Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

April 11, 2015
In today's show we bring you a historical overview of alternative views on HIV/AIDS, with a focus on a group of highly qualified scientists and health… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Pax Britannica & The New World Order

17 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Imperial roots of today's evolving world system.

By Tom Piccone

Cecil Rhodes (1853 -1902)The New World Order -- You have probably heard these words used in recent years, perhaps beginning with President George Bush in 1990.

But what does this phrase mean? Who has been using the expression? When and where did this idea of a new world order originate? How will this new world order be implemented? More importantly, how will this new world order affect you?

The words "new world order" have been in use for decades, and did not originate with President Bush. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government.

Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance, and will mean the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them.

Origins of The New World Order

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)In the late nineteenth century, with the industrial revolution sweeping Europe and America, certain individuals dreamed of a world far different from the one in which they lived, a world organized in such a way that wars would be impossible and every aspect of human life would be arranged by educated men for the benefit of all. These dreamers included men of great ability and wealth who devoted their talents and fortunes to carry out their plans. The point of origin of these people was England, and their idea initially was to extend the British Empire to include the whole earth. If British rule were complete, how could there be any reason for war, and who could attempt it?

The most prominent of the individuals who developed the idea of a new world order were Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie, and members of the Fabian Society, particularly H. G. Wells.

Cecil Rhodes went from England to Africa in an attempt to improve his poor health, and acquired enormous wealth by developing diamond mining properties. He died in 1902 and donated his fortune to establish a Rhodes scholarship program at Oxford University to carry out his ideas. The scholarships were to go to promising young men from the British colonies and the United States, with the majority going to Americans.

Andrew Carnegie went from Scotland to the United States and founded U. S. Steel, earning for himself a substantial sum of money. Carnegie used his wealth to set up foundations to fund educational, religious, and political organizations to "cultivate the international mind" and promote world peace. Some of his money went to the Federal Council of Churches. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was established, and began funding educational initiatives. By the end of World War II, the U. S. State Department was largely controlled by Rhodes scholars and members of this Carnegie Endowment, and was emphasizing the idea of world peace through the United Nations.

The Fabian Society was a group of intellectuals in England who believed that socialism was the way to organize the world for social and economic progress. H.G. Wells was originally a member of the Fabian Society and wrote extensively on political topics, influencing thinking in international affairs. In one of his books, entitled The New World Order (1939), Wells stated that world socialism was inevitable, and that there would be a difficult and painful transition period in which many "quite gallant and graceful-looking people" would "die protesting against it."

Structure of The New World Order

H. G. Wells (1866 -1946)The basic concept of the new world order is world government. For Rhodes and Carnegie, it was British rule expanded to cover the earth, or at least British influence through English-speaking countries to organize the rest of world according to the English way of life and thinking. Wells and others set out to bring the world under socialism, step by step, in a gradual process. Over the years, proposals were made successively for world federation, a League of Nations, and the United Nations.

The new world order is to be implemented through regionalism. Basically, the world is to be divided into geographical regions, internationally, nationally, and locally, and these regions are to be the new units of government, replacing the old, traditional notions of nation-states, cities, towns, villages, etc. Control over every aspect of human life is to be exercised in the form of an administrative dictatorship, from the top down, through an enormous bureaucracy of appointed officials, specialists, and planners accountable only to the elected executives.

Political power is to be concentrated in the executive branch of government, removing it from the control of the people through their elected legislative representatives. The choices presented to the people for the elected executives are limited to candidates selected by the political establishment, and not by the people themselves. In this way, the outward form of democracy is retained to an extent, but the power is entirely taken away from the people and concentrated in government.

The transition to world government is being carried out gradually, with appropriate "education" of the populace, until the system is fully in place. Forces have joined together to push for world government, first by one means, and then by another after the first method meets opposition. These forces never stop. They never admit defeat. There is only delay, and then new ideas of how to bring the entire world into a planned administrative system.

Truth News Radio Australia - live from the Tom Mann Theatre

15 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Download mp3: click here (right-click, save target as...)

On Friday, 12 September, we recorded our show with a live studio audience at the Tom Mann Theatre in Sydney.

The show featured a panel discussion followed by a question and answer session.  On the panel we had the pleasure of the company the following esteemed guests:

  • Gillian Norman (Film Maker)
  • John Bursill (Boeing Engineer)
  • Dr. Frank Legge (Chemist)
  • James O’Neill (Barrister at Law)
  • Dr. David Leifer (Architect and member of


The panel engaged in a lively critique of the new Italian 9/11 film Zero, and we covered a variety of other topics, some of which proved to be controversial within the group.

