Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

November 22, 2014
Today it is my great pleasure to welcome Dr Viera Scheibner to the show. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

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
 

TNRA 22 June 2008

June 22, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

28 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 4
By Hereward Fenton

This was a big show, clocking in at just over two hours. Due to the length of the show the editing also took some time, hence the delay in publishing.

This is, in my humble opinion, one of our best and most important broadcasts so far. I urge all readers to have a listen, especially if you are from Australia, as we cover some vitally important news topics relevant to all Australians.

International News


Later in the show we discuss two films hilighting the plight of innocents caught up in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:


Australian Local News (begins at: 01:18:33)






Stay tuned for more shows very soon!

best regards,
-the TNRA team

Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

18 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

By JOHN SPIRI

Special to The Japan Times
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/fl20080617zg.html


Tuesday, June 17, 2008

 

YUKIHISA FUJITA

In a September 2003 article for The Guardian newspaper, Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism "bogus." Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day. Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America's official 9/11 narrative — until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita.

 

In January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.

 

Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like 'Loose Change' and '911 In Plane Site' and I began to ask questions," Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.

 

"Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, 'The New Pearl Harbor') about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished."

 

Fujita's presentation to the Diet and Fukuda focused a great deal on yet another aspect of 9/11 that now quite a few around the world find extremely suspicious: the Pentagon crash.

"I don't think (a) 767 could have hit the Pentagon," Fujita reckons. "There is no evidence of the plane itself. Almost nothing identifiable was left on the lawn or inside. The official story says the entire plane disintegrated, but the jet engines in particular were very strong (two 6-ton titanium steel turbine engines). And the damage to the building is much smaller than the size of the supposed airplane. The official claims just don't fit the facts."

 

While some label that claim "wacky" and label critics of the official 9/11 story "conspiracy theorists," Fujita has impressive company. For one, former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'

 

"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

 

Fujita urges the Bush administration to put the issue to rest simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon. Instead, only a few grainy images have been released to the public. More disconcertingly, many videos taken by surrounding businesses were confiscated by the FBI immediately after the Pentagon explosion.

 

The Pennsylvania crash, like the Pentagon explosion, also yielded virtually no recognizable plane parts at the crash site. Rather, small pieces of debris were found up to 10 km away. The official story — that the plane "vaporized" when it hit the ground — is inconsistent with the evidence left by every other plane crash in the history of aviation.

 

Plane crashes always yield plane fragments, Fujita explained, which can be identified by the plane's serial number, but that's not the case for the four planes which crashed on 9/11. Strangely, the U.S. government managed to produce passports and DNA samples of individuals killed, but no identifiable plane parts. In an online article entitled "Physics 911," 34-year U.S. Air Force veteran Col. George Nelson notes, "It seems . . . that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."

 

Fujita has largely relied on the voluminous amount of video and written material published in books and on the Internet, including the "Patriots Question 911" site, on which hundreds of allegations are leveled against the official story by senior officials from the military, intelligence services, law enforcement, and government, as well as pilots, engineers, architects, firefighters and others.

 

While not many other Japanese have taken an interest in this story, a few notable individuals besides Fujita have disputed the U.S. government's version, including Akira Dojimaru, a Japanese writer living in Spain. In his book, written in Japanese, "The Anatomy of the WTC Collapses: Flaws in the U.S. Government's Account," he uses photos, drawings and blueprints of the WTC buildings to back up his claim that buildings one and two could not have fallen in the manner they fell due to the plane crashes and subsequent fires. "And even if it was conceivable that they could fall due to the damage that day," Dojimaru wrote in an e-mail, "they never would have collapsed horizontally, and would have scattered steel beams and smashed concrete much farther than 100 meters."

 

For Fujita, it was Dojimaru's meticulous research, combined with the aforementioned Web sites, that convinced him the official story was nothing more than a house of cards.

One book that Fujita found unconvincing was the "9/11 Commission Report."

 

"The head of the 9/11 Commission is close with (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice and (Vice President Dick) Cheney. One commission member (Sen. Max Cleland) resigned, saying the White House did not disclose enough information."

 

On Democracy Now's radio show in March 2004, Cleland even went as far as to say, "This White House wants to cover it (the facts of 9/11) up."

