Observe for yourself what discussion followed, when Ny Tid arranged a panel debate. The topic was what one can discuss in a larger public.
The background was 9/11 and MODERN TIMESs coverage of the "deficient" official report on 11. September. The newspaper's argument was that the WTC towers possibly fell as they did most due to demolition with explosives (see also artikkel). But this year's debate discusses what one can be allowed to address in the Norwegian public – also in connection with Klassekampen's eviction of Ny Tid a year ago. With Bjørgulv Braanen, John Y. Jones, Arne Ruth, Ola Tunander, Olivier Taymans, David Llewelyn and Truls Lie. (Artists' house 11.9.2018)
Introduction by Truls Lie (editor, Ny Tid):
The quote “Obvious” in the headline, was only quoted from a person in the article's introduction… for Ny Tid it was not obvious, but we used five arguments for possible use of explosives in connection with 9/11.
"This is not an ongoing topic in Ny Tid, this is not what we intend to do.
But, as an editor, I have backed this case and take responsibility for it. "
Olivier Taymans about difficulties in debating 9 / 11. He made a movie about it.
In the film, journalist Sven Egil Omdahl (Stavanger Aftenblad): “It should never be wrong for a journalist to ask questions. We may be criticized for giving stupid answers, but we can never be criticized for asking questions. ”
Taymans: "The aim of this evening is not to enter into the specifics of the debate, but just to assert that a debate is worthwhile, and should have."
Arne Ruth (former chief editor of Expressen and Dagens Nyheter):
"I see this whole discussion about 9/11, including the New Age article, as an expression of a form of discussion about a story interpretation. And Ny Tid reported on something that had not received attention in the Norwegian and Swedish media, that there was a charged debate in the US about what really happened, who was behind it, and how to interpret it. Failure to account for that side of the course of events, which is the first step in an interpretation of history, had been a form of knowledge zeroing. Readers do not realize that there is such an interpretation, and can therefore not decide for themselves whether it is worth following up or not. "
"Suspect power of all kinds. Suspect private power. Suspected state power. The power that one
do not have access to as a citizen. ”
Ola Tunander (Professor emeritus, PRIO): About previous conspiracy (the submarine affair in Sweden) and what history shows in retrospect, as well as how whistleblowers and critics are allowed to avoid in public.
John Y. Jones (Networkers South / North, chairman, and member of Ny Tids board and editorial board) about Faktisk.no etc:
"It took Faktisk.no between two and ten hours to fact – check Ny Tid's article on 9/11. We thought this was horrible and unacceptable. In addition to the short time spent on the fact check, we also reacted to the way Faktisk.no argued and the words they used. The expertise that was thrown in here was not worthy of a fact check. "
«PFU concluded that Faktisk.no has every right to fact-check Ny Tid's article, but did not go into key questions about whether it is possible to fact-check a complex case like this. And not least if it is possible to do it in less than ten hours. "
«PFU was to assess whether Faktisk.no's publication was in line with the weather-caution poster, and whether they had a sufficient source basis. According to Faktisk.no, Ny Tid's article is based on irreversible sources, and they reject all of the experts who have stated in the article as conspiracy theorists, including professor at the University of Copenhagen, Niels Harrit. PFU, for its part, believes that Faktisk.no had a good enough source basis, and has thus accepted the popular science magazine Popular Mechanics as a safe and good source – a magazine reminiscent of Vi Menn på speed. "
See also comment, The weather-proof poster of the press, by Øivind Nygård.
Jones has also participated in a debate with Engineers and Architects for 911 Truth, see radio show from October.
Bear floor Braanen (former editor of the Class Fight) (and Truls Lie):
Braanen: "When I saw how many people were concerned about this case, also in Norway, I thought later: Should we go earlier and should we go into it later in the sense that we are putting the official explanations against the most competent of the critics? ”
Lie to Braanen: “You wrote in your manager a year ago that we had claimed that 9 / 11 was an inside job, and that it was a further conspiracy theory. I find no evidence of these claims. We never said that this was an inside job in our lyrics. We couldn't say anything about it. We stuck to the demolition theory and used the five arguments we had for it. "
Braanen: "You didn't write that it was an inside job, but all this and the theories that thousands of explosives are placed in these buildings is a theory that it's an inside job. If you haven't said it, then okay, but who the hell else would it deliver? Lots of little Chinese men being transported into buses? ”
David Llewelyn (heads the Scandinavia section of Institution of Mechanical Engineers):
«NIST reported that WTC7 fell as a result of fires. A new study started in 2015 by the University of Alaska, led by Doctor Leroy Hulsey, a forensic structural engineer, found some very significant errors in the NIST report. There are 8 very significant engineering errors, which allowed the building to collapse due to fire. Hulsey has stated that there is a zero percent chance that the building came down as a result of fire. "
«The world trade center buildings were designed to survive an airplane collision. And the fires in WTC7 should have been survivable. So, these buildings failed under designed conditions. ”
«After five years, NIST reported that WTC7 fell as a result of fires. A new study started in 2015 by the University of Alaska, led by Doctor Leroy Hulsey, a forensic structural engineer, using the original drawings, the NIST report and the latest finite element modeling tools that allow them to simulate the entire building, unlike parts or it, like NIST did. And they've found some very significant errors in the NIST report. There are 8 very significant engineering errors, which allowed the building to collapse due to fire. Hulsey has stated that there is a zero percent chance that the building came down as a result of fire. ”
“There are some really significant questions about the NIST collapse mechanisms, the initiation of building 7, and there has never been a satisfactory answer about the heat and heat piles, and the discovery of explosives in the dust. Which is all evidence of explosives. From an engineer's point of view, and I've been working on this for a short amount of time, I'm strongly convinced that we need a new investigation, and quickly find out what really happened to those buildings. ”
See also earlier artikkel.
Post by Ketil Lund (former Supreme Court judge and head of the Lund Commission): "Everything that has to do with state secrets and the state's security is a core area for all sorts of speculation and conspiracies. And so it must be. These are systems that not only do a lot of illegal at all times, but they also do tremendous harm. And in addition to that, they are lying, so they are chasing. ”
"There should be no limits to what there must be a reasonable reason to be able to say something about if you have a certain semblance of arguments for your case. One must be able to speculate without it being subjected to such severe sanctions as Ny Tid got here. "
"It's just the imagination that limits what great powers can invent and have invented in their time. Imagine if the CIA's archives had been opened and what we could find there. "
Final comment from Bear floor Braanen:
RECOMMENDED: Final words by Arne Ruth:
"Conspiracy theories arise not from nothing, but from a sense of uncertainty."
"The conspiracy theory that the President of the United States was in some context behind what happened to the towers in New York […] did not exist at all in New Age articles. On the other hand, the three official reports have given rise to these conspiracy theories, because they did not investigate core elements of what happened. "
Any total streaming (1h 50min):