Dette private opptaket av et sensurert intervju BBC gjorde med den danske kjemiprofessoren Niels Harrit fra Københavns Universitet onsdag 11. mai 2011 for BBCs manipulerende propagandafilm «9/11 Ten Years On» viser ikke bare hvor lite BBC-intervjueren Michael Rudin vet og forstår om det som skjedde på Manhattan den 11. september, men også hvor politisk indoktrinerende den britiske statskanalen opptrer i en så bitter og politisert strid som oppgjøret om sannheten om 9/11.
Professor Harrit eier og ødelegger her BBC, og det er sant å si merkelig at mannen fremdeles er i live og har to fungerende kneskåler, gitt den massive mafia av voldsforherligende NATO-politikere og spesialagenter han er opp imot.
Både BBCs «Conspiracy Road Trip»-episode om 9/11 og «Conspiracy Road Trip»-episoden om 7/7 bruker det samme glatte, sleipe, manipulerende PR-trikset: På en busstur med sammenraskede busspassasjerer som liksom skal representere henholdsvis 9/11-skeptikere og 7/7-skeptikere, lar de den kjekkeste mannen i den første episoden og den søteste jenta i den andre, være den av skeptikerne som liksom forandrer mening i løpet av bussturen som følge av reiselederens — den irske komikerens — «overbevisende» argumenter og iscenesettelser.
De andre busspassasjerene — som ikke ombestemmer seg og begynner å tro på det offisielle eventyret — fremstår som enten dumme eller stygge — eller begge deler:
Den søteste jenta her viser seg å være en pengelens skuespiller og fotomodell — Layla Randle-Conde — som i 2010 spilte inn mykpornoproduksjonen «Cam Girl». Kanskje hun også lot seg betale av NATO-kringkasteren BBC til å spille en rolle som søt 7/7-skeptiker som tar til fornuften i løpet av en busstur med en kjekk, irsk komiker?
Dette er altså NATO-krigspropaganda på det absolutt laveste lave. Og alle briter må selvsagt betale for å bli løyet til av sine egne lisensfinansierte statlige medier.
Vi har nøyaktig den samme propaganderende elendigheten her i Norge, med det avskyelige NRK, som aktivt støtter opp om dolkestøtslegendene mot muslimene og tåkelegger holocaustet på muslimene etter 9/11 og 7/7 — som omfatter et sted mellom 2 og 9 millioner drepte muslimer. Man skulle ikke tro det gikk an, men det gjør det åpenbart, og jeg oppfordrer derfor alle nordmenn som fortsatt har fjernsynsapparat til å gå til sivil ulydighet og nekte å betale TV-lisens av overbevisningsgrunner.
Jeg har lyst til å starte det nye året med et litt større spørsmål, som jeg vil kjøre parallelt på tre arenaer, nemlig Viddals ViktigVegg, Brodins Snakkeboble og 9/11 Truth Norway. Spørsmålet dreier seg om de bakenforliggende kreftene for verdensbegivenhetene, og kan derfor lett avfeies av alle overfladiske mennesker, som utelukkende er opptatt av overflaten. Dere trenger med andre ord ikke lese videre. Dere som mer generelt ikke tåler at mennesker diskuterer ting, behøver strengt tatt heller ikke lese videre.
Etter min nokså brede lesning av dyperegående analyser og forklaringsforsøk, har det seilt opp for meg to strengt tatt konkurrerende og derfor i bunn og grunn utelukkende forklaringer på et av de aller største spørsmålene, nemlig hva det er som dypest sett styrer begivenhetene vi alle hører om hver eneste uke i massemediene.
Jeg presiserer *dypest sett*, da det på litt grunnere farvann mer er et spørsmål om både-og, enn enten-eller. Her vil vi altså frem til Den store beveger, og ikke en komité av store bevegere (noe som selvsagt kan være tema for et litt annet seminar).