 

More recently, a New York Times article in January quoted Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, as saying that "the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives," and concluded that that "obstructed our investigation."

 

Following the lead of Fujita, Karen Johnson, a conservative Republican senator from Arizona, has publicly voiced her doubts about 9/11 before the U.S. Senate. Inspired by Blair Gadsby — who on May 27 started a hunger strike to bring attention to the 911 Truth Movement — Johnson, like Fujita, is encouraging politicians to conduct a thorough, independent investigation.

 

Fujita, who worked for more than 20 years for the international conflict resolution NGO group MRA and the Japanese Association for Aid and Relief (AAR), has become something of a global cause celebre since his extraordinary questioning at the Diet. In February 2008, he participated in a conference at the European Parliament led by EMP Guilietto Chiesa calling for an independent commission of inquiry into 9/11. While in Europe, he met with NGOs from 11 European countries to discuss 9/11.

 

One month later Fujita spoke at the "Truth Now" conference in Sydney, Australia. One focus of these meetings was the Italian documentary "ZERO," whose release will mark the first time the 9/11 movement's message has moved from the "cyberworld" to public venues. Fujita has also spoken about his 9/11 doubts on two U.S. radio shows, one hosted by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, and another by Alex Jones of infowars.com.

 

He is also making ripples in Japan. Fujita was featured in a March 2 article by well-known critic Takao Iwami on "How to deal with doubts about 9/11" in the Sunday Mainichi weekly. He was also featured in a March 26 Spa! magazine piece headlined, "European conference discusses 9/11 doubts."

 

However, not everyone is enthralled with Fujita's bold line of questioning.

 

"One person showed strong anger towards me," Fujita noted, "and another (Japanese person) threatened my life. A few others advised me to be extremely careful."

 

Still, Fujita says, the vast majority — around 95 percent — have been positive.

 

"One man said, 'You're a true samurai.' Another man came all the way from Okayama in western Japan to thank me personally. And among other Parliament members, I received only words of encouragement and support."

 

While in Europe, Fujita met British former MP Meacher, who dared to question the official story when it was still considered gospel. Time, the Iraq war and well-sourced online videos are emboldening many people, including politicians, to step out of the cyberworld and voice their doubts in newspapers, magazines, theaters, and — most importantly — government chambers.

 

"Now Blair is gone, and Bush will soon be gone," Meacher told Fujita. "Our time is coming."

 

Page 91 of 108 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

@ josh.. lets start with the last and work backwards..

Why don’t you point out the concrete factual errors in my explanations instead of merely insulting me?

you havnt made a factual argument yet. fuckwit.

Do you think that being rude will divert attention from the fact that you have not countered my arguments?

see above fuckwit

meh…

who the hell do you think you are that anything you say should be taken as anything more than unqualified, unsubstantiated, unsolicited opinion?

heres 50 cents chuckles,, go rent a clue

 

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 08 - 22:28:30
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Skywatcher:
“Contrails can not start and stop”

Me:
“They can because of horizontal humidity variations”

Skywatcher:
“Doesnt explain why i can witness planes flying with what i consider normal contrails, and on the same day, at the same time, others flying around with totally abnormal contrails, chemtrails, being switched on and off.”

Me:
“Can be explained by vertical variation of humidity, see measurements”

Skywatcher:
“Doesn’t explain turning a perfectly clear sky completely “overcast” entirely from what has come out of the back of planes flying over..”

Me:
“Humid air comes first, trails are consequence, not cause”

Skywatcher:
“Don’t give a damn what you think”

Me:
“See this applet demonstrating contrail behaviour”

Skywatcher:
“Banal obfuscating extraneous minutia”

Me:
“What do you think about the explanations I gave?”

Skywatcher:
“What I see is right”, “seek the guidance of a suitably qualified 12 year old”, “lumpen josh”, “all your bullshit”, “your gibberish is impeccable”, “your baseless unqualified arguing”, “dummkopf”, “your idiotic unqualified opinions”

...

Do you think that being rude will divert attention from the fact that you have not countered my arguments?

Why don’t you point out the concrete factual errors in my explanations instead of merely insulting me?

