Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

May 9, 2015
Today's show covers the shocking truth of the global corporatocracy's attempt to subvert the true internet in the guise of the noble goal of helping billions… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Four Principles of Disinformation

16 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

After several years reading and studying, I have come to the realisation that there are some key principles to the art of disinformation, and that these principles need to be understood in order to ultimately defeat it.

1. Disinfo is a weapon
This is often the hardest principle to grasp and it is also the most important. Disinfo is, and always has been, a tactic used in war. When it is used in "apparent peacetime" it is still a weapon of war, for war encompasses far more than just bullets and bombs. Disinformation is indeed one of the most important tools in the military arsenal.

2. Disinfo is aimed at a designated enemy
This principle follows naturally from the first. Disinfo is rarely omni-directional or generic - in order to work at all it must have a vector. As with conventional weapons, this vector is in the direction of the group/individual designated as enemy. When directed at an individual, disinformation is often used as part of a scam - think of the Nigerian chain letter or those emails telling you that you have won the lottery.

In the case of the internet scam the goal is to rob the enemy/victim, but the basic tactic is more or less the same when conning a citizen into supporting a war based on a false flag terrorist attack, only in this case the concept of "enemy" must be expanded to include both the citizen and the perceived external enemy.

3. Disinfo succeeds by disguise.

Since disinfo is rooted in deception, it must be disguised as something other than disinfo in order to fulfill its function. Conversely, once disinfo is exposed it no longer "works" to the same degree. An example of this might be the disinfo claim that "no plane" hit the WTC on September 11.

This claim works as disinfo only to the extent that most people believe that the view is genuinely believed by those who promote it. If, by contrast, it could be proven that the "no plane" theory was concocted in by the CIA in Langley Virginia, then it would lose its effectiveness. Perhaps surprisingly, the observation that the "WTC no plane" theory is flawed does not neutralise it as disinfo, since it is quite common for people to believe things in good faith which turn out to be false. In order for the disinfo to be fully neutralised it must be exposed as a deliberate reverse propaganda operation orchestrated for the purpose of weakening a designated enemy.

4. Disinfo sews division and confusion in the enemy
As a weapon, effective disinfo has the combined effect of creating/exacerbating division and confusion in the enemy. This, of course, weakens the enemy, which is the military objective. As an example of how disinfo weakens and divides, let us return again to the "no plane hit the WTC" proposition. To start with, this proposition potentially has the effect of creating a schism within the 9/11 movement. It also has the effect of creating confusion or the perception of confusion when mixed up with the quite distinct proposition that "no plane hit the Pentagon".

The latter proposition, although controversial, is not (in the writer's opinion) to be discarded, for the simple reason that the authorites have refused to release the video which would prove their case. But, the "no plane hit the WTC" proposition unfortunately gets conflated with the "no plane hit the Pentagon" proposition, creating a fog of confusion which may lead the uneducated outsider to conclude that all alternative theories are crazy. This of course achieves the goal of weakening the enemy (ie. the people's movement seeking truth about 9/11).

I hope you found this exposition of four principles of disinformation helpful.

Hitler, the big lie and 9/11

14 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie..."

(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.134)

The above quote explains many things about why the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is not investigated or questioned even by those who in other situations would sieze on any opportunity to attack the status quo.

Perhaps Hitler was merely describing how cognitive dissonance coupled with extreme violence works in the favour of power elites.

Possibly this stategy of violence + deceit exploits a deep instinctive mechanism which humans have evolved in order to preserve group cohesion: when your tribe is attacked you rally around your leader - for good or ill.

An interview with Glen Clancy (Fool Me Twice)

08 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Download mp3 » click here

On 1st August Truth News Radio Australia interviewed Glen Clancy, creator of the film Fool Me Twice, which explores evidence that the 2002 Bali Bombings were orchestrated by intelligence operatives, while the governments of Australia and Indonesia looked the other way.

During the interview we get into an interesting discussion of the physics of the explosions which devastated a large area of Kuta Beach, and the coverup of vital information such as the alteration of flight log data at Bali's International airport.

We also examine the Howard Government's willful deceptions in regard to the East Timorese independence campaign which led to many deaths, culminating in the Australian led military intervention (INTERFET) in 1999.

Glen currently lives and works in Japan, but he is planning to return to Australia soon. We look forward to his next project.

Fool Me Twice is a must see film, and you can watch the whole production for free on Google Video.

The Way of the World - Fabricating A Case For War

06 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Yet another glaring example of how criminal deception lies at the heart of the current status quo. This deception was not unique the United States. It was and is still at the heart of Australian foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The basic premise of this website is given further support each time a new whistle blower steps forth from the shadows with another expose of government high crimes and misdemeanors.

We await the final act.

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293353

Ron Suskind - The Way of the World

Morning Edition, August 5, 2008 ·In his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth And Hope In An Age of Extremism, author Ron Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and eventually fabricated intelligence assets to support its case for war. Both the White House and the CIA deny his claims. Steve Inskeep talks with Suskind about the book.

TNRA 1 August 2008

August 1, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

06 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 4

On tonight's show we lead with the proposed impeachment of George W. Bush - led by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. We play an excerpt from Rep. Kucinich's speech to the house - then we get into a discussion of politics and music with our special studio guest, Simon.



In the second half of the show we speak to the film maker Glen Clancy - creator of "Fool Me Twice", a film which explores evidence that the 2002 Bali Bombings were not indeed the act of fanatical Islamists, but rather orchestrated by intelligence operatives, while the governments of Australia and Indonesia looked the other way.

Fool Me Twice is a must see film - and you can watch the whole thing for free on Google video:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4135706276167925924

We are very grateful for Glen's time coming on the show.

To our audience: thanks for listening - & see you again real soon!

Hereward & Josh

The 2001 anthrax attacks: a proven false flag operation from start to finish

03 August 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

With the publication of the following article by Glenn Greenwald it is now a matter of public record that the 2001 anthrax attacks were indeed a false flag operation launched from within United States Government Military facilities, for the purpose of building public support for the "war on terror" and the Invasion of Iraq.

No doubt, slurrs of "conspiracy theory" will fly from the mouths of the well fed, criminally complicit, mainstream media hacks against those who voice these facts.

 

Others will recognise that, if these attacks can be shown to have been orchestrated from within the government, it is hardly a leap of the imagination to say that the 9/11 attacks were the same type of operation.

 

The naive argument that so-called democratic governments would not stoop to hurting their own people simply cannot stand up to the hard facts any more.


Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

A top U.S. government scientist, suspected of the anthrax attacks, commits suicide. ABC News knows who is responsible for false reports blaming those attacks on Iraq, but refuses to say.

Glenn Greenwald


Aug. 01, 2008 | (Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V - Update VI)


The FBI's lead suspect in the September, 2001 anthrax attacks -- Bruce E. Ivins -- died Tuesday night, apparently by suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the attacks. For the last 18 years, Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, where he was one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID).

 

The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.

 

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:


The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

 

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

 

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

 

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

 

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.

 

That means that ABC News' "four well-placed and separate sources" fed them information that was completely false -- false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. And look where -- according to Brian Ross' report on October 28, 2001 -- these tests were conducted:

 

And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.

 

Two days earlier, Ross went on ABC News' World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and, as the lead story, breathlessly reported:

 

The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and elsewhere.

 

Clearly, Ross' allegedly four separate sources had to have some specific knowledge of the tests conducted and, if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.

It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).

 

Seven years later, it's difficult for many people to recall, but, as I've amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply -- by design -- into our public discourse and into the public consciousness. Those reports were absolutely vital in creating the impression during that very volatile time that Islamic terrorists generally, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically, were grave, existential threats to this country. As but one example: after Ross' lead report on the October 26, 2001 edition of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings claiming that the Government had found bentonite, this is what Jennings said into the camera:

 

This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there's been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.

