Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

October 11, 2014
Today we look at the recent history of anti-terrorism legislation in Australia. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

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

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:

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 ]


Special to The Japan Times

Tuesday, June 17, 2008



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


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."


Mark Dice is interviewed on Fox about 9/11 Truth mail campaign directed at US troops

15 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]



A political activist group is sending letters and DVDs to U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq telling them 9/11 was an inside job

San Diego, CA -- A group of over three thousand political activists are planning to send letters to soldiers stationed in Iraq telling them that America is largely to blame for the 9/11 attacks.


"We support the troops in their efforts to protect the Iraqi people, but want them to know the real reason they have put themselves in harms way," explains Mark Dice, founder of The Resistance, a Christian media watch dog group based in San Diego.


Dice is urging people in his organization and others to write letters to soldiers in Iraq and explain the evidence that the 9/11 attacks were aided by corrupt U.S. officials for political purposes. According to a 2006 Scripts Howard News Service poll, 36 percent of Americans believe that elements within the U.S. government purposely allowed the attacks to happen, or aided the terrorists to ensure the attacks.


"I personally know U.S. Marines who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and they tell me that many Marines suspect that this is the case but are afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment," says Dice.


"I don't want the soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq to be used as pawns in the creation of the New World Order."


"We want U.S. troops to know that we care about them and are doing our best to make sure that they don't have to risk their lives based on false pretenses," concludes Dice.


Aside from writing letters and sending declassified documents to the troops, The Resistance is encouraging people to send DVDs to soldiers, since some of them have access to portable DVD players and computers. Recommended DVDs are Loose Change: Final Cut, Terror Storm, and 9/11 Press for Truth.


People can register for free at and will then be given a specific soldiers name and the address to send your materials to. Also check churches online or in your area, because many have similar programs.


Dice has handed out over 1000 free DVDs of the documentary film Loose Change at college campuses in southern California, and had a highly publicized confrontation with actor Danny Bonnaduce on the streets of Hollywood where Bonnaduce almost attacked him for saying 9/11 was an inside job. His activism will be featured in Alex Jones' new film 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising, which will be released on DVD July 4th and available for free on Google Video.


The Resistance is an international media watchdog organization with over 3000 members. They have made international news for rebuking various Hollywood celebrities for their ridiculous behavior, including Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, 50 Cent, Tom Cruise and others. They recently launched a boycott of Starbucks saying the company's retro logo looks like a prostitute with her legs spread, and called the company "Slutbucks."



Mark Dice


Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament

14 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies delivers a Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation, in Canada's House of Commons during Routine Proceedings at 1:10 pm on June 10, 2008

Here is the full text of the petition, available to sign at


We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.

Committed to truth and accountability,


Senator Karen Johnson Brings 9/11 Truth to Arizona

14 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

June 10, 2008 will be a moment in the 9/11 Truth movement we can all look back on and be extremely proud.

For all of you who have spent countless hours reading books, watching DVD's, searching the internet, investigating what happened on 9/11, researching til 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, knowing you had to get up soon to go to work but you couldn't pull yourself away from this.

For all of you who have been ridiculed, laughed at and have been told that you are nuts. For all of you who decided that it's time to do something about the obvious lies and cover-up by our government and media.

For all of you who have stood on a street corner holding a 9/11 Truth sign and have absorbed a middle finger or heard the voice of a sheeple yelling, " GET A JOB !! "

For all of you who have sacrificed your time, energy and money to organize a speaking engagement in your home town, only to be completely ignored by the media. For all of you who have made phone calls to your local representatives, radio stations, television and print media urging them to look into 9/11.

For all of you who have experienced sleepless nights because you know something is very wrong with our country, our press and our democracy.

For all of you who have a voice, but at times go unheard or suppressed. For all of you who stand up when it's uncomfortable, when it's inconvenient or when it's down right hard to do so.

For all of you who stood by Blair and cheered him on.

For all of you who continue to ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND ANSWERS.

For all of you who wish you had a State Senator who could be your voice for you. For all of you who know that there is only one Senator from Arizona who stands for the Truth and it's not John McCain. It's Karen Johnson !! For all of you who work to achieve accountability for the victims of 9/11 and their families and for all of you who know 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, this is for you.

