”Privatspanare”

Readers of Hbl will remember that not very long time ago Paul Lillrank was writing a column in which he quoted a piece of statistics which was VERY fitting as an instrument to blackpaint immigrants from non-European countries.

Meanwhile there were at least four very critical comments on his piece (thus, no need for me to write another one), and as to the source of this piece of statistics, it turned out to come from a ”privatspanare” who had published it in a web page. And one can guess that with this revelation Lillrank’s piece will have lost indeed much of its public credibility.

The situation looks at first glance similar to that of my recent piece ”9/11 News ?”, which was based on a piece of information from the page yournewswire.com. When I mentioned this source to a journalist, his reaction was a very strong hint that I should not take the information serious. And anyway there had already before been no reaction whatsoever from the readers of this blog (the only comment was a short note by myself). Which is understandable, but still leaves me in a state of dissatisfaction:

If one accepts the possibility that the mainstream media refuse to report a piece of important information, the question arises how, where, and in which form to publish this information anyway. And before publication, how to find out about the matter at all. If journalists refuse to function, it seems that some type of privatspanare is in fact needed. The results of such a spanare can/will then easily be denounced as, e.g., ”some such conspiracy theory”. As also those theories about 9/11. A closer look, though, shows that at any given moment one can quite realistically assume that there are several dozen conspiracies active in the world (think of Mafia, Camorra, drug cartels, triades, dealers in weapons/sex slaves/labourers, legal and less legal secret services, …) and that a criminal investigator who would beforehand refuse to consider the possibility of some conspiracy being involved were a really not very good investigator. For a rather revealing example one can google ”Operation Nothwoods” and go to ”The National Security Archive” about it, especially the pages 13 and 14. And once one has accepted the possibility of conspiracies, thus also that conspiracy theories CAN be true, one arrives at the conclusion that ANY theory is just as good as the EVIDENCE for it.

The evidence on which my piece ”9/11 News ?” was based came from a web page of not very high repute, but I liked it because it was confirming assumptions which had been around since a very long time: the idea that it was the CIA who was responsible for the collapse of building WTC-7 had already been published in 2004 by Andreas von Bülow, who before that had for several years been serving as a German federal minister for research and technology and also had been active in at least two committees which were dealing with the work of secret services; and the information that the building had been brought down by charges of nanothermite just confirms the assumptions of Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics who had gone public with this idea in spring 2006, was then forced out of office, but used his time since then, among others, to support his assumption by experimantal and analytical work (e.g. he got seven other researchers to co-author with him an article which concluded that certain elements in dust samples from Manhattan – taken after 9/11 – were with high certainty traces of nanothermite, i.e. something which one will CERTAINLY not find in dust samples from, e.g., Helsinki). Thus, we have the opinions of an experienced politician who also had occasion to become familiar with the methods of secret services (that ”Operation Northwoods” is mentioned in his book), the opinion of a professor of physics who has intensely worked about the problem, in addition the opinions of, among others, David Ray Griffin (professor of religion who wrote several books about 9/11, concentrating on the contradictions in the official reports), of Janne Strang (who wrote twice about his suspicions in Hbl), of Mikael Böök (who wrote a book about the matter, from which one can take masses of references to further information) … . Of course one can call all of these people ”privatspanare”, but I am inclined to say that much of their work was at a high level of quality, Steven Jones’ work even a high quality forensic investigation (something which the official investigators failed to do). So that I am still convinced that the official report about 9/11 is impossible and, thus, a better investigation called for (an opinion which is meanwhile shared by a bit more than 2750 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth).

Will we see a new investigation? NO. Especially not after Barack Obama neglected to order a new one. And the journalists will be VERY reluctant to touch the topic even with the proverbial ”10-foot pole”. E.g. because it might be very bad for a journalist’s possibilities to do her/his work if s/he became known as somebody who takes up such matters (in a case personally known to me the reluctance to take up the matter was obviously based on fears not to get a visa to the USA, and the habit of the Israeli government not to let anybody into the country who seems less than ”sympathetic” to Zionism is also well known). Basically it would be a simple thing to have a short look whether that Malcolm Howard whose confession was reported by yournewswire.com exists at all (he is supposed not to be dead yet) and whether he makes a reasonably reliable impression. But well, that would mean to take a risk … .

And finally: is it really so important to know what really went on at 9/11? In a way, yes. Because, if the suspicions were true, it would mean that the last two Republican governments of the USA were/are BOTH criminal (calling Trump’s disregard for the lives and the health of US citizens criminal). One can of course say that we knew that already without any truth about 9/11 (Bush’s inprovoked attack on the Iraq would have given him a death sentence in Nürnberg after 1945), but participation in 9/11 would of course make the case still a bit stronger. And as there is no sign of a change in the trend, we can confidently expect that every four years there is a very high probability that we have to deal with a criminal US government. And to want under these circumstances, e.g., to join NATO (as is the official line of Kokoomus and a very strong tendency in SFP) is simply madness. Europe should try very hard to become independent from the USA. But as long as the official version of 9/11 stands untouched, the necessity is not really visible, ”thanks” to our mainstream media.