Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

July 19, 2014
Today's show focuses on the international crisis over the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, and the diplomatic uproar caused by The Australian… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Aimee Allen’s *Unofficial* Ron Paul Revolution Video

08 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]


see also:

Singer & Songwriter Aimee Allen on the Alex Jones Show

Aimee Allen: Revolution Video (2002) Blocked by US Government

from Aimee Allen:


Contact Aimee Allen:

I'm putting the "unofficial video" up on my page in honor of the cause...and due to popular demand.

I've tried and failed to get it removed from the internet because the director and myself and all the people involved including the editor were not even close to having it completed.

I want to have the credits up and the thank you's because the person that stole this footage and leaked it didn't have the courtesy to do so.

Full Brief of Evidence in Relation to War Crimes Allegations against the former Australian Prime Min

06 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

To download the full brief, click here.
contact: Glenn Floyd (

The Prosecutor Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
The International Criminal Court,
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague,
The Netherlands

Re: War Crimes Allegations: Introduction

4 June 2008

Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, this ‘Brief Of Evidence’ is furnished for your further consideration under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part IV, Article 42, 1,  as persuasive, relevant substantiated evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed as defined within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, those war crimes are alleged as committed by the unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq. Specific war crimes alleged are the loss of life and injury to Iraqi civilians detailed herein and on public record, and damage to civilian objects and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment of Iraq. The alleged war crimes identified directly arise from the self titled ‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’ excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq as its optional but direct response choice; to its untested assertions of the republic of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s).

The submission is forwarded for your examination in support of specific and articulable facts and inferences that John Winston Howard Of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065, in respect of his express personal, executive order to commit Australian Defence Forces in direct support of the armed attack and invasion of Iraq; on and after 20 March 2003, caused significant deaths and injury to Iraqi civilians and widespread destruction of property and the natural environment of Iraq. It is therefore stated, that by this express personal executive decision and action, John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes by ‘the conduct’ of such an ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ armed attack and invasion. The allegation is made that the ‘excessively lethal’ nature, and the unwarranted ‘conduct itself’, of this armed attack and invasion upon Iraq; is a commission of war crimes.

In alleging the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal nature’ of the armed attack and invasion is in itself ‘criminal conduct’, it is stated it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Accordingly, ‘during this unwarranted and excessively lethal action’; John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). .

The case and evidence herein presented, relies on the claim at international law under the provisions of this statute; the ‘actual conduct’ of the action itself, as a reasonable option, is alleged as ‘criminal conduct’. That is to say, the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal conduct itself’ of such an attack by way of its questionable necessity, reasonableness, severity and impact, violated the ICC Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv).

The violation is alleged because the clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal decision and conduct was applied when Iraq had both declared it had no WMD’s and in good faith, to prove the facts of these untested assertions of possessing WMD’s, Iraq lawfully complied with the existing Security Council Resolution 1441(2002) inspections measures to prove the factuality of both this untested assertion and Iraq’s lawful declaration. In addition, Iraq being a totally economically and militarily broken country since the 1991 Gulf War; was not capable of disobeying any directives of the U.N. Security Council. It lawfully complied as obliged and as demanded.

Iraq’s non-functioning economy was ruined after its military collapse since the 1991 Gulf War, when a massive coalition force of 38 countries delivered the absolute destruction of Iraq, where only one hundred hours after the Gulf War ground campaign started, President Bush fulfilling U.N. Resolutions declared "Kuwait is liberated" and Iraq's army defeated”
 . In this major military exercise 11 of Iraq's 26 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed and damaged, causing electricity production collapse to four percent capacity. Infrastructure was almost non-existent with the destruction of the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and sewerage treatment plants, which all turned Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward, where telecoms equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, roads, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. In addition, the parlous state of the entire societal workings of the Iraq republic at all levels was evident, and brought to further draconian collapse by the effective authorised U.N. economic sanctions, operating for over the following 12 years.

Iraq was utterly broken as a nation and Iraq lawfully declared it had no WMD’s as demanded by the U.N., further, the untested assertions of Iraq possessing WMD’s was being fully proven out by Security Council enforced authorised inspections Iraq had lawfully complied with. There was no case whatsoever for such a clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion, this conduct was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. (See definitions of ‘Excessive’ pp12 to 13).


War crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). .

relevant statute ‘explicitly and clearly states’ a war crimes violation occurs when:

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: Inter alia,

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the

Established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Although the specific and articulable facts and inferences herein also presents compelling evidence that the decision and action are in themselves both unlawful and illegal, the case and evidence presented, does not rely ‘on the unlawfulness and illegality of the decision to commit an armed attack and invasion of Iraq’, nor does it rely on the ‘unlawfulness and illegality of the action of actually committing or assisting to commit the armed attack and invasion of Iraq’. Those matters of decision and action, although clearly unlawful and illegal, do not constitute material evidence of fact or commission of war crimes within the ICC jurisdiction, as it is understood the ICC has no powers to investigate lawfulness or illegality of any military actions within the provisions of The Rome Statute.

It is the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this attack and invasion defined under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv), which is the subject of war crimes allegations. However, the ‘unlawfulness and illegality’ of both the decision and action, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘excessive’ as ‘reasonable conduct’, when considering the potential impact of available options in achieving the stated aim of ‘proving the facts’ of untested assertions of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. Consequently, the ‘unlawfulness’ has compelling direct bearing on the ‘excessiveness’ of the conduct itself of the attack and invasion; as it ‘utterly removes all grounds’ for any level of military action whatsoever, being justified in any way.


This Brief Of Evidence therefore, fully demonstrates, the ‘entire conduct itself’ of this unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq ‘as reasonable conduct’ under the circumstances was ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’. This allegation relies on the fact that the self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ forces’ openly stated rationale for attack and invasion was its untested assertion that ‘Iraq actually possessed WMD’s.

However, this matter of ‘determining the facts of the existence’ of WMD’s as asserted, was ALREADY being fully managed ‘as reasonable conduct’ by the Security Council itself. This ‘reasonable conduct’ would have reasonably and fully tested at law, the facts of this WMD’s untested assertion, without any death, injury or destruction whatsoever.

In reasonably managing this most serious matter, the Security Council being the duly recognised authority itself, in also considering this potential attack and invasion path as a possible conduct option available, (with its intrinsic ‘excessively lethal impact’), chose to not attack, and instead used its powers and functions appropriately as ‘reasonable conduct’, to manage the risks of ‘untested assertions’ of WMD’s. The Security Council formally warned Iraq of serious consequences and not only gave Iraq the chance to comply with its warning to prove the untested WMD’S assertion, it actually forced Iraq into full compliance with the agreed WMD’s inspections testing regime. It therefore acted reasonably within the binding obligations of the war crimes Article 8, 2, (b), (iv) provisions; the untested WMD’S assertion was being legitimately and fully proven without risk and without an excessively lethal attack and invasion.


Only the Security Council had the lawful authority at international law to manage this ‘untested assertion’ of WMD’s and it reasonably chose this balanced ‘non lethal’ option by ‘proving the facts’ of the WMD untested assertion through inspections testing, without applying criminal conduct of an excessively lethal armed attack and invasion. It chose this reasonable path because it felt ‘proving the facts of asserted WMD’s through such a use of excessively lethal force; clearly, was not warranted. This was a deliberate, lawful, strong, effective, balanced and humanitarian decision.

Therefore, at law, given the object of Resolution 1441 to test the assertions of WMD’s and the consequential death, injury and destruction resulting from an attack and invasion; the duly authorised authority decided armed attack and invasion would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. The self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ however, with no authority to do so, by their decision and action have chosen and executed, the unwarranted and excessively lethal option of armed attack and invasion; alleged as criminal conduct resulting in war crimes.

Deaths and injuries to civilians and and widespread destruction of property resulting from the armed attack and invasion of Iraq are widely identified in the public domain and are specifically identified in this Brief Of Evidence. Accordingly, it is requested your office examines these claims and evidence under PART 2.  JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 15 (2) and further considers under Article 15, (3), John Winston Howard’s alleged criminal culpability for indictment and criminal prosecution.

If your analysis of this Brief Of Evidence conforms with the view that a prima facie case of war crimes (identified in this Brief Of Evidence and elsewhere), exists as alleged and it is concluded that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, it is requested you submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber; a request for authorization of an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


It is further requested therefore, if such investigations consequently accord with these allegations of war crimes made herein, John Winston Howard be indicted under Article 21,1 (b) seeking invocation of appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict for war crimes violations specified for prosecution for war crimes.


It is previously stated the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this armed attack and invasion which is the subject of war crimes allegations. The unlawfulness and illegality of both the decision and action however, although not falling within the ICC war crimes jurisdiction, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘unwarranted’ as reasonable conduct (and therefore in this context, also excessive), in the total set of prevailing circumstances. This analysis is helpful in defining the use of the term ‘excessive’ when considering appropriate and reasonable options of conduct and the potential impact of all available options in achieving the stated aim of proving the facts of untested assertions of the existence of WMD in Iraq.

This focus is valuable because there are a wide ranging set of circumstances surrounding any behaviour in legal cases under analysis and many of them whilst not legally impinging upon defining criminality of actual decisions and actions of the case, have a direct bearing upon clear analysis of what is ‘reasonable behaviour’ (i.e. excessive behaviour), expected or obliged at law, in relation to the decisions and actions actually taken and acted upon.

There are two sides to analysis and determination of any war crimes committed under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). They are the absolute severity of the impact of the action which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated and there is also the legal, practical and ‘moral imperatives’ which are operating. These are the factors in an enlightened society at play of the pure compelling reasons to do or not do something which has a severe impact. They consequently may be defined ‘excessive’ –simply because they are breaches of these accepted or binding imperatives and consequently affirm behaviour as unnecessary or unwarranted ‘under these specific circumstances’ and not so in others.

*A separate case is under preparation alleging the attack and invasion of Iraq is unlawful and illegal and ipso facto,

premeditated criminal conduct and/or criminal negligence.

This focus looks at any morays, ethics, values, laws, statutes, norms of behaviour that we all understand and accept as forming or defining ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour. Such focus is material to the specific facts of the case itself because it shows by certain agreed societal operands we are clearly aware of, that such behaviour is clearly excessive, unnecessary and/or unwarranted etc. If the decision and action taken was also known to be unlawful, illegal and is wholly premeditated, this provides further strong evidence the decision was unwarranted, unnecessary as well as excessively lethal. The unlawfulness and illegality of such behaviour cannot at the ICC define war crimes, however the unlawfulness compounds the actual decision and action as irrefutable evidence the premeditated behaviour was fully understood as ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour at law. It therefore displays full knowledge of excessive impact ‘and under these circumstances’ shows behaviour as war crimes, because the action or ‘conduct’ clearly shows at law, in attack, ‘any’ military advantage is non-existent.



Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment

04 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

ABC News

Posted Mon Jun 2, 2008 1:17pm AEST 


A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.


A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.


Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.


"We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard's actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute," he said.


Democrats Senator Lyn Allison says the legal brief sent to the ICC is justified.

Senator Allison, who is one of several eminent people supporting the move, says accountability is important.


"This action has been taken to hold those accountable for their action, so it's essentially our prime minister - he was the one at the time [who] was the executive of government, made the decision," she said.


'It wasn't put to the Parliament and as we all know, it turned out to be unjustified."

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.


Corrs Guitarist - “9/11 was an inside job”

01 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Each time a major entertainer steps out on the side of 9/11 truth there is ripple in the media blackout. Jim Corr is clearly very committed, and we can expect more ripples to come.

By Richie Taylor
Friday May 30 2008

CORRS guitarist Jim Corr has claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 attacks in America were carried out by "rogue elements" of US President George Bush's "neo-con administration".

In a rare intervention into the political arena, the male singer with The Corrs band came out against the Lisbon Treaty claiming that it is "tip-toe totalitarianism in the West".

In an interview with Matt Cooper on Today FM's 'Last Word', Corr made the case for voting 'No' to Lisbon, claiming it could introduce the death penalty to Ireland and contribute to a "new world order".

Corr's opposition is based on his three years "studying the New World Order which the European Union is a part of".

He said "the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union". The Lisbon Treaty itself will introduce "a scientific technocracy" to Europe which will erode national sovereignty.

Corr claimed that The Charter of Fundamental Rights allows for the introduction of the death penalty.

"It makes provision for the introduction to law for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war.

"What we are seeing is tip-toe totalitarianism in the West with 9/11 the key to understanding this.

"When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent... it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."

Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".

The Philosophy of Conspiracy - by David Coady

23 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

From the ABC:

In our final installment on conspiracy theories, David Coady looks at the philosophy of conspiracy...


22 May 2008, 10:00


David Coady

People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". They typically respond by saying that there's nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, since, after all, conspiracies do happen. This is a reasonable response.

But a little reflection reveals the expressions "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" do not deserve their bad reputation.

After all, "a conspiracy" is simply a secret plan by a group of people to bring about some shared goal, "a conspiracy theory" is just a theory according to which such a plan has occurred or is occurring, and "a conspiracy theorist" is just a person who is disposed to believe conspiracy theories.

Most people can cite numerous examples of conspiracies from history books, the media, or their own personal experience. Hence most people believe numerous conspiracy theories, and so are, to one degree or another, conspiracy theorists.

But very few people would actually describe themselves as conspiracy theorists, nor would they describe any of the things they believe as conspiracy theories.

When asked to identify examples of conspiracy theories most people immediately think of theories that are clearly irrational.

Some will refer to theories involving conspirators who are virtually all-powerful or omniscient. Others will mention theories involving alleged conspiracies that have been going on for so long or which involve so many people that it would implausible to suppose that they could have remained undetected. Others cite theories involving conspirators who appear to have no motive to conspire - unless perhaps the desire to do evil for its own sake can be thought of as a motive. The theory that the United States' government planned the September 11th attacks appears to be irrational in each of these ways.

This theory, and others like it, are irrational conspiracy theories, but it does not follow, and it is not true, that they are irrational because they are conspiracy theories.

Thinking of such irrational theories as paradigms of conspiracy theories is like thinking of numerology as a paradigm of number theory, or astrology as a paradigm of a theory of planetary motion. The subject matter of a theory does not generally determine whether belief in it is rational or not.

But conspiracies not only exist, they are widespread. Most people conspire some of the time (think of the things we tell our children about Santa Claus) and some people conspire most of the time (think of the intelligence organizations of any country).

Furthermore, many events cannot be explained without appealing to a conspiracy. The only question in such cases is "Which conspiracy theory is correct?"

In the case of 9/11 the question is "Who are the conspirators, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, or George Bush and the American security services?" The correct answer to this question is so well established by now that nothing further I can say here could be expected to convince the 9/11 truthers.

The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory (a theory which happens, like its true rival, to be a conspiracy theory).

Of course it seems strange to think of the "official" explanation of 9/11 (or the official explanation of any event) as a conspiracy theory. We are accustomed to contrasting conspiracy theories with the official non-conspiratorial version of events, but quite often, the official version of events is just as conspiratorial as its rivals.

When this is the case, it is the rivals to the official version of events that are inevitably labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theories". So, "conspiracy theory" has come to refer to virtually any belief which conflicts with an official version of events.

It should be clear what is wrong with using the expression in this way. It allows politicians, bureaucrats, and more generally defenders of officialdom the world over to abuse and ridicule anyone who doubts their truthfulness.

Yet it is vital to any open society that there are respected sources of information which are independent of official sources, and which can freely contradict them and not be dismissed without argument. The widespread view that conspiracy theories are always, or even typically, irrational is not only itself irrational, it is dangerous.

It promotes complacency in the face of official or institutionally endorsed versions of events, which makes it easier for conspirators in positions of power to remain undetected.

I am not denying that there are people who have an irrational tendency to see conspiracies everywhere. And we could restrict the expression "conspiracy theorist" in such a way that it only referred to such people.

But if we do this, we should also remember that there is another widespread form of irrationality, namely the failure to believe in conspiracy even when confronted with powerful evidence for it.

We need a name for people who irrationally reject evidence of conspiracy, to give our political discourse some much needed balance. The expression "coincidence theorist", which has gained some currency on the Internet, goes some way to meeting this need.

A coincidence theorist fails to connect the dots, no matter how suggestive of an underlying pattern they are.

A hardened coincidence theorist can watch a plane crash into the second tower of the World Trade Centre without thinking that there is any connection between this event and the plane which crashed into the other tower less than an hour earlier.

Similarly, a coincidence theorist could be aware that all 175 editors of Rupert Murdoch's publications around the world endorsed the invasion of Iraq, without seeing any connection between their expressed views and those of their boss.

Coincidence theorists are just as irrational and at least as widespread as conspiracy theorists. They are equally prone to error, though their errors are of different and opposing kinds. The errors of the conspiracy theorist, however, tend to be less dangerous than the errors of the coincidence theorist.

The conspiracy theorist usually only harms himself. The coincidence theorist can harm us all by making it easier for those in power to conceal their conspiratorial machinations.