 

That's exactly what happened. The Weekly Standard published two lengthy articles attacking the FBI for focusing on a domestic culprit and -- relying almost exclusively on the ABC/Ross report -- insisted that Saddam was one of the most likely sources for those attacks. In November, 2001, they published an article (via Lexis) which began:

 

On the critical issue of who sent the anthrax, it's time to give credit to the ABC website, ABCNews.com, for reporting rings around most other news organizations. Here's a bit from a comprehensive story filed late last week by Gary Matsumoto, lending further credence to the commonsensical theory (resisted by the White House) that al Qaeda or Iraq -- and not some domestic Ted Kaczynski type -- is behind the germ warfare.

 

The Weekly Standard published a much lengthier and more dogmatic article in April, 2002 again pushing the ABC "bentonite" claims and arguing: "There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall's anthrax terrorism." The American Enterprise Institute's Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November, 2001 that "there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq" and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross ("Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks").

And then, when President Bush named Iraq as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech -- just two months after ABC's report, when the anthrax attacks were still very vividly on the minds of Americans -- he specifically touted this claim:

 

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

 

Bush's invocation of Iraq was the only reference in the State of the Union address to the unsolved anthrax attacks. And the Iraq-anthrax connection was explicitly made by the President at a time when, as we now know, he was already eagerly planning an attack on Iraq.

There can't be any question that this extremely flamboyant though totally false linkage between Iraq and the anthrax attacks -- accomplished primarily by the false bentonite reports from ABC News and Brian Ross -- played a very significant role in how Americans perceived of the Islamic threat generally and Iraq specifically. As but one very illustrative example, The Washington Post's columnist, Richard Cohen, supported the invasion of Iraq, came to regret that support, and then explained what led him to do so, in a 2004 Post column entitled "Our Forgotten Panic":

 

I'm not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack -- more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.

 

Cohen -- in a March 18, 2008 Slate article in which he explains why he wrongfully supported the attack on Iraq -- disclosed this:

 

Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid.

The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.

 

For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same. Already, my impulse had been to strike back, an overwhelming urge that had, in fact, taken me by surprise on Sept. 11 itself when the first of the Twin Towers had collapsed. . . .

 

In the following days, as the horror started to be airbrushed -- no more bodies plummeting to the sidewalk -- the anthrax letters started to come, some to people I knew. And I thought, No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us. One of "them" was Saddam Hussein. He had messed around with anthrax . . . He was a nasty little fascist, and he needed to be dealt with.

 

That, more or less, is how I made my decision to support the war in Iraq.

 

Cohen's mental process that led him to link anthrax to Iraq and then to support an attack on Iraq, warped as it is, was extremely common. Having heard ABC News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack flamboyantly and repeatedly link Saddam to the anthrax attacks, followed by George Bush's making the same linkage (albeit more subtly) in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech, much of the public had implanted into their minds that Saddam Hussein was not just evil, but a severe threat to the U.S., likely the primary culprit behind the anthrax attacks. All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.

Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks -- every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks -- persisted.

 

We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

 

Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role -- I'd argue a very major role -- in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue -- including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework -- were justified and even necessary in order to survive.

 

ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

 

They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

UPDATE: One other fact to note here is how bizarrely inept the effort by the Bush DOJ to find the real attacker has been. Extremely suspicious behavior from Ivins -- including his having found and completely cleaned anthrax traces on a co-worker's desk at the Ft. Detrick lab without telling anyone that he did so and then offering extremely strange explanations for why -- was publicly reported as early as 2004 by The LA Times (Ivins "detected an apparent anthrax leak in December 2001, at the height of the anthrax mailings investigation, but did not report it. Ivins considered the problem solved when he cleaned the affected office with bleach").

 

In October 2004, USA Today reported that Ivins was involved in another similar incident, in April of 2002, when Ivins performed unauthorized tests to detect the origins of more anthrax residue found at Ft. Detrick. Yet rather than having that repeated, strange behavior lead the FBI to discover that he was involved in the attacks, there was a very public effort -- as Atrios notes here -- to blame the attacks on Iraq and then, ultimately, to blame Stephen Hatfill. Amazingly, as Atrios notes here, very few people other than "a few crazy bloggers are even interested" in finding out what happened here and why -- at least to demand that ABC News report the vital information that it already has that will shed very significant light on much of this.

UPDATE II: Ivins' local paper, Frederick News in Maryland, has printed several Letters to the Editor written by Ivins over the years. Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:

 

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

 

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

 

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

 

It should be noted that the lawyer who had been representing Ivins in connection with the anthrax investigation categorically maintains Ivins' innocence and attributes his suicide to "the relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo."

On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame. Indeed, the WSJ Editorial Page -- along with others on the Right such as Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Fox News -- continued even into 2007 to insist that the FBI was erring by focusing on domestic suspects rather than Middle Easterners.

 

The Nation's Michael Massing noted at the time (in November, 2001) that as a direct result of the anthrax attacks, and the numerous claims insinuating that Iraq was behind them, "the political and journalistic establishment suddenly seems united in wanting to attack Iraq." There has long been an intense desire on the neoconservative Right to falsely link anthrax to Saddam specifically and Muslims generally. ABC News was, and (as a result of its inexcusable silence) continues to be, their best friend.

UPDATE III: See this important point from Atrios about Richard Cohen's admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a "high government official" to take cipro. Atrios writes: "now that we know that the US gov't believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn't Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?"

 

That applies to much of the Beltway class, including many well-connected journalists, who were quietly popping cipro back then because, like Cohen, they heard from Government sources that they should. Leave aside the ethical questions about the fact that these journalists kept those warnings to themselves. Wouldn't the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now -- in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist -- to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack? Then again, the most basic journalistic instincts would have lead ABC News to reveal who concocted and fed them the false "Saddam/anthrax" reports in the first place, and yet we still are forced to guess at those questions because ABC News continues to cover up the identity of the perpetrators.

UPDATE IV: John McCain, on the David Letterman Show, October 18, 2001 (days before ABC News first broadcast their bentonite report):

 

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

 

MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine . . . I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.

 

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

 

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

 

ThinkProgress has the video. Someone ought to ask McCain what "indication" he was referencing that the anthrax "may have come from Iraq."

 

After all, three days later, McCain and Joe Lieberman went on Meet the Press (on October 21, 2001) and both strongly suggested that we would have to attack Iraq. Lieberman said that the anthrax was so complex and potent that "there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program."

 

As I said, it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era. There are few news stories more significant, if there are any, than unveiling who the culprits were behind this deliberate propaganda. The fact that the current GOP presidential nominee claimed back then on national television to have some "indication" linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks makes it a bigger story still.

UPDATE V: I tried to be careful here to avoid accepting as True the matter of Ivins' guilt. Very early on in the article, I framed the analysis this way: "If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab," and I then noted in Update II that Ivins' lawyer vehemently maintains his innocence. My whole point here is that the U.S. Government now claims the anthrax attacks came from a Government scientist at a U.S. Army lab, and my conclusions follow from that premise, accepted as true only for purposes of this analysis.

 

It's worth underscoring that it is far from clear that Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, and someone in comments claiming (anonymously though credibly) that he knew Ivins personally asserts that Ivins was innocent and makes the case as to why the Government's accusations are suspect. As I see it, the more doubt there is about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, the greater is the need for ABC News to reveal who fabricated their reports linking the attacks to Iraq.

UPDATE VI: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST to discuss this story. Local listings and live audio feed are here.

Numerous people have advised me in comments and via email that ABC News is deleting any mention of my piece today in the comment section to their article on the Ivins suicide (though many such comments now seem to be posted there). Last year, ABC was in full denial mode when responding to the stories I wrote about this issue. The key here, I think, will be to try to devise the right strategy to induce the right Congressional Committee to hold hearings on the false ABC News stories and the anthrax issue generally. I hope to have more details on that effort shortly.

 

NO FEAR TRILOGY - Three Sydney Truth Events in September!

31 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

From John Bursill | johnbursill@aapt.net.au | +61 414 878499

 

Event 1

 

DELUSION 911
PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY SEPTEMBER-11-7pm

Tom Mann Theatre

136 Chalmers St Surry Hills Sydney - 5mins walk from Central Station

Find out why millions of people around the world reject the official explanation of 9/11!

SPEAKERS

  • Dr David Leifer - Architect and Associated Engineer
  • Dr Frank Legge – Chemist/Scientist and Peace Activist
  • James O’Neil - Barrister at Law and Peace Activist
  • Gillian Norman - Film Maker, former BBC Journalist
  • John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Engineer and Green
  • Kevin Bracken - Victorian Union Secretary
  • Green’s Political Representative – To be confirmed

 

Presented by Sydney Truth Action

E-mail info@truthaction.org.au


Event 2

 

Film screening and panel discussion "ShadowPlay"

September 12 - 7:00pm

Tom Mann Theatre

136 Chalmers St Surry Hills Sydney - 5mins walk from Central Station

SHADOWPLAY PART I
9/11 PUPPETMASTERS

Revealing dark PuppetMasters behind the 9/11 ShadowPlay of Deception

 

Featuring:

  • CHARLIE SHEEN - with InfoWars.com
  • General LEONID IVASHOV - Commander of Russian Armed Forces, September 11, 2001
  • ANDREAS VON BUELOW - Former State Secretary of Defense,Germany
  • CONNIE FOGAL - Leader Canadian Action Party, Canada
  • WEBSTER GRIFFIN TARPLEY - Historian, USA
  • G.EDWARD GRIFFIN - Founder Freedom Force International, USA
  • WILL THOMAS - Investigative Journalist
  • BARRIE ZWICKER - Media Critic, Canada
  • Prof KEVIN BARRETT - Islamologist, Univ Wisconsin-Madison, USA
  • Prof MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY - Economist, Univ Ottawa, Canada
  • Prof JOHN McMURTRY - Moral Philosopher, Univ Guelph, Canada
  • YUKIHISA FUJITA MP - Director of the Parliamentary Defense Committee
  • Dr STEVEN JONES - Physicist, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
  • Dr FRANK LEGGE - Chemist. Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice


Plus many more...


Event 3

 

SYDNEY TRUTH ACTION FUNDRAISER 13 Sep 7-10pm

Bat and Ball Hotel, 495 Cleveland St Surry Hills, 10mins from Central

Dinner and Live Acoustic Music from Vitarley, Suggested donation at door $35

 

FREE PARTY BAND “SPINDRIFT” AFTER 1Opm for all 9/11 Truthers

All proceeds will go to covering the cost of these Sydney Truth Action events!

Please spread the word and attend if possible!

Kind regards John Bursill

 

A beautiful deconstruction of “conspiracy theory” doublethink

30 July 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The guardian.co.uk opinion page currently features a brilliant article from Dan Hind which is a response to an earlier article by Charlie Brooker, titled "So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto".

 

The first article broke all records for online responses, topping out at 1,700. From my casual glance through it doesn't appear that Charlie Brooker has much support from the readership.

 

links:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11 www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa

 

While Charlie Brooker draws on all the usual stereotypes and prejudices against "conspiracy believers" as mentally unstable social outcasts who irrationally cling to the idea of secret knowledge in order to improve their self esteem, Hind deconstructs the concept, demonstrating that recent policies of the current U.S. Administration (especially with regard to Saddam Hussein and WMD) have been informed by unsubstantiated and irrational conspiracy theories.

 

When you think about it, much of the fear mongering over Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions can be viewed as conspiracy theory too.

 

During the Cold War there was a widespread conspiracy theory about the threat of Communist world domination. These beliefs informed the policies of the Menzies era in Australia and led to censorship and the erosion of civil liberties.

