September 11 - The New Pearl HarborBy Craig McKee

The questions have been debated since the very beginnings of the 9/11 Truth movement.

How do we get people who believe the official story of 9/11 to consider the possibility that what they’ve been told is false? How do we go beyond preaching to the choir? And at what point is it necessary, or desirable, to simplify and/or soften some of the truth to avoid scaring people off?

The question is being asked again (well, at least by me) following the recent release of Massimo Mazzucco’s impressive five-hour, three-part documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.The film brings together evidence from dozens of sources (particularly documentaries and TV programs) on 9/11. It ties this evidence together very nicely and makes it clear and easily understandable, particularly for those who are just hearing the evidence against the official story for the first time.

The best thing about Mazzucco’s film (to his enormous credit he has made the film available for viewing free of charge) is that it has the potential to reignite the discussion of not only what happened on 9/11 but how we can get the message out to a wider audience. And given the current state of the movement, anything that gets people talking about 9/11 again – and re-evaluating what they’ve always assumed to be true – has the potential to be very welcome.

The film avoids some of the more “controversial” issues within the Truth movement by pretty much avoiding alternative theories about what did happen altogether. At its most effective, The New Pearl Harbor clearly shows how the official story doesn’t stand up to verifiable facts and why the “debunkers” have utterly failed to make their case against the “conspiracy theorists” who are claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

Examining the official story

For well informed truthers, the film goes over some very familiar ground, but it does so engagingly and clearly. Mazzucco starts his film with a look back at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and then lists 12 things that this event has in common with 9/11. He goes from there to examine the problems with the 9/11 official story, as pushed by the government and the news media.

In part one, he covers the issues of air defense (the military drills, the total lack of any interception), the hijackers (lack of any proof that the alleged hijackers boarded any planes, their inability to actually fly an airliner, missing black boxes), and the airplanes (real passenger planes or drones, impossible speeds, cell phone calls).

Part two looks at the Pentagon (impossibility of a 757 impact, absence of surveillance videos, damage analysis), Shanksville (no plane at crash site, the small white plane, bomb or crash?), and begins the examination of what happened at the World Trade Center (asbestos in the towers, Silverstein, the NIST case, claims the buildings were fragile).

And part three continues with the towers (controlled demolition, explosions recorded by TV cameras, extreme temperatures, diagonal cuts in beams, and lots more) and Building 7 (freefall proved, the bogus NIST simulation, foreknowledge of the destruction).

In each case, Mazzucco presents the arguments made by the “debunkers.” But rather than just leaving it there as many mainstream reports have done, he then points out the holes in their arguments, ending with a question that purveyors of the official story should be pressed to answer. There are 50 questions in all.

(One thing that makes it very easy to watch this film is that on his web site each of the film’s three parts comes with a handy index with a time stamp for each subject covered. For this reason, I would recommend watching the film on Mazzucco’s site rather than on You Tube.)

Here are just a few of the interesting points effectively conveyed in the film:

  • NIST’s claims about the “collapse” of Building 7 are based on data that has been kept secret and therefore cannot be independently verified by other scientists.
  • Their computer models are clearly inconsistent with the visual record in the case of Building 7. Also, their own data shows that the fires that were supposed to have led to the initiation of collapse had largely burned themselves out more than an hour before the building fell.
  • The new phenomenon claimed by NIST, the fire-induced collapse, has not resulted in any changes to how steel-framed buildings are constructed post-9/11.
  • The “hat trusses,” the structure of interlocking girders at the top of each of the twin towers connecting the vertical steel columns to each other, were not found in the rubble even though there was nothing above it to crush them.
  • Even though the military knew by 9:03 a.m. that two aircraft had been flown into the twin towers and two others were hijacked, there was no effort made to recall fighter jets that were being used in exercises in the U.S. and Canada.
  • Not only was molten steel still present until three months after the event, but there is clear evidence of molten concrete, which requires enormously high temperatures that can’t be accounted for by simple office fires.
  • The damage to the Pentagon could not have been made by a plane the size of a 757, nor could the plane have been flown into the building by a pilot, Hani Hanjour, who could not even fly a two-seater Cessna.
  • Claims that explosions at the bottom of the towers could have been caused by jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts are without merit.

Mazzucco unveils the information very effectively by the order he selects. For example, before getting into all the evidence for the destruction of the twin towers being the result of a controlled demolition (which comes towards the end of the film), he goes into the problems the buildings had, including the reasons why the cost of removing all the asbestos from twin towers would have been prohibitive. He also goes into the oh-so-convenient acquisition of the towers by Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11 and the insuring of the complex against total destruction from terrorism. Armed with this information, the viewer finds that the demolition has a context they may not have been aware of.

Mazzucco has already produced one film about 9/11 called Global Deceit (2006), which aired on a mainstream network in Italy. This film, he says, brought questions about the truth of 9/11 into the mainstream discussion for the first time in his home country.






The term originated in the days of naval warfare. Ships would hoist the flag of their enemy, enabling them to approach closer to enemy ships than otherwise they could. They then could open fire with the advantage of surprise. The combination of secrecy and deception is a hallmark of all false flag operations. The definitional issues of false flag go well beyond the two components mentioned above and will be tackled in Part 3. The false flag phenomenon encompasses false flag events, pseudo events, front organizations and players (agents). In the events category the not-always-reliable Wikipedia provides a good definition: False flag operations are covert operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation) conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations […] designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. […] False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_ tension). Outcomes are one criterion for classifying false flag events, pseudo events, fronts and agents. The strategy of tension, mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, includes all four forms. Ironically a pretty good explanation of the outcomes criterion can be found on an anti-Truther site, Skeptoid:* If one were to work solely from [“conspiracy hotbeds”] it would be easy to get the impression that our recent history is jammed with prefabricated incidents designed to enable our government to grab more power, take away the rights of the common people and/or line their already fattened pockets. You got it right there, Skeptoid. • http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/21/false-flag-attacks-myth-and-reality/ .– Barrie Zwicker

Categories: Americas, United States

Tagged as:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.