9/11 five years later

[helderheid]

9/11 five years later
Part 1 - Speech given by Daan de Wit from DeepJournal - Utrecht conference
This article is based on the speech I gave on September 16th during the 9/11 conference in Utrecht. I look back on the five years since September 11th and try to present an answer to the question of how to proceed from here.
Listen to the speech, download MP3, 21 Mb, Dutch spoken.

The Dutch in the original article has been translated into English by Ben Kearney.
Five years later, 9/11 remains a crucial issue. The Dutch mission in Uruzgan, which the Ministry of Defense links to 9/11; internationally restrictive legislation; the view of Muslim society; the Dutch databank containing DNA profiles of persons 12 years and older who've had a run-in with the law; preemptive searches; the increase in the number of security cameras (see this remarkable example); the increase in the powers of the AIVD; the biometric passport and the strict guidelines for passport photos ; the British 'control orders'; the Homeland Security Department, the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act in the U.S.

Any number of mundane issues are based on September 11th. Recently I saw a cartoon by Doonesbury in which Bush invariably answered every question that he was asked with "9/11". That's also the answer we get from our Ministry of Justice when asked about legislation that is getting more extreme or the anti-terror campaigns, such as The Netherlands against terrorism (devised by the Ara.Groep, who also gave us the commercials on desserts). Previously there was the All Eyes Can Help campaign, part of A Safe Amsterdam, an initiative by the city of Amsterdam. And meanwhile there's also the website crisis.nl, with the campaign slogan Think Ahead. All of this cultivated fear is based on 9/11. Nevertheless I had a seasoned politician say to me: "I get a lot of mail from people about September 11th, and I look through it with interest. But in The Netherlands I find it too indiscrete to be talking about this or that theory on my night off in a discussion with people that I see during the day anyway. You have to understand how many problems we have with domestic issues already." To which I said: "Many of those problems - Uruzgan, the increasingly harsh legislation from the Minister of Justice - can be traced back to 9/11." To which the politician answered: "Okay, but then I think it's going much too far out of the way to try to approach these issues by way of what happened on September 11th." The politician in question is Harry van Bommel, Dutch MP with the Socialist Party.
Femke Halsema of the GreenLeft Party also wants nothing to do with 9/11 theories that stray from what her Minister-President has to say. How could it be (she wondered during a broadcast of Pauw and Witteman in which I talked about 9/11) that a secret operation could be carried out by the U.S. on September 11th and stay secret? This question is just as naive as another question that she posed during the broadcast: Who benefited from the attacks? Max Westerman, the incomparable reporter from RTL who was also in attendance, came up with the answer right away: Bush, of course. The question is so obvious that I asked it on September 11th of 2001. As a critical member of the opposition, Halsema would have to have known everything about secret operations and secret services, and should not have to had to ask herself whether or not secret operations can stay secret - for some people, carrying out secret operations is their daily bread. How else could a secret service function? And who is going to go around telling stories about their involvement in 9/11 without the fear of being lynched by the poplulation or being liquidated by co-conspirators? There are a number of examples to be had of secret operations that remained secret for decades, and there are probably any number of operations that we have no knowledge of because they remain secret to this day. And sometimes it doesn't matter if an operation eventually comes to light because by then the facts are already part of history. There's no one losing sleep over the fact that it's now known that the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. Bush: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

9/11 is on the map
The alternatieve view of September 11th, 2001 was put on the map by the 9/11 tours of Jimmy Walter in the U.S. and Europe, by the long reach and perserverance of Alex Jones, by the documentary Loose Change, by the scientists who carried out research, by the (ex)-employees of the CIA and the Bush administration who spoke out, by Charlie Sheen and by all those 'regular' folks who formed the critical masses... What I hoped would happen from the beginning has happened - that more attention would be given to this crucial subject matter. The fifth anniversary of 9/11 brought a lot of attention to this subject, and that's unlikely to change. The issue isn 't going away, the population at large is now familiar with it. Considering the importance of the issue, it's up to everyone to pursue this. That doesn't mean that it should be a question of faith. It means that it's a question of being informed. Be informed, but inform yourself likewise with the facts that question the alternative view of 9/11 in a serious way. Compare it to a trial - a trial with only one lawyer is useless. You need two lawyers, and people who don't see it that way are taking an undemocratic view. They get angry at the notion of a criminal being defended, but they don't realize that it has been democratically determined that a balanced judgement be achieved by weighing the facts against comprehensive legislation in a democratic manner. The guideline is the body of facts, not the whimsy of the day. It's in this way that you attain a ruling that's as close as possible to the truth, and after that it's up to the judge. Hopefully a judge will eventually be able to issue a ruling on 9/11. But the point is that together we all need to spread the facts we already know about as widely as possible, and we also need to look into the details of how 9/11 was planned.

MORE >>>

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/2/a/en/157.html

[moodforaday]

1. How about this for some prespective

Something I posted to another 9-11 board yesterday...

Came across an article today that puts things in a humbling perspective for me. Written less than a year after JFK's assassination, it has all the facts to prove the official theory was bunk. It has all the evidence to demonstrate a continuing cover-up. Without the benefit of the internet, it manages to put together a collection of data points no weaker than any of the major 9-11 researchers'.

It was not written by a theologian, an ex-cop or an ex-convict (that's Jim Hatfield, if you're wondering, author of "Fortunate Son"). In fact, the author was easily one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. And apparently a home-grown conspiracy theorist nutjob, too: Bertrand Russell. Do look, because this is precisely where we are today:

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/16questions.htm

Within less than a year Russell had arrived at the point where we have been stuck for some time regarding the events of 9-11 and 7-7. He proved to a reasonable person that there was much more to JFK's death than the Warren report was letting on, and that an the cover-up was ongoing. Like some 9-11 researchers today, Russell was not trying to put forth any specific theory on who, how and why, but left off at the point where the official story was a smouldering heap of ash.

If you don't read the whole thing - and it's lengthy - do read the last paragraph. Because we are right there, right now.

I wrote that because two things seemed significant to me: one, that the history is really repeating itself, and two, that Bertrand Russell, a scientist of world fame, did not shrink from the facts or from the threat of ridicule, that he was so outspoken, even though the topic was well out of his purview. We don't have a Bertrand Russell today.

But there is also: three. Even he didn't make any difference then. Shall we stand back and try to figure out what went wrong and how we can do better this time?