Video on 9/11 Removed from YouTube as “Hate Speech”
If
for some reason you should find yourself at the Internet site with this URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ7ojSe-wqg&t=21s, what you will find there is not a YouTube video, but a
black rectangle bearing this message in white, in the manner of chalk on a
blackboard: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate
speech. Learn more about combating hate
speech in your country.” Below that, in
purple, is a “Learn more” click-on.
Doing
that, you get:
Hate speech is not
allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against
individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes:
· Age
· Caste
· Disability
· Ethnicity
· Gender Identity and Expression
· Nationality
· Race
· Immigration Status
· Religion
· Sex/Gender
· Sexual Orientation
· Victims of a major violent event and their kin
· Veteran Status
What you will not find anywhere, not even if
you should challenge the imperious Google-owned YouTube on its determination, is
any explanation as to why this particular video falls into the very nebulously
defined category of “hate speech.” In
fact, a regular viewer can’t even make a guess, because YouTube doesn’t even provide
the title of the video that it has taken down.
The odd thing here is that the now
YouTube-cursed video had been up on its site since October of 2014 but has only
very recently been determined to be unacceptable “hate speech.” The first
conclusion that one is likely to jump to is that YouTube must be
ratcheting up its censorship regime.
We can rule out the possibility that the video
simply escaped the attention of the YouTube folks all these years. That is because we can say with some
assurance that YouTube is sufficiently aware of the 2:09 minute video, whose
title is “Waxing Indignant over 9/11 Truth,” to suppress the viewer count quite
drastically. We know that because that
same video, after having been posted on the very obscure video platform of
153News for only nine months, had already received 33,272 views, while YouTube
told us that it had only received 2,223 views on its market-dominating
platform. (Most recently, 153News
reports that the video has been viewed 51,770 times there.)
One can learn all about it by going to my May
2019 article, “YouTube’s Complete Corruption Revealed.” There
is a table in the article with DC Dave-connected videos listed that could be
found on both. “Waxing Indignant over 9/11 Truth,” by the count of 153News, was
(and still is) by far the most popular.
One may easily deduce that that would be the case at YouTube as well,
but that’s not what they were reporting.
It’s not much of a stretch to conclude, in fact, that the video’s true
viewer count, known only to YouTube, is the real reason that they’ve decided
that they must censor it away, using the spurious “hate speech” excuse. Lord only knows how many people in the United
State, indeed, in the world had seen it and found it so convincing that YouTube
decided that it simply had to pull the plug.
Viewer-count suppression was apparently deemed no longer to be enough.
Bollyn and Sabrosky
We can find some strong support for that
thesis by noting that presentations by the man most connected with the argument
that Israel was responsible for terrible events of September 11, 2001, in the
United States—doubtless why YouTube is now deeming Buelahman’s
video to be “hate speech”—continues to be up on YouTube. See “Chris
Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks—and Iraq wars.” What
we say in the “Waxing Indignant” poem that takes us two minutes to recite, as
illustrated by Buelahman, is consistent with what Bollyn says in his almost one hour and eighteen-minute
presentation, except that we go a bit farther than he does in revealing that the
man holding the lease for Building 7 admitted publicly that he intentionally
brought the building down. We also bring
out the fact that the Jewish/Neocon Project for a New American Century had
stated publicly that its wished-for Israel-aggrandizing policies emanating from
the United States would probably not be possible without some “catalyzing
event” comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
To those who might argue that our presentation
is “hate speech” because we focus upon two Jewish individuals, Michael Chertoff and Larry Silverstein, we invite you to watch Bollyn’s presentation.
He has quite a great deal to say about both men. If you are short of time, you can start first
at the 58:40 mark for his observations about Chertoff. You will see that we are almost engaging in
understatement to call Chertoff “the cover-up master.” Bollyn further
informs us that Chertoff is a dual Israel-U.S. citizen and that his mother was
an early member of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Bollyn’s extensive
discussion of the role of Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for World Trade
Center Tower’s 1 and 2 and well as Building 7, in the events of 9/11 begins at
the one hour, three minute, and fifty-seven second mark. Interestingly, he makes his case for
Silverstein’s guilt without even mentioning his “pull it”
decision with respect to Building 7. Bollyn’s discussion
is all about Silverstein’s complicity in the rigging of Towers 1 and 2 for
their subsequent destruction on September 11.
So, if “Waxing Indignant” is hate speech, Bollyn’s long presentation is hate speech in spades. Looking at the matter cynically, one might
conclude that Buelahman’s video is shorter and
punchier, which makes it more dangerous.
People have short attention spans and Bollyn
doesn’t really get heavily into the Israeli connection to 9/11 until about the
25-minute mark, and by that time most people will have lost interest and moved
on or, put off by the posted length of the presentation, they would likely
never watch in the first place.
But when it comes to brevity, shouldn’t the
title of Bollyn’s presentation alone be sufficient to
make it “hate speech” by YouTube’s standards?
After all, we don’t even point the finger at anyone with our title.
Consider as well, “They
Did It! Dr. Alan Sabrosky (Jewish) says ‘Israel did 9 11’.”
Again, it’s right there in the YouTube title, and this one is only two
minutes and fifty-eight seconds long.
Perhaps the parenthetical “Jewish” in the title gave Sabrosky immunity
from the “hate speech” charge, although if you read further in the video’s
description you will see that only one of Sabrosky’s grandparents was Jewish
and he does not consider himself to be a Jew.
You can also see from Sabrosky’s Wikipedia
page that the man is quite
an establishment heavy hitter, although Wikipedia advertises at the top of the
page that it is absolutely itching to take the page down.
For what it is worth, there is no Wikipedia
page about Christopher Bollyn, but there is a very
informative Wikispooks page about him, just as Wikispooks
has a very comprehensive page on the Israeli connection to 9/11. I must say that I feel truly honored for my
commentary on 9/11 to be deemed worthy of censorship by an outfit like YouTube,
while the 9/11 presentations of such estimable men as Sabrosky and Bollyn are allowed to remain untouched.
Perhaps it’s all just a numbers game. As we suggest, maybe the real viewer count
for “Waxing Indignant,” as opposed to the advertised viewer count had reached
the unacceptable level.
Where YouTube Steers
You
When it comes to viewer count, check out what
you get by searching “Israel 9/11” on YouTube.
The first two things that come up are news reports on crocodile-tear
ceremonies in Israel commemorating the horrible terror attacks on the United
States. The theme they strike is the
same as the one that I heard on my radio on the afternoon of 9/11. I was at home that day from my work in DC for
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, packing for a vacation Smithsonian tour of
Spain, for which I was to depart with my wife from Dulles Airport that afternoon. I didn’t learn about what had transpired
until I got a call late in the morning from my youngest son away at college. He was worried that we might have been on
that flight that they say flew into the Pentagon. Turning on the radio to listen to the local
all-news station, WTOP, to get up to speed, I heard them interviewing a
professor from George Washington University whose name I didn’t get or, if I
did, I don’t recall. What I do recall
distinctly is that he said to the interviewer, “Maybe Americans now will
realize what the people of Israel have to face on a daily basis.” He reminded me of the witness the network
interviewer just happened to find on the street who explained on the spot the
preposterous “pancake theory” of how each collapsing floor had brought down the
one below it.
The third video that comes up with the “Israel
9/11” search is the one that’s really popular, at
least by YouTube’s numbers. They tell us
that as of this writing it has had 2,264,499 views. It’s
entitled “WHO DID 9/11 ??” Though this might be
the sort of thing that YouTube is steering people toward, it’s not having the
intended effect on everyone. “With
allies like these who needs enemies?” was one comment that struck a sympathetic
chord with me. It also struck me that if
this is the best they can do to refute the charges of
people like Bollyn and Sabrosky, then their charges
must surely be true. And whatever the
pejorative “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism” might mean, this Ethan character with his personality alone
seems to be doing a very good job of fostering it. Who needs enemies, indeed? It also struck me that Israeli propaganda—promoted
by YouTube—resembles North Korean propaganda even more than U.S. propaganda does these days. At least the
country still has a few good people in it like
Ilan Pappe.
As a final note, now that YouTube has taken
down “Waxing Indignant over 9/11 Truth,” we have to wonder how much longer they’ll
let “Falling to Pieces for Israel” stay up.
To comment, go to Heresy Central.
David Martin
April 21, 2022