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)

False Flags a Fluttering

By way of deception, thou shalt make war – Former motto of Mossad

In the fifth century BC, during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were laying siege to the city of Notion. One of the factions in Notion led by Hippias called in Persian and Arcadian mercenaries to protect them against the onslaught. The Athenian commander Paches summoned Hippias to a negotiation, promising that if they couldn’t reach an agreement that he would return Hippias safely to the fortified quarter of the town protected by the mercenary armies. When Hippias came out to meet Paches the Athenians arrested him and launched a vicious surprise attack on the forces at Notion. Hippias was then returned safely to the town, where he was promptly seized and ‘shot down’.[i]

Several centuries earlier during the Trojan War, a betrayal by Agamemnon meant that Achilles was refusing to fight. Without their great warrior Greece suffered heavy losses and retreated back to the beaches. As the Trojan forces threatened the ships, Patroclus rushed to Achilles, his cousin, to try to persuade him to rejoin the fighting. Achilles refused, but he did concede to allowing Patroclus to don his armour and lead his forces, the formidable Myrmidons, into battle. This had the duel effect of not only enabling Patroclus to command forces loyal to Achilles, but also scared the Trojans into believing that Achilles had resumed the fight. The counterattack saved the ships, but in his arrogance Patroclus pursued the Trojans and ended up being killed by Hector. This ultimately led Achilles back to the fray, and he avenged his cousin’s death when he killed Hector and dragged the hero’s body around the walls of the besieged city of Troy behind his chariot. The war culminated with possibly the most famous false flag military operation in history – the Trojan Horse.[ii]

History is littered with this sort of deception. As former CIA agent turned Watergate burglar Howard Hunt explained, ‘Propaganda takes the place of armed combat, takes the place of bloodletting, so you don’t need to do it.’[iii] In the above examples, disguise and psychological warfare were used by the Athenians to either turn conflicts back to their advantage or to enable an attack that would otherwise have been better defended, and hence more costly. Over time the means and methods have become somewhat more sophisticated but the strategies remain much the same. Another example is the 1770 Boston Massacre, which was provoked and encouraged by the Boston revolutionaries led by Sam Adams as a way of showing the public that war with the British was inevitable. Adams’ men had plastered the town with notices purportedly signed by British soldiers, saying that they were planning to attack the townspeople. They had also instigated the violent conflict by carrying out a sneak attack on the soldiers using clubs. The townspeople and the soldiers were manipulated into a street battle, which escalated to the point that the British fired on the mob, killing five people. As noted by journalist Ed Rippy, ‘The Boston Massacre […] was pivotal in the events leading up to the War of Independence between England and the colonies which later became the US.’[iv]

In 1953, the British Secret Intelligence Service – MI6 – conspired with the CIA to cause a coup d’etat in Iran, deposing the Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh. In particular they sought to undermine his democratic support by pitting the Tudeh (Communist) Party against the Mullahs, the religious leaders who would eventually seize power in 1979. According to the CIA’s own history of the operation, ‘CIA agents gave serious attention to alarming the religious leaders at Tehran by issuing black propaganda in the name of the Tudeh Party, threatening these leaders with savage punishment if they opposed Mossadeq. Threatening phone calls were also made to them, in the name of the Tudeh, and one of several planned sham bombings of the houses of these leaders was carried out.’[v]

What all these examples have in common is the conjunction of disinformation and violence. Paches lied to Hippias so as to weaken his defences, making the assault on Notion far easier to carry out. Patroclus posed as Achilles to frighten the Trojan forces, making it easier to drive them away from the Greek ships. The Trojan Horse appeared to be a gift but was a covert trap that enabled the Greeks to complete their destruction of Troy. The Boston Massacre was precipitated by Sam Adams’ propaganda campaign and provocative violence against the British soldiers. The CIA and MI6 Operation TPAJAX combined threats with actual violence to exacerbate tensions and divisions and weaken the support of their ultimate target. In every case either the violence or the psychological warfare element on its own would not have accomplished the objective, the operations required both in order to be successful.

As history marched on the strategies remained, though the masters of deception increasingly relied on proxies to do the dirty work. Not long after Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959, the CIA were called in to run a campaign of covert action against him. Deniability became extremely important, particularly after John Kennedy became US President. Castro’s unpopularity among the middle classes had seen thousands of Cubans leave the island and seek refuge in the US, particularly in southern Florida. The CIA recruited around 1500 of these refugees for Operation Pluto, most commonly known as the Bay of Pigs invasion. The refugees formed Brigade 2506, and though they were trained by the US Army and the CIA they fought alone on the beaches of Bahía de Cochinos. They attempted the invasion in April 1961, and the operation was an almost total failure. Most of the brigade was either killed or captured, forcing the US to have to pay millions of dollars in ransoms to the Castro government. Though much of the history devoted to the Bay of Pigs failure focuses on Kennedy’s obsession with plausible deniability, the importance of the psyops dimension is often overlooked.

The CIA had utilised a radio station on Swan Island, in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Honduras. During a previous CIA operation in Central America that removed Jacobo Arbenz as President of Guatemala, the CIA had successfully creation a radio station named La Voz de la Liberacion (The Voice of the Liberation). It had convinced the Guatemalan people that Arbenz was a traitor and a Soviet puppet, and that the small paramilitary force prepared by the CIA was much larger than the few hundred men that existed in reality. Radio Swan (later renamed Radio Americas) used the same basic strategy to try to prepare the Cuban public for the invasion at the Bay of Pigs. However, it wasn’t anywhere near as effective, despite the signal being strong enough that the station was heard throughout the Carribean. Even Castro’s efforts to jam the transmission were only successful in Havana.

The problems for the CIA came from the fact that Radio Swan was being run as a quasi-commercial station, selling space to anti-Castro Cuban groups. As noted by the CIA in March 1961, ‘Towards the End of 1960, the effectiveness of Radio Swan began to diminish. Although great numbers of Cubans still listened to the station, its credibility and reputation began to suffer as the result of statements representing the selfish interests of the Cuban groups producing the various programs… As time passed and the Cubans found their sources of information were no better than the next fellow’s, the program producers began to exaggerate… They made statements which were obvious lies to the listeners. An example: One of the announcers stated that their were 3000 Russians in a park in Santiago de Cuba – the residents had only to walk to the park to see that this was untrue. Moreover, the various programs began to defy coordination. All programs but one told the Cuban militiaman that he would be a hero on the day that he defected from Castro. The sole exception told the Cuban militiamen that he would be hanged regardless of what he did.’[vi] This conflicting propaganda meant that the underground anti-Castro movements within Cuba didn’t rise up to help the Brigade when the invasion happened, and also meant that Castro’s militiamen remained loyal.

What we can learn from this about modern events that probably or definitely involve some sort of official deception is that the propaganda is as important as the event itself. This is true not just for those running the operation but also for those seeking to investigate and expose it. My recently released film about the 2005 London Bombings 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction focussed on this, showing how the official story of what happened has been radically adapted and revised over time. Working out exactly what did happen is very difficult, as investigators and researchers have to negotiate a minefield of bad reporting, misinformation, disinformation and outright propaganda.

On the morning of July 7^th, at around 10:45, BBC Radio reported that security service officials had told correspondent Frank Gardner that they believed the mornings attacks ‘bore all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda’. This was at a point where it wasn’t even clear what had happened, with the mainstream media having reported for the previous couple of hours that the explosions on the underground trains were caused by electrical power surges, and anywhere from six to ten tube stations were said to have suffered explosions. This story then became one of only three explosions on the underground system (and one on a bus), caused by suicide bombers using homemade explosives. Al Qaeda were mostly dropped from the story, and those responsible were described as ‘self radicalised’ ‘homegrown terrorists’ and ‘clean skins’, i.e. a small group of individuals working entirely on their own who were unknown to the security services.

By 2008 this story had evolved into one of the four alleged suicide bombers being one part of a wider jihadi network, with MI5 saying that the four weren’t picked up because of a lack of resources. This new story came out as three men were put on trial for a conspiracy, largely on the evidence that they knew Mohammed Siddique Khan, the supposed ringleader of the plot, and had been to London in the months before the attacks. However, when the men were initially charged the conspiracy they were alleged to have been involved in did not include what happened on 7/7. A Metropolitan Police press release stated that they ‘maliciously conspired’ with the four supposed suicide bombers between 1 November 2004 and 29 June 2005, a time period that falls short of the 7^th July 2005.[vii] Though these dates were subsequently changed to include 7/7, no one in the mainstream media picked up on this question, and they unanimously presented the three men as 7/7 accomplices. Though the trio faced two juries, the first couldn’t come to a decision and the second acquitted them, and so to date not a single person has been convicted in connection with the London Bombings.

