Truth News Australia

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

April 1, 2014
In today's show we are joined by former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, for the full hour. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

TNRA 10 July 2008

July 10, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

11 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 7

Categories: [ ]

correction: It was claimed on the show that the gardasil vaccine contains "live virus". According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gardasil is a "recombinant" vaccine and contains no live virus.

Another long show this week - there is so much to talk about these days!

Today we have a special guest, John Bursill, who heads up www.truthaction.org.au, an 9/11 truth activist organisation currently making strong headway with the NSW Greens, making the case for a new investigation of the events of 11 September 2001.

John gives us a breakdown of his involvement in the 9/11 truth movement, and we get into an animated discussion of the recent BBC production: The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower.

For more information about Truth Action Australia you may contact John Bursill directly by email or phone him on +61 414 878499.

In the second half of the show we are joined by the redoubtable Dan Collins, with whom we discuss a number of news topics on the Australian front.

Links for today's show:

Simplify Garnaut report findings: ACT Oppn
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/08/2297165.htm
The ACT Opposition says Labor governments must simplify the Garnaut report's findings so the public can more easily digest its conclusions.

Porn block trial complete
http://m.news.com.au/ITTopStories/fi211676.htm
THE federal government has completed a trial of blocking pornography and other online content deemed inappropriate for children at the internet service provider level.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7330169.stm

The Conspiracy Files delves into the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day. But this skyscraper was never hit by a plane.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4576154575407650292

Teen arrested for 'blasphemous T-shirt'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23919553-2,00.html
A GOLD Coast teenager who wore a T-shirt by English extreme metal band Cradle of Filth that reads 'Jesus is a c**t' has been charged with offensive behaviour.

Solicitor charged after intervening in drug search at pub
http://www.smh.com.au/...drug-search-at-pub/2008/07/06/1215282652761.html
A SOLICITOR and civil liberties campaigner was arrested, handcuffed and allegedly had his rib broken by police after offering legal assistance to a man being searched in public.

MP blocked from shopping centre demands change
http://www.smh.com.au/...demands-change/2008/07/06/1215282652779.html
GARY GRAY was on the hustings last year when he was confronted by a serious hurdle to democracy in the 21st century. He was denied entry to a shopping centre.

Cancer vaccine linked to illness in women
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23974632-2,00.html?from=public_rss
THE new cervical cancer jab is believed to be behind a huge jump in the number of women and girls suffering bad reactions to vaccinations .

Warm regards to all listeners from the TNRA team!


Josh & Hereward

Seymour Hersh On Covert Operations In Iran

10 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92025860

Listen online

In this candid interview Seymour Hersh discusses false flag operations in Iran and the erosion of democracy in the US.

The interview is exceptional in its engagement with the fascist shift now well advanced in the United States.

Highly recommended.

From NPR:

"Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh believes that the United States may be closer to armed conflict with Iran than previously imagined. He writes about Congress' funding of covert military operations in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker.

A regular contributor to The New Yorker, Hersh exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series of articles published in the magazine early in 2005.

During the Vietnam War, Hersh was the first to report on the My Lai massacre. He has been the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards, and a dozen other prizes. He is also the author of eight books, including Chain of Command about Abu Ghraib."

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

09 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7330169.stm

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4576154575407650292

 

The Conspiracy Files delves into the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day. But this skyscraper was never hit by a plane.

 

The 47-storey tower collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers and it has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories which suggest it was brought down by a controlled demolition.

 

Nearly seven years on, the final official report on the World Trade Centre is due to be published in July.

 

Official investigators are expected to conclude that fire caused the collapse of this third tower at the World Trade Centre. But that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to collapse solely due to fire.

 

The Conspiracy Files explores many unanswered questions to try to find out what really happened, and why some people think there was a sinister plot to destroy the building.

 

Produced and Directed by Mike Rudin
Assistant Producer: James Giles

 

 

Truth Rising: the 9/11 Chronicles

09 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.infowars.com/truthrising

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6558849874454763730

 

Seven years after the attacks of September the Eleventh, a global awakening has taken place, the likes of which the world has never seen. As the corporate-controlled media dwindles into extinction, a new breed of journalists and activists has emerged.

Join Alex Jones, Luke Rudkowski and others as they set out on a mission determined to expose the ruthless global elite, and alert the masses to the truth about 9/11.

Strap in and get ready to ride along as criminal overlords David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and many others are confronted about their lies and manipulation.

Including interviews with Jesse Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell, George Carlin, Willie Nelson and Martin Sheen, this film is unlike anything you have ever seen. the only question after viewing it is, will you become part of the Truth Rising.

 

The documentary provides an in-depth look at the plight of 9/11 first responders, many afflicted with serious health problems from the toxicity of Ground Zero. Truth Rising reveals and challenges the astounding arrogance and negligence of the government in regard to the heroic efforts of first responders, police, and fire-fighters. Truth Rising indicts the administration of Rudy Giuliani and that of the EPA and Christine Todd Whitman, who proclaimed the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe, contrary to numerous warnings to the contrary.

 

9/11 third tower mystery ‘solved’

07 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

By Mike Rudin

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

 

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

 

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. 

 

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse. 

 

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.
 
Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

 

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

 

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

 

'Smoking gun'

 

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

 

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

 

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

 

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

 

Conspiracy theories

 

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.


The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.


The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.


In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.

 

But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.

 

"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."

 

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.

 

"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."
 
Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.
 
Steel structure weakened

 

It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

 

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

 

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

 

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

 

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

 

 

Mike Rudin (BBC): Controversy and conspiracies

30 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

BBC Editor's Blog

27 June 2008

 

In my last blog earlier this month about the London bombings of 7 July 2005 there was a lot of concern expressed by people who say that when they question such events they're told they're "mad, crazy or in a state of shock". I haven't done this and won't.

 

What we will do is investigate an issue. For the new series we have looked for key proponents of alternative theories.

 

So for the new programme about World Trade Center Building 7 ("The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" for next Sunday) we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.

 

We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

 

We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.

 

It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.

 

The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.

 

I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.

 

But I've seen there's already a campaign for letters of complaint well before the programme has been aired.

 

Alex Jones' Prison Planet website ended an article headlined BBC Hit Piece by urging readers to comment on this blog. And comments in 911blogger.com urged people to prepare a "counter strike" and to start letter writing and e-mailing. A lot of the later comments on my last blog came soon after those.

 

It would be good if people watched the programme first. So far we've put out a three minute trailer:

 

In response to dotconnect: yes I'm interested in investigating a host of issues such as the death of Anna Politkovskaya, the financing of al-Qaeda, British agents in Northern Ireland - and it does not as you suggest hinge on whether "our side" was allegedly "behind it". But the BBC has already covered these stories and is currently investigating many of them.

 

In response to cyncastical: the original allegation made in the papers was that we had paid Nicholas Kollerstrom to appear in the programme about 7/7. We did not. We reimbursed him for £30 worth of his expenses. The newspapers corrected their original copy.

 

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" to be broadcast on BBC 2 at 2100 BST on Sunday 6 July, repeated on BBC 2 at 1120 BST on Tuesday 8 July, and on Signzone at 0130 BST on Wednesday 9 July.

 

Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files

 

 

Naomi Wolf: Call sex crimes what they are

30 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 4

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Sydney Morning Herald

26 June 2008

 

Naomi Wolf

Sex crime has a telltale signature, even when those directing the outrages are some of the most powerful men and women in the United States. How extraordinary, then, to learn that one of the perpetrators, Condoleezza Rice, has just led the debate in a special session of the United Nations Security Council on the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

 

I had a sense of deja vu when I saw the photos that emerged in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. Even as the Bush Administration was spinning the notion that the torture of prisoners was the work of "a few bad apples" low in the military hierarchy, I knew that we were seeing evidence of a systemic policy set at the top. It's not that I am a genius. It's simply that, having worked at a rape crisis centre and been trained in the basics of sex crime, I have learned that all sex predators go about things in recognisable ways.

 

We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by the former secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld; the Vice-President, Dick Cheney; and Rice - who chaired the torture meetings. The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorised sexualised abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by females. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, "checking in" on the sexualised humiliation of prisoners.

 

The sexualisation of torture from the top turned Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay into an organised sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic sadism-and-masochism nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this.

 

The non-sexual torture ranged from beatings and suffocation, electrodes attached to genitals, and forced sleep deprivation, to prisoners being hung by the wrists from the ceiling and placed in solitary confinement until psychosis was induced. These abuses violate both US and international law. Three former military attorneys, recognising this blunt truth, refused to participate in the "military tribunals" - rather, "show trials" - aimed at condemning men whose confessions had been elicited through torture.

 

Although we can now debate what the penalty for water-boarding should be, America as a nation, maintaining an odd silence, still cannot seem to discuss the sexual crimes involved.

Why? It's not as if the sex crimes that US leaders either authorised or tolerated are not staring Americans in the face: the images of male prisoners with their heads hooded with women's underwear; the documented reports of female US soldiers deployed to smear menstrual blood on the faces of male prisoners; and the reports of military interrogators or contractors forcing prisoners to simulate sex with each other, to penetrate themselves with objects, or to submit to being penetrated by objects. Indeed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was deliberately written with loopholes that gave immunity to perpetrators of many kinds of sexual humiliation and abuse.