By Josh on 2012 08 08 - 21:23:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

thanks for sharing post…

By World top news today on 2012 08 08 - 21:21:27
From the entry 'What would a world without government look like? - with Stefan Molyneux'.

It would be good to see this kind of thing happening at more universities.

Skywatcher did you listen to last year’s discussion on chemtrails where Hereward
http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/highlights_from_skid_row_radio_with_hereward_karla_and_jack
took issue with Naomi Klein
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0&rel=emailNation

and debated around the assumptions that the climate change discussion is between collectivists on one side and freedom lovers on the other.

Neither side of this crap debate is worthy of a 911 Truth Forum. Naomi Klein is a gatekeeper lefist who belongs in the same category as the Monbiots and Clive Hamiltons. She doesn’t accept reality either over 911 or over chemtrails.

It might be possible to find common ground with such people in future, but only by rejecting the ridiculous divide-and-rule debates of the last ten years.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 08 - 21:07:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

florida?

dont like the look of the weather to be honest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bejqo5IDZ7c

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 08 - 20:22:58
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

So let’s go places.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 08 - 20:00:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

wayne… with my spontaneous vitriol and inability to suffer fools.. and your patient attention to detail and ability to, well,  tolerate fools.. we could go places.. just sayin…

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 08 - 19:50:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I was at that symposium in Ghent to which Skywatcher keeps referring us and I might say that Coen Vermeeren’s remarks on the political system were worth recording and translating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKHjN0vUvOY&feature=plcp

As was the deposition of young Sofia Xenidis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPACF_ultmY

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 08 - 14:59:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Unfortunately people like Johannes Remmel are a great exception in the Greens, who (apart from the Serbs and the Cypriots) at the leadership level adhere to the Josh/Hereward view of things. 

Cohn-Bendit opts for a more sophisticated variant of the greenwash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToxPiW_2RC8
(minute 27.42)

He does not say that he knows chemtrails are “just contrails”.

Other Green leaders, like the Greek Greek Europarliamentarian Chrysogelos do:  http://www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indexrisogelos.htm

What Cohn-Bendit says is that scientists are still arguing, and until they reach a consensus he as a politician cannot take a position.

He leaves it unclear what the politicians are arguing about, whether he means the anthropogenic climate change debate or the contrails/chemtrails debate.

Obviously, though, in the case of the anthropogenic climate change debate the absence of scientific consensus has not prevented Greens everywhere (including in Serbia and Cyprus) from identifying unambiguously with one side of the debate.

Going back to Germans (and German-speakers) generally. The Austrian journalist Christian Haderer in 2005 published one of the first books in German on chemtrails. I translated it into English; a colleague translated it into Greek. In neither case could these translations find a publisher.

But the German original is in print:
http://www.amazon.de/Chemtrails-Verschwörung-Himmel-Wettermanipulation-Öffentlichkeit/dp/3853652131

and Josh can read it. If anyone wants to read the English text I can send it to them on request (an e-mail to enouranois at gmail.com)

In my opinion it is not a good idea for English speakers to keep looking at Germans through twentieth century spectacles. Given the NATO-imposed virtual-reality that encloses Germany as much as it does any other NATO country, it is often only German far-rightists and identifiers with the viewpoint of soldiers (including Hitler’s soldiers) that can see some things for what they are.

Haderer is not a far-rightist. He is a trendy journalist, and he soon found that his writing about chemtrails was not advancing his career, with the result that he more or less abandoned the subject and does not work with present-day chemtrails activists in Germany or Austria. Nevertheless, his account of the viewpoint of a Vienna tram driver, for whom chemtrails planes conjured up visions of World War II allied bombing, is a reminder of how the world has seemed to other human beings within living memory in Europe.

Geoengineering has its roots mostly in American nuclear weapons laboratories, and in turn American nuclear weapons laboratories have their roots in the practice of strategic bombing of civilians by aircraft. It is a practice which was admittedly started by the Germans, towards the end of World War I when they were losing and getting desperate, but it was practised by the British and Americans on a scale that vastly overshadows anything done by the Luftwaffe. And the British and American deployment of strategic bombing of civilians cannot be “justified” by the desperation of a nation facing defeat.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 08 - 14:49:57
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

meh…


http://tinyurl.com/7vv8n4a

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 08 - 13:22:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories