Video on 9/11 Removed from YouTube as “Hate Speech”

Share on Social Media

If for some reason you should find yourself at the Internet site with this URL,, 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.

David Martin

Start the discussion on the Heresy Central Forum

1 Thought to “Video on 9/11 Removed from YouTube as “Hate Speech””

  1. […] about Jewish Power is ‘Hate Speech’,” “An ‘Adult Content’ YouTube Video,” and “Video on 9/11 Removed As ‘Hate Speech’”.  I’ve even done a song parody with links called “YouTube […]

Leave a Comment