Vi utelukker her altså allerede i utgangspunktet naive forklaringer som den om at alle verdensbegivenheter er en kombinert effekt av 7 milliarder mennesker «that go about their daily business». Grupper av mennesker er oppfunnet forlengst, og makt er allerede en egen hylleseksjon i bibliotekene, så den må du lenger ned i årsklassene med.
Ifølge den ene aktuelle forklaringsmodellen er det slik at USA har underlagt seg nær sagt hele verden, med sitt nettverk av 5000 militærbaser og tropper i 150 land som det mest håndfaste bevis for underleggelsen, men med utallige mer myke og kulturelle underleggelsesmekanismer involvert, og at Israel gjennom den pro-israelske (ofte kalt zionistiske) lobby i USA styrer utvelgelsen av presidentkandidater fra begge partier, styrer Kongressen og Senatet, styrer den offentlige debatten gjennom sitt bias og sine tabu, og så videre og så videre. Hvorsomer burde de fleste være enige i at den som styrer USA, styrer det meste av dagens verden.
Ifølge den andre aktuelle forklaringsmodellen er det slik at olje og lignende energiressurser er den egentlige Store beveger, og at nær sagt alt skjer for å koordinere jakten på denne ikke-fornybare ressursen. Ifølge denne modellen blir det mer naturlig å se på Israel som en strategisk plassering av pro-vestlige (les: pro-amerikanske) militærstyrker, u-båter, atomstridshoder etc. Dette med tilgang til energiressursene kan også være en vesentlig årsak til at USA av egen fri vilje overfører enorme summer til Israel hvert eneste år, som den største mottaker av amerikansk våpen- og pengestøtte. Alle som har spilt Risk har vel skjønt at dersom en spiller hele tiden utstasjonerer nye styrker i én provins, runde etter runde, så er det noe i gjære, da har han en plan, og den planen er ikke nødvendigvis verdensfred og fredelig sameksistens mellom provinsene.
Alternative kommentatorer som Michael Rivero (WhatReallyHappened.com) terper gjerne på at amerikanske politikere gjør ting som ikke er i Amerikas interesse, men som mer er i Israels interesse, men han misser på én måte poenget siden Amerika i langt mindre grad er en nasjon nå, enn det er et globalt imperium. Og for et globalt imperium som er helt avhengig av petroleumsressurser for sin opprettholdelse (drivstoff til tanks, bombefly, hangarskip, ubåter etc) er det helt klart interessant å både donere penger og utstasjonere militært utstyr midt i det største gjenværende oljeområdet i verden, nemlig Midtøsten.
Rivero blir selv med jevne mellomrom stemplet og utdefinert som antisemitt, holocaustfornekter og alt annet usaklig, hvilket er feil, om man hører på hva han sier hver ukedag. Men her er vi kanskje inne på enda en fordel med den andre forklaringsmodellen – la oss kalle den Oljemodellen – at man via en slik USA-støttet opprettelse av en «jødestat» som strategisk investering i fremtidig energitilgang får mulighet til å skjule den egentlige Store beveger og utrope alle dens kritikere som nettopp antisemitter, holocaustfornektere, sannhetssøkere og denslags kontemporære banneord?
Det er i alle fall slik at en verden der realpolitikken er grim og grusom og konsentrert om en kynisk og nådeløs kamp om energitilgang samt en tilsvarende kynisk og nådeløs finanssektor er vrien å kritisere i vår tid uten at jokerkortene Antisemitt og Holocaustfornekter og Sannhetssøker spilles ut mot en, så lenge disse spillkortene fortsatt fungerer.
Men jeg vet altså ikke hvordan det egentlig er. Kanskje er det slik at Amerikaimperiet først forsøkte seg med Oljemodellen, skjult under dekket av Israelmodellen, som en antatt ukritiserbar modell, men at ting langs veien kom ut av kontroll for Amerika-delen av Amerikaimperiet, slik at Israelmodellen nå er den rådende? Hva mener du, og hvordan tester man egentlig slike ting vitenskapelig?
Et interessant moment helt tilslutt kan være dette med petrodollaren og Amerikaimperiet i forhold til nasjoner som litt freidig naivt og selvstendig ønsker å begynne å selge sin olje til sine naboland i andre valutaer enn «nasjonen» USAs valuta. Det hevdes av smarte mennesker at Amerikaimperiets militærvesen finansieres gjennom at alle land må kjøpe dollar fra det for å kunne handle olje, samt at alle land som vil selge olje i andre valutaer enn Amerikaimperiets får føle dets militære vrede. Det kan tyde på at Oljemodellen er viktigere enn Israelmodellen når Amerikaimperiet velger ut sine nye røverstater for bombing og regimeendring.
Metaskeptic «Humanist» editor Didrik Søderlind on NRK1 TV about 22/7: «One of the reasons that I was quite sure Anders Behring Breivik wasn’t a part of a network and that he must have done it all by himself, is that we know that no Norwegian rightwing extremists can keep their mouths shut, so it had to be just one man.»
Now, there are several things to note in this argument from the editor of «Humanist», but let’s start with the most serious mistakes:
1) Even if ABB should have been all alone about it, we know he couldn’t keep his mouth shut. The ministry’s audio phonelog disappearing and even the note written about the threats by the operator vanishing, was due to solid cooperation, not a lack of talking. Same thing with the Utøya threats at the Hegnar Online politics forum, that disappeared in its entirety on Wednesday 20th July 2011.
2) The rightwing extremist, national zionist ABB in no way kept his mouth shut, rather, he boasted about his foreign network: «Breivik claims the persons who in total were behind some 50 attacks in Europe since WW2 are the members of this [anti-communist resistance] movement.» according to Dagbladet.
3) It’s typical of zionist editors to argue that a foreign network was impossible because Norwegian zionists were eager to talk (to try to be as categorical as these zionist editors themselves).
4) The «Humanist» editor’s absolute belief in absolutes, and in absolutely homogenous groups within the labels he makes for them, probably also explains how it’s possible for him to believe that neither the first Manhattan Project (the atomic bomb) nor the second (the WTC demolition) were possible to carry out, as «someone would have talked», and America’s super-duper-free journalists and editors are simply foaming at their mouths at the thought of revealing 9/11. Extremist zionists are human beings, too, and human beings have a tendency to be diverse as individuals. Some talk and some keep their mouths shut.
5) You can believe when you are in your church!
6) Why does editor Søderlind think the police are filed as suspects by the families who lost their loved ones in the terror attacks of 22/7?
Metaskeptiker og Humanist-redaktør Didrik Søderlind på NRK1 om 22/7: «En av grunnene til at jeg var ganske sikker på at Anders Behring Breivik ikke var del av et nettverk og at han måtte ha gjort det alene, er at vi vet at ingen norske høyreekstremister klarer å holde kjeft, så det måtte være bare én mann.»
Det er flere ting å merke seg ved Humanist-redaktørens resonnement, men la oss starte med det aller grøvste:
1) Selv om ABB skulle ha vært helt alene, vet vi at han ikke klarte å holde kjeft. At departementets lydlogg er forsvunnet og notatet operatøren skrev ned truslene på forduftet, skyldes solid samarbeid, og ikke mangel på kjeftbruk. Likeledes med Utøya-truslene på Hegnar Onlines politikkforum, som forsvant i sin helhet onsdag 20. juli 2011.
2) Den høyreekstreme nasjonalzionisten ABB holdt nettopp ikke kjeft, men trakk tvert imot frem sitt utenlandske nettverk: «Breivik hevder at personene som totalt står bak et 50-talls angrep i Europa siden 2. verdenskrig utgjør denne [antikommunistiske motstands]bevegelsen.» ifølge Dagbladet.
3) Det er typisk for zionistiske redaktører å argumentere med at et utenlandsk nettverk var umulig grunnet norske zionisters snakkesalighet (for forsøksvis å være like kategorisk som de zionistiske redaktørene).
4) Humanist-redaktørens absolutte tro på absolutter, og på absolutt ensartede grupperinger innenfor båsene han snekrer opp, forklarer trolig hvordan det også blir mulig for ham og hans likesinnede å tro at hverken det første Manhattanprosjektet (atombomben) eller det andre (WTC-sprengningen) var mulig å gjennomføre, fordi «noen ville ha plapret», og USAs superduperfrie journalister og redaktører bare sikler etter å avsløre 9/11. Ekstreme zionister er også mennesker, og mennesker har det med å være forskjellige som individer. Noen plaprer og noen holder kjeft.
5) Tro kan du gjøre i kjerka!
6) Hvorfor tror redaktør Søderlind politiet er anmeldt av de etterlatte etter terrorangrepet 22/7?
Norwegian only: Det eksakte sitatet i kontekst er fra det drøye minuttet 23:00-24:15 i dette klippet: [youtube]
Konspirasjoner skjer hele tiden, og verdenshistorien og nåtiden er full av sammensvergelser; folk som har snakket sammen, skjulte maktbindinger osv. Det som kjennetegner den typen konspirasjoner som det snakkes om her, det er jo disse enorme konspirasjonene som er allmektige, som aldri gjør feil, hvor ingen plaprer osv.
Det som er så veldig typisk med de konspirasjonene som skjer i virkeligheten, er at folk hopper av, de ljuger osv, ikke sant? En av grunnene til at jeg var ganske sikker på, da det kom frem, da folk snakket om at Anders Behring Breivik var del av et nettverk og sånn, så, nei, han må ha gjort det alene, for det vi vet om norske høyreekstremister, det er at ingen av dem klarer å holde kjeft. Ikke sant, det må ha vært én mann.
Sånn at det er det som er så typisk her. Men jeg skjønner veldig godt at konspirasjonsteorier slår an, fordi verden er et veldig uoversiktlig og rotete sted, og de tingene konspirasjonsteoriene tilbyr deg, det er jo ikke bare et ganske ordnet univers, som er sånn nesten manikeisk, at det er det gode mot det onde, og sånn, men de tilbyr deg en helt spesiell plass; du er den eneste som har gjennomskuet det, og så er du omgitt av horder av hjernevaskede sauer, eller sheeple, som ikke forstår noen ting.
I happened to be present at the Oslo courthouse on Tuesday, April 17th, watching and listening to 22/7 terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s 75 minute main prepared defense speech. A speech that the press and media were banned from broadcasting to the general public. These are my thoughts after following the story for almost nine months.
The first thing that has to be said, is that watching Breivik defend himself for 5 hours this Tuesday removed each and every doubt that he is indeed «legally sane», in the sense that he is absolutely fit to be punished by the Norwegian judicial system for his criminal terrorist acts. All «experts» who say otherwise are flat out lying. This is a sane, rational, logically stringent man of great wit, who happens to also have some pretty effed up ideological views that have made him become a mass murderer and a terrorist.
It should also be said right from the start of this article that there is little doubt that he carried out both the bombing in Oslo and the shooting at Utøya. What remains to be seen is whether he had accomplices and what parts of the misdeeds these people took part in. There were also some pretty amazing instances of police SNAFU – 27 according to one commentator, but a lot more if you look more closely. There’s a string of maybe 40 or 50 or 60 grave mistakes on behalf of the police, guards and government, making them unable to stop Breivik before the bombing of Oslo, stop him getting out of Oslo and to nearby Utøya, and to stop the shooting ASAP when Breivik amazingly managed to get himself transported over the sound to Utøya island, using the Labour Party’s own ferry.
So many instances of SNAFU, in fact, that the mathematical probability of them all occuring on the same day or relating to the same person, should tell you all you need to know. And of course, in the weeks and months after the terror, documents, tapes and other evidence started disappearing. As by invisible hands.
OK. So, returning to the terrorist’s defense speech on Tuesday, April 17th. Breivik started telling us how there’d been no real post-WW2 democracy in Norway, because «nationalists» like himself were not allowed free speech and democratic rights. This should tell us that he wanted there to be more democracy, and that Norwegian democracy should also include «ultra nationalists», a fair point that even I could agree on.
