13.9.2021 – Update on accompanying videos.
Three videos were published on YouTube on the 10th, 11th, and 12th September 2021 as three parts under the title “The Mythology of 9/11”. On Sunday 12th September 2021, I was advised that a complaint of ‘hate speech’ had been made against the second episode entitled “The Plane Truth”.
All three videos are made available at the bottom of the page.
Nowhere in the content of the video could I find a single example of hate speech. I appealed against the YouTube complaint and asked to be informed where exactly the hate speech was in the video content. As such complaints are dealt with by algorithms, within 15 minutes my appeal was dismissed and my video removed from YouTube permanently. No indication was given as to where the hate speech was.
I was also warned that I would be sanctioned and risk having my channel closed down if I repeated the offence. As you get two chances and I had two other videos in the series live my only option was to make the other two episodes ‘private’ in order to protect the channel.
What has happened is that a spurious claim of ‘hate speech’ has been upheld without any evidence being demonstrated or any appeal actually considered. In the context of the video’s actual content and the thesis put forward within them that it is now impossible to contest ‘official history’, YouTube has proven the case.
Below is the full text of the three parts of the video presentation. If anyone can locate or identify ‘hate speech’ in any of this then I would be very happy for them to identify it. Please respond to me here.
My belief is that the title, “The Mythology of 9/11” was construed as hate speech. In order to do this then the concept of context and reference has to be abandoned. Context is one of the founding planks of the study of history, reference is another. Forget 1984 and ‘doublethink’, in 2021 we have ‘hate speech’ and that is enough for the thought police at YouTube.
The Mythology of 9/11 – the search for anomalies.
The anomalies of criticism.The first problem you face when you mention the words nine-eleven is that any criticism of the official story of the events sees you witch-hunted as a conspiracy theorist or derided as a ‘truther’.
Though why being interested in the truth is a bad personal characteristic has always bemused me.The official history is a closed book that cannot be opened, cannot be scrutinised, and cannot be questioned, that is where the discipline of history is in the 21st century. In such circumstances, how can a historian approach the event which was the greatest ever assault on American Democracy and the greatest loss of life on American soil in one attack? Will you, the audience, even allow me to propose questions about these events? If you will not then we have to ask why not? Before you even hear my questions or consider my approach to the story, many will be closing their ears and minds to what I am about to say. How can that be good for democracy, open society, and the study of history? All I ask now is that in the interests of those institutions you bring an open mind to this video and be prepared to question history in the understanding and belief that this is how ‘good history’ is made. Bad history is about burning books, dictating what people think, and not allowing questions about any official narrative.
The anomalies of conspiracy theory.Our first question is going to be whether I am talking about a conspiracy theory or promoting such an ugly beast. The answer to that question is a resolute ‘No’. As a historian, I cannot begin to entertain conspiracy theories as being serious; history should always be about evidence. Historical writing is at its best when the reader can see the evidence, perceive the context of the questions and comprehend the conclusion. This is part of what we call method. What is very important in discussions about history is that whilst you might appreciate the method, you do not have to agree with the conclusions. A method exists to pose a structured argument that allows for debate. However, if you want a debate about one particular history then you have to bring to that discussion the same structure of argument. Shouting “You’re a conspiracy theorist, a nutcase, a loser, a truther, is not historical debate, it is bullying.”
Anomalies as method.As a historian, I have approached my subject with a particular method of enquiry; I look for anomalies.
I have written a book about this approach and some have kindly referred to it as a textbook that teaches how to question historical sources. My perspective is that what is always interesting is finding anomalies in a historical story. An anomaly is an irregularity and an irregularity is something unexpected or highly unusual. My fascination with anomalies is because they exist within history as loose threads which, if you pull on, can unravel a whole tapestry of narrative and reveal quite a different story. One of the great examples of an anomaly can be found in the history of Richard III of England. For most of written history after his death on the battlefield at Bosworth on the 22nd August 1485, Richard was an evil, child-murdering hunchback, and anyone who said different was a nutcase, a loser, and probably wore a tin foil hat. Then came a book by Josephine Tey published in 1951 called “The Daughter of Time”. This is a truly clever and insightful piece of writing as Tey explores the history of Richard III through the device of a Scotland Yard detective confined to a hospital bed with a broken leg and bored with nothing to do. Her detective, Alan Grant, then sees an anomaly between a painting of Richard III and the historical character and begins a quasi-police investigation into the evidence about the king. The identification of the anomaly, an unusual irregularity in the mind of the policeman, leads him to conclude that the history of Richard is manufactured and not academic but propaganda. What is clever about this book is that not only does it re-tell a received history in a new light but it also questions how history is constructed and how events can be widely accepted as truth despite lack of evidence or ‘any logical plausibility’. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time] Grant’s discovery of an anomaly leads to a different version of a story and creates another history based on evidence rather than the need of a usurping king to secure his throne. The creation of a demon in Richard III, an evil child murderer, keeps silent any questions about the legitimacy of Henry Tudor’s claim to be king. I may appear to be drifting away from my core subject here but it is important to see why I place so much value in the existence of an anomaly as a tool of historical enquiry. Searching for anomalies in historical events is a serious work of detection. Anomalies are not always apparent, they tend to be hidden in the noise of the story. Anomalies are unusual, out of the ordinary, unexpected, they herald something strange about an event, something possibly questionable about an historical story.
Anomalies are therefore not easy to find and they are few on the ground simply because they are by nature unusual.As an historian, finding one anomaly is a small treasure in historical research. They don’t come along very often. They are rare beasts and they take some hunting down.
Three structural anomalies
And now we are going to start hunting anomalies in the official historical story of what happened one September day in New York in 2001.
As we do, let us keep at the front of our minds that we are not proposing any theory about what happened, we are not questioning any particular idea of the events, all we are doing is seeing if we can find an anomaly in the history taught in our schools to our children.
The first place to start is the main event in New York where three huge buildings, two of which were staggeringly enormous, collapsed as a result of fire damage in a matter of hours. This was an event watched on television, live as it happened, by millions of people all around the world.
We all know what we saw.
The official history is that two huge buildings were struck by planes which exploded creating fires that then weakened the structure of the buildings and caused their collapse. Later, a third building, another massive skyscraper, also collapsed due to damage and fire resulting from the events in the twin towers.
This is the official history of the events on that day.
Can we see an anomaly?
If we consider that in the hundred-plus years of steel frame building fires before the events in New York no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire, not ever, not once, then the events in New York can be described as unexpected.
If we also consider that after that day and ever since no steel frame building has collapsed due to fire, then we can say that the events in one day are both unexpected and unusual.
We could argue that these instances of the unexpected and unusual are nothing of the sort because the whole event is exceptional, it’s like had never happened before and has not happened since.
However, the whole event is made up of specific elements and it is in the history of those elements we find the unexpected and unusual.
What the evidence of history is suggesting to us is that the events concerning the building collapses in New York are anomalous. Remember, the official history of the collapse of the three buildings is that they were caused by fire damage. Fire damage, not plane impacts. That the planes impacted, that it was a terrorist event is not the point because the official history says it was the fire damage that brought down the buildings.
If we cannot describe three steel frame building collapses due to fire on one day in the history of building architecture as highly unusual, unexpected or irregular then surely we have to revisit the definition of an anomaly.
This is not just one anomaly but three anomalous events in three separate buildings all within hours of each other and that in itself has to also be an anomaly.
Again, we do need to stress that we are not questioning anything but searching for the presence of anomalies. We are not saying that the official history is wrong, we are just saying it contains anomalies, unusual features, unexpected outcomes which could lead to questions about that history.
Anomalies at crash sites.
If we move to the planes which crashed, one into the Pentagon and the other into the ground in Pennsylvania can we detect any anomalies in the official history of these events?
The crash site at Shanksville has to be considered unique in the history of aviation crashes. The official history is that a Boeing 757 – 222 crashed into the ground and the whole plane was buried beneath the earth leaving nothing on the surface. In the history of plane crashes such an event had never occurred before and has never occurred since.
Other than that day, the history of plane crashes is characterised by fields of debris. Everything from engines to luggage, bits of seats, we have all seen the pictures but in the case of Flight 93 the ground opened up and swallowed the plane whole and then covered it over. That is the official history.
We have to stress once more that I am not saying this did not happen, I am not suggesting a different story, all that is being observed is that this event is an anomaly.
That on one day in September 2001, there is a plane crash of a modern, commercial airliner which leaves no debris field has to be unusual, highly irregular and an anomaly.
Moving to the Pentagon crash our official history tells us that another large commercial airliner, a Boeing 757 – 223, 155 feet and 3 inches long with a tail 44 feet 6 inches high and a wingspan of 124 feet and 10 inches flew into the side of the Pentagon building.
There are claims and counterclaims about the size of the hole made in the building and many have questioned the initial structural damage to the building as unexpectedly slight in the event of a plane crash. Unfortunately, the original footage of the first television cameraman on the scene claiming that he saw no plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon and that the hole was about 16 feet in diameter is now difficult, if not impossible to locate on the internet.
However, McIntyre’s own words delivered during a live CNN broadcast on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, betray this sentiment.
“From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”
source: Four Winds
What we do know is that the official history tells us that a commercial airliner, flying at hundreds of miles an hour just feet off of the ground, folded up on impact and squeezed into the hole taking the 7-ton engines through leaving the entire plane to explode inside the building.
The history tells us that the black box was recovered but was damaged so badly it was not possible to retrieve the data it stored.
What the official history also tells us is that the FBI and intelligence services gathered up all of the CCTV video footage from every camera in the area within hours of the event. Together with over 100 cameras at the Pentagon, there has never been a release of a single image from that footage showing a plane. This has to be unexpected and unusual
This is the official account, the official history taught in our schools to our children. Can we see an anomaly in this history?
Our search for anomalies has just begun but already we find we can readily identify anomalies in the official history, not just one but several. We could even say that in the history of historical events such an amount and presence of anomalies is itself an anomaly.
Highly unusual, unexpected and even exceptional events which appear to have no precedent and have never been repeated.
We could carry on our search, we could ask what happened to Newton’s Laws of motion on that day, the science of physics on which we have built a civilisation over the last 300 years. A science proved day after day for over 300 years but on that day in New York, the official history tells us that Newton’s third law of motion is wrong.
That a lessor mass can collapse a greater mass and fall through it at a speed that demonstrates little if any resistance. On that one day, Newton’s physics didn’t work as it had done every day before and every day after. That has to be an anomaly.
But let’s ask ourselves a question about why identifying anomalies in this event is important.
History and anomalies.
The answer to that question is decided on whether you believe that history is important. Unfortunately, in our 21st century, the study of history is being seen more and more as of low-level academic importance.
Business Studies is heavily invested in all the campuses around the world and history departments are under threat and some are being closed down.
The change in how we study and learn since the turn of the century also appears to be undermining critical enquiry; we are no longer free to ask questions in a way we once were, we are no longer able to discuss contentious ideas in a way we once were and the social world has become extremely hostile to any nuanced thought.
Thinking for one’s self is being overtaken by being part of an agenda. This is our world of today. This is how our societies run. I am not suggesting this situation is either good or bad just observing that this is how things work now.
We are creating a social organisation in which history is a minor league occupation and questioning is an undesired activity. In such a changing culture we have to try and preserve history because understanding our history informs us of who we were and who we are right now.
We may be swimming against the tide of time, I might just be living in the past but should I not be able to seek out anomalies in the historical record?
Journalism and anomalies.
However, the biggest anomaly, the most glaring anomaly, is not about what happened on that day but what has happened afterwards.
On the day there were reporters speaking live about explosions. From September 10th 2001 no media outlet repeated anything about explosions. Firefighters, first responders, trained police and New York Port Authority employees all gave testimony of hearing and witnessing explosions. Members of the public both outside of and inside the buildings described hearing and seeing explosions. The sound of explosions was caught live on camera.
Can we call this an anomaly?
The official history says that there is no evidence of explosions. That’s not what the newspapers of the day reported. However, before an enquiry was begun before statements had been gathered before the dust had settled, they were already claiming that eye-witness accounts of explosions were creating conspiracy theories.
A Grand Jury Enquiry is going on at this time in New York looking at the evidence being provided by lawyers for explosions on 9/11.
A Grand Jury is a very important part of the Rule of Law in the United States, a high function of the legal process. I do not know what evidence is being presented there, I am not saying there were or were not explosions but what I am saying is you will not find one single line in any mainstream media anywhere in the world about this Grand Jury.
Even if it is an article about nutcases and loonies wasting taxpayers money but no, nothing, no reporter anywhere has got anything to say about this investigation.
That has to be unusual. Surely unexpected.
Not only has the school of history been affected by 9/11 but it appears that ever since that dark day journalism, certainly investigative journalism, has been in terminal decline. All of the journalists who reported explosions on the day have said nothing about them ever since. One day they are using the word ‘explosions’ in every sentence and from the very next day, the word disappears from the journalistic vocabulary.
Is this an anomaly?
Turning your back on anomalies.
Eye witness evidence is accepted in courts of law. We know there are problems with it but when many people report the same event those problems diminish. Evidence has to be the basis of good history. Removing or ignoring evidence is the basis of bad history.
When history academies turn their back on evidence they shame their institutions. No history department has examined the evidence of explosions with any rigour over the last 20 years. That has to be an anomaly.
When journalists turn their backs on evidence they shame their profession. No mainstream media over the last 20 years has sincerely investigated the issue of eyewitness testimony regarding explosions. That has to be an anomaly.
We need to dispense with the myth of intellectual integrity in our universities when funding for controversial PhDs is unobtainable. We need to ask who exactly are the ‘peers’ in peer review and how does the politics of this structure work in practice.
We need to dispense with the myth of the freedom of the press and see our world for what it is rather than placing our trust in fables.
Julian Assange is in prison and faces the prospect of remaining there for the rest of his life because he revealed American war crimes in the wars resulting from 9/11.
No war criminals have been prosecuted as a result.
When he is deported to America, when he is thrown in jail for the rest of his life, that is going to be an anomaly unlikely to be reported by journalists in the mainstream other than with silence or saying that he deserves what he gets.
Nobody in journalism wants to risk exploding their life and ending up like Julian. Being a real investigative journalist in the 21st century is now an anomaly.
Always look for anomalies in history, they are rare, difficult to find but can lead to new information and fresh understandings.
The event on the 9th September 2001 in New York is rich in anomalies. We can all see them if we spend a few moments looking but it is probably best not to question them. Probably better not even to look.
These are the three episodes that have caused the problem.
The second episode was the one cited as ‘hate speech’ by YouTube.
A kangaroo court
A kangaroo court is a “jumped-up” court that is typically convened ad hoc, ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.
A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion.
The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).
A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication.
source: Kangaroo Court