 

Indeed, the view of 9/11 put forth by the 9/11 Commission and the Military Commissions at Guantanamo could correctly be described as "conspiracy theory" too, since there is no evidence other than the confessions of men who have have been held without due process for up to six years, tortured and dehumanised to the point that their testimony is now legally worthless.

 

Dan Hind's article, unlike David Coady's casual dismissial of 9/11 Truth as "irrational conspiracy theories", leaves the question of which conspiracy theory is correct unanswered - which is at least a more intellectually honest response to the "knowns" and "unknowns" of 9/11.

Page 91 of 110 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

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

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

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

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

Wayne Hall,

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

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

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

Leonard Clampett said:

“Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, [...] to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.”

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

Are you aware that your “no water from combustion” and “supersaturation doesn’t exist” statements are actually new scientific theories?
Now you would have to show the scientists of the world why your theories are better than previous ones, even if they are overthrowing the entire knowledge collected so far.

If you can do this, it will be a revolution.

By Josh on 2012 11 15 - 18:50:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hereward Fenton you are the one controlling this forum and you are the one who has the ability to deprive me of my “right to free speech”, not the opposite.

I have never in my life had to resort to an appeal to my “right of free speech” in order to attract attention to what I want to say. I do not propose to start doing so now.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 15 - 16:56:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall, you have finally shown your true colours apparently:

They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

For some time now you have been tacitly endorsing the abusive statements made by others, but you have now joined the ranks of the abusers yourself.

In declaring your intention to deprive me of my right to free speech you have crossed a line. You and your friends who post here are in breach of every guideline and standard of civilised discourse.

I am not closing the thread yet. This is just an assessment of the situation.

Would you like to clarify or retract anything you said?

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 11 15 - 16:33:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Jok3r thank you for the explanation.

Living in Greece as I do, where mass demonstrations and strikes have become an everyday phenomenon, we have become familiar with the activity of “anonymous” (i.e. masked) ostensible opponents of state oppression, who take every opportunity to smash and wreck everything they can in the course of demonstrations. In recent years this has included what used to be the most stylish and elegant cinema in Athens, now a charred ruin, a bookshop frequented by “progressive” intellectuals, and numerous other buildings and facilities. My local post office was burned down in one demonstration not too long ago. The mass transit system in Athens is comprised of an old-style electric railway, where some remnant of traditional trade union organization seems to persist, and a modern metro, built for the 2004 Olympic Games. The two coexist uneasily. Anonymous graffiti writers and vandals have totally ruined much of the rolling stock of the electric railway, smashing its windows and covering entire carriages, indeed entire trains, with spray paint.

Perhaps some of the protagonists in these fiestas of anonymous criminality imagine themselves as warriors against the state. I would like to see them doing whatever they are doing in such a way as to be identifiable. Fortunately I don’t spend most of my time in Athens but outside of it, in a smaller community where it is much more difficult for anything (or perhaps not ANYTHING, but anyway most things) to be done anonymously. I prefer to live, and indeed to try to be an activist, in such an environment where one knows with whom one is dealing.

This thread may be as worthless (or rather futile) as you say, though it seems to me that it at least has some intellectual content. Certainly it is run by people who should be ostracised and treated like social outcasts. But in order for there to be outcasts there has to be a society from which they can be cast out, and in that society people must have names and stable identifies. They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 15 - 15:17:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

When you say something is correct or incorrect, Josh, be reminded that it is your opinion on correctness, not a fact.

Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, or relying upon a QANTAS (QANTAS is an acronym, it is not Qantas) employee to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.

Chemtrails exist even if you do not like, know or understand, according to me experience and observations over some 50 years enjoying our skies across the globe.


Leonard Clampett said:

“the engine used does not determine a contrail, it can be a piston engine or a turbine. It is ambient conditions that predicate contrails obeying the laws of physics and thermodynamics.”

That is correct.

“The only moisture that comes from combustion is from the hydrogen molecules and they are not overly saturated as there is no water in fuel in aircraft. Ergo, the only moisture emitted from an exhaust came from the intake air and minuscule amounts of hydrogen.”