However, he messes it up by contradicting himself completely. He loves America, and especially a certain McCarthy, the postwar communist witchhunt general, and he regrets that McCarthyism didn’t go far enough and never succeeded in sending alleged «commie» American citizens to Soviet Russia. So, really, when it comes to a more real and including democracy with less political censorship, our terrorist is only in favour of it when it applies to his chums, and to his «nationalist» parties.
Apart from this ideologically induced blindness or logical breakdown, he argues convincingly that censoring a movement like his own for too long, eventually will make members of that movement resort to other means, even violence.
His speech more generally was aimed at reaching out to a slightly broader audience than his Manifesto and his earlier writing on Norwegian websites, or to «unite national conservatism, which I support, with national socialism and militant christendom», as he put it himself. So the strategy obviously is to appeal to a broader spectrum of racists, and to play down the Zionist issue, which divides Breivik, JDL, EDL, NDL and Knights Templar, on the one side, from other nationalists and nazis, on the other.
Breivik talks rather openly about the strategy of supporting and expanding «street extremism», like the JDL, EDL and NDL (Jewish, English and Norwegian Defense League, respectively), while at the same time building a network of single cell terror operatives, borrowing tactics from – yup – al-Qaida.
The reason for using terror cells consisting of only one man, says Breivik, is to avoid the eyes of anti-terror agencies. This way he only needed to meet with his comrades once or twice during a decade, if we choose to believe him, and I guess blogs, forums, RSS feeds, social media etc took care of the rest.
Breivik also tries to use the term «counter jihad» as much as possible, rather than «zionism», which is what he really supports, and he has succeeded in selling this bogus «counter jihad» term to the Norwegian mainstream media. To quote from the terrorist’s Manifesto:
«So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.»
So, then, this is what it came to in Norway: Where we could have had the press digging into and revealing the horrific lies of the 9/11 terror attacks ten years after the events, instead we got a snob from the West who bombed his own city using «al-Qaida tactics», and who shot fellow Norwegian kids taking part in a summer youth camp for young politicians and future administrators, because he believed the lies and racist conspiracy theories fed to him for ten years by every newspaper, radio and TV station in this nation and throughout the West. Malicious, racist lies about muslims behind every terrorist act from New York and Bali, through Madrid and London, to Mumbai and Stockholm.
The mythical snake – Midgardsormen – seems to be biting its own tail: False-flag terrorism over a long, sad decade goes unnoticed by the press, the journalists and the editors, and the inevitable end-product of these ten years of lies and cowardice and cover-up is our very own Nordic mass murderer and terrorist; Anders Behring Breivik.
Whether he had handlers or not we don’t know, and the press and the police for some reason don’t seem very eager to find out, he is now the shining example, or knight in shining armour, intended to inspire many, many followers in Scandinavia, Europe and America.
He will even be allowed internet access in jail, and thus to build, expand and strengthen his zionist terrorist networks, both on the streets and in the single-man sleeper cells.
I guess we knew those muslims would be kept for a long time at Guantánamo, but maybe not for 10 years.
I guess we knew most of those muslims would be entirely innocent, but maybe not bought for 3 yearly salaries a piece.
I guess we knew the authorities would be lying about them, but maybe not simply making up that they were «directly related or responsible for 9/11».
I guess we knew they would review their detainment policies after a while, but maybe not that they would extend them to every dissident all over the world.
I guess most of this long decade we thought they were doing at least something honest in Afghanistan. Turns out we were wrong. It seems they just bought prisoners like slaves, like they paid Africans for slaves in past centuries. I don’t know, maybe to erect an illusion that dangerous muslims were behind the 9/11 terror attacks? If the very first warden at the Guantánamo concentration camp says he was made to lie about the prisoners being «directly related or responsible for 9/11», then, hell, maybe the American authorities were covering something up? Maybe they just needed the slaves they bought to be there as the eternal «suspects», never to be heard or tried in a proper court of law?
In any case, we let them do this. We let them do this and get away with it for ten years. Many of us even believed America was attacked by muslims on 9/11, for a while.
Now, the legacy of the 9/11 Wars is the gravest possible. They can get away with terror against their own people using stealth, torture, detainment, controlled media and a constant queue of pandemics, crisis and general fear-mongering. TV will show footage of nuclear bombs going off together with vague hints that «sources» say Qaida now has or may very soon have the bomb. Tube trains will blow up in other cities and other nations and there will be no real investigations because they are for some reason not all that curious as to who conducted these acts of terror.
They can extract «intelligence» from their «suspects» through «harsh interrogation techniques» and feed this bullshit intelligence to the disgusting mainstream media, that keeps on force-feeding it to the gullible general public.
This works! This actually works like hell. For no significant percentage of the population will ever feel like distrusting their own government, or their government’s partner governments in other nations. Then they would much rather distrust their independent journalists and researchers, branding them «conspiracy theorists», even though conspiracies are rampant and omnipresent.
That’s why you get an NDAA 2012 act that turns America and the world into a military dictatorship, in which the military can disappear anyone they want for life without even a rigged trial. That’s why the whole world has now suddenly become occupied Cuba. Become the global Guantánamo of the new decade.
Terror and tragedy struck Norway on July 22nd. Without going into all the details – 8 were killed in the government HQ bombing and 69 were killed in the Utøya massacre – there are those who still claim Anders Behring Breivik acted alone and that he was motivated by a number of very dangerous conspiracy theories connected to muslims.
First, he believed in the Eurabia conspiracy theory, according to which some secret deal was struck between Europe and Arabia in order to destroy all Europe and all Europeans, hence today’s immigration of arabs and muslims from countries presently bombed by Norway and her allies.
Second, he believed in the Global Caliphate conspiracy theory, according to which the hated muslims would somehow be allowed to take control of NATO, Europe and America, presumably by stealth and high fertility rates along with some scattered attempts at blowing up airplanes using toothpaste.
Third, he believed in some very serious conspiracy theories about muslims attacking the World Trade Center in New York and bringing down three highrises with explosives, and about muslims attacking three tube stations and a double-decker bus in London with explosives, in order to mobilise the anglo-american war machine and beef up budgets.
Now, another group accused of believing outrageous conspiracy theories is of course the 9/11 skeptics. And yes, instead of subscribing to Bush and Breivik’s conspiracy theories about muslim culprits in the New York and London terror events, some serious, fact-based 9/11 skeptics believe the conspiracies were run by Anglo-American, pro-Israel forces, henceforth referred to as the Totalitarian Darkness of our time.
These skeptics have been hounded, censored, ridiculed, called names, assaulted, tazered, arrested, spat at and belied, initially by these same Totalitarian Dark forces, but eventually by the general population, as people are fairly quick to learn who they are allowed to abuse as they want. There is so much hatred around, and the serious, fact-based 9/11 skeptics have had more than their share.
For ten years it was next to impossible to make a journalist write a serious story about the doubt and the doubters of the 9/11 attacks. It was even next to impossible to get an essay or op-ed printed in the newspapers of the last decade, forcing many skeptics to believe that the same forces of Totalitarian Darkness were somehow in control of the TV and print media. And even in the rare cases were decent stories were actually printed, you could be sure that there would be no follow-up, that the story wouldn’t live, that it would all be like the snowball that didn’t snowball.
For these reasons – and many more – you have a huge sub-culture in every Western nation in 2011 that believes mainstream media are run by a fifth column loyal to the Totalitarian Darkness. They believe the mainstream media are blocking their attempts at having open, rational and serious debates about the most important issues of terrorism and intelligence and national defence, and therefore also any attempts at using the multiparty democratic elections system in order to raise these important issues from the benches of the various national parliaments.
Needless to say, if you take away people’s right to meaningful expression and free speech, and if you thereby also take away people’s right to be represented in democratic assemblies when it comes to these crucial issues of basic trust in society’s institutions, some people will eventually despair and resort to other means than just words in a blogpost.
So yeah, obviously there is a certain possibility that individuals or groups of people will buy weapons and ingredients for explosives, as these people also doubt their own state, police force, intelligence services and politicians, even when it comes to state agents blowing up their own citizens, like in a war scenario.
There is, however, a very easy remedy for keeping the peace: Open up! Let the skeptics tell their stories in the papers and on screen. Let them write stories in the papers as if they were normal men and women, as if they paid taxes and had the same basic human rights as the general population. But how likely is this scenario, if the same Totalitarian Darkness was in fact behind the deep events of 9/11 and 7/7? Should this same Totalitarian Darkness that owns or controls the papers suddenly open up for no reason? Only to avoid Skeptic Terrorism?
Some of these skeptic types would probably even believe their governments capable of carrying out false-flag terror attacks, masquerading as 9/11 skeptics, blowing things up. The question you should always ask, according to them, when something blows up, is 1) who benefits?, 2) who were able to do it or had a history of doing it? and 3) who had the means to cover it up?
PS: Having now also watched the BBC’s 10 year anniversary summary of the 9/11 scandal, deceptively named «The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On», it seems pretty clear to me – a 9/11 skeptic for a full decade this September – that the mainstream media won’t turn around or get real any time soon. For that to happen, the editorial and ownership interests are way too strong, and 9/11 Truth is not just your regular cause or issue. This is something entirely different, something really special.
This is how the BBC anti-skeptic hit-piece concludes in August of 2011: «The 9/11 Conspiracy File seems certain to remain open for a long time to come, however distressing and painful that will be for the families of those who died that day.»
To the BBC it obviously does not matter how painful and distressing it is for the families of more than 3 million killed and slaughtered in the 9/11 Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine and Norway, because mainstream media outlets such as the BBC itself continue to keep the 9/11 files closed and the conspiracies covered up, even ten years later.
Under the cover of a 5-day terror drill for the DELTA troops from Monday July 18th to Friday July 22nd 2011, Zionist operatives from Mossad, NATO, Gladio, Stay Behind rig a van with explosives at government HQ in central Oslo, thwart all terror alarm routines and commence the terror with a massacre against anti-Zionist youth at the summer camp on Utøya with 2-5 shooters. DELTA terror police and local police arrive late by car with no boat, no helicopters, no maps, no GPS, asking civilians for the way to Utøya, but not for spare boats on a day of terror and an ongoing massacre.
As patsy or fall guy, long time armchair Zionist madman Anders Behring Breivik is chosen as a volunteer, and a false Facebook profile and Manifest is concocted for him by a team of writers and copy-pasters. Behring Breivik is kept out of sight for the public 24/7 allegedly for fear of him sending coded messages to other cells. Several surviving swimmers from the island are arrested by local police and brought into custody, among them one of the witnesses who testified to the press about more than one gunman on Utøya.
The message thus sent to anyone who’s not stupid and proud of it is along these lines (from Winter Patriot):
You will go along with the program. You will send your troops where we tell you, you will buy foreign products regardless of ethical considerations, you will stop supporting the vermin we are trying to eradicate, and under no circumstances will you threaten anyone.
Otherwise we will bomb your offices and kill your children.
We will do it on a famous anniversary, but it in such a way that no direct evidence leads back to us.
We will do it in a way that shows your police are thoroughly compromised and no use to you at all. We will do it in a way that exacerbates tensions between Christians and Moslems. And we will do it in a way that lends credibility to those who would trash the best features of your open, democratic society.
We will cover our tracks with a lame distraction which will confirm quite clearly — to those with eyes to see — that the entire world’s «news» media are in our pocket. And most of your friends and neighbors — including many who should know better — will play along with it, if they show any interest at all.
And then … ah, yes: then we will rejoice in your grief!
NB: Denne artikkelen ble først publisert onsdag 15. desember 2010, over 7 måneder før angrepet mot Norge.
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.
Tony Farrell had been employed for twelve years as ‘Principle Intelligence Analyst’ for South Yorkshire Police, 13th 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 5th 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 8th – 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 6th 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 7th 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 8th 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 2nd 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.
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