Thanks for your support over the last 16 days. These days will always belong to all of us.

High quality video available here:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed makes first court appearence

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Does my nose look big in this? … Janet Hamlin's courtroom sketch of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and, left, the FBI photo of Mohammed after his capture in Pakistan in 2003.William Glaberson in Guantanamo Bay
June 7, 2008

WHEN at last he got the chance to speak, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, called President George Bush a crusader and ridiculed the Guantanamo trial system as an inquisition.

Mohammed, the former senior al-Qaeda operations chief, said he would represent himself and dared the tribunal to put him to death.

"This is what I want," he told a military judge in his first appearance to answer war crimes charges for the terrorism attacks that killed 2973 people and set America on a path to war.

"I'm looking to be martyr for long time," he said in serviceable English, improved, perhaps, by five years of custody, including three in secret CIA prisons.

The arraignment on Thursday of Mohammed and four other detainees the US Government says were high-level co-ordinators of the September 11 attacks was the start of hearings in the case, which is the centrepiece of the Bush Administration's war crimes system.

But it was also the first public appearance by Mohammed, who has long cast himself in the role of super-terrorist, claiming credit in the past not only for the 2001 plot, but for about 30 others, including the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan.

Mohammed worked to get as much control as possible over the proceedings. Peering through big, black-rimmed glasses and sporting a bushy grey beard, he rejected US lawyers as agents of the Bush Administration's "crusade war against Islamic world," saying he would represent himself. He said the lawyers could stay to help him as advisers.

By day's end, each of Mohammed's four co-defendants had said he wanted to represent himself. That could turn the trial into a jumble of rhetoric and a new opportunity for critics to attack the Guantanamo system as designed to get easy convictions.

The judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, agreed to permit three of the men to represent themselves. But in the case of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was to have been one of the hijackers, he said he wanted to further investigate a report from a military lawyer that Binalshibh has been on psychotropic medication.

When Colonel Kohlmann asked Binalshibh why he was taking the medication, security officials cut the sound fed to reporters in a glassed-in gallery and a media centre. It was one of several times when a national security consultant cut the sound when detainees appeared to be discussing what several of them said had been years of torture.

Mohammed managed to get the reference through the censor twice. "After torturing" he said, "they transfer us to Inquisition land in Guantanamo."

CIA officials have said that Mohammed was one of three detainees subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Mohammed looked lean compared with the photo taken of him after his 2003 capture. He chanted verses in Arabic and then translated them into English, and he vied with Colonel Kohlmann for control of the courtroom.

All five accused men were held in the secret CIA program and transferred to Guantanamo to face charges in the military commission system.

The New York Times

Free Bees - 9/11’s a Lie (Stayin’ Alive)

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]


The 'Free Bees' are looking for help in spreading their '9/11's a lie' music video and song far and wide. Reluctantly they have decided that even though they're extremely proud of the work, they are releasing it anonymously.

They believe that this music video has the potential to reach a large audience and as a work of infotainment is amusing, informative and thought provoking.

Regardless of your personal music taste please help spread this music video and song around.

Find us on:


Well you can tell
By the way the buildings fell
There was something wrong
Now it's time to tell
Spread the word it's nothing new
You've gotta educate yourself in truth
Well it's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
We can help you understand
The New York Times effect on man

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

Well we can't give in we can't let go
If we wanna see some justice flow
It's time for us to make a stand
And together we can end this plan
It's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
The wars they fight, just ain't right
I don't know how they sleep at night

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

We're getting stronger
Won't take much longer
The truth will set us free
Let's break our silence
No need for violence
Become the change we want to see
9/11 was an inside job
9/11 was an inside job

We need a peaceful revolution
We need to know we have a choice
We've let them get away with murder
It's time for us to find our voice

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah

Page 91 of 107 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

part two is equally as edifying

i would disregard as ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst, any attempt to claim that what is depicted in those videos, to be what anyone would consider normal contrail behavior under any circumstances.

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 03 - 15:28:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

you are right, it is not possible to turn contrails on and off.