So, why the ever-changing story? If 7/7 was a covert operation of some kind then we can understand the multiple stories in that context. The initial story of ‘homegrown’ ‘clean skins’ was reported in the media for over a year after the attacks, and was detailed in the two official 7/7 reports published in May 2006. The four alleged bombers were said to have been motivated by revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby associating opposition to those wars with terrorism. This story and implicit premise was advanced in a period when opposition to the Iraq war was at a peak. In part this opposition was due to the publication of the now infamous Downing Street Memo in May 2005, only days before the UK General Election, and only two months before the 7/7 bombings. The memo detailed a meeting between British officials in July 2002 to discuss the policy of war with Iraq. The memo demonstrated that the policy was already well under way in the summer of 2002, well before Colin Powell’s widely criticised appearance before the UN Security Council in February 2003. It also included the assessment of ‘C’, then head of MI6 Richard Dearlove, that the ‘the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy’.[viii] The presentation of the 2005 bombings as being caused by people opposed the Iraq War helped muddy the waters of the debate, seeking to make people less ardent in their opposition lest they be labelled as extremists. That the Iraq War still goes on five years later shows how ineffective the opposition has been.

Other dimensions of the official story were also very useful. That the alleged bombers were said to be homegrown helped advance the agenda for increased powers for police and security services in the name of counter-terrorism. Despite this help, in November 2005 the Labour government suffered a historic defeat when MPs in the House of Commons rejected legislation that allowed the police to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge. While in reality some suspects are thrown in the hole for far longer without ever getting any sort of hearing, this was the first time the Blair government had lost a vote in the Commons. It is also the only postwar defeat regarding security policy. That said, the rest of the ‘anti-terror’ legislation passed smoothly, and became law the following year. Among the new criminal charges created by the 2006 Terrorism Act were ‘disseminating terrorist publications’ ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ ‘training for terrorism’ and ‘encouragement of terrorism’. These rather ambiguous phrases have enabled the security services, police, and Crown Prosecution Service to bring far more terrorism cases before the courts, and to charge far more people with terrorism-related offences. Between 9/11 and the end of 2004 701 arrests under the terrorism act had yielded only seventeen successful convictions for terrorism offences. Only three of those convicted were Muslims.[ix] By April 2008 this was up to 102 convictions from 1,471 arrests, a considerable increase. Put against that, only six people had actually been held for 28 days under the provisions of the 2006 legislation, three of which had been released without charge.[x] So much for the great terror threat that necessitated the 90 days.

Once the initial story of 7/7 had been accepted and the anti-terror legislation had passed, the authorities started the trial of the suspects from the Operation Crevice investigation, commonly referred to in the media as the Fertiliser Bomb Plotters. Eight men had been arrested in March 2004, only weeks after the Madrid train bombings, but didn’t go on trial until two years later. Of the seven that went on trial in Britain, five were convicted, and two found innocent. Testimony at the trial revealed that the group had been under surveillance for some time, and had been bugged, recorded and videotaped by MI5. This included footage of them meeting with Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the alleged 7/7 suicide bombers. Once this evidence had been admitted at trial it was no longer possible for the security services to maintain their original story of four men working alone who were completely unknown to MI5. They weren’t unknown, and they had connections to other supposed terrorists. The official account needed to be adapted. However, the authorities needed time to change their story.

In March 2007, while the jury was still considering its verdict in the Fertiliser Plot trial, the three alleged 7/7 co-conspirators were arrested. Though the men were put through two trials, they were eventually acquitted in April 2009. This provided an appropriate excuse for the government to delay any further publication of information or evidence. The excuse held good until over two years after the Fertiliser Plot trial where the original story was shown to be a lie. Shortly after the conclusion of the second alleged co-conspirators trial the government published a new report through the Intelligence and Security Committee, titled ‘Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?’[xi] As the title suggests, the scope of the report was limited to asking whether MI5 had enough intelligence prior to 7/7 to have stopped the attacks, i.e. whether 7/7 was an ‘intelligence failure’. Though the story of who the alleged bombers were and what was known about them was systematically changed, there was no consideration whatsoever of the suggestion that they might not have been responsible, or might have been duped into being responsible.