ABC “Unleashed” Publishes a Rebuttal to Hereward Fenton & the 9/11 Truth Movement

22 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Conspiracy theory lunacy

by Hugh Tobin
21 May 2008, 10:00

The September 11 terrorist attacks were arguably the most watched event in human history. As a result, the facts about what happened seem indisputable. We have all seen the footage of planes flying into the World Trade Centre towers over and over.

Yet, a group of conspiracy theorists continue to claim that the official account of what happened that day amounts to the greatest cover up in the history of modern civilisation.

ABC Unleashed last week published the claims of Hereward Fenton of the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia, a movement which disputes the official story and claims that the World Trade Centre did not actually collapse as the result of planes hitting the towers, but rather as the result of a controlled demolition.

When I last wrote about the lunacy of this theory in March 2007 my opinions were later attacked on the website that Fenton is a researcher for. Anonymous posts on the website accused me of being a Mossad agent, telling me to go "back to Israel and fortify your bunkers". These comments highlight some of the prejudices that can often fuel these theories.

The 9/11 Commission set up in 2002 interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents before releasing a 571-page report explaining how and why the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed.

The report found 'no corroborating evidence' for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.

So why do these theories continue to have support in the community? The theories are motivated from a variety of factors sometimes relating to anti-Americanism and most commonly from a psychology of mistrust and paranoia.

Those involved establish their conclusions first, and gather their evidence later. Contradictory evidence is either ignored or discredited.

Popular Mechanics, who have debunked the theories surrounding the attacks, argue that conspiracy theories 'share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons'.

In the most watched documentary promoting the conspiracy theories, Loose Change, which has been viewed by millions of people on Youtube, the narrator reflects … 'That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.'

We all wondered on September 12, 'How could this happen?' But just because something seems implausible does not provide evidence of a conspiracy. It's strange that the moon and the sun appear to be exactly the same size from the earth, but so what?

The conspiracy theories have been able to gather a strong following because they explain elements of the story that the official account is unable to explain easily to a lay person.

The main concern of those in the 9/11 Truth Movement is that they think it would be impossible for the World Trade Centre to fall in the uniform fashion that we all witnessed without it being the result of a controlled demolition. It is true that the temperatures inside the towers would not have reached levels that would have melted the metal, thus causing the buildings to collapse.

Steel's melting temperature is 1,500°C and there is consensus that temperatures inside the World Trade Centre would not have likely exceeded 1,100°C. However, the theorists fail to mention that steel that is heated to over 1,000°C softens to such an extent that its strength is reduced by up to 90 per cent.

They also fail to look at factors such as the internal damage to the building support structures and fire-proofing insulation which inevitably led to the collapse of both towers.

The conspiracy theorists are oppositional by nature. They will believe 11 different versions of what occurred, even if they are all contradictory, but only as long as they are not related to the official version of events.

One theorist who claims that a missile was fired into the Pentagon will associate himself with another theorist who is certain that the attack was carried out by an unmanned remotely controlled plane.

To account for this problem groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement have tried to classify themselves under two main headings. They identify themselves as either MIHOPs (Made It Happen On Purpose) or LIHOPs (Let It Happen On Purpose).

Both these groups believe that the US government had something to do with the attacks but divide themselves over whether the government let it happen or made it happen.

Perhaps the CIA did plant explosives inside the World Trade Centre and demolish it by controlled demolition. And maybe the military did fire a missile into its own headquarters at the Pentagon. Or maybe 19 terrorists, with links to Al Qaeda, hijacked four commercial airliners and used them as weapons to kill almost 3,000 people.

It is clear from the report into the attacks that the Bush administration was incompetent in stopping the terrorist attacks, but that does not mean that they were involved. To suggest that they were disrespects the lives of every person who died as a result of the attacks.

Perhaps the story would make a great Hollywood blockbuster, but in the real world it has less credibility than the idea that Prime Minister Harold Holt was captured by a Chinese submarine whilst swimming off Point Nepean.


Unanswered 9/11 Questions - by Hereward Fenton

17 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

WTC Building 7


Hereward Fenton
The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.

At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.

The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:

"...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."

This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone.

Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.

Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led by
Professor Steven E. Jones
and the results published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group.

A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the
47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day.

Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above.

Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence.

This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight.

The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this observation. "A team of experts did this", he said.

The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge:

"As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.

The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants."

The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse.

William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.

The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.

There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women.

Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job".

As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons.

First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime.

Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification.

Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.

TNRA 15 May 2008

May 15, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

15 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2

Categories: [ Australia, Big Brother ]

On tonight's show we look at censorship and police intimidation in Sydney. The decision by a Sydney Library to cancel the Friends of Hebron exhibition is critically examined.

We take a look at the government's plan to create a new citizen database, and what this implies for our democracy.

We finish up with a discussion of global warming and climate change, including an appraisal of a recent critical study of NASA's climate data.

Links for this show:

Exhibition axed after police visit
by Arjun Ramachandran
May 14, 2008

THE decision by a Sydney library to dump an exhibition about Palestinian refugees after a visit by counter-terrorism police the night before it opened has been criticised as an act of censorship.

Leichhardt municipal library was to launch the Al-Nakba pictorial exhibition last Friday. A local community group, Friends of Hebron, had developed the display of photos, poems and articles over eight months.

“We set up the exhibition at the library on Thursday night and the librarian … approved the exhibition, and said that it could be seen by children and other people who into the library,” said Carole Lawson, a Friends of Hebron member.

But that night, shortly before the library closed at 8pm, officers from the police counter-terrorism operations arrived at the library.


Government plans central citizen database
by Mahesh Sharma
May 13, 2008

THE federal Government has moved to establish a centralised database to host and manage all Australian citizens’ personal details, so this information can be easily shared and accessed by any department.

The Australian Taxation Office, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Customs, Centrelink, and other departments, are discussing the possibility of establishing a common registration process to improve information sharing.

The project was being led by the Australian Government Information Management “and it’s in respect of a common registration process,” ATO chief information officer Bill Gibson said.

“That’s exploratory at the moment. There’s nothing that exists right now that is a manifestation of this, but we are working with Centrelink, Customs, and other agencies, facilitated by AGIMO.


Global Warming: The Hockey Stick
by John L. Daly

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was “a discernible human influence on global climate”.

In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.


Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
A tale of two thermometers
By Steven Goddard
2 May 2008

A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won’t be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the “consensus” models which don’t.

But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source.

Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley’s data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.


Page 91 of 106 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Wayne, your response in great detail did not address the question. Rosalind asserts that after 10 years of research she has no evidence of anything being emitting from aircraft exhausts apart from normal jet emissions.

What do you say to that?

Leonard, thank you for the input. I tend to agree but will continue to offer my advice to the group, for as long as it wants it. Already to day we had one member of the group espouse how desirable it would be to shoot down five “chemtrail” aircraft. How he would determine which aircraft is a “chemtrail” aircraft was not canvassed but if the selection method was based on whether or not it emitted a persistent contrail, then I believe there is genuine cause for alarm.

Wayne, as you have met MJM, can I ask how he makes his living? Genuine question.

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 16:49:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Robert Forgettes lawsuit!

This is only a red herring and if I am able to locate the court where this is supposed to be heard I will contact the court as Amicus Curiae because it is a frivolous, vexatious, malicious abuse of court process as it is clear that the litigants propose to contend nonsense and then offer a weak case to have their action defeated. Courts do not like being used for political purposes.
Leonard Clampett - Attorney.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 07 30 - 16:20:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, I don’t know. Like a lot of things with climate science, it is debatable.

So you don’t know the answer to my questions and I don’t know the answer to your questions. 

As far as Phillip Ridley is concerned, anyone who quotes Michael J Murphy’s “What in the world are they spraying” as a “documentary”, obviously hasn’t done any research on the man or his methods. MJM was asked to join the Robert Forgettes lawsuit and has declined. One wonders why..?

I have spent several days together with Michael Murphy, in Ghent in Belgium, where Peter Vereecke was hosting us. M. Murphy is an honest person. You are the one who is cynical, it seems, about Murphy and more generally. I myself would not devote time or energy to supporting an American legal challenge on the subject of chemtrails, but I wish Robert Forgette well.

I would like to see you, as an active supporter of Robert Forgette, keeping us better informed on how things are developing with him and his case.

Robert Forgette is attending the “Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails” conference so Mike Murphy’s declining to support his lawsuit does not seem to have damaged relations between them.

Is it too cynical to suggest that the last thing he would want, after charging $100 dollars apiece for his latest epic, “Why in the World are they Spraying?” is for the case to be settled in a court of law and the gravy train to end?