The accepted explanation is that the atmosphere is far from homogenous; this includes humidity. Contrails need a high (relative) humidity - if a plane is leaving an area with high humidity, the contrail will stop in the dry air.

lol - accepted explanation? show me where what you say has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt - that what you say is in fact ‘the accepted explanation’anywhere.

i agree - and didnt need you to explain to me - that contrails are indeed subject to certain atmospheric conditions, but that 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.

where i live, hundreds of miles inland..semi arid - we have quite stable weather for days on end.. totally cloud free for days at a time, except for days when they are spraying..  ive watched a perfectly clear sky, turn completely “overcast” entirely from what has come out of the back of planes flying over.. on more than one occasion.

you are in no position to tell me what i am or am not seeing,  i trust my intellectual integrity more than your unsubstantiated unqualified opinions, while slightly amusing, they are far from anything close to resembling any sort accepted anything.

quite frankly, nothing you say is news, or informative, it is merely a regurgitation of the official spin that has been an inadequate explanation for years now, for a growing number of concerned people all over the world. if you cant offer anything of substance, it does beg the question as to why you bother saying anything at all, because plainly, people with concerns find your unqualified opinions, severely lacking.


By Skywatcher on 2012 08 03 - 13:16:30
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

And if you don’t believe Google, check out Wikipedia and you can see there also that chemtrails are a conspiracy theory.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 23:13:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.


you are right, it is not possible to turn contrails on and off.

The accepted explanation is that the atmosphere is far from homogenous; this includes humidity. Contrails need a high (relative) humidity - if a plane is leaving an area with high humidity, the contrail will stop in the dry air.

You can see the variation of humidity if you look at clouds: high humidity inside, less humidity around it - with a clear boundary in between.

So, no switch required, just flying through variable air pockets may create those broken contrails.

Don’t take my word for it: google “broken contrails”.

By Josh on 2012 08 02 - 22:58:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Christine pretty much covered it id say, especially as your only “evidence” seems to come from the all trustworthy USA government and a “chemtrail” debunking website.

you want evidence? open your eyes and look up. dont forget to take a few healthy gulps too.

btw.. how long does a post need to ferment in “moderation” before you approve a few lously links?

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 21:03:46
From the entry 'Conspiracy theory: exploring the outer limits with Damon Crowe'.


Climate change scepticism gained a new lease of life and many ecologists fell into confusion. But there was a stranger transformation. Although Climategate could easily be seen as discrediting the authenticity of the anthropogenic climate change scenario, after Climategate a number of prominent climate change sceptics renounced their “scepticism”, on the understanding that geoengineering should be seen as the appropriate solution to the climate change problem which these former “sceptics” now recognized. This transformation of sceptic into non-sceptic advocate of geoengineering did not include only high-profile politicians like George W. Bush. Mass-media “scientists” like Bjorn Lomborg, who had made a career for himself as a climate change sceptic , underwent the same change.

The climate change debate has largely gone out of fashion. Top politicians can no longer be mobilized to attend the climate summits. In its place a new debate is emerging, at the grass roots, the debate on “Financialization of Nature”.

Ecologists were needed prior to passage of emissions trading legislation to say that global warming/climate change is a problem. Their instincts did not make them very likely candidates for the job of promoting geoengineering. This was something that had to be left to “repentant” “sceptics”.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 20:47:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

One of the first declarations of geoengineering policy was Edward Teller’s 1997 paper, summarised here:​publications/hoover-digest/​article/6791

This was a declaration of climate change scepticism accompanied by a proposal for using geoengineering to solve a problem of whose reality Teller was sceptical. This is a non-viable stance for anyone other than the late Edward Teller. For geoengineering to proceed, what are needed are two separate clienteles: one clientele to say there is a problem of global warming or climate change; the other clientele to say that geoengineering is the solution to it.

The first task was assigned to ecologists, the second at first just to a few specialists such as David Keith and Ken Caldeira (later they would be joined by .
repentant former “climate change sceptics”).

