The Moral Decoding of 9/11 by John Mcmurtry

The Supreme Value System and Strategic Plan for World Rule

I was sceptical of the 9/11 events from the first time I saw the reel of it. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty parties were declared before any evidence was shown. The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased. Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who alone had the means to explode two central icon buildings in New York into ashes and molten metal in seconds?1

Others questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated on the spot? Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of ‘foreign/Arab terrorists’ when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?

Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.


Whatever the technics, every step before and after 9/11 took place in accordance with the supreme moral objective and covert-state strategic methods to execute it. The smoking gun is incinerated buildings. Every step ‘before’ and ‘after’ goes back to the motive, the crime syndicate, the plan, the payoffs, the seizures and dispossessions every step, what disconfirms the self-evident pathway of the ‘great game’?

Full Article


Thank you for this link.

Professor of philosophy John McMurtry gives the brightest and clearest explanation of the 'why?' of the events of 9/11. I strongly encourage everyone to acquaint themselves with his work. He was early and courageous both in his insights and in his criticisms. Essential reading.

Your very welcome Dunces.

Your very welcome Dunces. John McMurtry is one of the best researchers and communicators of 9/11 Truth and Justice and I always go back to his work.


...McMurtry's absurd reference to Fetzer, Wood and Mini-nukes calls for a moral decoding of its own.

Fetzer was writing papers on the value of disinformation before 9/11, and using such techniques against the JFK truth movement. He transferred those skills against the 9/11 truth movement when he "burst on the stage" in 2005 tagging after Steve Jones like an ambulance chaser. Today there is much to say about this but by now anyone here should know about his 5th anniversary antics when he began making bizarre claims about fake videos, fake hijackers and space beams. He disappeared for a few years and then returned to attack the research that was being published in mainstream journals.

In the ill-advised reference cited by McMurtry, Fetzer uses the "exaggerate your opponent's claims" (similar to "straw man") technique. That is, exaggerate what your opponent has said and then tear that exaggeration down. In this case, he begins with the false premise that WTC dust research says that the WTC was destroyed entirely by nanothermite. Then he gives a few vague references (no testing of course, like NIST) implying that all the work could not have been done by nanothermite. And if not nanothermite then no thermite was involved at all, and if not thermite then why not bring back the long-discredited "theories" of mini-nukes or space beams, and so on and so on.

Unfortunately, the scientifically illiterate among us are easily fooled by this stuff. And in some venues, it gets published.


Yes, I don't really understand McMurtry's reference to Fetzer (note 1) of the article linked above. The scientific argument is much simpler as people such as yourself, Jones, Gage, Chandler & Cole et al have shown. Good and valid questions are on the table so I don't really understand why he would unnecessarily complicate/obfuscate matters.

Have you contacted McMurtry on this issue? I ask as I find the bulk of his narrative to be an accurate account of the known facts. I personally dismissed Fetzer years ago and wouldn't count on him for the correct time of day.

Side question: Were the iron microspheres found in the dust 6% by volume or by weight? Thanks.