Det har vært noen nokså begivenhetsrike uker for skeiv politikk, skeiv teori og skeive perspektiver. Fremskrittene har først og fremst vært i franske og svenske mainstreammedier, nærmere bestemt TV; France2, TV4 og SVT2.
Franskmennene var først ut med L’objet du scandale 28. oktober, der Jean-Marie Bigard og Mathieu Kassovitz debatterte 9/11 med to franske tilhengere av den offisielle konspirasjonsteorien. Her er en tekstet versjon av debatten:
1. november var det så Sveriges tur. Svensk TV4 lot Kalla Fakta-redaksjonen granske «sanningsrörelsen», altså sannhetsbevegelsen eller 9/11-skeptiker-bevegelsen. Del 1 som gikk søndag 1. november var relativt fordelaktig for bevegelsen. Fokuset var mest på bevegelsen, altså menneskene, aktivistene, filmskaperne, men på grunn av det sympatisk innstilte produksjonscrewet kom også selve 9/11-skepsisen og dens mest relevante argumenter frem på en god måte – i alle fall til å være mainstreammedia. Samme kveld viste kanalen også dokumentaren Loose Change Final Cut.
8. november var det duket for Del 2 av TV4s granskning av «sanningsrörelsen». Allerede på forhånd var det annonsert på nettsidene at denne delen ville ta for seg de mørkere sidene ved bevegelsen, bakmennene etc. Og disse to delene av Kalla Fakta var virkelig som natt og dag. Ved hjelp av én svensk zionist – skribenten og forfatteren Torbjörn Elensky – greide TV4 å farge hele skeptikerbevegelsen antisemittisk. Den svenske forlaget Alhambra, som er mest kjent i skeptikerkretser fordi de har gitt ut professor David Ray Griffins bøker på svensk, samt arrangert hans taler i Sverige, har nemlig gitt ut Israel-kritiske bøker skrevet av eksil-israelere. Og denne Israel-kritikken koblet med forlagets senere utgivelser av 9/11-skeptiske bøker av bl.a Griffin, får TV4 ved hjelp av Torbjörn Elensky til å bli selve beviset for bevegelsens utbredte jødehat.
Denne «etablerte sammenhengen» skal så brukes til noe i Kalla Fakta-programmet, nemlig til å tvinge i kne Egon Frid, den eneste parlamentarikeren i Norden som har skrevet under på politikeroppropet for en uavhengig granskning av 11. september. Minuttene der vi får se TV-teamet kryssforhøre Egon Frid mens denne svetter, svelger og rett og slett vrir seg i stolen under de harde spørsmålene, er egnet til å skremme enhver parlamentariker i Norden fra å så mye som tenke på å se nærmere på disse tingene, som TV4 jo allerede har fått stemplet som jødefiendtlige.
Allerede tirsdagen etter dette siste Kalla Fakta-programmet om 9/11, disket en av Sveriges statskanaler, SVT2, opp med en studiodebatt om 9/11-spørsmålet, midt i beste sendetid. Her ble meningsmålingen TV4 hadde foretatt blant 1000 svensker presentert igjen, med særlig fokus på den store andelen unge svensker som tvilte på den offisielle teorien. Knappe 58% av svenskene under 30 trodde på al-Qaida-teorien.
I Norge har NRKs radiokanal P3 hatt et underholdningspreget program om konspirasjonsteorier på Juntafil onsdag 21. oktober. Tonen i programmet var altså jevnt over underholdende og småpratende om løst og fast, og i en setting der det som ble sagt om 9/11 – bl.a av skeptikeren Erik Kamfjord – neppe ble tatt veldig seriøst. Til det var det for mye chemtrails, AIDS-teorier og vaksinekonspirasjoner som kjempet om oppmerksomheten.
Redaktør Harald Grenne i Kreativt Forum skrev 3. november på den lukkede journalistmailinglisten Normedia om «forestillingen om at det var “jødene” som sto bak 11. september». I og med at Grenne var den 5. journalisten/redaktøren bare i Oslo jeg har støtt på som setter likhetstegn mellom 9/11-skepsis og rasistiske teorier om at «jødene sto bak», blogget jeg om dette samme dag. Formuleringene mine i bloggsaken gjorde at det ble et voldsomt spetakkel en uke senere da Grenne oppdaget den. Forøvrig helt ulikt den forrige lignende bloggsaken om Bjørn Kristoffer Bore og Knut Olav Åmås.
Rabalderet førte til at alle mine artikler på nettstedet Underskog ble sensurert uten forvarsel, uten begrunnelse og selv om det som utløste rabalderet hadde funnet sted utenfor Underskog. Sensuren skal etter sigende vare i en uke fra onsdag 11. november, men også strengere straff som eksklusjon har vært nevnt.