Yes it is. Hideously so. I do not like being required to remain polite when exposed to such attitudes.

Wayne, I assume you are familiar with Rosalind Peterson.. the high priestess of the Chemtrail movement? What are your thoughts on her latest pronouncement with regards to chemtrails?

Rosalind Peterson was mentioned by Josh a couple of weeks ago and I responded in great detail. I thought you were following this thread.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 15:49:33
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, I don’t know. Like a lot of things with climate science, it is debatable.

As far as Phillip Ridley is concerned, anyone who quotes Michael J Murphy’s “What in the world are they spraying” as a “documentary”, obviously hasn’t done any research on the man or his methods. MJM was asked to join the Robert Forgettes lawsuit and has declined. One wonders why..?

Is it too cynical to suggest that the last thing he would want, after charging $100 dollars apiece for his latest epic, “Why in the World are they Spraying?” is for the case to be settled in a court of law and the gravy train to end?

Wayne, I assume you are familiar with Rosalind Peterson.. the high priestess of the Chemtrail movement? What are your thoughts on her latest pronouncement with regards to chemtrails?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 15:23:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard, I am sorry.  I see that it was Skywatcher who brought us back to this topic.

By all means continue the discussion with Mike if you feel it can help.

I would be curious to know what Mike thinks on the subject of why geoengineers advocate using aircraft contrails to mitigate global warming if they actually exacerbate global warming, as claimed by the EU and former Environment Commissioner Dimas, who extended the Emissions Trading scheme to cover aviation.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 14:15:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard when you see that even such a powerful and comprehensive article as Philip Ridley’s has no effect on the mindset of Hereward Fenton and Mike Glynn, what makes you think that resumption of the dialogue of the deaf on their favourite subject of contrails vs chemtrails is going to help you change their minds on the more important matter of whether this planet and the life forms on it are being illegally sprayed and poisoned?

Or is that NOT the most important, for you?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 14:07:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Now can anyone explain to me why this aircraft would be Chemtrailing on takeoff?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 13:43:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

hmmm try this.. 

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 13:41:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard, I was incorrect about 3x, it is 1.3x. The 3X is the CO2 emission. There is ample evidence of the CO2 emission level… The IPCC for one and maybe even Wayne’s favorite group, the ETC can provide you with a reference. You can google the science if you wish. Nothing is being created out of thin air; the hydrocarbons in the fuel are chemically combining with the oxygen in the air during the combustion process.

Skywatcher, what you are seeing there is an example of an Airbus A330, which is what I fly, cruising inside a cirrus layer. What is coming off the wings is called aerodynamic contrailing. As the airstream goes over the top of the wing a low pressure area is formed. This is what actually creates lift. A side effect is a lowering of the temperature of the airmass down to the dewpoint, which creates condensing ice crystals and a contrail.

Here is a photo of an aircraft doing the same thing on takeoff; not in a cirrus layer, but in a supersaturated environment.

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 13:36:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Some claim that better technology in jet engines means more contrails. Better technology means less fuel burned per ground nautical mile (the benchmark for combustion and economical operation efficiency) and therefore means very little because a greater air mass can be moved through a similar sized engine for the same burn, as the technology extracts a greater calorific value from a given amount of fuel, which means a little more water goes through which can be evaporated then condensed back into its former state through the heating and cooling process. The high altitude aircraft used during the Second World War were not only bombers but fighters and reconnaissance aircraft and the difference between that part of the world and Australia is ambient conditions where Europe has freezing levels far lower (in altitude) than those of our country and with that on a cold day with nil wind a contrail could last longer but can never “spread” to become a cloud mass for the very obvious reason that if that were the case the conditions would already be conducive to cloud formation. There is no way under the laws of thermodynamics that a few aircraft engines can substantially alter ambient conditions to create cloud. C. P. Snow made it clear to us that in a closed loop system the first law of thermodynamics tells us you can’t win and the second tells us you can’t even break even. i.e. You cannot make more from a given asset than you put in. Matter neither increase nor decreases. it simply changes form. The only water vapour that emits from an engine is that that went through it and that is shown by the amount of condensation “trailing” the aircraft. The suggestion, as has been posited, that a tonne of Jet A1 or Avtur can produce 3 tonnes of water is so preposterous that it boggles the mind that anybody could even make the claim.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 07 30 - 13:04:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.