Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

September 20, 2014
The escalating conflict in Syria and Iraq has now reached Australia's shores with mass arrests of alleged terrorists and announcements from the government… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

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

TNRA 06 June 2008

June 6, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2

Categories: [ Australia ]

Tonight's show leads with the breaking story of the Australian government's plan to form an Asian Union. We discuss the implications of such a development for our national sovereignty and civil rights.

The top-down, autocratic approach to the creation of an Asian Union has similarities with the North American Union, as outlined in the following excerpt from the film Zeitgeist:

In the second part of the show we discuss the recent publication by the ABC of an article by Hereward Fenton, "9/11 Unanswered Questions". The article received a deluge of mostly positive comment until it was arbitrarily closed for comment after just two days, amid claims that the article was the subject of a "campaign". The article was followed by two rebuttal pieces, which are analysed in this edition of TNRA: Conspiracy Theory Lunacy by Hugh Tobin, and The Philosophy of Conspiracy by David Coady. The language and tone of these articles is deconstructed.

After the break we take look at the global food crisis, and Josh Jackson gives us his analysis of the way in which the crisis has been artificially created and manipulated.

In the final segment we return to examine the ABC - this time in regard to a controversy over a childrens' game, The Planet Slayer, which uses gruesome imagery and death threats to hype the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

The game begins with the cheery message: "Find out when you should die".

ABC tells children when to die

On the next screen the kids are greeted with "how big a a greenhouse pig are you?" and told to click on a skull and cross-bones to find out when they should die so as not to use more than their fair share of Earth's resources:

How big a greenhouse pig are you?

We take good long look at the psychology behind this game, which has suddenly sparked interest from the media and questions in the Senate.

Please leave us a comment and stay tuned for more shows.

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.

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

Listen Live

Recent Comments


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?'.

You have not answered some questions I have asked you, either, Mike Glynn. Questions that are more relevant to political decisions that are being made without ever being opened to coherent and comprehensible public discussion.

What happens is that one half-truth is fed to one half of the political spectrum and the other half-truth is fed to the other half of the political spectrum.

Then people engage in endless repetitive wrangling as at this forum, with arrogant chemtrails debunkers absolutely sure that they are wiser than everyone else.

If aircraft emissions contribute to global warming, why are they proposed by geoengineers as a medium for mitigating global warming?

The problem is touched on obliquely, and in Aesopian language in this paper (doubtless one of many such):

Growth Scenarios for EU & UK Aviation:
contradictions with climate policy

Find out yourself why you are not dead, Mike Glynn. It is not because aerosol spraying programmes are not being conducted almost everywhere, for geoengineering and/or other undisclosed purposes.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 17:01:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Noobs, holding patterns can be hundreds of miles from airports. Wayne, you don’t do rhetorical questions very well do you? The reason I am in good health is because there isn’t any chemicals in the air apart from what nature put there. Did you see me try to avoid those clouds at all? If I thought for a second they were laden with chemicals I would have avoided flying through them. The only clouds I am at pains to avoid are thunderstorms… For obvious reasons. The rest we just plow straight through, as you saw.
I don’t get you guys. I give you bona fide evidence that you fears and suspicions are unfounded, yet you seem to want to have this conspiracy theory confirmed… Confirmation bias writ large. There are no chemtrails. If they were there I should be dead by now. You saw me flying blithely through clouds identified by activists over and over as Chemclouds…. Yet nothing happened. How much proof do you need to real use you have been duped?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 08 02 - 16:03:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

So we are reverting to the contrails vs chemtrails dialogue of the deaf, which is the discussion the architects of geoengineering wanted us to continue having, and to have forever.

Mike Glynn, given that nobody seems to be able to answer the question you asked, or if able to answer to be interested in joining this particular discussion, surely you are the one who should start making enquiries to find out the reasons for the alleged lack of symptoms in yourself and among your passengers. All that I know, for we are not talking about my life experience or my professional working space, is that the reason is not because of the non-existence of unexplained (probably because illegal) aerosol spraying from aircraft.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 02 - 13:22:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Holding patterns are for planes waiting to land, where I witnessed that particular event was nowhere (and I mean hundreds of KM away from)near any airport.  If it was a plane in a holding pattern then why haven’t I seen more planes in the same holding pattern before or since?  Why is it that the one plane in a ‘holding pattern’ just happened to be spraying trails?

The trails formed by the prop blade tips aren’t contrails but vortices. They stem from a lowered dewpoint due to lower pressure and disappear as soon as the pressure returns to normal.

I’ve seen contrails and I’ve seen chemtrails, I know the difference and I’ve heard all the apologists arguments and they simply aren’t sufficient to explain the evidence.

By Noobs on 2012 08 02 - 12:44:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Contrails are formed by any engine that creates water as part of the combustion process, reciprocating engines included. I don’t where some of you get all this bad information.
Clouds, by definition, exist in supersaturated air so is it any wonder that aircraft can begin to contrail when approaching a cloud? That’s basic science. The circles are holding patterns BTW.

By Mike Glynn on 2012 08 02 - 12:25:12
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.