This is incorrect - not because I say so (plus Qantas pilot Michael Glynn), but because it contradicts basic chemistry.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 15:01:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

From the Courier Mail item dated November 01, 2012;

“Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said: “The trail that you see from the ground is water vapour. It’s like on a frosty winter’s morning when you go outside and breathe. What comes out is your hot, warm, moist breath and when it hits cold, dry air you get condensation. It’s exactly the same with aircraft warm air comes out of the engine and hits the cold dry atmosphere.”“

What he did not say, or that was edited out, is that as soon as the two merge and balance the contrails disappear, and is the reason why you do not see contrails in cloud at all.

This statement tells us about contrails and why chemtrails are not contrails.

I believe that one of the easiest ways to understand the problem is by comparison. Can those who refute the idea of chemtrails see by example what happens if we were to pour a litre of water at, say, 35 degrees Celsius into a container with 1,000 litres of water at, say, 15 degrees Celsius.

Would the 1 litre warm the 1,000 litres or would the 1,000 litres cool the 1 litre? The answer is called equilibrium and I suspect with such dilution there would be no change in temperature of the 1,000 litres but the 1 litre would be rapidly cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding 1,000 litres. This is only a small scale comparison because an aircraft would be putting out thousands of litres of exhaust gas into billions upon billions of litres of its surrounding atmosphere as it transits and balance would reign supreme as in this comparison.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 14:18:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

in the upcoming interview with mike ( hyperbole ohh noes theyre going to shoot us out the sky!! ) glynne..

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/jet-pilots-fear-chemtrail-attacks/story-e6freqwf-1226508708721

in order to determine if he possesses more than a “room temperature IQ”

would you kindly ask him if he agrees or disagrees with the government position on 9/11, or if he agrees with the majority of the worlds population that the official position on 911 be utterly impossible.

also, be interesting to know a few more details and see some examples of all these threats

“Threats to shoot down aircraft or harming pilots are becoming more prevalent, overt and alarming,”

and exactly what weapons he imagines chemtrail activists are hiding in their cupboards that are capable of bringing down aircraft.

 

 

By agin mee on 2012 11 15 - 11:31:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thank you Josh for the URL

as it clearly demonstrates that the fog being induced is from the heated exhaust emissions. You will note, if you have been to such places where the ground temperatures become low enough for this regular occurrence at such places, that the fog only lasts a very short time. It does not take over the surrounding atmosphere and bend it to its condition. This is the result of the water vapour in the air being processed through the engine in a similar fashion to what happens at altitude with other engines. The fog is then warmed to the surrounding temperature by natural balance and dissipates the same way it does at altitude. The idea that this fog could so influence the surrounding atmosphere, as is posited by those who believe in “persistent” contrails turning into vast sheets of cloud, is so far removed from what is possible under the laws of physics and thermodynamics as to be quite funny. The idea that ice crystals formed by engine exhausts draw moisture from the surrounding atmosphere and “grow” is an ambit claim because it seems to say that the minor can fully influence the major. What happens is that natural equilibrium ensures that balance is restored after an aircraft passes.

Whilst returning to Australia one day, flying in formation, I was wingman to my leader and I slipped behind and below him to take a look at his undercarriage. While I was there he poured a cup of hot water down his piss-a-phone (the pilots relief tube operated by utilising the pressurisation of the aircraft). The water froze instantaneously and small chunks of ice hit my aircraft. They then descended under the effect of gravity (naturally) and would have melted and been absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere. It was a clear day at 25,000 feet and not a cloud in the sky as is normal on winter days when we see real contrails. What has never been explained is why we see chemtrails, which some seem to believe are contrails, on days, and at altitudes where the ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Contrail over Brisbane airport at 10,000 feet on a summer morning? Cannot happen. It was a chemtrail no doubt in my mind. Unexplainable by chemtrail deniers.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 09:54:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories