Elin Brodin og muslimene

Elin Brodin er en norsk forfatter som hevder å «forsvare muslimene», men som hver gang hun slipper til i massemedia bekrefter det jeg kaller Dolkestøtslegenden mot muslimene. La oss se hvordan en Facebook-tråd hun startet lørdag kveld i «Brodins snakkeboble» artet seg, med fokus på dialogen oss imellom.

Tråden fortsetter, selvfølgelig, men går i ball for Brodins del, som går i personangrepsmodus, etter kommentaren min om at hun neppe kunne forstå norsk når hun ikke engang etter to gjentagelser av spørsmålet forsto hva det var jeg spurte om.

Oppsummert kan vi likevel si – etter å ha fulgt resten av tråden – at Elin Brodin nærmest hver eneste gang hun har opptrådd i massemediene har bekreftet den hatefulle Dolkestøtslegenden mot muslimene, samt at hun – selv om hun nå hevder å ikke ta stilling – heller ikke for fremtiden har noen planer om å avstå fra å bekrefte den hatefulle Dolkestøtslegenden mot muslimene når hun figurerer i media.

Elin Brodin ser rett og slett ikke ut til å fatte hva som skulle være problematisk med å støtte en slik hatefull dolkestøtslegende. I stedet vender hun i kjent stil sin vrede mot dem som påpeker at hun rent faktisk bekrefter denne legenden med sine innlegg i massemediene, slik at hele problemet med den hatefulle Dolkestøtslegenden for hennes del blir de menneskene som peker på at hun ikke burde støtte den, dersom det stemmer at hun ikke har tatt stilling til hva det var som skjedde i New York og London.

Vi avventer derfor i spenning Elin Brodins neste innlegg om terror og islam i massemediene, og kommer tilbake til hva hun da sier i kommentarene nedenfor.

7/7: Crime and Prejudice (docu)

A brand new investigative and analytical documentary from the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. It explores the 7/7 cold case via new evidence from the recent inquests and discusses the war on terror in the context of numerous miscarriages of justice and acts of violence committed by the state.

The first section of the film examines the history of the British state’s use of double agents, from the Victorian Anarchists through WW2 to the war in Northern Ireland. It concludes by examining contemporary cases of injustice and violence carried out as part of the war of terror against Muslims.

The second section of the film is a multi-dimensional study of the new evidence made available at the recent inquests. It looks at the evidence of a wider conspiracy and the fundamental flaws in the official narrative and the police investigation. It also discusses why the dialogue about ‘intelligence failures’ itself fails to address the very real possibility of state involvement in the attacks.

The final section of the film returns to the Anarchists and the case of Martial Bourdin, Britain’s first suicide bomber, in 1894. The mythology surrounding Bourdin is used as a foundation for examining the numerous films, tv shows training exercises and real life events that either predicted 7/7 or were influenced by the attacks. The question of conspiracy theories is addressed through an original analysis unique to this film.

7/7 Crime and Prejudice combines a presentation of the cutting edge of July 7th research with a deeply contextual analysis that casts light on largely unexamined aspects of the war on terror.

For further information about 7/7 please visit the website of the July 7th Truth Campaign and their dedicated 7/7 Inquests blog:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

Source

Also check out James Corbett’s 75 minute interview with the director, Tom Secker.

Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers

Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won’t let go of the official conspiracy theory.

Were 9/11, London and Madrid designed to increase islamophobia?

Celebrating their 200th anniversary, the University of Oslo held the 2nd of its 4 Idea Festival Saturdays yesterday, on June 18th. I went to the documentary screening and subsequent debate titled «Orientalism and islamophobia before and after 9/11».

The first hour was a screening of the documentary «Edward Said on Orientalism», which was utterly fantastic and enlightening. The late Said tells us among other things the US version of orientalism is quite different from the French and British orientalisms, as the latter two had a more hands-on experience with «the Orient», having once been colonialist masters in the Middle East and Arabic areas.

The US brand of orientalism, however, is much more based on the Israeli worldview, where all other peoples than the Israelis themselves are deadly enemies waiting for a chance to attack Jews and blow things up.

Increasingly, America has been jazzing up this enemy image of the Arabs, even for decades before 9/11, through movies, computer games and the US version of TV news, in order to still have an enemy after the evil communist Soviet Union collapsed (incidentally because the same America had funded and trained 100,000 Mujahideen fighters – among them one Osama bin Laden – in order to crush the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Having military bases in about 100 nations globally and a military budget at least twice the size of the rest of the world combined, the Americans were in great need to uphold at least one big foreign threat in order for their military spending to seem reasonable to their own people. Their choice – of course, as we all know now – fell on the Arabs and Muslims. Every time Arabs and Muslims are featured in movies, news and computer games, they are angry, masked, shouting crowds burning US and Israeli flags, and so on and so forth. You get the picture.

Now, for the second hour after the break, the Idea Festival had set up a panel to debate the issues, consisting of Elisabeth Eide, Iffit Qureshi and Sindre Bangstad. Master of Ceremony was the indestructable Documentary Cinema boss Ketil Magnussen.

The panel spoke at some length about orientalism and islamophobia, and about 9/11 increasing the level of and cultural acceptance for islamophobia – which used to be called simply racism – but I felt these were pretty obvious and toothless observations with little emphasis on context and causes, so I raised my hand and got the first comment from the audience.

I said Edward Said in the documentary had made it very clear that a huge industry of militarism in America and the West was dependent upon the Arabs being seen as a real and dangerous enemy, and that this image of the Arabs needed to be maintained and increased as time went by. I also said there is reason to believe that both the 9/11 operation and the train bombings of Madrid and London were planned and designed precisely to increase the level of islamophobia and to jazz up the enemy image of the Arabs and Muslims.

For these comments I was myself subjected to a form of orientalism, where Ketil Magnussen dismissed my thoughts as subjects for another time and space, and not for this discussion about 9/11 leading to increased islamophobia. And out of the three comments from the audience, only the other two got answers from the panel.

I find this rather peculiar, and sad, really, as I know for sure that at least half of the panel/moderator team share at least parts of my views on the origins of the 9/11 attacks. But here we are, almost ten years after the 9/11 operation which immediately was blamed on Osama bin Laden, just like the Oklahoma bombing after half an hour was blamed on Arab extremists, as Said mentioned in the film, and still there’s no room for discussing all the evidence pointing in a totally different direction as to the source of the attacks.

We’ve established a clear motive, what with the Israelis wanting to paint all Arabs and Muslims as Evil Terrorists, and the Americans needing to jazz up this threat as the successor of the Terrible Communist Threat to keep and increase their vast military budgets, and we have piles and piles of evidence of complicity, explosives and careful cover-up, and yet we are not allowed to discuss these things, not even at an Idea Festival at a University in a presumably free country.

Utterly sad, for the only possible way to decrease the level of hatred and islamophobia goes through exposing the real 9/11 terrorists and real bombers of the Madrid commuter trains and the London Underground.

People will never forgive these vast crimes just for the sake of multiculturalism, that should now be clear to both academics and the rest of us. That’s why these crimes need to be solved, not covered up even more. And it is in fact very easy to prove that the crimes have been covered up, plus we know who’s been covering them up.

If one assumes the London 7/7 bombings were an Anglo-American-Israeli operation that succeeded, then it is a most successfull and well-planned strategic mass slaughter aimed exactly at increasing hatred and islamophobia to a whole new level. Think about it: 4 ordinary everyday «homegrown» British Muslims teaching kids to play football and expecting babies; even these people are capable of blowing themselves up on the tube right next to you, just because they’re Evil Arabs and Dangerous Muslims.

No other Western military intelligence operation could’ve achieved the goals better than that.

I will end this sad rant with an appeal to Norwegian and Nordic academics and intellectuals to be brave and fearless, and speak their minds freely, as we approach the Tenth Remembrance Day of the operation that killed close to 3000 American civilians, quoting two lines from a Swedish song by Imperiet:

den fege dör tusentals gånger
den modige dör bara en

The Zionist Cover-Up

XVI – Making Sense of the 9/11 Cover Up

Chapter XVI

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

The preceding chapter explains how the structural steel from the Twin Towers, crucial evidence of the murderous demolitions, was destroyed by a network of Zionist agents before it could be examined. From the Israeli Michael Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice and the senior official responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes of 9/11, to the Mossad-controlled traders and owners of the New Jersey junkyards that managed its destruction, the steel passed from one Zionist agent to another until it was completely destroyed in the furnaces of Asian steel mills. What does this fundamental part of the 9/11 cover up tell us about who is really behind the crime? If Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arab hijackers truly brought down the World Trade Center, why was a network of Israeli intelligence agents engaged in a concerted effort to destroy the evidence?

Common sense tells us that Israeli intelligence did not mastermind the hasty destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center because Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers and Larry Silverstein’s WTC 7. Rather, Zionist agents destroyed the evidence to protect the lie that Arab terrorists were to be blamed for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. The physical evidence of the towers was hastily destroyed by a network of Zionist agents because it could expose the falsity of their interpretation of events. Indeed, the fact that a Zionist network had been established in order to manage the destruction of the evidence confirms the hypothesis that 9/11 was a false-flag terror atrocity carried out by Israeli intelligence and their agents in the U.S. government.

The fact that iron boiled beneath the rubble is evidence disproving the government version that burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse.

The intensely hot pile of rubble at the World Trade Center was the scene of a mass murder in which 2,752 people were killed. Dust and steel were virtually all that remained after the explosive demolitions destroyed the towers and the people within them. «The concrete was literally pulverized; all you’re left with is steel and dust,» said Robert A. Kelman, general manager of Hugo Neu Schnitzer East, the Jersey City junkyard that managed the destruction of the largest part of the steel from the World Trade Center.

The unexplained explosive demolitions of the 110-story towers directly caused the deaths of hundreds of people, but the cause of the unprecedented demolitions was certainly not known to the FBI investigation team at the remains of the World Trade Center. One of the first objects of any proper criminal investigation should have been to determine exactly what had caused the explosive demolitions of the towers. This investigation should have started with a thorough forensic examination of the dust, the steel, and anything else that remained of the Twin Towers. To allow the remaining structural steel, crucial evidence that could have revealed the cause of the collapses, to be destroyed without being examined was clearly a grave breach of duty by the officials at the Department of Justice and their investigative agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI failed to collect and examine the steel to determine what had caused the explosive demolitions seen on 9/11.

The hasty destruction of the unexamined steel from the World Trade Center could not have occurred had the FBI not allowed it to happen. The highest officials at the Department of Justice were clearly part of the conspiracy to conceal the truth about 9/11 by allowing the crucial evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed without having it examined and documented by steel experts, scientists, and engineers.

THE ZIONIST COVER UP

The facts indicate that the 9/11 cover up is a Zionist operation in which partisans of the state of Israel have played all the key roles. If the attacks of 9/11 were truly acts of Muslim Arab terrorists there would be no reason for Zionists to manage the destruction of the evidence. The terror plot to destroy the World Trade Center had been planned for more than 20 years and was being discussed by senior Israeli intelligence figures in 1980, as we know from published comments of Michael D. Evans, an American Zionist Jew who poses as a Christian missionary. Evans was told by the former Mossad chief Isser Harel of the plan to bomb the World Trade Center in 1980, when Osama Bin Laden was about 23 years old. (See: «America the Target: 9-11 and Israel’s History of False Flag Terrorism»)

Michael D. Evans, an American Zionist, was told by Isser Harel of the Israeli plan to bomb the World Trade Center in 1980. Here Evans embraces Menachem Begin, the former terrorist head of the Irgun who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946.

This indicates that Israeli intelligence began planning and preparing the false-flag terror attacks of 9/11 in the late 1970s when the notorious terrorist chief Menachem Begin and his Likud party came to power in Israel. Begin created the Likud party in 1973 from the membership of the Irgun, the Zionist terror group he headed in Palestine in the 1940s. The false flag terror plan for 9/11 required having high-level Zionist agents connected to the Mossad occupying positions from which they could directly control the cover up.

Putting the agents into the key positions was arranged by controlling the presidential appointments of judges and officials at the Department of Justice. Such political appointments are greatly facilitated by having Mossad agents in the inner corridors of power. Rahm Emanuel, for example, the son of an Israeli terrorist who worked closely with Menachem Begin, was the key Mossad insider in the Clinton White House where, for example, he single-handedly pushed the disastrous NAFTA bill through Congress. Emanuel later became the first chief of staff for President Obama and mayor of Chicago.

Rahm Emanuel was the Israeli insider in the Clinton and Obama administrations. His father is a former member of the Irgun, a notorious Zionist terror group in Palestine.

HOW THE COVER UP WORKED

There are three fundamental fields that need to be controlled in a cover up like 9/11: the investigation, the interpretation, and the prosecution and related litigation.

The investigation involves the detective work supposedly done by the FBI and includes the collection and analysis of the evidence. Interpretation is how the events are explained to the public by the government and controlled media. Prosecution and litigation use the courts to assign blame for the crime and responsibility for the losses. In the 9/11 cover up we find high-level Zionist agents in the key positions of all three fields.

Zionist control over the political interpretation of 9/11 can be readily seen in how the Bush administration and the controlled media accepted without question the unproven explanation blaming Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. This explanation was exactly what the architects of terror wanted the world to believe and was first articulated by Ehud Barak, the former Israeli commando leader and prime minister, on BBC World television minutes after the demolitions of the Twin Towers.

Live from London, Israel’s military chief Ehud Barak appeared on BBC World television on 9/11 urging the United States to begin the «War on Terror» by invading Afghanistan.

Through their media monopoly (e.g. FOX News, CNN, CBS, New York Times, etc.) the Zionist interpretation of 9/11 was pushed relentlessly on the gullible American public. No other possible explanation was even discussed and people who held dissenting points of view were ignored, slandered, and attacked, as I was by FOX News, CNN, The Chicago Tribune, undercover police and the corrupt courts of Cook County.

Zionist control of the media was essential in shaping public opinion and directing the anger and blame at Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The controlled politicians dutifully parroted the media version, which quickly became the “party line” of both parties. Dissent was quashed. Politicians, academics, and journalists who expressed doubts or raised questions about what really happened were treated like pariahs and removed from their positions.

The Zionist control of the cover up is also seen very clearly in the investigation and prosecution fields. Michael Chertoff, as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, was directly responsible for the federal prosecution of the terrorists behind 9/11 and for overseeing the investigation by the FBI. Chertoff, an orthodox Jew, is an Israeli citizen by virtue of the fact that he is the son of an Israeli, Livia Eisen, who happened to be one of the first Mossad agents. Had the FBI collected and scrutinized the steel and dust from the Twin Towers, questions would have been raised by the discovery of evidence of both explosives and thermite. Rather than deal with the evidence, Chertoff simply abdicated his responsibilities and allowed Zionist officials working under Mayor Rudy Giuliani to «clean up» the crime scene by destroying the steel evidence through specially prepared junkyards in New Jersey.

Michael Chertoff, an Israeli national and the key federal official responsible for prosecuting the crimes of 9/11, allowed the crucial evidence to be destroyed. He is the son of one of the first Mossad agents.

As the federal official responsible for the criminal prosecution, Chertoff also had control over access to the evidence. Through a newly created agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and a special category of evidence known as Sensitive Security Information (SSI), Chertoff retained his control over the 9/11 evidence even after he became the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in 2005. The key role that Chertoff played in the 9/11 cover up is solely due to the fact that he, like Rahm Emanuel, is a high-level Zionist partisan from a family with a very long and close connection to Israeli intelligence.

Alvin K. Hellerstein is the other hand of the Zionist-controlled cover up in the judicial field in which access to the evidence is crucial. Hellerstein is a U.S. district judge in Manhattan, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Judge Alvin Hellerstein presides over all 9/11 tort litigation and criminal cases related to the terror attacks.

Alvin K. Hellerstein has blocked a 9/11 trial for years by waging a judicial war of attrition against the victims’ families, forcing all but one into out-of-court settlements. Hellerstein’s son lives in Israel and works for a law firm that represents the parent company of one of the key defendants in the 9/11 litigation. This glaring conflict of interest is ignored by the media.

Although 96 families who lost loved ones on 9/11 chose to litigate rather than accept the government payout, Judge Hellerstein waged a prolonged war of attrition against the families forcing all of them, with only one exception, to settle out of court. The family of Mark Bavis of Boston, a passenger on Flight 175, is the only family that will have a 9/11 trial to determine who was responsible for their loss. Hellerstein, however, has imposed a most arbitrary and unusual time limit for the only 9/11 trial that will be held to determine who is responsible for the loss of life. He will only allow one month for the entire trial with only 50 hours allowed for each side.

As an orthodox Jew and a Zionist, Judge Hellerstein has a serious conflict of interest that should have prevented him for hearing any 9/11 cases. Israel, through its intelligence agency the Mossad, is a key defendant in the 9/11 litigation. Hellerstein and his immediate family are devoted supporters of the state of Israel. This presents an obvious conflict of interest that should have kept Hellerstein from overseeing the 9/11 tort litigation in the first place.

Furthermore, Judge Hellerstein’s son, Joseph, lives in Israel and works for an Israeli law firm that represents the parent company of one of the defendants in the 9/11 tort litigation, Mossad’s “security” company International Consultants for Targeted Security (ICTS NV). ICTS owns Huntleigh USA, the airport security company responsible for screening the passengers that boarded the planes on 9/11. The fact that Hellerstein is a religious Zionist with a close family connection to one of the defendants should disqualify him from managing the 9/11 litigation, but it has not.

Joseph Z. Hellerstein

The impropriety of Judge Hellerstein’s glaring conflict of interest in the 9/11 litigation has been completely ignored by the media. Hellerstein and Chertoff have both facilitated the 9/11 cover up and obstructed justice for the families of the victims with their improper conduct. Brazen and shameless, they are confident their misdeeds will be ignored and that they will be remain protected and supported by the larger Zionist network that controls the U.S. government.

As German intelligence experts told me in 2001, 9/11 was a sophisticated operation that required years of planning and the fixed structure of a state intelligence agency. It was, they said, far beyond the capabilities of a loosely structured group like Al Qaida. Such a false-flag terror operation consists of three levels, Andreas von Buelow said: the architectural, managerial, and working levels. The architectural level designs the terrorism primarily to affect public opinion while the managerial level manages the execution of the crime and the cover up. The working level, von Buelow said, is actually part of the deception. While Hellerstein and Chertoff are probably not architectural level planners of the terror attacks, they are certainly dedicated Zionist foot soldiers at the managerial level of the 9/11 cover up.

The reason for Hellerstein and Chertoff to be confident in the face of their blatant misconduct is obvious. In spite of the serious nature of their crimes, which enabled the 9/11 cover up, these two Zionist agents of deception have not suffered any penalties under the law or faced a single word of criticism from the media for the glaring improprieties they committed as federal employees. Where is the watchful eye of the government? Why do Hellerstein and Chertoff act as if they are above the law? Where is the free press, the watchdog of a properly functioning democratic state? Is this not evidence of a conspiracy?

The false-flag terror atrocity of 9/11 changed more than public opinion. The 9/11 deception that has been foisted on the nation has changed the fundamental relationship between the U.S. government and the American people. The proper role of government is to alleviate the suffering of the people, not increase it. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men in order to secure their unalienable rights, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that «whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.»

The deception of 9/11 was used to instill fear in the population in order to usher in a radical and fraudulent Zeitgeist under the rubric the “War on Terror.” To submit to the 9/11 deception is to subject ourselves and our nation to an open-ended agenda of war. The Zionist fraud known as the “War on Terror” began with the false-flag terror attacks of 9/11, which led directly to illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East and a greatly enlarged police-state apparatus in the United States. We have certainly not seen the end of it.

The 10-year of war in Afghanistan is supposedly being fought to root out the terrorist networks who carried out 9/11.

These disastrous and costly wars have done immense damage to our nation and others, wasting more than $1.6 trillion and ruining countless lives. Believing the lies about 9/11 has made helpless victims of millions of people, such as those who have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq thinking they were defending their nation from terrorists. The only way to liberate ourselves and our nations from continued enslavement to this criminal deception is to understand how it was imposed on us and who is behind it. To accept the 9/11 deception is to support the evil fruit it brings in its train and to allow ourselves to be held captive in its «Auschwitz of the mind».

Liberation from the deception can only happen when individuals choose to reject fear and examine the facts with a truly open mind. The personal choice to examine the evidence, embrace the facts, and conquer fear is the most important decision we can make as free men. As my patriotic duty to my nation and as a service to mankind, I am sharing my insights and the fruits of my research about the 9/11 deception in the hope that by understanding how this evil deception was planned and executed we can liberate ourselves from it and secure a more just and peaceful world for our children.

Sources:

• BBC World, «Ehud Barak interview,» 11 September 2001
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zj1fnGtjk
• Bollyn, Christopher, «America the Target: 9-11 and Israel’s History of False Flag Terrorism,» Solving 9/11 – The Deception that Changed the World, January 2008
  http://www.bollyn.com/america-the-target-9-11-and-the-history-of-false-flag-terrorism
• Bollyn, «Homeland Security & the Exclusion of Evidence,» 11 September 2007
  http://www.bollyn.com/homeland-security-the-exclusion-of-evidence

Frykten for miltbrann

NrK viser en dokumentar der det avdekkes at miltbrann (anthrax) -trusselen ikke har kommet fra Irak, Afghanistan, Iran eller noen andre land det veslige militær-industrielle intelligentsia-komplekset gjerne skulle ønske, og som media frem til nå har opprettholdt som en hellig løgn for å konstruere frykten for det fremmede. Og for å konstituere velvilligheten til å se på at en rekke mennesker blir torturert, drept og hele lands infrastrukturer blir jevnet med jorden og gjort om til permanente anglo-amerikanske militærbaser.  Flere år etter kommer det en liten film som forteller et bruddstykke av sannheten .  Dette bør være å anse som en «limited hangout»:

A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or «mea culpa» type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be «coming clean» and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones. (wikipedia)

«Key facts» i vår tid er 9/11 og hvordan den mest dramatiske falske-flagg operasjonen ble utført av en høyerestående sosio-økonomisk gruppe, mot en laverestående for å sikre geo-politiske mål, og for å velte om hele det vestlige systemet for konstruksjonen av et nytt. 9/11 is still the issue, it is the MAIN issue.

Krigen mot demokratiet

Krigens første offer er sannheten, sies det, selv i våre mest tabloide medier. Og i etterkant av 9/11 er det oppstått en amerikansk og med tiden global bevegelse for mer sannhet rundt 9/11-hendelsene. I kjølvannet av 9/11-krigene er denne bevegelsen tilsynelatende også blitt et offer for krigen. Mektige krefter ønsker den nord og ned.

I nordisk sammenheng bør man først og fremst merke seg dr. Niels Harrit ved Nanokjemisenteret ved Københavns Universitet. Normalt ville en forsker med Harrits status være en mann med stor tillit i spørsmål om kjemisk analyse av støv fra bygningskollapser. Men vi lever altså ikke i helt normale tider – vi lever i 9/11-krigenes epoke.

I ni år har mektige krefter sørget for en særdeles ubehagelig mistillit mot alle som vil si noe i offentligheten om 9/11 – det vil si mot alle som vil si noe annet om 9/11 enn at (muslimske) terrorister er onde mennesker og at 9/11-krigene må økes og intensiveres i styrke. Så langt er denne mistillit kommet, at en forsker og fagmann som doktor Harrit slett ikke får trykket sin kronikk med særdeles viktig informasjon om 9/11-kollapsene.

Hvorfor er så denne informasjonen så viktig for den danske og norske offentligheten? Jo, i likhet med de tre skyskraperne på Manhattan, vil også motivasjonen for krigene i Afghanistan og Irak kollapse, dersom Harrits informasjon får spre seg på normalt vis i offentligheten, med utgangspunkt i nanokjemikerens (nå refuserte) kronikk.

Norge og Danmark er alliert med USA, ikke med Afghanistan og Irak. Hensynet til våre alliansepartnere og deres begrunnelser for å involvere NATO i 9/11-krigene trumfer tilsynelatende de ellers øredøvende ropene om ytringsfrihet fra nordiske mediehus og redaksjonslokaler. Ytringsfrihet, har vi nå lært, er friheten til å bryte islams forbud mot avbilding av Profeten. De nordiske tabloidmedienes heseblesende kamp for ytringsfriheten er nå blitt en sivil flanke i de pågående 9/11-krigene.

Dog er ikke Harrits informasjon viktig bare for å få slutt på 9/11-krigene og de velregisserte forsøkene på å motarbeide integrasjon og fredelig sameksistens i våre nordiske samfunn. Den juridiske flanke av 9/11-krigene har nemlig heller ikke ligget på latsiden. Det nyinnførte lovverket i nesten alle land i etterkant av 9/11-hendelsene kan best beskrives som en krig mot demokratiske ytringer og retten til å holde seg med oppfatninger og meninger som ikke harmonerer med mektige krefters meninger.

En krig mot demokratiet er ironisk nok det innenrikspolitiske utfallet i våre nordiske samfunn av de politiske og juridiske endringene i kjølvannet av 9/11. Med alt våre vestlige politikere har utbasunert om spredning av demokrati og demokratiske verdier i de strategisk viktige landene Afghanistan og Irak, er det altså til syvende og sist demokratiet i våre egne samfunn mektige krefter vil til livs.

Denne krigen arter seg i form av refusjoner av bokmanus og kronikker inneholdende viktig informasjon for våre offentligheter. Informasjon velgerne i høyeste grad behøver for å kunne ta informerte beslutninger i forkant av valgene. For det er jo ikke nok å kunne spasere ned til valglokalet; du må også kunne finne, diskutere og forholde deg til relevant informasjon, for eksempel om de kostbare krigene Norge og Danmark deltar i, kriger som allerede har kostet en rekke norske og danske liv.

På gateplan brukes terrorlover mot helt normal demokratisk aktivitet, som demonstrasjoner mot klimautslipp under klimatoppmøtet i København, som fremvisning av Greenpeace-bannere mot genmodifisert mat i samme by, eller som den fredelige utdelingen av løpesedler i Nobel-byen Oslo.

Holdningen politiet håper du skal innta når de bøtelegger løpeseddelutdelere med gigantbeløp som 11.000 per person, er at disse papirpusherne sikkert må ha gjort mer enn bare å pushe papir på uskyldige fotgjengere. Når politiet reagerer såpass hardt, må det ha vært harde tak fra den andre parten også. Men selv om det er menneskelig å tenke slik, har du som menneske og borger også en plikt til å finne ut om det virkelig er sånn.

For du vet jo ikke – når du en måned eller to eller tre etterpå leser om dette i avisen – om det faktisk var slik at de hadde gjort seg fortjent til å miste elleve tusenlapper. Det er bare din tillit til politiets dømmekraft og generelle rettferdighet som får deg til å anta at de bøtelagte gjorde noe annet enn å dele ut papir på gaten.

Fra gaten ser det nemlig helt annerledes ut. Ja, med tillit til de menneskene som delte ut løpesedler på gaten, fremstår politiet som statlige bøller som tramper på grunnlovsnedfelte menneskerettigheter som ytringsfrihet. Og medienes uvilje mot å dekke denne grelle krigen mot frie ytringer i Oslo Freedom Forum og Ny Tid-byens sentrum, fremstår som sensur og medløperi med de statlige bøllene og fascistene.

Krigens første offer er sannheten. Igår sa de på radioen at Aftenposten nok engang var blitt Norges største avis. Det var den også under den tyske okkupasjonen.

Newsmill censurerar 11 septemberfrågan

Nyhetssajten Newsmill, som säger sig vara ett öppnare alternativ till den traditionella svenska pressen, bedrar sina läsare. Med fula metoder censurerar de bland annat 11 septemberfrågan.

Censur, fiffel med läsarstatistiken och allmän journalistisk ohederlighet har blivit vardagsmat för Newsmills redaktörer. Och ändå utger de sig för att vara ett alternativ till de stora nyhetskoncernernas mediediktatur.

När idén lanserades för ett par år sen var det en del som direkt genomskådade mediejättarnas försök att ta kontroll över det utbredda bloggandet i Sverige. Newsmill, som ägs av Bonnier AB och Proventus, kallades av Aftonbladets Dan Josefsson för “Bonniers nya redaktionsförklädda pr-byrå”.

I “Så ska de tygla bloggsfären” (5/9 -08) menar han att Newsmills skendemokratiska upplägg måste ses som ett steg för att säkra det monopol över svenskt tankeklimat som delvis är hotat i och med nätets möjligheter till icke-modererad nyhetsförmedling. Om Bonniers ökande inflytande skriver han:

Genom chefstillsättningen i Bonnier-medierna sipprar ägarnas politiska agenda ständigt ut i samhällsdebatten. … Bonniers får en demokratiskt sett omotiverat stor makt över vem som får styra landet och vilka lagar som fattas.

Nu till mer konkreta exempel på hur debatten styrs: För ett år sedan publicerade jag i Newsmills fria forum ett antal artiklar om 11 september och det världsvida kravet på en ny undersökning av terrorangreppen. Dessa blev snabbt populära, särskilt den om riksdagsmannen Egon Frids uppbackning – “Svensk riksdagsman i internationellt politiskt upprop för sanningen om attackerna den 11/9″.

Denna var under flera dagar en av de fem mest lästa artiklarna men av någon anledning framgick inte detta i den topplista som även sprids på sajten dn.se. Förbryllad ringde jag upp Newsmills redaktör Karin Eder-Ekman som även hon, tillsammans med de övriga redaktörerna, konstaterade omständigheten. Ingen av dem sade sig dock kunna förklara fenomenet.

Jag ringde då upp IT-byrån Bazooka, som sköter driften av Newsmill. Där kunde man snabbt konstatera att en spärr aktiverats som hindrade artikeln från att synas på kortlistan. Tilläggas kan att man till att börja med utgick ifrån att jag var “den nye killen på Newsmill”.

Sedan dess har Newsmill vägrat att publicera nästan alla mina artiklar om 11 september och andra ämnen.

Antalet träffar på de redan publicerade har dock stigit kraftigt det senaste året. Så pass att man uppenbarligen bestämde sig för att vidta nya åtgärder. För en dryg månad sen sjönk plötsligt läsarantalet på de tre mest populära från cirka 15 000, 14 000 och 11 000 på de mest lästa till mer modesta 1 352, 2 571 och 4 055 (den 15 april). Detta skedde alltså i lagom tid innan de kunde nå sina toppnoteringar för det senaste året.

Vi som efterfrågar en ny internationell undersökning av attackerna den 11 september tycker det är anmärkningsvärt att Newsmill ena stunden framställer denna önskan som en galen konspirationsteori för att i nästa ögonblick känna sig tvungna att ta till fula knep för att strypa debatten.

Jan Utzon intervjuet av Richard Gage

Gjennom år har den meget løst sammensatte 9/11 Truth-bevegelsen erfart medieapparatets motvillighet mot dekning av politisk ukorrekte syn på World Trade Center-angrepene den 11. september 2001. Til tider finnes det, om man kan kalle det det, lysglimt og øyeblikk med nøkternhet der «forbudte» temaer tas opp og skrives om, som seg hør og bør om man skal påberope seg å leve i et sivilisert og demokratisk samfunn.

Den danske avisen Berlingske Tidende gjorde nettopp dette i november, da de publiserte en artikkel der Jørn Utzons sønn, Jan Utzon, uttrykker sin skepsis til den offisielle forklaringen vedrørende 9/11-hendelsene i et intervju med grunnleggeren av Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage.  Jan Utzon er selv arkitekt og tilknyttet sin fars kreasjon Sydney Operahouse.

Han sier i artikkelen følgende:

Jeg siger ikke det er løgn, men jeg er bekymret over historien og vil gerne høre nogle gode forklaringe…

og

Hvis nogen prøver at dække over noget, er det godt at få det ud, for hvad kan de ellers dække over?

Utzon har skrevet under oppropet for en ny etterforskning og hjelper slik Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth å spre budskapet.  Her er noen av hans oppfatninger om hendelsene:

Tag nu for eksempel World Trade Center bygning 7, der lå i nærheden af Twin Towers. Den kollapsede totalt? Hvorfor? Der var ingen ild i bygningen, og alt var intakt, da den pludselig faldt sammen. Og hvorfor ligner bygning 7-kollapset umiskendeligt meget den slags kontrollerede eksplosionsnedrivninger, man ser i tv, når højhuse synker i jorden lag på lag på lag?

og:

Det samme med Twin Towers. Hvordan kan 80.000 tons stål styrte sammen i frit falds hastighed? Der er noget, der ikke passer, argumenterer arkitekterne.  Bygninger klasker ikke sammen på den måde på grund af ildebrand. Bygninger klasker sammen på den måde på grund af eksplosioner, dynamit, sprængstof. Kontrolleret vel at mærke. Nogen må have trykket på knappen.  Det lignede en nedrivning mere end noget andet, siger Jan Utzon.

Intervjuet kan ses her:

Jan Utzon begynte ifølge Berlingske å tvile på den offisielle forklaringen da han så Blueprint for Truth – the Architecture of Destruction, utgitt av Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Som han selv sier:

Jeg ville elske at diskutere det med mine kolleger. Hvis man ikke vil snakke om, hvad der er sandt og falskt, kan man ligeså godt gå ind i skabet og glemme det.

Den officiella 11 septemberversionen är också en konspirationsteori

En mängd motsägelser och frågor kontrasterar mot den officiella konspirationsteorin om 11 september. Att inte ta dessa frågor på allvar kan i värsta fall vara ett hot mot de demokratiska principerna.

När jag för drygt ett år sedan började granska den internationella 9/11 Truthrörelsen visste jag inte vad jag skulle tänka.

Jag hade visserligen stött på några artiklar om konspirationsteorier där attackerna i USA den 11 september 2001 togs upp men jag hade ingen aning om att det bakom ifrågasättandena stod tusentals arkitekter och ingenjörer, jurister, läkare och andra akademiker, politiker, brandmän, piloter och till och med kändisar förutom ögonvittnen och anhöriga till de omkomna.

Efter en sökning i de stora svenska dagstidningarna visade det sig att jag inte hade missat något. Förutom väldigt förenklade och ofta skämtsamt hållna texter saknades det rapportering kring frågan. Och det saknas fortfarande.

För två år sedan presenterade CNN en undersökning enligt vilken en av tre amerikaner trodde att 11 september var ett så kallat insiderjobb. I ett av de många uppropen kräver 953 arkitekter och ingenjörer en ny utredning av de tre World Trade Centerbyggnadernas kollapser. Nio internationella forskare, inklusive danske kemisten Niels Harrit, har i en vetenskaplig artikel konstaterat höga halter av högteknologiska sprängämnen i stoftet från de tre WTC-husen. Över hundra dokumenterade vittnesmål talar om explosioner i byggnaderna, även i källarplanen och innan det första flygplanet träffade. Dessa har inte beaktats i den officiella 11 septemberredogörelsen. Flera av medarbetarna i 11 septemberkommissionen, som skrev rapporten, efterlyser själva en ny undersökning då de var hårt styrda i sina slutsatser. 80 000 New Yorkbor har i år skrivit under NYCCAN-uppropet som kräver en ny utredning.

I det politiska uppropet återfinns, bland många andra, Cynthia McKinney från USA, före detta ledamot av representanthuset, Andreas von Bülow från Tyskland, jurist och före detta forsknings- och teknologiminister, och Yukihisa Fujita, japansk ledamot av parlamentet som ofta tar upp frågan där. Bland de nordiska deltagarna märks svenske riksdagsmannen Egon Frid (v) och norska Berit Ås, tidigare professor i socialpsykologi och partiledare för Sosialistisk Venstreparti. Ett stort antal i den amerikanska säkerhetstjänsten har ifrågasatt den officiella versionen av vad som hände. FBI-medarbetaren Coleen Rowley utnämndes år 2002 av Time Magazine till en av årets tre viktigaste personer för att hon avslöjat att man på FBI:s huvudkontor blockerat förhandskännedom om attackerna.

Regissörer och skådespelare som David Lynch, Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Sharon Stone, Woody Harrelson, Mathieu Kassovitz och Juliette Binoche står bakom ifrågasättandena.

Listan skulle kunna göras betydligt längre. Varför får då 11 septemberfrågan så lite uppmärksamhet?

För att uppnå ett läge där vi kan diskutera motsägelserna kring 11 september utan att hemfalla åt märkliga associationer och förutfattade meningar kan det vara värt att komma ihåg att även den officiella versionen av vad som hände är en konspirationsteori om en attack planerad och utförd av Osama bin Laden och det så kallade al-Quaidanätverket.

Det handlar inte om att dra några förhastade slutsatser. Det handlar om frågor. Att fortsätta sopa motsägelserna under mattan kan i värsta fall vara ett hot mot de demokratiska principerna. Attackerna den 11 september 2001 har haft alldeles för stora konsekvenser för att behandlas lättvindigt.

Det är hög tid för en oberoende internationell utredning av 11 september.

Neste side »