Oppsummert kan vi si at zionister som Elensky og journalister som de svenske i TV4 og de nevnte norske er veldig ivrige med å jødehatstemple all 9/11-skepsis. Kriteriene for utdeling av jødehatstemplet er såvidt vide, uklare og omfattende at de nærmest alltid kan komme unna med det. Elensky sier fx i SVT2s debatt at folk som bruker ordet «zionist» er jødehatere, visstnok fordi dette ordet idag brukes av rasister som egentlig mener «jøde». Men zionist betyr jo også zionist.
Forøvrig er det som grunnleggeren av nettstedet Vaken.se sier det i SVT2-debatten; han er ikke antisemitt og han kjenner ingen antisemitter i sannhetsbevegelsen i Sverige. Og jeg kan med hånden på hjertet si det samme om meg selv og om den norske bevegelsen. Disse påstandene er bare noe de finner på for å vinne debatten på walkover.
And from our trusted correspondent on the British Isles; this just in:
Berkshire 9/11 Newsletter November 2009-11-14
Why are we in Afghanistan? This question is now being asked far and wide, and with a dramatic crescendo over the past few weeks. It is sad that it has taken a death toll of 232 on the British side, with 95 so far this year, for the war to be questioned so vehemently in the mainstream media.
That question was the dominant theme in Thursday’s BBC television programme Question Time. The previous Thursday, Britain’s former top cop Sir Ian Blair stated: «We were wrong to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and that’s because: if the reason was that if this was to do with the attack on the twin towers on 9/11, Afghanistan wasn’t the place it was launched from». The Question Time programmes may be seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1q9 . Even yesterday’s Daily Mirror is asking: “So what exactly is this war in Afghanistan for?” (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/2009/11/13/so-what-exactly-is-this-war-in-afghanistan-for-115875-21818628/), in defence of Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who spoke out at the recent anti-war rally and was subsequently arrested. The BBC has reported on a demonstration held outside the Ministry of Defence in London in his support(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8357882.stm). The speech that got Joe Glenton arrested is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZlxYwfYig4 . The Stop the War Coalition is campaigning on his behalf: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/ .
So if Afghanistan wasn’t the place that the attacks of 9/11 were launched from, where were they launched from? The Guardian last month asked: “Who really blew up the twin towers?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/sep/05/internationaleducationnews.highereducation). Questions that should have been raised eight years ago are now at last surfacing in the mainstream media. They should really be asking who blew up the three towers, not the twin towers, as I did in 2007 (www.gazetejo.org/system/files/gazetoj/monato04.pdf ), but they’ll get there. The process is now unstoppable.
In a Special Report for Veterans Today, author David Ray Griffin asks: “Osama bin Laden as Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks: Is This Belief Based on Evidence?”. He states: “The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an ‘article of faith’ points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea. On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books – 9/11 Contradictions and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it” (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9194 ).
There is a similar story concerning the aircraft. On the Physics 911 website, George Nelson, a retired Colonel of the US Air Force, writes under the heading: “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity”. He gives the aircraft identification numbers and concludes: “not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode”.
It seems that the powers-that-be are failing to justify the war, even in terms of mission creep, and could now be setting up Gordon Brown as the scape-goat. Perhaps he was too loyal to Tony Blair in order to succeed him as Prime Minister. Who really pulls the strings in Government? There’s something odd about The Sun’s campaign against Gordon Brown (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2724067/Army-mum-accepts-Gordon-Browns-apology.html ).
However, censorship continues. On the 9/11 Forum, someone reported that he had been approached by the webmaster of the BBC East site and asked to do an interview about 911 Truth, and giving the web address. Then a few hours later he reported, “I hate to tell you this, but when I click the link I get a generic BBC Suffolk page with nothing but a full stop as actual content”. Someone managed to capture the content from the Google cache, and the whole lot can be read at http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18321 . It seems there are internal battles going on in the BBC.
It seems that state-owned television channel France 2 may be having internal battles, too. The historic debate, which I mentioned in the October newsletter didn’t take place because France 2 supposedly couldn’t find four credible people that want to debate 9/11 against Bigard, Kassovitz, Laurent and Harrit. Nevertheless, the TV channel announced that it would air the October 28 show but with Bigard and Kassovitz only. This means that the two 9/11 specialists had been cut out, and there would be no real debate (http://world911truth.org/france-2-backs-away-from-real-debate-censors-niels-harrit-and-eric-laurent/ ).
A more violent form of censureship seems to have been behind the tasering of US truth activist Jim Duensing. He was reported to be in a critical condition after being repeatedly shot in the back and arm by a Las Vegas cop. On November 2 he wrote in to say, “I am well on the way to recovery, and expect to be released from the hospital shortly after my surgery on Wednesday”, but he had a heart problem and regards the taser as a lethal weapon. More info is on the 9/11 forum at http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=140929#140929 and on Ron Paul’s forum at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2393197 .
I mentioned Operation Gladio in my September newsletter. This was a secret operation linked to NATO, said to be responsible for terrorist attacks in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Operation_Gladio). An interview with the director of the film Gladio, Allan Francovich , has recently appeared on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD84CAqIIZs , in which he talks about how he got his information on the CIA. Francovich suffered a heart attack while going through US customs at Houston airport, Texas on April 17, 1997, and died at the age of 56.
There are fears in some quarters that Operation Gladio may have its present-day counterpart in the Middle East. Writing in 2006 for Global Research, Michel Chossudovsky, analyses revelations in the Washington Post of leaked documents from the military. These indicated that the role of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi had been deliberately ‘magnified’ by the Pentagon with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led ‘war on terrorism’. Chossudovsky’s article is headed: Who is behind «Al Qaeda in Iraq»? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a «Zarqawi Legend», and it concludes: “The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated. The suicide attacks in Iraq are indeed real, but who is behind them? There are indications that some of the suicide attacks could have been organized by the US-UK military and intelligence”. Such evidence had been presented in an article by Michael Keefer headed: ‘Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra? Suspicions Strengthened by Earlier Reports’ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994 ). In the light of Gladio, such reports are worrying.
A similar story is emerging in India, too. A book by a very senior retired police officer, S M Mishrif, was published last month under the title ‘Who Killed Kalkare: The real face of Terrorism in India’, in which he states “Political violence, or terrorism, by State as well as by non-State actors has a long history in India”. The book is in English, and Urdu and Hindi editions are expected soon. See: http://www.pharosmedia.com/india-books-bookstore/Book_Book_on_Islamic_Terrorism_in_India_Who_Killed_Karkare.htm .
I went to a public meeting organised by the Reinvestigate 9/11 group on October 2. The most persuasive contribution was from Danish professor of Chemistry Niels Harrit, who had jointly published a paper on nanothermite found at the scene of the crime. He presented a layman’s explanation of this, and its use in controlled demolition. He also presented a video by physics teacher David Chandler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm–tgw ) on the physics of the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7. The rest of the meeting, however, seemed to focus on 9/11 controversies. The top half of the South Tower was said to have had a planned power-down for 26 hours of the previous weekend, but there was only one witness, and none of the employees or their families had spoken out (See: Elephant in the Room, http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4701757632630708538# ). What would be the significance of this, considering that Niels Harrit had stated that preparation for controlled demolition would have taken weeks? Then attention was directed to a theory that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 after all. No evidence was presented, and I can’t find any on the Internet. There was also further talk of Holocaust deniers, but no link was made explicit to the 9/11 campaign: only to 7/7, which they weren’t dealing with. Why hype it up? Had that been my first 9/11 meeting, I would have left the meeting less convinced than I had been when I arrived. Why call a public meeting for novices, and then focus on 9/11 controversies, when most of the essential issues were ignored? The essential question on the Pentagon is: whatever did hit it, what was it doing there in the first place? I know of no theory that will explain all the facts. The reasons that we want an investigation are laid out quite clearly in a YouTube video ‘2. The Ring of Power – Only the Start [2 29]’ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLesB3XSL0 . Reports on the parliamentary meeting earlier that day were vague, but from information gleaned at the meeting and later, it seems that there were two members of parliament present: Lord Ahmed and a former cabinet minister who will not be standing at the next election.
If you missed More4’s documentary ‘When Boris met Dave’, essentially about the pathalogical power-hungry aspirations of some old Etonians in Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club, then there’s another opportunity to see it tonight, on Channel 4 at 8pm. If you go to their website at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-boris-met-dave , and click on “Watch it now”, you’ll find you can see it again on the Internet, too. This should be compulsory viewing for anyone who needs to know how Society works. It’s just the tip of the iceberg. Water it down, and you can see how things might be working in some national organisations and ‘controlled opposition’ groups.
My colleague David Bowman is doing some excellent work on the Berkshire website. He’s added a few more pages, and is currently working on an ‘evidence map’, which should allow newcomers, and others, to take in the bigger picture fairly quickly. It’s looking good so far, but it’s not yet up and running. The website is at http://www.berkshire911truth.org.uk/ .
We’d appreciate any comments. But don’t just talk to us; there are many readers of letters in newspapers, internet blogs, etc, who would like to hear from you, as well as many politicians and journalists who perhaps wouldn’t. Keep talking!
Berkshire 9/11 Truth
http://www.berkshire911truth.org.uk (webmaster David Bowman)