 

There is also the testimony by female soldiers such as Lynndie England about compelling male prisoners to masturbate, as well as an FBI memo objecting to a policy of "highly aggressive interrogation techniques". The memo cites a female interrogator rubbing lotion on a shackled detainee and whispering in his ear - during Ramadan when sexual contact with a strange woman would be most offensive - then suddenly bending back his thumbs until he grimaced in pain, and violently grabbing his genitals. Sexual abuse in US-operated prisons got worse and worse over time, ultimately including, say doctors who examined detainees, sodomy.

 

All this may sound bizarre if you are a normal person, but it is standard operating procedure for sex offenders. Those who work in the field know that once sex abusers control a powerless victim, they will invariably push the boundaries with ever more extreme behaviour.

 

Abusers start by undressing their victims and, once that line has been breached, you are likely to hear from the victim about oral and anal penetration, greater and greater pain and fear being inflicted. There is more and more carelessness about exposing the crimes as the perpetrator's inhibitions fall away.

 

The perpetrator is also likely to engage in ever-escalating rationalisations, often arguing that the offences serve a greater good. Finally, the victim is blamed for the abuse: if the detainees would only "behave", and confess, they wouldn't bring all this on themselves.

Silence, and even collusion, is also typical of sex crimes within a family. Americans are behaving like a dysfunctional family by shielding sex criminals in their midst through silence.

 

Just as sex criminals - and the leaders who directed the use of rape and sexual abuse as a military strategy - were tried and sentenced after the wars in Bosnia and Sierra Leone, so Americans must hold accountable those who committed, or authorised, sex crimes in US-operated prisons.

 

Throughout the world, this perverse and graphic criminality has added fuel to anxiety about US cultural and military power. These acts need to be called by their true names - war crimes and sex crimes - and people in America need to demand justice for the perpetrators and their victims. As in a family, only when people start to speak out and tell the truth about rape and sexual assault can the healing begin.

 

Naomi Wolf wrote The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot and the forthcoming Give Me Liberty: How To Become An American Revolutionary. She is the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign, a US democracy movement, and is part of Project Syndicate, 2008.

 

Israel ‘will attack Iran’ before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

29 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 24/06/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-predicts.html

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
 

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations


The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-predicts.html
 

Page 87 of 104 pages ‹ First  < 85 86 87 88 89 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Wow, this is news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdxyWrCX5t4

Rosalind Peterson says: “No evidence for jet chemtrails found”

It’s a recording of Roxy Lopez’ “Truth Denied” radio show.

By Josh on 2012 07 21 - 19:46:40
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I made it quite clear in the earlier pages of this discussion what my attitude is to the chemtrails/contrails argument, and I documented my positions fully. Mike Glynn’s intervention and the subsequent enquiries with Robert M. Forgette persuaded me of the value of Mike’s approach, which for practical purposes I have adopted.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 21 - 05:36:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

countering bunk with evidence is not idle rethoric. There are plenty of old photos - like the one in this article - and reports about persistant contrails, debunking the claim that they did not exist before the 1990s.

I’m still waiting for your evidence. And I will continue to comment as long as you are promoting this hoax.

By Josh on 2012 07 21 - 05:15:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We have agreed to desist from idle rhetoric until the empirical facts are in. What are you doing to try to get them in?  I am doing what I can.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 21 - 05:05:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

if you want to put your faith in the scientific method, why are you then promoting Michael J. Murphy who based his first “documentary” on the central claim that contrails cannot persist for hours?

Since this claim and most others from that film have been debunked, he is really the worst example for applying “scientific method”. He is making a living from spreading bunk.

You can’t get around the issue of “chemtrail” vs. contrail, no matter how you dodge.

BTW, the scientific method includes a rule which says that of multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one is generally correct. Apply that to your “obscenities in the sky” and just call it weather.

By Josh on 2012 07 21 - 04:59:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I don’t want to discuss anything.  I am putting my faith in scientific method and doing what I can to get the HARC test implemented somewhere.  This is what Mike Glynn wants to do too.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 21 - 04:15:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

So, Wayne Hall,

plenty of promotion, but no discussion?

Well, I can do that:
http://metabunk.org/threads/645-Debunked-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-Wingtip-Fuel-Dump-Photo

Regarding persistent contrails:
http://metabunk.org/threads/658-A-Challenge-to-Chemtrail-Believers-Explain-this-1969-Issue-of-Popular-Science

By Josh on 2012 07 21 - 01:58:47
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.examiner.com/video/michael-murphy-and-vinny-eastwood-discuss-why-the-world-are-they-spraying

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 21 - 00:35:12
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We are going to screen it here.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 17 - 19:05:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Is anyone in Australia planning to organize a public screening of the webcast from the Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails conference?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 17 - 02:30:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories