commercial planes at those altitudes) and perhaps packed with incendiaries to maximize the explosives show. GPS transceivers guided the drones to termination in all three strikes. It was all done with unwitting assistance of military personnel involved in the numerous exercises that day, and in the case of the Pentagon was squawking military IFF to fool air defenses. The military finally got wise and shot down the fourth drone headed into DC over Shanksville.

  • Phil said:

    Hi Martin,

    Excellent article, very informative reading!
    Hope yr trip is going well.

  • Stathis said:

    Brilliantly written Martin. I’m going to be the devil’s advocate for a bit.

    This is a biased article. Your mind was made up before you typed the first letter. This article is no less emotionally motivated than the accounts you condemn. I would have liked to see how the “other side” responds to these accusations, in ordet to make up my mind.

    My problem with biased articles is that they are mostly read by the supporters of that view. One side reads one set of articles, the other side reads another set of articles and everyone is happy and no progress towards “truth” is made. “Tunnel vision” as you mention somewhere.

    “Truth” is elusive. I believe that there is not one “universal truth”. There are probabilities, there is logic, there are motives, there are human senses and memory. All these combine to make a “haze ball” at best. There are more High-Definition hazes than others, but EVERYTHING is under question.

    So to make progress towards the hazy truth that would appeal to the people you are trying to convince, (which should be people of opposite opinion, not you or me or people on the line), I would urge you to write about probability, logic, motives and human accounts (which you do to a great extent). Do not pre-judge the outcome of your articles or mix in emotion.

    Provide your valuable research, from both sides, and let the reader take the final stand.

    Again, I was being the devil’s advocate. Great work, great quality in your text and keep it up!!

  • nit2am said:


    Thanks for reading, and thanks for your kind words.

    In response to your comment I would say:

    Yes, I had made up my mind before I wrote a single word, that is correct. This is because I have researched the subject extensively and have reached a conclusion based on this. Within this article I am simply expounding this narrative, based on facts. You are free to disprove any of the facts in this piece. If you can, please post a comment for all to see, and I will publicly retract any errors that are found.

    The article is not biased, it is simply at odds with the official account of 9/11 and is therefore telling a different narrative. There is a difference between this, and bias.

    If you want to see how the ‘other side’ responds to such arguments, simply turn on your TV. The official account of 9/11 has been force fed to us for over decade with incredible vigour. The official narrative has been covered exhaustively by every multi-million dollar corporate newspaper, media outlet, and TV station in the western world – why would I want to waste my own time in writing about this?

    For example, you are aware of the official narrative, so why would I want to inform you of it again? Simply see Wikipedia 😉

    And if you are *not* aware of the official narrative, why would you want to play devil’s advocate when you are not aware of the facts that you are trying to defend? You are free to research these facts and reach your own conclusion.

    You raise an important point though – I need to appeal to the people who are of the opposite opinion to me – the people who have been indoctrinated with the ‘war on terror’ narrative since that day in 2001. I do not do this in the best way – my articles are written for people who already have a general understanding of geopolitics, Zionism, false flag terrorism, and military intelligence operations. You make a supremely important point and it is something I have thought about lots, but I have not yet bothered to make an ‘introduction to 9/11’ type article, aimed at these people. Maybe that will change! Thanks again for reading and for your input.


Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Show us you\'re human! *