There was a legal difficulty with deliberate aerosol spraying from aircraft. If it could be construed as being for military purposes it was banned under the ENMOD convention, ratified by the US in 1980. If it could not be construed as being for military purposes there were still difficulties, as I outlined in the first article I wrote on this subject:​chemtrails/strategies_hall.html

The unresolved status of geoengineering under international law is an issue that was being investigated, in the mid-nineties, by the environmental lawyer Bodansky. Among the questions he raised were: who should make geoengineering decisions? Should all countries be able to participate in decision-making? (since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts). How should liability and compensation for damages be handled? From the legal viewpoint, schemes to inject particles into the atmosphere are purportedly among the most problematic of all geoengineering proposals because the atmosphere above any country is part of its airspace. Nations lay claim to their airspace and may act on the claims, for example, by shooting down aircraft. Geoengineering activity in the atmosphere could be viewed as infringements of national sovereignty. Obviously, the simplest way of dealing with legal problems of this kind, pending negotiation of the necessary adjustments to international law, is to deny that any such activity is occurring.

Policy therefore was to postulate a “chemtrails hoax” and say that the new type of trail appearing in the sky was not new, and was not “deliberate”. It was just emissions of the same type as had been familiar since the emergence of jet air travel.

The part of the scenario assigned to ecologists was, as indicated, the assertion that there was a problem of anthropogenic climate change. So this what the ecological organizations focused on, marginalizing “conspiracy theorists” who tried to introduce extraneous issues. The task or marginalizing was made easier by the fact that the majority of chemtrails activists have been, and remain, anthropogenic climate change sceptics.

Through the input of Al Gore and other “realpolitikers” of the ecological milieu, the environmental concerns of global warming activists were harnessed to muster support for emissions trading schemes, whose scope in the EU was extended to include aviation. (There is great potential dissonance between the agenda of the activists against aircraft emissions and the agenda of the geoengineers because the former see aircraft emissions as contributing to global warming; the latter propose the utilization of aircraft emissions to mitigate global warming.)

In any case, as indicated, ecologists were exclusively focused on the idea of global warming as a problem and spent most of the first decade of the 21st century fighting with the climate change sceptics to have their orientation accepted. The situation began to change towards the end of the decade, as by this time emissions trading schemes had mostly been written into law so that the political support of ecologists was no longer so necessary. At this point, just before the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the sceptics were unleashed again through the mechanism of the Climategate scandal.          (to be continued)

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 20:45:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ok josh…

its impossible to turn contrails on and off right?

my intellectual integrity allows me to know that the explosive destruction of the WTC towers was not a mere gravitational collapse, as it also allows me to differentiate between contrails, and aerosol spraying that doesnt dissipate, instead spreads out and blankets the skies.

no qualifications needed.

re youre earth is flat comment.. i couldnt think of a more lame retort.. good job well done. stop trying to look clever, it doesnt suit you.

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 20:44:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.


I don’t think we should start talking about qualifications. Otherwise the same doubt can be voiced about chemtrail promoters who obviously have no knowledge about atmospheric processes and meteorology.

Now, would you please point out just one “unqualified opinon”, preferably on the topic of the article?

And then let’s discuss the facts behind that opinion, with references to solid evidence, papers and studies.

BTW, if you believe your own eyes more than common knowledge, you should be convinced that the earth is flat.

By Josh on 2012 08 02 - 20:25:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh..mike glynn.. et al; youre not qualified to ease the concerns of a large percentage of the population that want answers for what they see with their own eyes that causes them concern.

nor is hereward, or anyone else.

as with the events of 911, the only suitable solution is an independent transparent unfettered investigation, where all evidence is presented, and expert testimony from both sides can be heard under oath and cross examination, until a verdict can be reached beyond all reasonable doubt.

your unqualified opinions, and articles like this, do nothing but contribute more hot air, and like the defenders of the 911 myth.. you have to ask why people are so determined to win arguments on internet forums on topics they dont believe in..

do you also go around denouncing leprechauns.. or unicorns?

if not, why not? do you believe that they might be real?

hereward still is yet to “moderate” a post i made last week.. not surprising because he has proven himself to be less than genuine in the past..

By Skywatcher on 2012 08 02 - 20:09:41
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.