Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

June 28, 2014
In the 2nd hour of today's show we welcome Elisa Barwick from the Citizen's Electoral Council Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

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

01 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

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

By Richie Taylor
Friday May 30 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philosophy of Conspiracy - by David Coady

23 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

From the ABC:

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


22 May 2008, 10:00


David Coady

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Conspiracy theory lunacy

by Hugh Tobin
21 May 2008, 10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Unanswered 9/11 Questions - by Hereward Fenton

17 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

WTC Building 7


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TNRA 15 May 2008

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

15 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2

Categories: [ Australia, Big Brother ]

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

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

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

Links for this show:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Global Warming: The Hockey Stick
by John L. Daly

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

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


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

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

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

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


US drops charges against Saudi in Sept. 11 attacks

14 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 13, 12:49 AM ET

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.

But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi's military lawyer.

Crawford dismissed the charges Friday without prejudice, meaning they can be filed again later, but the defense only learned about it Monday, Broyles told The Associated Press.

The attorney said he could not comment on the reasons for the dismissal until discussing the case with lawyers for the other five defendants. Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, confirmed the case was proceeding against the five defendants and that their arraignment will be within 30 days of the charges being served at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Gordon declined further comment since the Office of Military Commissions had not yet released the formal announcement about the legal developments.

The five defendants include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the terrorist attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people, and Ramzi Binalshibh, who is said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and al-Qaida leaders. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for all of them.

Their trial is the first capital case thus far before the military tribunals at Guantanamo, where the U.S. holds about 270 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. The military has said it plans to prosecute about 80 prisoners in the first U.S. military war crimes tribunals since World War II.

Authorities have said they plan to broadcast the trials to military bases in the United States so relatives of the victims of the attacks can see the proceedings.

Critics of the tribunals have faulted a rule that allows judges to decide whether to allow evidence that may have been obtained with "coercion." U.S. authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding by CIA interrogators and that al-Qahtani was treated harshly at Guantanamo.

Al-Qahtani in October 2006 recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo.

The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.

The U.S. has alleged that al-Qahtani, who military records show is about 28, barely missed becoming the 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudi was denied entry into the country by immigration agents at the airport in Orlando, Florida.

At the time, he had more than US$2,400 in cash, no return plane ticket and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta was waiting for him, the military has said.

Separately Monday, Gordon said the Pentagon has not decided whether to appeal a ruling that ousted a top legal official from a detainee case scheduled to become the first to go to trial at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling last week, a military judge at Guantanamo found that Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser for the tribunals, lacks neutrality and should not participate in the case against a Yemeni who is a former driver for Osama bin Laden. His trial is set for June 2.


TNRA 11 May 2008

May 11, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

11 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 3
By Hereward Fenton

In this show we cover the 11th May 9/11 Truth protest which took place today at Sydney Town Hall. We give an account of our meeting with the Greens laer in the day. The experience was highly enjoyable for all concerned, and I think that the Greens benefited from our visit.

Later in the show we discuss matters of concern for all recipients of government welfare benifits, such as the government debit card which is to be issued in the Northern Territory and soon to be rolled out nationally.

We discuss the recent controversial topic of banning school children from shops in Sydney's Western suburbs.

A great show - don't miss it!

TNRA 24 April 2008

April 24, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

09 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 1

In this broadcast the Truth News Radio team takes an in-depth look at Mental Health Issues in Sydney. We discuss the implications of the closure of Rozelle Psychiatric Hospital, and the privatisation of Callan Park. On this show we have as our guest Max, a counseler who works with out-patients from Rozelle Hospital. We consider some of the deeper issues behind mental/emotional disorders and the role of Big Pharma in the creation of drug dependency in our society.

Later in the show we discuss the controversy over the banning of laser pointers. In international news we discuss the "artificial" world food crisis, its real causes and the motives of those who are behind it.

Page 91 of 105 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

How to debunk chemtrails

While the title of this post is “How to Debunk Chemtrails”, the actual debunking depends on what version of the theory needs debunking. There’s a variety of common claims, and variations on those themes. The best approach is to debunk the individual claim .....rather than trying to debunk the entire theory.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 26 - 01:18:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Reducing climate impact from aviation

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 25 - 15:11:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Following on from my previous comment, both of the petitions I included links to have now been closed upon the machines being rolled-out. They intended to get 10,000 signatures in protest. The grand total at the end? 103.
COME ON AUSTRALIA! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE???!!! There are more important things happening under you than football, facebook and TELEVISION!

PLEASE sign the NEW AND VALID petition below, against this disgusting draconian and ILLEGAL mandate - and forward to ALL who you know!

Also, contact your senators, all 12 of them (or 2 if you’re in ACT or NT). The more the better.…-1&gen=0&ps=10

Simply copy and paste the below text and edit as you wish:
There is overwhelming evidence that these scanners cause cancer. This is documented hard evidence which must lead to the cancellation of their rollout in Australian airports. Not giving us the option to ‘opt out’ and instead undergo a physical pat-down makes this proposal illegal under common law. This was implemented without referendum which is unconstitutional. AT LEAST give us an opt-out!

By Paul on 2012 07 24 - 14:13:45
From the entry 'We Will Not Be Scanned requests your feedback and suggestions'.

ONLY YOUR SIGNATURE CAN EFFECT CHANGE (and please do cancel your facebook account while you’re in the ‘liberty mood’)!

PLEASE sign these below PETITIONS - and forward to ALL who you know!


There is overwhelming evidence that these scanners are cancer-causing. This is documented hard evidence which must not only lead to the cancellation of their rollout in Australian airports, but all airports globally. Not giving Australians the option to ‘opt out’ and instead undergo a physical pat-down takes this proposal to the unreasonable and draconian. This is both a health and a civil rights issue implemented without referendum. AT LEAST give us an opt out!

By Paul on 2012 07 24 - 13:45:49
From the entry 'We Will Not Be Scanned requests your feedback and suggestions'.

Comments from two ecological activists, one a journalist, one an academic, both lumped together by anthropogenic climate change sceptics as ‘hairshirt global warming cultists’:

George Monbiot: “The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled. In common with all other sectors, aviation’s contribution to global warming must be reduced in the UK by some 87% if we are to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures.  Given that the likely possible efficiencies are small and tend to counteract each other, an 87% cut in emissions requires not only that growth stops, but that most of the aeroplanes flying today be grounded…

This means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means of video conferences. It means that transcontinental journeys must be made by train or coach. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully for me, political meetings in Porto Alegre - unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and the lives of the poor.”

Tim Flannery: “Transport accounts for around a third of global carbon dioxide emissions. Transport by land and sea can easily be powered in ways that emit less carbon dioxide and the technologies to achieve this either already exist or are on the horizon. Air transport, however, is fast growing and not likely to be fuelled by anything but fossil fuels. Thankfully, jet contrails contribute to global dimming, so it may be just as well that the jets keep flying long after wind-powered and solar-powered ships and compressed-air cars monopolize surface transport” (The Weather Makers, pp. 282-283)

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 24 - 07:43:11
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Dimas is as much from Wall Street as he is from Greece and there is nothing surprising about him supporting extension of the emissions trading scheme to cover aircraft emissions.

What is your attitude to emissions trading, Josh?

Do you think opposition to it could have been stronger if it were not mainly only anti-taxation anthropogenic climate change sceptics that were opposing it?

Ecologists were almost all suckered into lending it their support, including of course support for trading in permits on aircraft emissions.

Don’t you think a more coherent campaign against emissions trading could have been mounted, at least in connection with aviation, if the discussion had not been kept artificially separated from the discussion on geoengineering and solar radiation management?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 23 - 14:57:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Welcome back Mike. I hope you are continuing to be in contact with Robert Forgette. And I would also welcome any help you want to, and can, give in the direction of having the HARC test carried out somewhere. As I have made clear, testing of this type is not part of my approach, but you have said that it is part of yours, and it is an approach that also interests some young activists in Greece.

What the ETC group has to do with the topic, as I have said before and apparently have to say again, is this: they have pursued the so far least unsuccessful anti-geoengineering/weather modification strategy that is possible in the face of the ability of the corporate controlled media, aided and abetted by hordes of Joshes, to enforce the dogma that “‘chemtrails’ are contrails.” Other such dogmas, such as that Osama Bin Laden did 911, have been enforced with similar success, a parallel that I thought might register at a 911 Truth Forum, which I did not expect to be moderated by people of opposite views to 911 Truth.

Because I espouse the principle of equality I reject the assumption that those who identify with the corporate-enforced dogma have some “right” arrogantly and belligerently to demand “proof” from those who reject it.  I tell such people to off.

I pursue another approach to the subject of geoengineering/weather modification, building on the paper achievements of ETC without identifying with them, as I am not under the constraints that they are under as lobbyists operating in the thick of the corporate-controlled virtual world.

I also in my dealings with them, such as they are, ask MY questions, and pose MY issues, not those of other people, who are quite free to contact them themselves and ask the questions that are of interest to themselves. (I don’t know how they would respond or if they would give the same response that I would, if I were asked if their moratorium is being enforced). We have already seen how such contact can be beneficial, as with Robert Forgette, which helped me to understand something about you that I did not understand before.

The problems with Rosalind Peterson’s way of dealing with the problem of corporate imposition of virtual reality, i.e. superficial conformity with the “chemtrails are contrails” dogma, emerged long before the present Roxy Lopez programme, namely in her inability to intervene meaningfully in the European Union’s campaign to have aircraft emissions included in the IPCC’s emissions trading scheme. The “chemtrails are contrails” assumption and “contrails are bad” assertion promoted by Dimas and stridently so by Friends of the Earth missed the whole subject of geoengineering generally and solar radiation management specifically.  It was a fudge. And a fudge that Rosalind Peterson could not unfudge. Fortunately ETC came into prominence not long after that.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 23 - 13:51:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I think most of us have refrained from further engagement here Wayne, due to your proprietal attitude towards the debate. The ETC has nothing to do with the topic. The question posed was one of the pivotal questions of the chemtrail issue. Are persistent contrails a recent phenomena, thereby indicative of a program of spraying?

If they are as old as high altitude aviation, that and the complete lack of any sample from a trail renders all other arguments moot. Any other “evidence” is circumstantial.

Therefore it is a central issue, and one you continually seek to divert attention away from.
For what it is worth, I have been flying heavy jets since 1987. In that time I have personally created, flown inside and witnessed many persistent contrails. According to CT theory I should at least be suffering the effects of severe heavy metal exposure.

I am not and neither is any pilot, flight attendant or frequent flyer I know. Why don’t you contact the ETC and ask their opinion on that?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 23 - 12:11:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Someone else has put the video back online, without the comments:

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 23 - 00:50:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

I could invite you to ask Rosalind Peterson if she has “changed her mind”, as I suggested you ask the ETC group if they think their moratorium is being observed.  But you don’t like checking what other people think, and anyway in Rossalind’s case I doubt that you would receive an answer. 

You have not answered my question about whether you would advise Robert and Al to drop their litigation, as Rosalind does, or whether you would advise them to go ahead to set the record straight so that we don’t have to rely on mere opinion. 

If you say that you want me to answer your question first, I will tell you that I want you to answer my question first. I have already said everything that I am going to say re contrails vs chemtrails.

How do you interpret the fact that nobody else is any longer participating in this discussion, Josh?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 23 - 00:29:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.