A big thankyou from Josh and myself to everyone who helped make this happen, especially Jose who managed to find an essential piece of equipment at the last moment!

Please pass this podcast link on to your friends and feel free to download and burn to disk if you wish.

I hope to have the video version online soon.

Amy Goodman discusses her arrest

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Amy Goodman discusses her arrest, the arrests of her colleagues, police response to demonstrators, and freedom of the press at the Republican National Convention.

Aired on September 5, 2008 on NOW on PBS.

Breaking The Silence - Truth and Lies in the War on Terror

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

An astounding documentary from John Pilger (2003).  The film ends with the chilling words "If we remain silent, victory over us is assured".

Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies".

Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban". In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination.

Pilger also interviews presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, and former intelligence officers, all the while raising searching questions about the real motives for the 'war on terror'.

While President Bush refers to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as two 'great victories', Pilger asks the question - victories over whom, and for what purpose? Pilger describes Afghanistan as a country "more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot's Cambodia". He finds that Al-Qaida has not been defeated and that the Taliban is re-emerging. And of the "victory" in Iraq, he asks: "Is this Bush's Vietnam?"

TNRA 12 September 2008

September 12, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement, Australia ]

On Friday, 12 September, we recorded our show with a live studio audience at the Tom Mann Theatre in Sydney.

The show featured a panel discussion followed by a question and answer session.  On the panel we had the pleasure of the company the following esteemed guests:

  • Gillian Norman (Film Maker)

  • John Bursill (Boeing Engineer)

  • Frank Legge (Chemist)

  • James O'Neill Barrister at Law)

  • Dr. David Leifer (Architect and member of

The panel engaged in a lively critique of the new Italian 9/11 film Zero, and we covered a variety of other topics, some of which proved to be controversial within the group.

A big thankyou from Josh and myself to everyone who helped make this happen, especially Jose who managed to find an essential piece of equipment at the last moment!

Please pass this podcast link on to your friends and feel free to download and burn to disk if you wish.

I hope to have the video version online soon.

400 European truth activists march in Brussels

12 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

United for Truth - European 911 Truth Movement


Last Sunday over 400 European truth activists ignored the rain and had a non-violent march in Brussels. They gathered at 2 P.M. in front of the Berlaymont building at Schuman, Brussels. At 3 P.M. they took a walk of 4 kilometers with a stop at the US Embassy. Before the rally left, the organizers delivered a letter to the assistant to Giulietto Chiesa, Euro-MP for Italy. Under police guidance they tried to deliver a letter containing their request to start an independent and international investigation to what happened in the U.S.A. just 7 years ago. They were told that the embassy was closed and didn't accept their letter unless is was delivered by mail. There were no incidents during the protests, and the organizers were once again very positive about the collaboration with the Brussels Police.

Furthermore, the platform is endorsed by various Non Governmental Organizations like The Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt (CATMD), CODIP, ReOpen911 and ATTAC Brussels. The first Belgian political party CAP (Comité Autre Politique) joined the rally at the end.

The platform these people and organizations support is: "In solidarity with the American citizens, we demand an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks, which were the pretext for too many wars, lies, and a serious decrease of (y)our civil rights ("anti-terrorist"-acts, secret prisons, "Patriot act", etc). We want European troops back home! We want European laws that guarantee neutrality of the internet and that explicitly forbid tracing/chipping (RFID) of human beings as well as other electronic threats on our freedom. We want democratic and public control of financial organizations (IMF, WB, etc) and the mass media. But most of all we want to get our life back."

United for Truth made its first public appearance in September 2007. They organized the first European protest in Brussels calling to support a majority of the American people, who want a re-investigation of the 9/11 attacks. This protest is coordinated by two Belgian artists; a 25 year old Dutch speaking producer who associated with a 41 year old French speaking percussionist.

English & Dutch: Julez Edward, +32 479 936 236
French & Spanish: Olivier Galand, +32 477 257 255

Protest Outside ABC Studio - 11 September 2008

10 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The Sydney Truth Action group will be staging a protest outside ABC studios in Ultimo on Thursday, 11 September from 11:00 AM - 01:00 PM (see map).

ABC Studios Ultimo

This is a great opportunity to make a difference, and let our (taxpayer funded) national broadcaster know we require that they exercise due diligence in covering matters of grave public concern such as 9/11.

According to a recent report, Australia currently has 1080 troops deployed in Afghanistan, yet neither the Taliban leaders nor Osama bin Laden have ever been indicted for the terrorist attacks on 9/11!

We have been misled into a conflict which has no basis in international law.

9/11 was never properly investigated.

Can we continue to allow our fellow Australians to kill and to die for a lie? 

Voice your concern and join us in protest on 11 September.

Four Corners forum discusses “The Third Tower”

10 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Last Night ABC TV (Australia) aired the BBC documentary The Third Tower, which purports to be an objective investigation into "conspiracy theories swirling over 9/11".

This morning there a number of discussion topics on the Four Corners website dedicated to the topic, and from a quick look it is clear once again, as was demonstrated when ABC Unleashed published a short  opinion piece on 9/11 unanswered questions, that the public is simply not satisfied with the level of journalistic integrity evidenced by the major media.


Last night's programme on World Trade Centre 7 was neither, “Investigative" nor "Journalism". It was just a rerun of a BBC programme that left major questions unanswered. I expected more from my ABC. If this is your measure of the qualities to which you apparently hold yourselves to, then everything that you show from this point on has no credibility.

There is so much more that needs to be explained here.

- Mark

Read more here.


Page 88 of 109 pages ‹ First  < 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

i doubt the original post was meant to provoke anything other than controversy. the blatant insulting bias was a deliberate attempt to do nothing else but generate advertising hits. ( i dont get ads.. )

this dog and pony blog struggles for relevancy and credibility with its blatant misinformation, censorship and dictatorial hypocritical nonsensical administration.. 

threatening to close the thread? lol..  you wont… youre scared!

whatcha gonna do hereward? close ALL the threads?

i appreciate the informed sensible input from different views of wayne and leonard, ive learnt a few things.. im sure if you could trust fenton with an honest vote and a poll here, the consensus would show its not unreasonable to wonder why the skies appear as they do, and to seek legitimate answers..

for myself, as a layman, i can simply call things as i see them, joshs disingenuous hall monitor annoying attitude will get from me the disrespect it deserves..

herewards censorship will result in a repeat post, which simply brings the deleted post back to prominence again.. i can play that game as long as he wants.. his pathetic threats to continue to taunt me are as laughable as this whole site having anything to do with truth.

as for cyber violence.. i appreciate that as well.. because dishonesty and blatant BS should be called out for what it is.. and for the lulz..

mike glynn… the paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks hes going to be taken out the air by some chemtrail alarmist-thug-brownshirt-fascist-blah-blah-blah.. with what? a rocket propelled boomerang? - otherwise known as the conspiracy within a conspiracy..

does quantas know such nutters are flying their planes?

none of them can offer any proof of anything they say.. 

they will call this post insulting, and abusive, simply because im critical and disagree..

it will most likely be deleted a few times, and my ip blocked again… for the umpteenth time.. 

so be it.

By agin mee on 2012 11 15 - 22:13:19
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, you should endeavour to make your posts clear.

Your post did seem to claim that I was claiming that chemtrails were not real “on the basis of “it isn’t being done” which seemed to be saying that I did not believe chemtrails were for real. A little difficult to follow that rather bland statement. I note you have expressed that you should have expressed your point more precisely. Miscommunication causes many problems all the time. Geo-engineering can be the only reason for the chemtrails as far as I can see, and I do not believe for good purposes. The wild theories I wrote of are those unaccompanied by good science or observation.

I have never insisted that no water is produced by combustion as I have made it clear how I understand combustion causes contrails. I presume you are using produced meaning to bring forth or yield. The very evidence of the making of contrails contradicts the claims about “contrails “spreading and manufacturing cloud quite simply because if there was more water than is contained in the air passing through the engine, tonnes and tonnes from one aircraft I recall reading in one post, it would certainly create large contrails rather than the thin wispy trails we see on any winter day as the upper atmosphere rarely has greater than about 70% humidity and is therefore relatively dry. There can never be more than 100% humidity in the atmosphere anyway, so those claims of supersaturation can be sorted and tossed out early.

Exhaust emissions are the same whether at ground level or high altitude because engines are manipulated, these days by computers, to produce required power at best and optimum performance for all settings under all conditions. For those who believe that there is water produced from the actual high temperature combustion process (about 700 degrees Celsius at ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature)), that is more than is contained in the intake air, I suggest talking to engineers who run jet engine test cells and ask how much water is emitted during their testing. It would be an experiment to capture the emissions and cool them to see how much water condenses out of it. Interesting. In addition it begs the question as to why we inject water methanol into the engine intake, on some aircraft, during take-off if there is water in the fuel.

Thanks for the exchange. I will sign off now as I have not been able to see anything of worth coming from this forum and argument has never achieved anything worthwhile. Only discussion will do that.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 21:05:01
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard, I have read all your posts, though I admit to having been disoriented by your first post and your reference to “wild theories about contrails and “chemtrails” so that I did not know initially where you were coming from. I also found myself in disagreement with your later statement that civilian airliners would not or could not be implicated in spraying. My reference to your arguing on the basis of “it isn’t being done” should have been more expressed more precisely. 

What I should have said is that you don’t seem to want to talk about geoengineering, or any of the other actual or proposed applications of spraying of particulates from aircraft, unlike me, for I entered the discussion on the basis of the argument that “the last way to understand what one is seeing in the skies is to become implicated in the contrails vs chemtrails discussion”.  That, I said, is because “the purpose of the contrails vs chemtrail discussion is to determine whether geoengineering (or some other deliberate atmospheric modification) activity is in progress .  This subject has always interested me more and my focus has always been on geoengineering and the applications of particulate spraying, along with the underlying politics. Not the physical science of contrails/chemtrails, which I cannot argue about.

The discussion you wished to have was/is precisely that proposed by Hereward and Josh: i.e. whether there can be “persistent” and/or spreading controls. What you have to say on the subject of “persistent” chemtrails seems persuasive to me. But your presumed expertise has not enabled you to be any more effective than I have been in securing what should be due acknowledgement from Hereward and Josh. What has been in progress here has been a dialogue of the deaf, whoever involves themselves with it. And the final result has been the intrusion of activists threatening cyber-“violence”.

Perhaps it is these activists’ devotion to the fetish of “freedom of speech” that leaves them with no option other than anonymous threats. They are evidently not willing to say that “freedom of speech” should be drawn into question.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 15 - 20:19:11
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

I was not referring to chemtrails in my previous post. I was referring to your claim that no water is in a jet exhaust that was not there before in the intake air.

Michal Glynn, professional jet pilot, commented:

“The chemical equation given by Josh explains it all. Kerosene and ambient oxygen in=large amounts of water and CO2 out.”

See page 4 of comments, at the bottom, “2012 07 09 - 09:52:23”.
It’s obviously not my equation ...

Are you still insisting that there is no water produced by the combustion of fuel?

By Josh on 2012 11 15 - 20:06:54
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Again Josh, I did ask myself and I found that I disagree with the contention that chemtrails do not exist simply from my experience and observations over many decades of professional flying in a number of different countries and internationally. I have explained before that I doubt that commercial airline aircraft are used because as an engineer and pilot I can say without fear of intelligent dissent that engineers and pilots know their aircraft well enough to detect any extra plumbing that would have to be installed. Or at least I hope they do. I have retired from active flying but still hold my ATPL and First Class Medical Certificate for it and I still have all my faculties.

As for asking “Google” I believe that can be useful but not definitive.

“The chemistry of combustion is not a matter of opinion. Ask not just Michael Glynn, ask any professional jet pilot, chemistry teacher, atmospheric scientist. Ask Google, at least.”

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 19:28:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I found that insults often tend to come up if factual arguments are running out.

ummmm… what is you FACTUAL argument that chemtrails dont exist again?

ohhhhh ... thats right.. that under certain rae circumstances when conditions are conducive, contrails may linger..

in other words, you ran out before you began.

By agin mee on 2012 11 15 - 19:27:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, have you not read any of my posts? I suggest you must have misunderstood the times I have written because noting I have written coincides with your “it isn’t being done” statement.

I doubt I will continue reading this forum as it seems to be about argument and not discussion nor debate. I think it is best for people to simply believe what they believe.

“Leonard Clampett was willing to involve himself in discussion on the basis of “it isn’t being done”.  Is he still, I wonder?

Anyway, I have had some communication from Robert M. Forgette, and although I have no intention of trying to involve him in the time-wasting sado-masochism of the discussion here, perhaps there is now some hope of light being shed on the psychology of Mike Glynn, who says that Robert will “vouch for” him.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 10 - 21:38:19
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.”

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 19:11:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

again josh chimes in with hereward who both hypocritically pretend they dont indulge in insult.. or “abuse”

they would rather debate insults than the topic, and close down the thread because they fear they are losing the argument.

such a pretentiously haughty display - not an insult, a statement of fact.

By agin mee on 2012 11 15 - 19:07:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry Josh, I am not here for argument I want to know why and what is being sprayed around the world, as it is.

Supersaturation of the atmosphere is impossible and not a theory. Check the science.

It would seem you believe that water detection paste is not reliable and that all the airlines and aircraft flying the world airways are in imminent danger whenever they leave the ground. That is something that should be brought to the attention of all aviation authorities, civil, military and naval, immediately.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 19:04:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

just because you are trying to hide your insults behind many words, they are still what they are. They are noted, as is your consent to others being abusive.

I found that insults often tend to come up if factual arguments are running out.

By Josh on 2012 11 15 - 18:56:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.