Principal Intelligence Officer For South Yorkshire Police Says 9/11 and 7/7 Inside Jobs

Tony Farrell had been employed for twelve years as ‘Principle Intelligence Analyst’ for South Yorkshire Police, 13^th largest of the 44 police forces in the UK. His job involved producing a yearly ‘Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix’ to determine how the police force had to prioritise its activities. Assessed ‘threats’ ranged from ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) to the terrorist threat allegedly presented by Islamic extremists. Having a statistics degree, it was his job to translate the different ‘strategic threats’ into a ‘matrix’ of relative numerical weighted probabilities.

In 2010, one week before the 5^th anniversary of 7/7, Tony (who had never previously doubted government versions of events) stumbled across ‘9/11 Truth’ material on the web. Like so many millions before him, he was shocked to the core by this experience. He quickly realised that there was a great mass of evidence relating to 9/11 kept hidden by the mainstream media. As a Christian, Tony consulted his church minister, who suggested that he consider, whether the same might be true for the London 7/7 bombings?

Something he had not suspected ‘in his wildest dreams’ then started to unfold. After reading much of the available but publicly-unreported witness statements and other evidence relating to 7/7, Tony found that he could only conclude that the official 7/7 narrative was ‘a monstrous lie.’ Instead of the official ‘suicide bombers’ narrative, which he and all of his colleagues had believed without question, he realised that the weight of evidence strongly points far more towards 7/7 being an event stage-managed by British intelligence than anything else.

The unthinkable but inescapable question thus intruded: Does there exist an ‘internal tyranny’ worse than any external foe?

All the assumptions he had held about the ‘strategic threat’ from terrorism were shattered and lay in ruins, and he found himself now doubting the size of any threat allegedly coming from Al-Qaeda and home-grown extremists.  Within the police service, he felt horribly alone not knowing who to talk to about this matter – a situation made acute because he would have to present his annual threat assessment to the ‘Intelligence Strategic Management Board’ on July 8^th -  mere days away.

From his Christian perspective 9/11 and 7/7 could only now be perceived as expressions of a Satanic dimension concerning the ascent of what everybody was calling a ‘New World Order’. He saw these deceitful events as false-flag operations perpetrated in order to justify illegal and wicked wars. This was a deep personal crisis – one that would terminate his career.

On July 6^th he ‘stuck his head above the parapet’ by alerting his boss – that he was developing a very different conceptual model of the strategic threat.

The terse document he handed over, suggested that the untruth of the 9/11 story implied ‘a huge potential for a total breakdown in trust between the government and the masses’ and it warned of ‘a tipping-point’ that would surely arrive as it slowly dawned upon citizens that their own government had conspired against them and had lied to them and had murdered innocents in the process.

Likewise he warned that, if indeed 7/7 had been ‘deliberately engineered’ to justify British PM Tony Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush in the illegal war in Iraq, ‘There will be total outrage within the masses and a complete breakdown of trust between the Government and the people of the UK.’

In the presence of two intelligence managers, he alerted the Detective Superintendent, the Director of Intelligence for the South Yorkshire Police, explaining that all of his work used open-source material – he was not violating ‘official secrets’. He alluded to secret societies and a Masonic influence as being very central. The Director of Intelligence distanced the other two managers and they held a one-to-one conversation. The biggest single threat to the UK, Tony Farrell explained to him, was now coming from internal tyranny and in his opinion ‘far exceeded’ any threat from Islamic terrorism. ‘Tony, you and I will never get them to tell the truth’, came the philosophical reply, ‘- we are mere foot-soldiers of the government.’

That indeed was sensible advice, from someone who cared for his welfare – but, something more important was stirring within Tony Farrell: the voice of his conscience, and that would not permit him to go along with the ‘monstrous lie’.

His seniors, seemingly concerned for his well-being expressed a wish for Tony to visit Occupational Health. This irked him, as he felt and indeed was in perfectly good health.

On July 7^th 2010, his first line manager, a Detective Chief Inspector spent a good part of the day with him trying to steer him into keeping to the original plan and to avoid rocking the boat. Could they not achieve some sort of compromise – then he could take his three weeks’ leave? To comply with that, he would have had turn a blind eye to his own assessment and deliberately hand over misleading analysis. His ‘strategic’ models were looking promising according to his line manager – yet he could not set aside his new views about ‘internal tyranny.’

As a seemingly lone voice in his police force, Tony Farrell found himself wrestling in the ‘Valley of Decision’ at home that evening, a theme he found expressed in the Book of Job, Chapter 3. He also pondered the 9th Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ He experienced an epic struggle going on that seemed to him to resemble that described in the Book of Ephesians, Chapter 6.

So that evening, 5 years to the day from the London bombings, he reached his own momentous personal decision. He resolved to take a stand knowing it would probably lead to him being sacked.

On July 8^th he handed over a very short version of the ‘Strategic Assessment Matrix,’ which averred that the real terrorist ‘threat’ to society was almost entirely of the state-sponsored kind, and it alluded to both 9/11 and 7/7 in this context. Other threats from other ‘domains of criminality’ were, his brief report claimed, ‘insignificant’ by comparison.

This was hardly following the National Intelligence Model guidance, relating to ‘Threat and Risk Assessment models’ that he was supposed to use.  ‘Tony we can’t do business like this,’ his manager pleaded.

He was asked to create a personal report: how had he arrived at such an unheard-of view? His privileges were withdrawn and his computer accessed, but as he had done his investigation at home and with open-source material, nothing untoward was found.

And so he was absent from the board meeting that afternoon, even though it was anticipating the yearly presentation from him. Instead he was sent home to compile a report, explaining his stance. He offered to produce a full report with backup evidence, for his shocking new views, but that wasn’t required.

Sacked for his beliefs

His work ‘could be helpful to the police service’ the DI remarked cryptically. Everything had happened so quickly, much too quickly. Tony Farrell was summoned to a hearing chaired by the Director of Finance a member of the Senior Command Team on 2^nd September 2010.  He was told that he held beliefs that were ‘incompatible’ with his position.  There was no allegation of any misconduct. In dismissing him, the Director of Finance said this: “It is a very sad occasion as you have done some excellent work for South Yorkshire Police and I have never been involved in a situation like today. Your beliefs are very sincere and you may be right, but it is I’m afraid incompatible at the moment with where we are.”

He took the matter to the South Yorkshire Police Authority Appeal’s Committee but his case was dismissed.   He has since put the case into an Employment Tribunal where final hearings are scheduled to be held in early September 2011 in Sheffield. This will be a public event, and it is likely that South Yorkshire Police will feel embarrassed by the repercussions. This case has potentially far-reaching implications.

Tony Farrell gave an interview with Richard Hall on Sky TV released on July 8, 2011 (used as the main source for this article) and also that same day a 10-minute interview was broadcast on a Bristol local radio; synchronously enough, South Yorkshire’s Chief Constable announced his retirement on that same day 8th July – after nine years’ of service. Was this indicating some stress within the Force?  The whole story focuses by odd coincidences upon anniversary-dates of the London bombings, over the last couple of years.

Source: Terror on the Tube.

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

From 9/11 to 2/11

What we’ve all seen through all these years – through 3440 long days or exactly 113 months – has really just been their grossly distorted projection of this evil muslim monster that supposedly was responsible for horrific acts of violence like the September 2001 WTC attack and the July 2005 London Underground attack. But now we see the true arabs and the true muslims, fighting peacefully side-by-side with their christian and koptic brethren and sisters to relieve themselves of the yoke of an anti-democratic and pro-zionist dictator in the shape of so-called president Hosni Mubarak.

Today your struggle succeeded! And the careful but dangerous process begins to form a new future for Egypt, the Greater Middle East and, frankly, the entire world. We cried for you, we cried with you, and some day we hope we will laugh with you! And join you in the struggle for real democracy even in our neck of the woods. Peace! Love! Revolution! Democracy!

You taught the world how to write on the wall, now you must teach us all how to read the writing.

Redd Norge, redaktører!

Det er bare én måte vi kan stanse terror mot norske mål og mennesker på, og det er ved å nøste opp det nettverket som nærer og støtter terroren i vår verdensdel på 2000-tallet.

Dere redaktører kan og bør nå bidra til dette. Dere kan ikke la ideologi og prinsipper komme foran det å verne og beskytte menneskeliv i vårt eget land og i vår egen hovedstad. I så fall er dere for landssvikere å regne.

Dere vet fra måten T-banen i London ble sprengt på – med bomber under gulvene i vognene – at britiske myndigheter ikke snakker sant om angrepet på London-undergrunnen den 7. juli 2005. Dere vet også fra måten Tvillingtårnene ble sprengt på – med nanotermitt og andre eksplosiver – at amerikanske myndigheter ikke snakker sant om angrepet på World Trade Center i New York den 11. september 2001.

Dere vet også at amerikanske og britiske myndigheter har satt ut villedende rykter og desinformasjon om disse terrorangrepene, samtidig som de aktivt har hindret og sabotert reelle og uavhengige granskninger av disse dødelige hendelsene.

Det går ikke an å lukke øynene for slike tragiske hendelser og dødelige nettverk, og så håpe på at de ikke skal slå til i Oslo og Norge.

Vi trenger dere nå. Alle fakta er allerede gravet frem av de alternative mediene. Det er ingenting mer å lekke. Alt vi venter på nå, er at noen av dere tør skrive om det, prate om det og vise bevisene på TV.

Dere kan ikke lenger påstå at dere tror det står muslimer bak disse angrepene.

WikiLeaks: Trick or Treat?

While it’s been proven that the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize – Liu Xiaobo – is and has been for many years on NED’s payroll, and NED officially boasts about funding the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, taking over CIA’s covert work with more overt means, the jury’s still out on whether the WikiLeaks project is also really a NED front.

Anyhow, the suggestion has been made by a host of people, and recent leaks at the site also raise the question of whose interests Julian Assange’s website actually serves.

Please give me your thoughts – let’s hear the pros and cons – below, in comments or in this public wave.

DEMOS v. The Truth Movement

DEMOS v. The Truth Movement: There’s been quite a few newsletters and updates from Ian Fantom of Berkshire 9/11 Truth and «Keep Talking» fame lately, so let me just start off by alerting everyone in or near London that there is a very special dialogue meeting tomorrow at 7.30 pm at Goldsmiths, University of London, Room 308 in the Richard Hoggart Building (telephone: + 44 (0)20 7919 7171). The Richard Hoggart Building is on the West of the campus, on Lewisham Way (A20). Curious people in Norway or elsewhere in cyberspace can follow the event live at Ustream TV from about 20.30 CET on Monday, October 25th, 2010.

Following will be my edited excerpts from Ian’s newsletters in October and September:

In addition to yesterday’s newsletter, I can now provide you with the web address for live streaming of the event ‘DEMOS v. The Truth Movement’. It is:

www.ustream.tv/channel/demos-conspiracy-theories

Time: 19:00 for 19:30 (British Summer Time) Monday 25 October 2010
(UTC: 18:00 for 18:30)

I should imagine we’ll go live at 19:30 BST.

The provisional wording needs changing – if the correct title is there, it’s already been edited.

You may also be interested in a compilation of conspiracy theories which turned out to be true. Thanks to Jonathan Adams for this info:

33 conspiracy theories which turned out to be true

I’ve had a quick read through, and it looks brilliant.

If you could get this information out, that would be very helpful.

Keep Talking!

**

Berkshire 9/11 Truth movement Newsletter: October 2010-10-20

For the first time ever in the history of the 9/11 truth movement, as far as I am aware, truth seekers will have an opportunity to be directly confronted by ‘the other side’. The think-tank DEMOS has accepted an invitation to talk about their recommendations to Government on ‘open infiltration’ in what they call ‘conspiracy theory’ groups. That meeting will take place this coming Monday, under the heading ‘DEMOS v. The Truth Movement’.

What’s more, if everything goes to plan, the event will be broadcast live over the Internet. The meeting will be held at Goldsmiths College in London on Monday 25th October (19:00 for 19:30). The speakers will be the two authors of the DEMOS report ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’, which I wrote about in my September newsletter. Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller have agreed to come along and explain the thinking behind their work, and to answer questions from the audience.

In my September newsletter I described the recommendations, and gave some background on DEMOS, explaining its importance in Government thinking since 1997. If you don’t have that newsletter, and would like a copy, just email. I can also supply you with my Powerpoint presentation which I used at last month’s meeting of ‘9/11 Keep Talking’, in which I analysed the contents of the report.

In summary, I wrote in the newsletter: “The report was headed, ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’ (www.demos.co.uk/files/Conspiracy_theories_paper.pdf), and it claims to examine the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups, arguing that conspiracy theories are linked to violence. It singles out the 9/11 Truth movement as being “most notorious and influential”, in that it questions the official accounts of 9/11. It states that the obvious response by Government of producing information often fails because any refutation risks being taken as evidence of a cover up. The authors propose introducing ‘alternative information’ to civilian groups which believe in conspiracy theories. This may be introduced directly by agents of the Government, ‘or their allies’, in what they term ‘open infiltration’, or it may be introduced by civilian groups, which would be seen to be independent of Government.”

Shortly after the report was published, Jamie Bartlett opened up a blog on the DEMOS website headed ‘The bloggers strike back’ (www.demos.co.uk/blog/engaging-), giving a description of the report, and accepting comments. Many of these comments concerned the issue of 9/11, which had been included in the report. In response to one contributer, he stated: “Paolo you are absolutely right, the report was not about the 9/11 truth movement, but about conspiracy theories in extremist groups. I have, however, consequently been sucked into a debate about 9/11, which I am more than happy to take on”. He added: “Finally, I will be going on to a radio show soon with someone who I think is quite an influential person in the 9/11 truth movement. He posted a video about our report here. To his credit he’s willing to have me on his radio show. So I’ll post details when I get them.

I put a couple of questions up myself, and these were replied to privately. I then asked Carl whether they would be willing to come and talk to us and answer questions on their report. Carl replied that he would, but that they would both be abroad for the next meeting. Some time later I wrote on Jamie’s blog page: “You and Carl will be most welcome to come to our 9/11 Keep Talking group in London to explain your report and to answer questions on it. This would provide an opportunity for both of you to demonstrate just how ‘open infiltration’ would work, and how you would propose to introduce ‘alternative information’ in connection with the 9/11 issue. It would also allow you to explain to us the other forms of infiltration which you propose, and why they are necessary, compared with the current methods already employed by the security services. Carl has already accepted in principle, and so if you could email me with some dates, I’ll be able to set something up.” Jamie responded privately, and that led to Monday’s meeting.

Initially, we had intended this as a normal monthly meeting of the London group, which we had been holding in a pub in St Pancras Station, in a meeting room provided free of charge. But by the last meeting they were asking us to commit to £10 per head in drinks and food. Attendance went down. Then David Rose stepped in. He is a PhD student of Sociology at Goldsmith’s College, a part of the University of London, working on ‘Visual Sociology and Conspiracy Theories’ (www.gold.ac.uk/sociology/staff/nash/). He managed to book a room at the university as part of his doctoral work. There is no entrance fee, but it is particularly important that the meeting be conducted in an orderly and academic way.

If you can’t get to the event yourself, you may like to watch it live on the Internet. We’re still working on that, but to keep you informed, David will put up the latest information in the calendar on the university’s website (www.gold.ac.uk/calendar/?action=month – look up for the 25th). The streamed event will probably be at http://www.ustream.tv/ . You’ll need to know which channel.
For those who can reach London, the meeting will be in Room 308 in the Richard Hoggart Building. The Main Goldsmiths Reception will be informed about the event on the night and have directions to RHB 308. David will also put up signs. The address is: Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK (telephone: + 44 (0)20 7919 7171). The Richard Hoggart Building is on the West of the campus, on Lewisham Way (A20), midway between the two stations (New Cross and New Cross Gate). There is detalied information here about how to travel to Goldsmiths on their website (www.gold.ac.uk/find-us/), with a campus map (www.gold.ac.uk/media/campus-map-instructions.pdf) which includes a listing of travel options. If anyone is thinking of traveling into London for the event then the White Hart Hotel in New Cross has single rooms for £25 per night.

Here are a few links for anyone who wishes to investigate a bit further. The DEMOS report may be downloaded from the DEMOS site (www.demos.co.uk/publications/thepowerofunreason), as well as the relevant DEMOS press release (www.demos.co.uk/press_releases/conspiracytheories). Jamie Bartlett has a blog on The Guardian website (www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamiebartlett), and wrote about the DEMOS report shortly after its publication (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/03/conspiracy-theories-corroding-society). A report appeared on the BBC website, headed “Demos fears government terror strategy ‘fuels mistrust’” (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11123105). The person who offered to interview the authors in a radio show is known as MistrBrit on his YouTube web page (www.youtube.com/user/MistrBrit), and he has two videos on the DEMOS report: ‘Dangerous Conspiracy Theorists (And How To Shut Them Up)’ (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtesLWAqXg), and ‘Demos Think Tank Respond To My Video’ (www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_u8zi74Z3M), where he states that he has spoken with Jamie Bartlett and intends to do a live debate. The report is also featured in Wikispooks (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Power_of_Unreason).

Both the DEMOS press release and the Guardian blog give prominance to 9/11, thus emphasising that the 9/11 truth movement was indeed of primary relevance to the report. Please feel free to pass this newsletter on to friends and to get the information out there, and above all, keep talking.

**

Keep Talking meeting Monday October 25

We have a rather special meeting of the Keep Talking group this time.

For the first time ever, as far as I am aware, a 9/11 group has had the opportunity to challenge the authorities directly on their side of the story, in order to call them to account.

At the September meeting I gave a presentation on the DEMOS report ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’, and I wrote about that in some detail in my September newsletter. An excerpt from that report is to be found at the end of this message.

Both authors of that report have now agreed to come along to the 9/11 Keep Talking group to explain to us their recommendations to Government, and to answer our questions on it. One of the authors, Jamie Bartlett, has accepted a specific invitation for the 25 of October, and he is just checking with the other author Carl Miller to see if he can make it for the same evening.

Bearing in mind that DEMOS is widely believed to have had more influence over Government strategy during the Blair years than the Cabinet itself had, and that it now has close ties with the coalition cabinet, this is an important occasion.

So, we can announce our next meeting as follows:

Topic: DEMOS report ‘conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’
Presentation by Jamie Bartlett, and hopefully also Carl Miller

Keep talking ;-)

Hoping this will be a great event!

**

Berkshire 9/11 Truth movement Newsletter: September 2010-09-30

The propaganda war in the cover-up of 9/11 lies is hotting up. In my last two newsletters I wrote about the misuse of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ in discrediting those who just wanted to know the truth. In July I wrote about the misuse of the term by the coroner in the inquest of those who died in the London bombings of July 7, 2005, and in August I wrote about the BBC’s reaction to a call for a proper inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, when they invited onto Newsnight “anticonspiracy theory nutters such as journalist David Aaronovitch”, who would talk of “hundreds of conspiracy theories” and skillfully avoid mentioning that two of the people who had called for an inquiry are now members of the Cabinet. What I was not aware of was that whilst I was writing my August newsletter, some of David Aaronovitch’s friends in the think-tank DEMOS were publishing a report exactly along those lines, but focusing on the issue of 9/11.

The report was headed, ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’ (www.demos.co.uk/files/Conspiracy_theories_paper.pdf), and it claims to examine the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups, arguing that conspiracy theories are linked to violence. It singles out the 9/11 Truth movement as being “most notorious and influential”, in that it questions the official accounts of 9/11. It states that the obvious response by Government of producing information often fails because any refutation risks being taken as evidence of a cover up. The authors propose introducing “alternative information” to civilian groups which believe in conspiracy theories. This may be introduced directly by agents of the Government, “or their allies”, in what they term ‘open infiltration’, or it may be introduced by civilian groups, which would be seen to be independent of Government.

In fact, the report quotes David Aaronovitch’s definition of ‘conspiracy theories’, from his book ‘Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History’: “What distinguishes conspiracy theories from genuine efforts to uncover actual conspiracies is that a conspiracy theory is not the most plausible account of events based on the available evidence. David Aaronovitch points out they attribute secret action that ‘might far more reasonably be explained as the less covert and less complicated action of another’”. There is, however, no analysis of whether the official story that the 9/11 attacks were directed by a man suffering from kidney failure in the remote Black Mountains of Afghanistan would be more plausible than the idea that the US administration had rogue elements within it, who carried out the attacks from within. The two theories are not even incompatible. If the authorities had really believed that the attacks had been orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, then you would have thought that they themselves would have been investigating whether Al Qaeda had infiltrated the CIA. However, the DEMOS report singles out the 9/11 movement as being the “most notorious and influential”, in that it merely questions the official accounts of 9/11. That does not even fall within their friend’s definition, which they themselves had quoted.

The report claims to have “have conducted new analysis of the literature, ideology and propaganda of over fifty extremist groups from across the spectrum: religious, far-right and left, eco, anarchic, and cult-based”. However, exactly which groups had been analysed, how they were selected, and what analysis was carried out, is not made clear. A list of 16 extremist groups “with no significant conspiracy theories” is first presented, with no explanation of their relevance. Then a tabulated list of 30 items, representing 35 groups, is presented, together with a description of the conspiracy theories which they are said to hold. The relevance of this list is not explained, and, indeed, only six of them are UK groups: one is proscribed, one has long been defunct, one is an obscure heathenist anti-multicultural group and the others are obscure far-right political groups. In the body of the report, out of the 34 groups mentioned, 11 do not appear in the tabulated list. These include the Khmer Rouge, the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the ‘9/11 truth movement’. By producing such lists, they are painting a picture of extremism and violence, into which they slot the 9/11 Truth movement, neither on the basis of extremism nor on the basis of conspiracy theory, but on the basis of questioning the state.

The report states that conspiracy theories have become a mainstream cultural phenomenon, and that very large numbers of people believe conspiracy theories: a third of all Americans consider it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that government officials either allowed, or actually carried out the attacks on 9/11; 80% of Muslims believe American and/or Israeli governments carried out the attacks; nearly a quarter of British Muslims in 2006 did not believe the four men identified as the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks were responsible, and around half believed that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the CIA and Israel. These are very powerful statistics, especially when they are quoted by those who appear to have an interest in eradicating what they call ‘conspiracy theories’.

The report does admit that some conspiracy theories are true, but gives only three, and these are over forty years old. Out of all the conspiracy theories mentioned, one conspiracy theory which was conspicuously absent from the report was making headlines in the mainstream media as the report was being prepared: the strange death of Dr David Kelly. It would be interesting to know why.

The report states that a response is required, and makes several recommendations to Government. The first two concern the education of young people, in encouraging critical thinking, deconstructing propaganda, and “reviewing how far the education system equips young people to navigate false information and counter knowledge”. These would imply standards that the report itself does not adhere to.

There are several proposals concerning making Government and security information more open or transparent, but they state: “It is very difficult for government to effectively fight conspiracy theories that have already gained a foothold in extremist groups. As noted, government lacks the credibility to do so, and attempts to do so may inadvertently give such theories more credibility”. In other words, Government is no longer believed. In order to overcome this problem, the report recommends that “Civil Society must play a more proactive role in confronting the lies and myths of conspiracy theories when they find them”. This can only mean vigilante groups, but the mechanism by which such independent vigilante groups may spring up following a recommendation to Government that that should happen is not made clear. Such a mechanism would be far from transparent. One should look to Government, the security services, or the financial backers for an explanation.

The report’s final recommendation states: “Introduce some limited, open infiltration of Internet and physical sites by government to introduce alternative information”. According to that recommendation, Government agents or their allies would “openly infiltrate the Internet sites or spaces to plant doubts about conspiracy theories, introducing alternative information”. I sought clarification from the authors, who confirmed that the agents would indeed declare their roles as Government agents. I wonder what the agents of the Government’s allies would declare.

The report is important because of influence which DEMOS is believed to have had over Government policy since 1997 under Tony Blair’s New Labour, and may still have with the coalition government. The New Labour period saw a massive erosion of civil liberties, and in that period the UK became known as the surveillance capital of the world.

As former cabinet minister Clare Short put it in her 2004 book ‘An Honorable Deception? New Labour, Iraq, and the Misuse of Power’, “it was after the 1992 defeat that New Labour was created by a very small group of people who went on to take over the reigns of power and to restrict and diminish democracy in the party” (page 2). Some in the New Labour group had been members of the Communist Party or Marxist groups. A chronology gives the context: 1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, followed in 1991 by the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. Around this time, the Communist Party of Great Britain disintegrated in an orgy of quarreling instigated by MI5, as was later to be revealed by MI5 whistleblowers Annie Machon and David Shayler. As regards the Labour Party, Clare Short wrote, “Urgent reform was needed, most importantly to end the infiltration of Trotskyist groups into the party” (page 20). In 1994 Labour leader John Smith died, Tony Blair took over, and in 1997 became Prime Minister. Clare Short made it clear throughout in her book, that this country had not had Cabinet government since 1997.

DEMOS was founded in 1993, and initially had close links with the emerging New Labour group. A recent article on the ‘Social Equality Party’ website traces many of the New Labour people to their Communist or Marxist pasts, and shows the relationship with DEMOS, and how the same people are now becoming advisors to the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The article concludes: “Demos and its top personnel move seamlessly on to act as political advisers to the Tories on how best to impose the savage austerity measures demanded by big business” (www.socialequality.org.uk/~sepuk/content/alan-milburn-new-labour-and-british-coalition-government).

DEMOS today claims to be independent (www.demos.co.uk), and has involvement from all three main political parties. Its Advisory Board consists of academics, journalists and politicians, four of whom are currently Cabinet members: George Osborne, David Willetts, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable. Its financial backers, according the annual reports up to 2008, include various Government departments and the Cabinet itself. Such a body is now making proposals to Government which, whilst appearing to be advocating more openness and transparency, would lead to just the opposite. The result would amount to a Ministry of Truth, truth vigilantes and a thought police.

At the Keep Talking group in London I gave a talk on this report, and as I was preparing it, someone referred me to a new book by David Ray Griffin, called ‘Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory’ (www.amazon.co.uk/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218/ref=sr_1_1). It seems that something similar has been happening in the US, but there seems to have been less of a pretence of ‘openness’. A book review on the UK Amazon site by Tango Karlos begins: “Obama’s ‘Information Czar’ appointee, a Harvard law professor and a personal friend, Cass Sunstein, is administrator of the White House Office of Information. In 2009 Sunstein published «Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,» in which he suggested propaganda against the people and, eventually, elimination! The article led to an outcry by civil libertarians of all political stripes, who especially singled out for protest Sunstein’s call to make talking about conspiracy theories illegal; for covert ‘cognitive infiltration’ by government agents; and even taxing or fining publishers for writing or printing material deemed to be conspiracy theory material! Sunstein says that ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’ are his main focus. Sunstein has called for what is a ‘Counter Intelligence Program’ directed specifically against the 9/11 truth movement!”

The review then goes into some detail on how David Ray Griffin “penetrates the obfuscation and phony scholarship employed by Sunstein to create the illusion of a rational critique of the 9/11 truth movement’s alternative account of the events of September 11, 2001 … But in so doing Sunstein has provided Griffin the means to demonstrate yet again that defenders of the official account of 9/11 are forced to resort to disinformation, suppression of evidence, lies, illogic, threats and intimidation, always with the same result: failure”.

A historical account relating to the Sunstein paper was given by Danikel Tencer in January on the Raw Story site under the title ”Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups” (rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/). I shall be interested to read Sunstein’s paper, and David Ray Griffin’s book, to see how close these are to the DEMOS report and my analysis, which I gave at the Keep Talking group. I also wrote a couple of other articles on the DEMOS report, which may or may not appear, but anyone wishing to have a copy of my Powerpoint presentation need only ask.

After I had given the talk, I was told that Iranian Television had been trying to contact me to ask for permission to film the event. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my mobile with me.

Then, on September 23 I started finding early reports of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations. Early press reports were saying that he had accused the United States of carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Some reports were denigrating him as a ‘holocaust denier’ in an attempt to discredit his statements on 9/11. There were reports of the US, British and other delegations walking out. Eventually I found a video of the complete speech, with English translation (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4I8oyNEtI), when I could hear just what he had said. Later I acquired the full text (gadebate.un.org/Portals/1/statements/634208557381562500IR_en.pdf).

In his speech, President Ahmadinejad mentioned the events of 11 September 2001, saying that that had affected the whole world for almost a decade. “All of a sudden”, he said, “the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.”

“Please take note:”, he continued, “It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11th September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.”

He continued: “In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints. 1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen. 2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view”. It was at this point that the US delegation walked out, followed by others. President Ahmadinejad continued:” 3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

“There remain, however, a few questions to be answered: 1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them? 2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group? 3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

“It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the 11 September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.

“I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.”

I have no knowledge of what happened in the case of Riggi incident, but otherwise that text looks very reasonable. When he gave three widely believed theories of what happened, that is exactly what I did with regards the death of Dr Kelly in my August newsletter. When he talked about widespread disbelief in the official story, that is exactly what DEMOS did in their report. When he called for a fact-finding mission, that is exactly what thousands of Newyorkers had been doing for several years, though they were asking for their own Government to investigate, rather than the United Nations. When he stated that he would set up a conference next year to consider the issue, that is what many truth-seekers have been doing over the years, though on a smaller scale.

The diplomats who walked out on President Ahmadinejad during his speech were walking out not only on the Iranian president, but also on many, many members of the public who do not believe the official story and want some sort of investigation.

The danger now is that the US administration may panic. As I write, Associated Press today put out a notice that the US has blacklisted eight Iranian officials (www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-places-iranian-officials-on-blacklist-2093305.html). They will almost certainly block a UN fact-finding mission, but they may also attempt to block a conference in Iran by any means available.

The signs are that the propaganda war will continue to hot up. In an earlier newsletter I mentioned that truth-seekers might become labeled as ‘9/11 deniers’. That’s now happening. I think that attempts to discredit the movement by associating it with ‘holocaust denial’ have now run their course; the danger now is that that will merely give credence to holocaust denial. Discrediting by making allegations of ‘paranoia’ has also run its course; we now all know what ‘paranoid’ means. The current challenge is in dealing with allegations of ‘conspiracy theory’, which, I think, will eventually run their course if we keep on tackling it. We need just to keep talking, and at every opportunity dealing with what I suppose we can legitimately call ‘conspiracy deniers’.

Keep talking,
Ian.
ian@fantom.org.uk

Berkshire 9/11 Truth
www.berkshire911truth.org.uk (webmaster: David Bowman)
berkshire911truth.blogspot.com/ (newsletter: Ian Fantom)

Fascisme: It Couldn’t Happen Here

Anders Bisgaard lar tidligere høyesterettsdommer (og mannen bak navnet til Lund-kommisjonen) Ketil Lund tegne opp det store bildet i 4. spalte på side 8 i Morgenbladet 26. mars:

- Det går en akse fra den liberale norske rettsstaten og over i et mer totalitært regime. Vi beveger oss på denne aksen – spørsmålet er hvor vi stanser.
- Er vi fortsatt en liberal rettsstat i internasjonal sammenheng?
– Ja, for all del. Hele den vestlige verden har beveget seg akselererende i løpet av de senere årene. Den norske utviklingen akselererer ikke raskere enn i andre land.

Her tenker du sikkert at dette bare er nok en kjedelig og tørr Morgenblad-artikkel der unge menn intervjuer gamle menn, mens alt egentlig er i sin skjønneste orden. Lund fikk jo lov å gå av med pensjon, fer chrissake! Og Anders får ham til å synge nasjonalsangen om vår fortsatt veldig liberale rettsstat.

Du tenker forsåvidt også riktig. Forsiden er jo viet den brølende overskriften HISTORIEN OM DA OLJEFONDET TØYDE REGLENE, TAPTE 633 MILLIARDER OG TOK UT MILLIONBONUSER MENS DET NORSKE FOLK SOV, og slettes ikke HISTORIEN OM DA NORGE GLED STILLE INN I FASCISMEN PÅ KNAPPE TI ÅR. Og intervjuet med Lund har fått den trygge taggen «Overvåkning», som du sikkert syns det er litt for mye av. Men pytt-pytt..

Lund viser til den italienske filosofen Giorgio Agamben, som mener at demokratier som forvitrer til totalitære samfunn gjennomlever en unntakstilstand som med tiden blir permanent, med stadig nye innskrenkninger av den personlige friheten. Denne tilstanden blir etter hvert oppfattet av borgerne som normaltilstanden, og derfor blir det heller ikke reagert stort mot den før det er for sent.
- Og denne unntakstilstanden oppsto i vårt tilfelle etter terrorangrepene i USA 11. september 2001?

Anders spør altså om unntakstilstanden [som nå er blitt permanent] på veien fra det norske demokratiet til det totalitære Nazi-Norge, ble innført i kjølvannet av hendelsene i USA den 11. september 2001.

Lund svarer:

- Det kan man si, og den karakteriseres ved at det stadig er trusler til stede som legitimerer nye inngrep. Trusler har imidlertid en tendens til å blekne noe over tid. Da vil nye trusler bli fremhevet.

Lund nevner her blant annet at vi «leser i pressen om alt fra internasjonal, organisert kriminalitet til terror som kan skje når som helst, om radikalisering av islamske miljøer i Norge» – som om han allerede i mars hadde lest PSTs dreiebok for den gjennomfalske «terrorsaken» av 8. juli 2010.

For å forklare hvordan vandringen i repressiv retning foregår, låner Lund et begrep av den svenske riksdagsrepresentanten Camilla Lindberg fra det sosialliberalistiske Folkpartiet – søsterpartiet til norske Venstre. Hun mener innskrenkningene i vår frihet skjer gjennom «de små skritts tyranni», som også er tittelen på hennes bidrag i Til forsvar for personvernet. Det argumenteres fra myndighetenes side med at det enkelte skritt er viktig for kriminalitetsbekjempelsen, og uten nevneverdig betydning for overvåkningsnivået i samfunnet. Men samlet sett, og over tid, er resultatet økt overvåkning og begrenset frihet.

Da Tysklands rikskansler Adolf Hitler drev på med dette, kalte vi det for «salamitaktikk»:

Først kom de for å ta kommunistene, / men jeg protesterte ikke / for jeg var ikke kommunist. / Så kom de for å ta fagforeningsmedlemmene, / men jeg protesterte ikke / for jeg var ikke fagforeningsmedlem. / Så kom de for å ta jødene og sigøynerne, / men jeg protesterte ikke / for jeg var ikke jøde eller sigøyner. / Så kom de for å ta de homofile, / men jeg protesterte ikke / for jeg var ikke homofil. / Da de kom for å ta meg, / var det ingen igjen som kunne protestere.

- Men det handler jo om reelle trusler. Vi hadde 11. september, vi hadde terrorbombene i Madrid i 2004 og i London i 2005, og Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste (PST) har sagt at det samme kan skje i Norge. Er det ikke riktig å ruste opp apparatet vårt mot slike farer?
- Da må man for det første stille spørsmål ved hvor reelle truslene er. Hva tror du er sjansen for at du skal bli terroroffer?

Videre, kunne man sagt, må man stille spørsmål ved hvem som truer og terroriserer oss, og hvorfor det ikke er opportunt for fx England og USA å granske bombeaksjonene på en skikkelig måte, hvorfor det alltid er politiinformanter med blant de ofte bare angivelige «bombemennene», hvorfor sikkerhetskameraer alltid svikter når det gjelder (smeller), etc etc.

Men der har du jo allerede lært deg svaret, gjennom å lese aviser: «Konspirasjonsteorier!». Det holder å si ordet, så er debatten over.

00-tallets massemedier har gitt deg dette eksklusive og ekskluderende våpenet for at du skal bruke det: Ingen ønsker å bli ekskludert, og ekskludert blir du til gangs om du prøver å stille for mange spørsmål ved selve opphavet til denne unntakstilstanden på veien over i et totalitært regime: Terrorismen, og hvem som sto bak den, fjernet og ødela bevisene, trenerte granskningene og tåkela hele den offentlige debatten.

Morgenbladet skriver 6. august om trusselen om eksklusjon:

Agamben radikaliserer Foucaults påstander ved å hevde at det alltid har vært en del av lovens hensikt å gjøre borgerne fredløse og maktesløse. Den som formulerer lovreglene, setter dem i kraft og gjennomfører sin sosiale skaperakt fra en terskel mellom loven og lovløsheten. På den andre siden av bevegelsen er borgeren alltid en potensiell fredløs. Det er i borgerens mulige fredløshet at lovens makt ligger. Overmaktens styrke ligger ikke i lovens reguleringer, men i trusselen om eksklusjon fra det lovstyrte feltet. Agamben er derfor opptatt av selve den akten som setter – eller «gir» – loven. Lovreglene selv er bare et mellomspill. I den andre enden trues det nakne livet med utslettelse. Derfor gjelder det å redde seg inn på lovens felt så lenge det går, hvis man har planer om å overleve.

Du skal nå få se film, men før filmen kan du jo ta en titt på Norges viktigste nyhetssending – NRK Dagsrevyen – slik denne får passet sitt påskrevet av en av sine beste kritikere, Karsten Johansen.

I kjent propagandastil gjør NRK en virkelig gigantisk trussel til et spørsmål om russeres alkoholkonsum, mens virkelig minimale og høyst sannsynlig bevisst konstruerte, syntetiske terrortrusler blåses utover alle dimensjoner. De skremmer deg og terroriserer deg mer eller mindre daglig, men NRKs terrorisme er åpenbart innenfor lovens felt. Betal lisensen din, eller bli fratatt alt.

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.

« Forrige side — Neste side »