The other function of the arrest and subsequent trials of the trio of alleged co-conspirators was to delay the inquests, which are finally due to resume in October 2010, more than five years after the bombings. For five years the families of the victims, the survivors, and the British public have been told a shifting story of what happened. Despite this, the authorities and mainstream media ridicule anyone who dares to ask whether the fundamentally unchanged part of the story, i.e. that suicide bombers were responsible, might also be subject to revision. Given that the inquests have not yet taken place, it is possible (though unlikely) that they will find that some or all of the victims did not die in intentional suicide attacks, and at this stage it has never been legally proven that this is what happened.

We know from history that there is a wide range of possible deceptions taking place about what happened on 7/7. In the absence of forensic evidence of precisely what happened and why, we are left with an ever-shifting story that conveniently fits the policy of the ongoing War on Terror. However, just because some terrorist attacks are inside jobs does not necessarily mean that 7/7 was an inside job, even though the event has been used to suit a manipulating agenda. It is entirely possible that 7/7 was a false flag operation, but it is also entirely possible that the way in which it has been used as a psychological warfare operation is merely exploitative after the fact. The only way we can ever truly know is through the disclosure of evidence and information pertaining to what happened, something that has been jealously guarded by the authorities since day one.

From Norwegian to English and German

Starting this week, this site will increasingly feature English and German content. In the unlikely event that a proper text is submitted in Norwegian, though, these will be featured on a case-by-case basis.

This site takes pride in featuring the best and most timely content from the Northern European cultural area within the topic of criminal black government operations and/or false flag terrorism.

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.

9/11-dogmatikerne og løk-metaforen hos Ibsen

Henrik Ibsen lar sin protagonist Peer Gynt beskrive som en løk helt uten kjerne:

Det var en ustyrtelig mængde lag!
Kommer ikke kærnen snart for en dag?
(plukker hele løgen op)
Nej-Gud om den gør! Til det inderste indre
er altsammen lag,- bare mindre og mindre.-
Naturen er vittig!

I en nylig disputt på forumet KKF ble Ibsens ord nok engang aktualisert nå i mai. Nærmere bestemt i form av de utallige lag med argumentasjon og diskurs som 9/11-dogmatikerne omgir seg med i sine febrilske forsøk på å slå tilbake presset fra dem som vil ha frem sannheten om angrepet på skyskraperne på Manhattan i 2001.

Lett omskrevet ble disse lagene presentert som forsvar for den offisielle fortellingen:

1. Hvis man googler Harrit, kommer det opp titusenvis av treff.
2. Harrit har sluppet til i aviser og TV-program.
3. Selv om hans artikler refuseres, er det tøys at han knebles.
4. Harrit er en konspirasjonsteoretiker.
5. Harrit er ikke en seriøs kjemiker.
6. Plass brukt på Harrit går på bekostning av seriøse forskere.
7. Ordet «nanotermitt» brukes bare i konspirasjonsteorier om 9/11.
8. Nanotermitt kan oppstå etter store branner i skyskrapere.
9. Venstresiden må ikke fusjonere med konspirasjonsbransjen.
10. Drivkreftene i historien kan aldri være skjulte eller løgnaktige.
11. Skeptikere mener sprengstoffet følger logisk av forhåndskjennskap.
12. Harrit hevder å vite mer om stålbygninger enn bygningsteknikere.
13. Kongressen utelot Mossad-vinklingen fordi den var uvesentlig.
14. Mossad-agentene som filmet 9/11 hadde flaks og kjente ikke tid og sted.
15. De 19 arabiske flykaprerne var de som faktisk gjorde det.
16. Om du tror sprengstoff sprengte tårnene er du en konspirasjonsteoretiker.
17. Rigging av sprengstoff i kontorbygg med folk i unndras aldri offentlighet.
18. Ingen 9/11-skeptikere har relevant fagbakgrunn for det de snakker om.
19. Hundretusenvis av bygningsteknikere har analysert kollapsene grundig.
20. Arkitekter og ingeniører leder ikke an i WTC-sprengningsdebatten.
21. Om en teori avviker fra offisiell historie er den en konspirasjonsteori.
22. Alle som plasserer ut sprengstoff i bygg med folk i vil være åpne om det.
23. Kontroversielle teorier er alltid og selvsagt forfeilede.
24. Harrits forskning er ifølge veldig mange forskere elendig.
25. Ingen som finner kontroversielle ting bruker vitenskapelige metoder.

Det vil føre for langt å skulle vise hvorfor alle disse 25 lagene i løken enten er irrelevante eller forfeilede, og det er heller ikke målet med denne artikkelen. I stedet skal artikkelen handle om nettopp denne taktikken, som enten den er bevisst eller ikke, like fullt er en observert taktikk som blir brukt igjen og igjen i kontroversielle saker, kanskje spesielt knyttet til 9/11 og funnet av avansert og udetonert sprengstoff i vrakrestene.

La oss først av alt minnes den nå «gravlagte» rapporten Harrit et al publiserte i det fagfellevurderte vitenskapelige tidsskriftet Chemical Physics Journal i april 2009. Over tretten måneder er gått siden publiseringen, og normal kutyme innenfor vitenskapelig publisering er at et resultat står seg til noen andre forskere publiserer noe annet, som da enten verifiserer eller falsifiserer de første resultatene. Så langt er dette ikke skjedd, og den normale konklusjonen vi lekfolk kan trekke av dette, er at Harrits resultater har vist seg vanskelige å motbevise.

Det vi derimot har sett, er typisk for den etter min mening post-demokratiske og post-rasjonelle post-9/11-epoken. Vi har sett journalister og andre lekfolk kaste seg over rapporten med nedsettende betegnelser og merkelapper. Vi har sett ryktespredning og urbane myter som reiser med lysets hastighet rundt på nettet, der hovedbudskapet er at dette er tøys, tidsskriftet er et tøysetidsskrift, det angivelige sprengstoffet er maling, etc etc.

Selv et halvår etter publiseringen får etpar norske forskere stå frem på TV-skjermen med lettbeint oppgulp fra denne internettbaserte ryktemøllen: Dette er rødmaling, dette er tøyseforskning, dette minner om en semesteroppgave på bachelorgraden. Og i den nevnte post-demokratiske og post-rasjonelle post-9/11-epokens navn satser NRK på at alt dette bare blåser over: Vi kan nevne det, og vise at «forsker står mot forsker», men det er overhode ikke viktig for oss, eller for noen, å komme til bunns i dette.

I realiteten sparker statskanalen på denne måten ballen over til lekmenn, og vi får den ekstreme varianten av løktaktikken som vist over: Den ene ridderen etter den andre rir ut for å forsvare den offisielle myten som er blitt podet inn i oss daglig i bortimot ni år, og de omgir seg med et kvart hundre løklag som er like løse, porøse og substansløse.

Som 9/11-skeptiker kan man da (forsøksvis) tålmodig sette seg ned og svare på hvert og ett punkt som kommer opp, men i hvilken hensikt? Løken er jo nettopp bare en haug med lag, og målet med løktaktikken er simpelthen å utmatte skeptikerne eller å holde dem sysselsatt med rent ut meningsløst sisyfosarbeid: Med det samme du har satt på plass ett substansløst argument, blir det gjentatt noen innlegg lenger nede. Eller en annen ridder i rustning stormer frem, og han har selvfølgelig heller ikke fått med seg at lagene han hadde planlagt å bruke var skåret vekk ett for ett.

Det hele er selvfølgelig til å grine av. Eller i det minste få tårer i øynene.

Det vi har å gjøre med er irrasjonelle mennesker og misologer som for alt i verden vil og ønsker at den offisielle 9/11-myten skal holde vann. Det er derfor de øser som besatt. Men den lekker. Den tar inn vann. Ja, skuta ligger rent faktisk på tyve favner.

Men det er en hemmelighet.

Og på overflaten er alt stille, stille.

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.

« Forrige side — Neste side »