Tonight aircraft engineer John Bursill returns to the show to bring us an update on the ongoing dispute between Qantas ground crews and the corporatocracy which wants to outsource safety checks to overseas facilities.

It should be noted that John Bursill does not speak as a representative of Qantas.

Qantas has determined that the plan to outsource vital maintenance procedures is international "best practice" - an odd twist of language when you consider the fact that these changes will decrease the amount of oversight given to the highly qualified and dedicated Australian crews, delegating these responsibilities to contractors working in another country for whom a given airplane is just a hunk of metal.

It turns out that the "best practices" which Qantas intends to follow also affect the bottom line. In effect these are cost cutting measures, dressed up to appear like improvements in efficiency.

The peculiarities of the dispute are outlined in a recent article at crikey.com:

One of the unusual things about the long drawn out dispute between  Qantas management and its international pilot and licensed engineers unions is the difference in the narratives chosen by the company and its employees.

The company does much of its talking about costs. The unions do almost all their talking about the management actions that they see as destroying the standards that are the strength of the brand. Neither side is responding to the narrative of the other.

And the management controls the general media coverage to the extent that its voice is heard the loudest, with the contrary voices either unreported or given a few token lines.  This writer doesn’t accept everything that either side says, but in fairness, thinks the union voices should be heard, whether they are right or wrong, because unless they are heard, how can anyone come to informed conclusions?

In our discussion it becomes clear that Qantas management has decided to trade security for profit, which is something all air travellers should be very concerned about. The added irony is that, while they are neglecting essential safety considerations in relation to aircraft maintenance, airlines are spending increasing amounts of money on invasive and useless security measures such as naked x-ray scanners.

Hope you enjoy the show!

Related Links

• Some other parts of the Qantas story
• Email letter to Mr Geoffrey Thomas (Aviation expert)
• Qantas ground staff vote for action

Rupert and James Murdoch testifying at the Parliamentary Inquiry

Tonight I am joined by Josh Jackson as we explore the wider implications of the News Corp phone hacking scandal. In particular, we look at the future of news and whether this crisis signals the demise of traditional mass media.

We also look at the way in which News Corp's position on the carbon tax and climate change may have made the organisation an enemy of the dominant globalist forces pushing for a price on carbon.

Related Links

• Hackers post bogus story claiming Rupert Murdoch was found dead after an overdose
• Phone hacking: News of the World whistleblower Sean Hoare found dead
• Koozzoo news presentation on the carbon tax
• The Google+ Project

Tonight we bring you the full audio (and video) from last week's carbon rally in Hyde Park, with some discussion and commentary.

The gathering at Hyde Park was very rowdy - many people have a high level of anger about the current situation and this is evident in the tone of the crowd attending the speeches and some of the posters.

The policies of this government are creating profound social tensions which may indeed erupt in violence and I think we should be under no illusions about that possibility. The problem is vastly exacerbated by the collusion of the ABC and other mainstream media sources in denying that there is a credible opposition to the carbon tax.

The exception of course is the Murdoch media, and one wonders whether the recent Fairfax front-page headline "Sun Sinking on Murdoch Empire", is in any way connected to these developments.

Below we present  the video feed of the three main speakers, Christopher Monckton, Joanne Nova and Dr. David Evans, in five parts:

Some random thoughts as we steam towards the biggest social and economic blunder of the millennium.

Calculations about what people will pay on average per week are speculative and have no guarantees attached. That’s clearly just a marketing gimmick. What we should be more concerned about is where all this money is going and the way it could be mis-managed, rorted and wasted.

Think of  “pink bats” if you want a precedent.

So, we are being asked to hand over billions of tax-payer dollars to an already bloated and corrupt bureucracy. The government promises that the average person will be “no worse off”, while at the same time insisting that we must experience “pain” in order to change behaviour.

That’s called a “double bind”. They are messing with our heads.

Photos from the 9 July 2011 carbon tax protest  by Norman O'Leary:

Photos from the 2 April 2011 carbon tax protest:

http://youtu.be/lV_31o48LUg

Three men convicted of trying to blow up synagogues in New York have each been sentenced to 25 years in prison. But the case has raised allegations of entrapment, after they were actually incited by the FBI, and handed fake bombs. ­Critics claim it was a set-up, but the judge said her hands were tied. For nearly a decade, the US has waged a widespread global war on terror. It has required a multi-tasking military effort overseas. On the domestic front, US officials have decided to redouble their efforts, recently announcing counter-terrorism plans that refocus resources on combating home-grown plots.

"This is the first counter-terrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of Al-Qaeda and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within, " John Brennan, U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor declared recently. Yet in countless so-called FBI sting operations, media reports suggest the FBI operative provided the fake C4, and actually showed them the fake stinger missile. The inspiration to attack America has sometimes come from a government-paid informant working to orchestrate the plot. Critics of this tactic say it was exercised in a New York case dubbed the "Newburgh Four".

The suspects -- poor, illiterate, African-American Muslims -- were presented as the faces of homegrown terrorism, and subsequently found guilty of conspiring and attempting US terrorist attacks. "There was no direction by a foreign entity or terrorist group," said Joseph Demarest, the head of the FBI's New York office in May 2009. Instead direction came from Shahid Hussain. a Pakistani immigrant on the FBI payroll. He was reportedly paid $100,000 for his services.

http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/513-tvo-debate.html

Written by AE911Truth Staff | 17 may 2011

Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviewed AE911Truth's Richard Gage, AIA, Barrie Zwicker (Towers of Deception), Author Paul Zarembka on the program "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin.

The National Post's Jonathan Kay, author of the hit piece "Among the Truthers," is interviewed alone for the first 15 minutes, then the debate begins. The satellite link connection with Gage in San Francisco is lost half way through the guest interviews.

http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/513-tvo-debate.html

Written by AE911Truth Staff | 17 may 2011

Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviewed AE911Truth's Richard Gage, AIA, Barrie Zwicker (Towers of Deception), Author Paul Zarembka on the program "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin.

The National Post's Jonathan Kay, author of the hit piece "Among the Truthers," is interviewed alone for the first 15 minutes, then the debate begins. The satellite link connection with Gage in San Francisco is lost half way through the guest interviews.

Jonathan Kay went undercover among the truthers and lived to write a book about it, in which he naturally concludes what he already knew before he started his foray in the world of conspiracy theories: that truthers are crazy!

More Links:

• New York Times book review
• AmongTheTruthers.com
• CNN Recent Events Fuel Conspiracy Theories
• Joshua Blakeney Confronts Jonathan Kay's 9/11 Relativism
• Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviews Gage, Zwicker, Zarembka with Hit Piece Author Kay

On 4th July 2011 the Greens will control nine seats in the Federal Senate, giving them the balance of power and ushering in a new era of enviro-politics.

Tonight Josh Jackson and I wade into the battle over carbon taxes and attempt to restore some sanity to the debate.

In particular we take a look at the influence of socialism on the Greens, with former communist Lee Rhiannon now in the Senate (hence the watermelon image above). Rhiannon was a member of the hard line Socialist Party of Australia which continued to support the Soviets after the brutal supression of the Prague uprising in 1968.

From The Australian:

Ms Rhiannon was also involved in a public spat over her communist past with author Mark Aarons after he published his account of his parents' prominent involvement in the pro-Moscow Communist Party of Australia. The CPA split from Moscow after Soviet tanks crushed the Prague Spring moves for "socialism with a human face" in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the same year a new spirit of liberty swept the Western world.

Aarons wrote that Ms Rhiannon and her parents left the CPA to join the Socialist Party of Australia, which continued to support the Soviets.

Ms Rhiannon claimed in a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald that she "joined the 1968 protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia."

But in a letter of his own, Aarons attacked Ms Rhiannon's "astonishing" attempt "to deny the facts in the book about the views and activities of her parents".

"Rhiannon also joined the SPA, whose main rationale was to support the invasion and the Soviet Union generally," he wrote.

"Rhiannon's refusal to condemn the invasion (and the shooting of Polish workers) is recorded in the University of NSW student newspaper Tharunka (1972). Denial will not alter the facts."

In the second half we present the annals of Charlie Veitch - an "ex-truther" who had a spiritual revelation on the road to New York City (all expenses paid by the BBC) which made him realise that his conspiracy theories were wrong and stupid and why he should trust Big Government.

We take a look at the psyops aspects of Mr. Veitch's conversion to the official view of 9/11, and what  the BBC is trying to achieve.

Related Links

• Green tide washes into the red-seated chamber
• Green's communist past not the ticket for Senate
• The watermelon party
• Carbon tax won't apply to petrol price
• Brown, red, Green - and a Tokyo Rose
• 9/11 Troll Alert
• 911: The Charlie Veitch Situation
  
  

Coinciding with the approaching 10th anniversary of 9/11, it seems we are experiencing a new campaign to undermine and destroy the 9/11 truth movement.

Truther groups have been buzzing over the past two days with news about the "defection" of Love Police founder Charlie Veitch from the 9/11 truth movement. Charlie claims to have had his mind changed in New York by experts and patriots who convinced him to let go of his paranoid conspiracy delusions and accept that 9/11 was in fact carried out by Al Qaeda after all.

In the light of the possible disruption caused and doubts raised by Veitch, I feel it's important to remind everyone of what I, as webmaster of www.911oz.com, the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement, believe and don't believe.

Firstly, let me make it absolutely clear: I don't believe the US Government orchestrated 9/11.

Surprised? Well read on...

When we talk about a bank robbery being an "inside job" we generally mean that someone inside the bank helped make it happen, not that the bank robbed itself. The same kind of reasoning applies to the proposition that 9/11 was an inside job: there may have been a few insiders within the government who enabled it, but the job was probably carried out by an external team of mercenaries. The question of who conceived, planned and funded the operation remains unanswered.

Unfortunately the 9/11 "inside job" theory has come to imply, for many, total complicity and top down orchestration by the government. This revised interpretation of "inside job" is often attributed to 9/11 truthers by those who wish to discredit and silence them. Many truthers don't quite appreciate the nuances of meaning, and allow their views to be characterised in this way. This exposes them to ridicule based on the implausibility of thousands of government employees being involved in a murderous plot and keeping it secret.

I do believe there were people within government who assisted in 9/11, but that is a far cry from saying the Government orchestrated the attack. One of the main reasons I believe there were people within government who assisted is because we have irrefutable evidence that WTC Building 7 was blown up - and it would have been virtually impossible to get access to that building without government clearances.

Another point which strongly suggests complicity by agents within government is the way in which the Bush administration avoided an investigation. They avoided forensic investigations of the building fires and they ducked the majority of questions brought by family members to the 9/11 Commission. Both Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath.

I concede these points do not prove the government "did it", but they raise pertinent questions about certain individuals within government.

I do not believe that "no plane hit the Pentagon".

There is just not enough evidence to support the "no plane at the Pentagon" view. I do believe that the people have a right to see all the available video evidence which would prove the government's thesis that a plane did hit the building. The fact that the government will not provide that evidence once again suggests they are hiding something. This demands investigation.

I do believe that confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured. I believe he was waterboarded at least 183 times. This fact itself puts a huge hole in the government's case and provides another irrefutable reason why there needs to be a new independent investigation.

I do believe that top government officials lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and also attempted to frame Saddam Hussein for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks. Such gross dishonesty would lead any sensible person to doubt the veracity of unproven claims about Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

Conspiracy debunkers like to represent the 9/11 truth position in terms of the positive claims made about specific events. They try to conflate all those different claims into a generalised concept of what "truthers" think. Thus, claims about holograms and space beams are combined with theories about the destruction of the twin towers, the Pentagon "flyover" and voice-morphing technology. They often avoid WTC 7, because that is the hardest one to debunk.

The arguments of Charlie Veitch, who recently converted to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, are illustrative of the "troll debunker" style. Charlie suggests that 9/11 truthers are paranoid and delusional, and that their fertile imaginations are running rampant, leading them to invent fantastic theories about events which have more mundane explanations. He completely neglects the point that much of 9/11 truth consists of analysis of the inconsistencies in the official viewpoint in conjunction with acknowledged facts such as those presented above.

That approach can't be "debunked" at all - so it's ignored.

Building 7 remains a problem though, even for Charlie Veitch, who asserts (based on mysterious un-named sources) that the collapse of WTC 7 can be explained by the damage sustained from the collapse of the twin towers earlier in the day.

It's a convincing argument, only there's a problem - it was rejected in the official NIST report:

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." - NCSTAR 1A, p xxxvii

In closing let me affirm that I remain determined to uphold what we have been fighting for since the beginning of this movement. We need a real investigation. We need to find out what really happened. We need justice. We need reconciliation.