911 truth

Update 2 Oct 14: Nick Kollerstrom takes the 'Hand Yourself In' challenge at Scotland Yard video embedded. This story is also published on StoryLeak.

A 9/11 British activist hands himself in to UK's counter terrorism police following British Prime Minister David Cameron's speech at the UN General Assembly last week, Press TV reports. In response to Cameron's remarks equating people, who question 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK as well as the West's policy towards the Middle East, with Takfiri preachers who radicalize extremists, Nick Kollerstrom handed himself in. "As the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. And we know what this world view is, the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy," 1 Cameron said while addressing the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 25.

Explaining his actions to the Press TV correspondent in London, Kollerstrom said, "David Cameron has redefined terrorism at the UN to include people, who believe that the London bombings involve government complicity, were to some degree arranged, which I certainly do believe, and I've published a book on the subject and also I believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I do think Islamic nations are being selectively targeted, it's perfectly obvious, and if the police force are going by his directive what constitutes terrorism, it seems to me that they need to arrest me."

The Press TV correspondent was present while Colestrom handed himself in.

"We want to report a possible terror threat, we've got a bit of evidence and wonder if we could come in and report it," Kollerstrom said at Scotland Yard headquarters in London.

The British police refused to arrest Colestrom, but he said that Cameron's definition of nonviolent extremism will lead to the arrest of many Muslims, who share his views, and described it as another example of racial profiling.

SRK/MHB/AS

Above article Republished from PressTV, 1 Oct 2014;related articles: ISIL and social media: Fear and more (27/6/14), US, UK, France, Israel seeking to overthrow Syrian government: Lendman (17/6/14) and Saudi Arabia, key obstacle to Syria's peace: Edward Spannaus (1/10/14) on PressTV

Nick Kollerstrom takes the 'Hand Yourself In' challenge at Scotland Yard

Thank you, Paul Craig Roberts for notifying me of this video. - Ed

Appendix 1: 9/11 Firefighter blows WTC 7 cover-up wide open

Published on 11 Sep 11 2014 on the the Alex Jones Channel. Also published hereon candobetter.net

Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.₂

Appendix 2: David Cameron: We must act on IS terror – but act differently

This speech has been copied from the Yorkshire Post of 25 Sep 2014.

THE world faces a mortal threat from the rise of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) in Syria and Iraq.

Deir al-Zor is a province in Eastern Syria. Home to the al-Sheitaat tribe, it was captured by ISIL last month. Seven hundred tribesmen were executed, many were beheaded.

The vast majority were civilians - Muslims - who refused to take an oath of allegiance to ISIL's sick extremist world view – and who paid for this with their lives.

They are not alone.

Across Syria and Northern Iraq thousands have suffered the same fate. Muslims – both Sunni and Shia. Christians, Yazidis, people of every faith and none. ISIL is not a problem restricted to just one region.

It has murderous plans to expand its borders well beyond Iraq and Syria, and to carry out terrorist atrocities right across the world.

It is recruiting new fighters from all over the world. Five hundred have gone there from my country Britain, and one of them almost certainly brutally murdered two American journalists and a British aid worker.

This is a problem that affects us all. And we must tackle it together.

Now there is not one person who will view this challenge without reference to the past. Now of course it is absolutely right that we should learn the lessons of the past, especially of what happened in Iraq a decade ago.

But we have to learn the right lessons. Yes to careful preparation; no to rushing to join a conflict without a clear plan. But we must not be so frozen with fear that we don't do anything at all.

Isolation and withdrawing from a problem like ISIL will only make matters worse. We must not allow past mistakes to become an excuse for indifference or inaction.

The right lesson is that we should act – but act differently. We should be:

• comprehensive – defeating the ideology of extremism that is the root cause of this terrorism - so that we win the battle of ideas, not just the battle of military might.

• intelligent – supporting representative and accountable governments and working with them at their requests, not going in over their heads.

• inclusive – working with partners in the region who are prepared to be part of the solution, potentially including Iran.

• uncompromising – using all the means at our disposal – including military force – to hunt down these extremists.

The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism. This is nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful religion which inspires countless acts of generosity every day. Islamist extremism on the other hand believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a quasi-mediaeval state.

To defeat ISIL – and organisations like it - we must defeat this ideology in all its forms.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view.(My boldface - Ed)

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.

For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons.

Of course there are some who will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.

But I say: would we sit back and allow right-wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux Klansmen to recruit on our university campuses? No.

So we shouldn't stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world. These things are nonsense. We need Muslims and their governments around the world to reclaim their religion from these sick terrorists as so many are doing and quite rightly doing today. We all need to help them with programmes that channel young people away from these poisonous ideologues. And we need the strongest possible international focus on tackling this ideology.

Communism wasn't defeated simply by pointing out its flaws – but by showing that the alternative of economic freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, these things could build a better society and a better world. Young people need to see the power of a different, better, more open, more democratic path. The twentieth century taught us the vital role of representative and accountable governments in offering their people opportunity, hope and dignity.

Of course we should not be naive: not every country can move at the same speed or even reach the same destination. And we should respect different cultures and traditions and histories. But, let's be clear: the failure to meet people's aspirations can create a breeding ground where extremist and even terrorist insurgency can take root.

What about the role of our military?

I don't believe this threat of Islamist extremism will best be solved by Western ground troops directly trying to pacify or reconstruct Middle Eastern or African countries, but pursing an intelligent and comprehensive approach should include a place for our military.

Our military can support the enormous humanitarian efforts that are necessary - as our Royal Air Force did helping the millions of people who have fled from ISIL. And we should – together – do more to build the capability of the legitimate authorities fighting the extremists.

We now have a substantial international coalition in place, including Arab nations, committed to confronting and defeating ISIL. We have a comprehensive strategy to do that – with the political, diplomatic, humanitarian and military components that it needs to succeed over time.

The UN Security Council has now received a clear request from the Iraqi government to support it in its military action against ISIL. So we have a clear basis in international law for action. And we have a need to act in our own national interest to protect our people and our society.

So it is right that Britain should now move to a new phase of action. I am therefore recalling the British Parliament to secure approval for the United Kingdom to take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq.

My message today is simple. We are facing an evil against which the whole of the world should unite. And, as ever in the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain will play its part.

• This is an edited version of David Cameron's speech to the United Nations

Footnote[s]

1. ↑ These claims are to be found here in David Camerons's speech. The transcribed words differ slightly from what is written different by Nick Kollerstrom, but their substance is identical.

2. ↑ Perhaps Rudy Dent should also turn himself in to the police for "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged."

Martin Bryant has been sentenced to prison for the rest of his life because he was convicted of killing 35 people and wounding 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996. According to Vietnam Veteran, the late Brigadier Ted Serong, only the most elite of Australian troops could have performed such a feat of rapid movement and marksmanship, rarely missing, and with such a high proportion of fatal hits.

Article was originally published on 11 Feb 2013. The date has been changed to put this article back on the front page. Update, 29 July 2013 : Please download and freely distribute Mass Murder - Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (pdf - 718 pp, 13Mb) by Keith Noble completed on 27 July 2017. Keith was inspired by the article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? of 3 April 2013 to write this book. On 9 May 2013, the article Port Arthur conspiracy anger by Zara Dawtrey in the Hobart Mercury, owned by Rupert Murdoch, again labeled Martin Bryant a "mass murderer" in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. - Ed, 19 May and 29 July, 2013.

Martin Bryant, aged 29, had an IQ of 66, equivalent to that of an 11 year old child, which put him in the lowest 1%-2% of the population.

How Martin could have trained himself to be so skilled and so deadly is impossible to conceive. Martin Bryant was found guilty after having uttered words that were taken to be a confession after many previous denials and many months in isolation under duress.

He was never tried and so the supposed evidence against him was never tested.

In fact, as Keith Noble shows in Chapter 6, "The Evidence," of the PDF book Mass Murder Official killing in Tasmania, Australia [a 1.2 megabyte PDF file] http://candobetter.net/files/DRAFT.PART5_.MASS_.MURDER.TAS_.AUS_.pdf, Martin Bryant did not commit the murders, because he could not have committed the murders.

Please download the file, which is attached to the article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? of 3 April 2010 which inspired Keith Noble to write the book, read it and freely distribute it as widely as possible. When the rest book is complete it can also be distributed freely.

This article contains James Sinnamon's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) which wants to pass new laws to make all your emails and other internet transactions up to two years back accessible to the Australian Government. "If Australian governments were serious about protecting Australians from terrorism, they would not have given transnational corporations with interests in every kind of industry including military total access to information about resources and infrastructure relating to location and operation of power, water supply and telecommunications, land-use planning, national statistics, scientific research institutions and banks. What is left, I ask, for terrorists?" (James Sinnamon)

Also published on Global Research.

Australian Government wants to read your private business and personal correspondence

The Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) paper claims that Australia faces terrorist threats and that, in order to defeat these threats:

1. It is to be made an offence for any citizen to fail to "assist in the decryption of communications". In other words, each Internet user may not refuse to give to government agencies a copy of his/her private encryption key so that all his/her electronic business and private correspondence can be read by police and security agencies.

2. It be required that data transmitted by all Internet users be retained for up to two years by their respective Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

So, if these proposals become law, Internet users will be required to allow police and security agencies to read all business and personal correspondence and data uploads, as well as any more going back up to two years.

Nowhere, in the discussion paper, has it been shown how these sweeping powers could have prevented past acts of terrorism or other criminal acts from being carried out on Australian soil.

In Chapter two, Interception and the TIA Act, the paper notes the greater power and sophistication of communication technologies made available to terrorist and criminal organisations since 1979 when the current Act was enacted.

However, no-where in the paper is the commensurate increase in sophistication and power of surveillance technologies available to police and security agencies acknowledged or factored in.

If the paper acknowledged that the government possesses equal and possibly superior surveillance technologies to non-government agencies, I believe that the basis of these proposed changes to the law would be nullified.

One-sided appraisal of technology fails to admit Government already technologically well-empowered

From their present one-sided appraisal of technology, the Committee has made a breathtaking leap of logic by claiming that only by, in effect, treating all Australian Internet Users as potential terrorists or potential criminals and by subjecting them to the surveillance that only criminal and terrorist suspects were previously subjected to, could the law enforcement authorities and security agencies provide us with the protection that they were previously able to.

The report shows how current targeted surveillance powers have been effective in thwarting numerous crimes:

"In 2010/2011 there were 2441 arrests, 3168 prosecutions (2848 for serious offences) and 2034 convictions (1854 for serious offences) based on lawfully intercepted material. 2 Law enforcement agencies made 91 arrests, 33 prosecutions and obtained 33 convictions based on evidence obtained under stored communications warrants.

"These figures may underestimate the effectiveness of interception because a conviction can be recorded without entering the intercepted material into evidence. Interception also allows agencies to identify criminal connections, ...

"Telecommunications data is commonly the first source of important lead information for further investigations and often provides a unique and comprehensive insight into the behaviour of persons of interest." (p14)

The discussion paper fails to explain why, if this was possible under existing laws, the proposed additional powers are necessary.

Four cases in which suspects have been convicted of conspiring to commit terrorist acts are also cited, but, again, the paper fails to explain why, if this was possible under existing laws, the proposed additional powers are necessary.

Australian participation in illegal wars

How can Australia expect other nations to respect our own sovereignty and territorial integrity, when it has failed to accord that respect to other nations?

Since 1991, Australia has participated in three illegal wars under false pretexts: Two against Iraq and, our longest ever war, in which we are still engaged, against Afghanistan. As a result of the wars against Iraq and sanctions in which Australia participated, some estimates put the death toll as high as one million.

The 1991 war against Iraq was launched after Iraq had been cynically tricked into invading Kwait by the then ambassasor to Kuawit April Glaspie, who has since disappeared from public view. In order to overcome opposition to that war, the "Incubator babies" story, in which cruel Iraqi invaders were said to have thrown babies out of incubators onto hospital floors was fabricated. In 2003 it was claimed that Iraq posed a threat to the world with its renewed Weapons of Mass Destruction program. This claim was demolished in 2003 before the US Congress of CIA by CIA agent Valerie Plame, who testified that she had found no evidence of Iraq WMDs.

False flag terrorism

No-where in this discussion paper is another source of terrorism acknowledged, that is false flag terrorism. False flag terrorism is carried out by governments seeking to justify repression and gain political advantage by blaming the terrorism on opponents. Earlier this year, although it denies this, the Syrian Government was accused of having committed the Houla Massacre, in which 108 men, women and children were murdered in order to blame their deaths on the opposition Syrian National Council.

It was because the Syrian government was blamed for the Houla Massacre that the Australian Government expelled the Syrian Ambassador from Australia and imposed sanctions against Syria.

In October 2005 the late former President of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid said, in an interview with SBS, that he believed that either the Indonesian military or the Indonesian police planted the second larger bomb which destroyed the Sari Club on 12 October 2002.[1] 202 people including 88 Australians perished in those attacks known as the Bali Bombing attacks.

Many credible figures including Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman, the former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, believe that senior figures in the Bush administration were complicit in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in which almost 3,000 residents of the United States died. I stated my agreement with Lieutenant Colonel Bowman in my submission of 7 September 2009 to the Australian parliamentary Inquiry Into Human Rights on 7 September 2009.[2] I include a copy with this submission. [See copy as Endnote 7.] Until earlier this year that submission was posted on the Federal Parliamentary web-site along with all the other submissions.

In 1963, the US joint Chiefs of Staff put to President John F Kennedy that the US military stage apparent hijackings of civilian aircraft, terrorist murders and apparent military attacks against United States military bases in order to put the blame on Cuba. this proposal was known as Operation Northwoods.[3] Fortunately, President Kennedy rejected that proposal before he was sadly murdered.

Privatisation of Institutions and information

Successive Australian governments, both state and federal, have deregulated and privatised institutions and their information and outsourced services from the time of Keating. They have done this without the permission of the electorate, which has never been asked, as Financial Review Editor, Laura Tingle, recently put forward in her Quarterly Review essay, "Great Expectations,".[4] Corroborating Tingle's observations, sociologist, Sheila Newman wrote that,

"With deregulation and privatisation (under Hawke and Keating), governments dissolved the very institutions that gave them power. Because of Hawke and Keating’s actions, Australian governments now have so little power that they are unable to satisfy the promises they make at election time to the electorate."

How can Australian citizens trust governments which are now almost powerless against corporate interests to represent their citizens? How can the Committee ask Australians to cede yet more power and information to feeble government powers that have shown undeniable trends to privilege corporations like News Ltd with lax media ownership laws even when British parliamentary inquiries have exposed their management as condoning and encouraging spying at every level? How can the Committee ask Australians to cede yet more power and information to governments which have allowed a myriad of private fly-by-night organisations to take over our entire telecommunications system, power, water and other utilities, resulting in so many complaints that states have now replaced one omsbudsman with many omsbudsmen?

If Australian governments were serious about protecting Australians from terrorism, they would not have given transnational corporations with interests in every kind of industry including military total access to information about resources and infrastructure relating to location and operation of power, water supply and telecommunications, land-use planning, national statistics, scientific research institutions and banks.

What is left, I ask, for terrorists?

Surely Australia's best defense against terrorism lies in Australian citizens being able to protect their own interests and privacy from government and commercial organisations? Who else can they really trust?

Conclusion

To the extent that Australia faces a terrorist threat at all, the paper offers no practical proposal of how to meet that threat. In all likelihood, greater surveillance at the hands of Governments and security agencies, which have done so little to earn the trust of Australians, will only serve to make larger numbers more apathetic and less able to act if they see evidence of real terrorist threats.

Australians need more civil rights, not fewer, to ensure that dark or incompetent processes cannot proceed behind a wall of secrecy and ill-informed authority in the name of security. It has been suggested that Australia could consider adopting the European Civil Code, also known as the Napoleonic Code, instead of its 'ad hoc British system'. In the EU, only Britain has failed to adopt this Roman Law based model. Australia needs a Civil Code of citizens’ rights, legally defendable, modelled on the French one to combat the disorganising forces of the markets and perceived threats to security.[5]

There is a great deal more in the 61 pages of this discussion paper than I have been able to properly address in the limited time available to me. Nevertheless, I believe this submission demonstrates that the measures proposed in discussion paper pose an unwarranted threat to the democratic freedoms of Internet users.

The proposals have never been put to the voting public and had this been done I believe that they would have been rejected just as the Australian public previously rejected a proposal to filter Internet traffic.

Accordingly, I ask that either the proposals contained in the discussion paper be rejected by Parliament or that they be put to the public in a referendum.

ENDNOTES

[1] "Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings?" by Michel Chossudovsky at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10931

[2] The submission I made to the Australian parliamentary Inquiry Into Human Rights on 7 September 2009 contained the following factual errors:

(i) Lieutenant Colene Robert Bowman did not serve on "President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program." He had retired when Jimmy Carter was President.

(ii) Morgan Reynolds, who is listed in my submission, claims that the WTC Twin Towers were destroyed by particle beams from outer space and that the aircraft seen to fly into each of the respective WTC Twin Towers were, in fact, holograms, so cannot be considered a credible supporter of 9/11 Truth.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[4] Laura Tingle in "Great Expectations," Quarterly Essay, June 2012, p.34, writes: "Yet, here is the crucial point: voters weren't consulted about the changes - except belatedly at the ballot box, when both major parties were in fundamental accord."

[5] http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tingle-verbals-australians-in-quarterly-essay

[6] Loose paraphrase from last paragraph in Sheila Newman, "Tingle-ing Australians," in Independent Australia

Appendix:James Sinnamon's 2009 submission to the Australian National Human Rights Consultation

National Human Rights Consultation Submission

AGWW-7T293B

Name: James SINNAMON

The following is a verbatim adaptation of the three page submission I presented to the Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry Into Human Rights on 7 September 2011. On this adaptation I have corrected one relatively minor factual error and noted one misjudgement which appeared on the first. These are detailed in the Appendix at the end of this document. (This adaptation is four pages in length rather than three pages. This is because of difficulty I faced in copying and editing with the Open Source Libre Office Writer program the original PDF document.)

Submission Text:

This submission disputes the entire justification for the draconian anti-terrorist laws that have taken away from ordinary citizens, basic human rights and civil liberties that were once taken for granted in Australia.

As few cannot be unaware the justification for these draconian laws and the associated imposts upon our daily lives such as airport security checks and the banning of the ownership of megaphones, deemed by former Prime minister John Howard to be a terrorist weapon was the spectacular and deadly terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, the anthrax scare that shortly ensued and a number of other deadly terrorist attacks that have occurred since then - Bali, the Madrid bombing and the London Tube bombing. Much of Australian public opinion had come to accept that the curtailments of our rights are a price well worth paying in order to prevent similar tragedies from ever occurring on our own shores.

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11, THE BASIS FOR ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION, DISPUTED BY MANY CREDIBLE AUTHORITATIVE PUBLIC FIGURES

However, a large number of credible, authoritative and well known figures as well as a substantial sections of public opinion in the United States, and even more so, outside the United States question the official explanations of these attacks. They argue that the evidence that the attacks were perpetrated by a ubiquitous world wide terrorist network known as 'al Qaeda' has never been produced. They also argue that the investigations by the 9/11 Commission and the US National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) failed to ask many critical questions and ignored a great deal of evidence submitted to them.

The supposed evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt that was given to NATO by Colin Powell in order to win NATO's participation in the so- called 'war on terror' has never been made public and the evidence promised by Colin Powell to the United Nations, that would have legally made the United Nations a participant in the 'war on terror', was never produced.

Many have therefore called for the holding of a new and thorough investigation that would properly examine all the physical evidence, take account of all witnesses' statements and have the power to subpoena key players in the events of 9/11 including former President George W Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. Indeed, it seems as if the City of New York may very well soon be conducting its own investigation into 9/11 as the group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN - http://nyccan.com) has succeeded in collecting, as of 14 June 2009, 47,767 signatures of residents of New York City which asks that New York City hold a ballot within 3 months to decide whether or not an investigation into 9/11 be set up by New York City. This number exceeds the number of 45,000 that would make the holding of the ballot mandatory.

Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks.

People who are calling for a new investigation include:

* Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). Colonel Bowman was a fighter pilot who who flew 100 missions in the Vietnam war. He served on the Star Wars program under Presidents Ford and Carter.
* General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) former head of NATO.
* Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret). Colonel Nelson is an experienced air crash investigator who states that the physical evidence at the crash sites of United Airways Flight 95 flatly contradicts the official account. (see(http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson).
* Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret).
* Raymond L. McGovern Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world.
* William Christison – Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world. 29-year CIA veteran. 29-year CIA veteran.
* US Senator Max Cleland Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001 – 2002.
* Morgan Reynolds – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001 – 2002.
* Paul Craig Roberts – Assistant Treasurer of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan.
* Daniel Ellsberg – Author of “The Pentagon Papers” which told the world the truth about the Vietnam War.
* Paul Hellyer – Former Minister of National Defense of Canada.
* Michael Meacher – Former Under Secretary for Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, Minister for the Environment, and Member of the House of Commons (UK).
* Tony Benn – Former Member of British Parliament 1942 - 2001.
* Andreas von Buelow, PhD Former Minister of Justice (West Germany). Former Minister for Research and Technology.
* Horst Ehmke, PhD – Former Minister of Justice (West
* Germany). Former Minister for Research and Technology. • Francesco Cossiga Member, – President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister.
* Yukihisa Fujita – Member, House of Councillors (the upper house), National Diet of Japan.
* Jeanette Fitzsimons – Greens Member of Parliament, New Zealand, 1996 - present.
* General Leonid Ivashov – Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces.

Many more who are calling for a new investigation are listed on the web site a href="http://patriotsquestion911.com/.

Abundant solid evidence in contradiction with the official account of the 9/11 attacks can be found on many sites including http://ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) and http://911truth.org/.

If these people are right -- and I believe they are -- then Australia's efforts to combat terrorism are not directed towards where the real terrorist threat lies.

BALI BOMBING

In regard to the terrorist threat much closer to home, on 12 October 2004 former president, Abdurrahman Wahid said in an interview with SBS that he believed that either the Indonesian military or the Indonesian police planted the second larger bomb which destroyed the Sari Club. This allegation has never been properly investigated.

Before discussing the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures now in place to combat terrorism, the Human Rights consultation needs to evaluate firstly how real is that threat and secondly from what quarters the terrorist threat, if it exists, is likely to come from.

The Human Rights Consultation should therefore at least seriously look at the abundant evidence which stands in contradiction to the official accounts of terrorists atrocities in recent years and try to bring about renewed and proper investigations. Furthermore, it should give its full support to those people overseas who are seeking to bring about proper investigations into 9/11, the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Train bombings, the Bali bombings etc.

Appendix to Submission to HRC: A correction to my original Submission and a comment

Robert Bowman: Of retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman who was the first person list as calling for a new investigation, I originally wrote, “He served on President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program.”. In fact, he served under former Presdents Ford and Carter and had retired before President Reagan was inaugurated.

Morgan Reyolds: Morgan Reynolds holds views not shared by the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement and which are easy for the 'debunkers' to debunk. These include that the WTC Twin Towers were destroyed by particle beams from outer space and that the aircraft seen to fly into each of the respective WTC Twin Towers were, in fact, holograms. Many people purporting to be 9/11 Truthers promote such views in obvious attempts to discredit the 9/11 as a whole. What motivates such a high profile 9/11 Truther as Morgan Reynolds to promote views which are damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement is unclear. Had I been aware that he held these views I would not have included his name in this list.

A political analyst says the West is hypocritically recruiting the same thugs it supposedly waged the bloody and costly ‘war on terror’ against a decade ago, to topple the Syrian government today.

Originally published on PressTV on 20 August

by Finian Cunningham

A political analyst says the West is hypocritically recruiting the same thugs it supposedly waged the bloody and costly ‘war on terror’ against a decade ago, to topple the Syrian government today.

“In asserting their geopolitical objective over Syria, the Western governments are openly deploying terrorists and killers who supposedly were the reason why Western governments spent trillions of dollars fighting foreign wars, invading and occupying sovereign countries, destroying millions of innocent lives, incarcerating and torturing thousands, and turning over democratic societies into draconian police states,” Finian Cunningham wrote in an article on Press TV website.

Cunningham said the reports and videos showing the Western-backed mercenaries of the so-called Free Syrian Army bolstered by al-Qaeda brigades and other terrorists have been greeted with “barely veiled glee” in Washington and the European capitals.

“The ‘terror’ that Washington and other Western governments have promoted as the defining existential threat to democratic civilization over the past 10 years, has suddenly and seamlessly morphed into ‘war with terror’ when it comes to Syria.”

However, Cunningham said, for “those with eyes,” the mask of Western pretence at defending international law and human rights, has now been ripped off.

“The face revealed is a grotesque, salivating monster, whose motives are evidently selfish elite power and domination in the strategic Middle East region. And this objective is to be achieved by any means necessary -- foremost by the collusion with bloodthirsty killers.”

In the 1980s, the United States assisted the so-called Mujahedeen militants in Afghanistan to fight the forces of the former Soviet Union. The al-Qaeda later emerged from the same group that had years earlier received US weapons and training.

Just over a decade later, the US attacked Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, which it accused of harboring al-Qaeda.

Political observers say the US favors the presence of al-Qaeda militants and other extremists in Syria to help the country’s armed insurgents overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

According to chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers, as many as a quarter of the many insurgent groups in Syria see themselves as al-Qaeda offshoots.

Cunningham said the current situation in Syria reveals “a descent into barbarism and an open embrace of international lawlessness” by the same governments that appoint themselves to lecture the rest of the world on the principles of democracy and human rights.

“Forget the fancy titles, manners and clothes - ongoing violence in Syria shows that the foreign policy of these [Western] powers is being conducted by terrorists and thugs in high offices.”

HMV/PKH/SS

US Congress's decision to maintain its bloated defence budget whilst other US government programs suffer savage austerity is opposed by two thirds of Republican voters and nine tenths of Democrat voters. As retired US Army Colonel Douglas McGregor explains in an interview with Russia Today excessive defence spending threatens the future economic viability of the US whilst doing little to stop threats to its citizens from South of the border that are far greater than that which they face from regions in which the US has waged war in recent decades.

Also published at Brasscheck TV, YouTube.

See also: 9/11 activist hands himself in to British police for "peddling lies" that 9/11 and 7/7 were staged (1/10/14).

I knew there had to an answer to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that would make the facts clear to non-experts. This 5 minute video (Also at YouTube) demolishes the fantasies peddled by extreme right and looney left paranoids.

It is unfortunate that ABC Local Radio Melbourne 774 presenter Jon Faine neglected to make use of the evidence contained in the above video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3pMPObcGU) in his altercation with Kevin Bracken in October 2011.

Go to youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc to find embedded YouTube Broadcast embedded above.

A search using the terms:

Republican Primaries

... confirms that Ron Paul's campaign to win the Republican Party preselection for US Presidential candidate has been blacked out by the international corporate news media.

No mention of Ron Paul is found until page 3. Stories currently listed on page 3 are as follows:

• Fed Up With Bias, Ron Paul Supporters Boycott Advertisers
  Fed up with a very overt strategic exclusion of Ron Paul during the coverage of the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary race, Ron Paul supporters are ...

• Ron Paul's Shot at Victory? Nolan Chart LLC
• http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/14/ron-paul-im-not-sure-i-have-the-stamina-for-a-long-primary/
• Ron Paul first choice for SD GOP, says poll? Daily Republic
• Examiner.com - Northern Voices Online
• ...

Will Maier and Dr. Zoltanthe ask, "Why is everyone celebrating the 9/11 tenth anniversary?" in their mutant mall Freefall song.

Will Maier and Dr. Zoltanthe ask, "Why is everyone celebrating the 9/11 tenth anniversary?" in their mutant mall Freefall song.

For a catchy song about Building no 7 and other oddities associated with the 9-11 disaster in New York and the end of the Republic, click on the picture:

Why had there been no proper investigation of the 9/11 disasters?

Questions posed by the authors of the Freefall song:

1.) If Flight 93 “crashed” in Shanksville, where’s the plane? There is only a small hole in the ground and a little bit of smoke. Same with the Pentagon — small hole, no wreckage.
2.) Why did Building 7 collapse if it was not hit by a plane?
3.) How can two 110-story buildings collapse at freefall speed?

Credits

Will Maier - Vocals
Dr. Zoltan - Acoustic & Electric Guitar, Keyboard, Bass, Drumkit From Hell

Like Australia, Latvia is (mis)ruled by a government which sends its armed forces to fight illegal wars such as those being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

See also: NATO and 9/11: Declaration of the Latvian Antiglobalists, Youtube broadcast Against NATO in Libya. NationalState.INFO, Ditta Rietuma (also embedded here).

However, the people of Latvia have never given their Government a mandate to wage these wars on its behalf. The following is a statement from Latvian anti-globalists published on Global Research on 7 September.

Riga, 7th September 2011

To all peoples of the world, NATO nations and NATO occupied countries

1.Following the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 event and the evidence that this was pre-arranged as an excuse for further illegal global invasions in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.) to succeed earlier invasions in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

2.Whereas the government of Latvia and the Parliament members have not been elected constitutionally because the Constitution of Latvia (Satversme) requires that all citizens have the right to become Parliamentarians. It therefore follows that for the last 20 years the country has been governed illegally by a minority chosen out of the 1% who are Party members. The word “Party” does not occur in the Latvian Constitution.

3.In view of the worsening military and political situation in the Middle East, and because these developments may lead to a 3rd world war.

4.Because the government and the Parliament do not take into consideration the will of the Latvian people and since also for years these authorities have been exceeding their mandate in sending Latvian soldiers to wars without the express sanction of the Latvian people.

For these reasons set out above and for others, we, the Latvian Antiglobalists:

1)Have published (www.antiglobalisti.lv Latvian language only, currently has no English translation)) the names and Party affiliations of those parliamentarians who have voted to send the Latvian troops in support of NATO colonization operations,

2) Invite the people to write to those on this list, who are responsible for the deployment of Latvian troops in these NATO colonization operations, and state that they will hold them personally legally responsible in the future for any deaths or injuries sustained by the troops or combatant or non-combatant individuals in the areas of conflict in which they are operating and for all economic or political consequences,

3) Affirm that any Latvian soldier involved in any NATO-led or sanctioned action does so without the authority of the Latvian People.

See video of the Latvian Antiglobalists action at the US embassy Spring 2011 which is embedded above, also at youtu.be/FenvRdgSzis.

National Academy of Science member and Distinguished biologist and Professor in Geoscience endorses David Ray Griffin's work exposing the truth of 9/11

By Lynn Margulis

This article was first published as "Two hit, three down, the biggest lie," [pdf file] in the Rock Creek Free Press.

Two Hit, Three Down - The Biggest Lie

National Academy of Science member and Distinguished Professor endorses
David Ray Griffin’s work exposing the truth of 9/11

By Lynn Margulis

I comment here on the nanotechnology aspect of Jerry Mazza’s masterful review (Rock Creek Free Press, January 2010, page 6) of David Ray Griffin’s extraordinary 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

By the time we (Dorion Sagan – my eldest son and Sciencewriters partner – and I) met David Griffin in 2003 in his native habitat at the Center for Process Studies (which is on the campus of the Claremont School of Theology in southern California), he had written over two dozen books, none of which I had ever read or even heard of. We immensely enjoyed a three-day scientific-philosophical meeting on the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life that had been organized by Griffin’s sage mentor, the sweet-tempered but razor sharp, Jimmy Carter-sounding, octogenarian professor emeritus and director, John B. Cobb, Jr. The results of this fascinating meeting have since been published (Cobb, ed. 2008).

At that meeting, Griffin’s talk was sober, academic, competent, scholarly – and entirely new to me: Christian theology in a much broader philosophical context than any to which I had ever been exposed. The science-friendly philosophical outlook Griffin espoused apparently was developed by Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), the English mathematician-philosopher who became a Harvard professor, or by Cobb. Why would I have known anything about this theological-philosophical work? My own expertise after all is in protoctist and organellar genetics. With close colleagues I reconstruct the origin and evolution of nucleated cells in the Proterozoic Eon. Where I understood DRG’s talk at all, he made clear to me his honesty. Truth, especially scientifically/empirically established truth, seemed intrinsic to his Christianity. As a typical agnostic scientist overtly critical of organized, and even disorganized, religion, I was surprised by the scientific commitment to approaching empirical truth in a religious context rather than the usual authority-pleasing consensus.

Griffin went on to elaborate that, although as a Whiteheadian he embraces the methods and results of science, he is critical of the entire international scientific enterprise as generally practiced today. Not only do scientists extrapolate their intrinsically specialized empirical knowledge into intellectual territory where it does not belong, but they don’t heed Whitehead’s recognition that, after all, scientists –like all people – have an emotional life and an inner spirit. The acclaimed “objectivity of science,” on close scholarly inspection (by, say, Cobb, Griffin and other Whiteheadians), often translates into tribalism, jingoism, naiveté, denial of obvious truths, uncritical service to The State, and other forms of profoundly dangerous ignorance. Scientists, as do all groups of people, share unstated philosophical assumptions. For example, they not only have faith in the consistency and “knowability” of the real world, but they often assume that the concrete particulars of the world are adequately described by the abstractions that have proved useful for limited purposes in their own disciplines – an assumption that Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.”

On the return trip east from this meeting, I read, non-stop, DRG’s seminal book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. Since then I have watched the “aging theologian” (his self-description as quipped in the excellent video-graphed lecture “9/11 and Nationalist Faith” (or was it 9/11: Let’s Get Empirical? Both are highly recommended) metamorphose from a compelling, careful scholar to a brave and extraordinary orator (but still careful scholar). Griffin has become a superb politician with a single agenda item: We must re-open public inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001, especially the collapse of the World Trade Center.

I had personal reasons to be interested in this issue: I had watched a member of our Geosciences Department (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) realize that morning that his beloved brother was on the doomed Boston-to-LA “hijacked plane.” Two of my sons and both of their mates were on Manhattan Island on 9/11. My grandson, Tonio Sagan, the Problemaddicts hiphop lyricist and leader, was released from his Springfield probationary status to me that evening. Like everyone else close to the action, my global consciousness was instantly and permanently altered on that date. But I happily remained an academic evolutionist. So, I ask here, what happened to the “aging theologian” to cause such a radical shift in his personal and professional life: from ivory tower scholar expert in theology and philosophy to detective, orator, and political activist?

I will not try to answer this question, but will simply state: Griffin has become a scientist, in my view, and even more a science educator. He has undertaken the search for the solution to a relatively trivial scientific problem and has found it in the literature and through discussions with experts. Along with solving the scientific problem, however, he has burdened his life with a colossal science-education problem.

In spite of his authorship of eight excellent books on the subject, he is not winning the education skirmish. This is not surprising, because science education battles – I can tell you this from chronic painful experience – are far more intrinsically difficult to win than those of mere science. I illustrate this point with regard to the destruction of the World Trade Center.

The scientific problem:

Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by “hijacked airplanes”?

The scientific answer:

Because all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition. Ignited by incendiaries (such as thermate) and high explosives (including nanothermite), the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.

Impeccable logic and addiction to reading inspire this truth-seeker. With his practiced scientific mind (he has organized professional philosophy-of-science conferences and published several books on this theme) coupled with investigation of evidence from not only us scientists but from witnesses, documentary film-makers, scholars, architects and engineers et al., he concludes that the virtuall free-fall collapse of the three (not two) World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was a premeditated, exquisitely executed operation. He recognized this “tragic publicity stunt” (my claim) was likely intended to provide the “new Pearl Harbor” desired by radical neoconservatives, some of whom had become members of the Bush administration (see Ch. 6 of Griffin’s 2006 book, Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11).

The far-more-difficult science-education problem:

The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. (Much has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, see Ch. 4 of The Mysterious Collapse). We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).We citizens of Earth within and beyond the boundaries of the United States who demand detailed evidence for extraordinary claims agree with Griffin: the rapid destruction of New York skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 was planned and executed by people inside the US government.

Griffin’s eight books about 9/11 (listed below) are his call to his kind of truly patriotic action. They show in appropriate detail, accurately documented, that the official government conspiracy theory can not be correct journalistically, scientifically, and morally. Muslim airline hijackers, in short, never triggered the collapse of high-rise steel-framed buildings at gravitational acceleration into neat removable pieces. They didn’t remove the remaining steel girders before they could be studied as evidence for a huge crime. They were not described in telephone calls by passengers and crew members from the four airliners –all the evidence for al Qaeda hijackers on the planes dissipates under close inspection (for example, even the FBI now admits that the reported cell phone calls from 25,000 to 40,000 feet never happened).

And to me the most compelling and obviously incorrect accusation is that Muslim hijackers caused the pulverization of cement high-rise office buildings into tons of dust that contain crystalline thermate and other minute metallic particles not found in the usual charred remains of fire rubble. Minute iron-aluminum-molybdenum rich spheres, steel perforated with swiss-cheese type holes and large quantities of unreacted nanothermite are not components of petroleum office fires. Besides the fact that building fire temperatures, even if fed by jet-fuel, could not have risen beyond 1,800°F, and hence they would be nowhere close to the of 2,800°F needed to melt iron (or for molybdenum that melts at 4,753°F). The facile appeal to the presence of gypsum (calcium sulfate) in the office wall-board fails to explain why sulfur was found in the intergranular structure of pieces of steel. (There was no detection of calcium!) The New York Times, in a rare example of honest reporting about the WTC collapses, called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”).

Nor could “Muslim terrorists” have accessed and then planted in these buildings huge quantities of nanothermite. This recently developed high explosive was developed mainly in secrecy by professional scientists and engineers who enjoy government grant support for “nanotechnology” by the military. Significant quantities of red-gray crystals of nanothermite have been found in several independently collected samples of WTC dust studied by a team headed by physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. Niels Harrit, a University of Copenhagen professor of chemistry who specializes in nanochemistry, is the first author of a peer-reviewed paper reporting this team’s results.

The two mutually exclusive “9/11-conspiracy theories”, the patently and nefariously absurd tale our government imposes on us and the true, criminal story yet to be entirely brought to light, deserve the attention of all literate people. Remember: Only two airplanes struck, but three buildings collapsed at free-fall velocities on that same day. Begin with Mazza’s review and Griffin’s book that detail the nanothermite scientific studies. Examine the government’s reluctant late admission that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds to realize this is a scientific impossibility unless all the steel columns were partitioned into neat, removable pieces by explosives. Find out what happened to two men, Hess and Jennings, trapped inside WT7 in its abortive explosion before noon. Truth here, as David Ray Griffin tries to tell it, is (at least to me) stranger and far more dramatic than even the best fiction.

Suggested sources of evidence and explanation:
John B. Cobb, Jr. 2008 Back to Darwin: A richer account of evolution, Erdmann Publishers
Michael Ruppert 2009 Collapse: Peak oil, global politics, depletion of world resources and the end of “civilization” Chelsea Green Publishing Co. White River Junction VT
Lecutre by D.R. Griffin and M. Ruppert on DVDs.
DRG:
1. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004)
2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005)
3. Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)
4. 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott)
5. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007)
6. 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008)
7. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (2008).
8. The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (2009)

SOURCE AND NOTES:

This article was "Two hit, three down, the biggest lie," [pdf file] first published in February 2010 issue of the Rock Creek Free Press.

An Australian lawyer criticises Australia's participation in war in Afghanistan. Australia's participation in the Afghan war has helped bring world Opium production to record levels, with Afghanistan leading the way. The justification for this war was given in 2001, and remains the justification for the war, which is set to become Australia's longest war, nearly 10 years later. This justification has never been scrutinised by Australia's mainstream newsmedia nor what passes for Australia's 'alternative' or 'far left' media. In this article, that case for war is comprehensively examined.

By James O'Neill*

See also: My submission to the Human Rights Consultation on National Security of 7  Sep 09 by James Sinnamon. Submission is on an 8.2K pdf file and is linked to from the National Security and Terrorism Public Submissions page.

Contents: Introduction, A Brief History, Carter and Brzezinski, Oil and Gas, The Legality of the Afghanistan War, (What is the Real Reason?: 1. Oil and Gas, 2. Geopolitical Ambitions, 3. Drugs), Conclusion, Footnotes.

Article originally published as PDF (180K) on journalof911studies.com.

Introduction

On 1 December 2009 US president Barack Obama announced in a speech to cadets at the West Point Military Academy that he was authorizing the sending of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. In justifying the "surge" in troops, Obama said, inter alia¹

1. "I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11.

2. It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3000 people."

Speaking from Washington on 1 December 2009 the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke in support of the US President's plans. Australia, he said, "takes its alliance with the US very seriously. That's why we have been with America for a long time in Afghanistan and why we will be with America for the long haul."²

Rudd was reflecting the bi-partisan approach adopted by the Labour party to the policies first advanced by the Liberal-National coalition. In a speech to the Australian Senate on 28 October 2009 Senator Russell Trood referred to the formidable military, political and economic challenges facing Afghanistan. They demand, he said, "a long-term commitment from all who have a strategic interest in the outcome, and this certainly includes Australia." That is the reason, he said, "the Opposition strongly supports the Rudd government's commitment in Afghanistan."³

Nowhere in the reported remarks of the three men is there any questioning of the ostensible reasons for the attack and invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. None seemed troubled by any potential issues such as the legality of the invasion. In common with the bulk of the media's treatment of the issue, all assumed that the history of the West's involvement with Afghanistan commenced on 11 September 2001 and that no US polices that preceded that date had any relevance to the attack and subsequent invasion and occupation. That occupation is now well into its ninth year representing, in Australia's case, nearly half as long again as its involvement in World War 2 and similar to its length of involvement in two other American led tragedies, Iraq and Vietnam.⁴

This article will suggest that the official rationale for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is false. It involves a rewriting and/or ignoring of history on the part of the participants. It shows the same cavalier disregard for international law that was apparent in Iraq. It accepts without question the validity of the two premises argued by Obama in the above quote. Perhaps most disturbingly it persistently fails to address the reality of the present policies and their likely true intention.

A Brief History.⁵

The archaeological record shows that humans have occupied the area currently known as Afghanistan for more than 100,000 years. Strategically located at the crossroads of some of the ancient world's greatest civilizations Afghanistan was crisscrossed by the Silk Road. This network of routes carried silk and spices from China to the west, and wool and gold to the east.

The divergent tribes of Afghanistan were united in the 18th century under Ahmed Shah Durrani who had been chosen by a tribal jirgah (meeting of tribal leaders). At the peak of Durrani's power Afghanistan influence ruled from Mashad in northeastern Iran to Kashmir and Delhi in India in the southwest, and in the north from the Amu Darya River bordering Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, to the Arabian Sea in the south.

After Durrani's death in 1772 the Afghan empire began to crumble. The biggest threat to Afghani integrity was the British Empire, intent on expanding northwards from India. One of the major driving forces in this imperial expansion was the opium trade, then as today. The British assumed a monopoly on control of opium exports to China in 1773. By 1818 Britain's reach included all of Western India's opium growing region.⁶

The competing interests of Russia to the north, Iran to the west, and the British from the south inevitably lead to the destabilization of Afghan society. The reluctance of the Afghans to accede to Britain's imperial demands lead to the first British invasion of 1839. That invasion ended in ignominious defeat for the British. One important consequence however, was to drive the Afghans into an alliance with Russia. This laid the foundation for what was later to be labeled "the Great Game".⁷

In the decades following the first Anglo-Afghan war the British steadily expanded their empire between the Indus and the Hindu Kush, including Sind, Baluchistan and the North West Frontier. These were all regions that had formerly been ruled by Ahmed Shah Durrani.

In 1893 the British established what was then the boundary between Afghanistan and India (later Pakistan) by the drawing of what is known as the Durrand Line named after a British official of the time. The Durrand line was drawn in the interests of British colonial requirements with scant regard for local sensibilities. It partitioned land that had from the earliest times been considered part of Afghanistan. It was bitterly contested at the time and remains so to this day. It is an outstanding example of colonial hubris and stupidity.

One of the main results of this partition was to separate people, primarily Pashtuns, who shared common linguistic, cultural and family ties. Afghanistan was, and still is, a highly tribal society where value is placed on familial ties at the expense of the more ethereal concept of the modern nation state. The Pashtuns in the south essentially failed to acknowledge the national border imposed by the British, preferring to move back and forward across that line as work and family loyalties dictated.

The King was a nominal head binding at least some of these disparate loyalties, but he in turn exacerbated tribal tensions, particularly between the more urban, educated and more progressive Tajiks to the north, and the rural, uneducated and more reactionary Pashtuns to the south.

In 1973 these internal tensions boiled to the point where the King was deposed. The government that replaced him however, was autocratic and corrupt. It lacked popular support. In 1978, following massive demonstrations, that government was forced out, with the intervention of the army on the side of the protesters proving decisive.

The military invited Noor Mohammed Tariki, the leader of the Peoples Democratic Party (the PDP), a left wing progressively oriented party, to form a government. Tariki was a novelist and poet. His government instituted a series of major social changes. Labour unions were legalized, a minimum wage was established, as was a progressive income tax. It initiated a mass literacy campaign, importantly, extending to women and girls.⁸

The Tariki government also moved to eradicate poppy cultivation. Up to that time Afghanistan had been producing more than70 percent of the world's heroin supply. Such a series of reforms, radical by Afghan standards, inevitably set up counter forces within the country. It was the reaction of the western powers in general and the United States in particular that had the greatest influence, and it is to that aspect that I now turn.

Carter and Brzezinski

Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States in November 1976. An important element of his campaign was the promise to reduce military expenditure. Inevitably, as so often before in US history, such a promise invoked opposition from the powerful non-elected groups who largely control the direction of military and economic policy. The military and economic forces are closely allied, especially in foreign countries, where the role of the US military is overwhelmingly to secure the economic interests of the large industrial corporations, especially in the energy sector.⁹

Eisenhower had famously warned against the growing power of what he termed the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech in January 2001. His successor John F Kennedy was the first (but not the last) President to incur the wrath of this powerful cabal. Kennedy's speech to the America University in June 1963 in which he spoke of "peace.....as the necessary rational end of rational men" was a remarkable speech, the radical content of which is the probable reason it is rarely quoted today. Kennedy went on to announce high-level discussions with the USSR and the UK on a comprehensive test ban treaty and the cessation of atmospheric nuclear tests. "We must labor on" he said, "not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace."¹⁰

That speech, together with his decision to commence the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, undoubtedly set in train the events culminating in his assassination in November of the same year.¹¹

As is well known, among the first acts of Lyndon Johnson as Kennedy's successor on his accession to the presidency was the reversal of many of Kennedy's policies that reflected Kennedy's turning toward peace. The military industrial complex and the associated drug trade prospered mightily during the Johnson and Nixon years.¹² Those powerful forces therefore were unlikely to accept at face value Carter's intentions to scale back on military expenditure.

Beginning during the Ford presidency (1974-76) a powerful group including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz planned to subvert official US policy and to put in place policies of both confrontation with the USSR and China, and also to expand America's military and economic hegemony around the world, especially those areas of the world with major energy resources.¹³

For Brzezinski, Carter's National Security adviser and a sympathizer of the deep state alternatives led by Cheney et al, the unfolding turmoil in Afghanistan provided a golden opportunity to strike at Russia. To Brzezinski, the destruction of the Soviet Union was a dream and a passion.

To achieve this dream, Brzezinski considered it necessary to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, to give it its "own Vietnam". Brzezinski was able to persuade Carter to sign a Presidential Finding that "would bring a military intervention by the Soviets" even though the US could not be seen as promoting such an outcome.¹⁴

The policies directed against the Soviet Union took a number of forms. When Carter approved active subversion against the USSR, particularly in its Muslim minority states on the Afghan border, he was setting in train policies that were to have disastrous consequences.

Working closely with the military run Pakistan government of president Zia al Haq the US began training and financing of Islamic fundamentalists. By siding with the Islamic fundamentalists in opposition to the PDA government the US knew that it would destabilize the Tariki government in Afghanistan and alarm the USSR sufficiently that it would regard the need for intervention as imperative, not only to ensure a stable neighbour on its southern boundary, but also to suppress unrest in its own Muslim republics.¹⁵

Tariki was overthrown in September 1979. He was then murdered by his successor Hafizulla Amin who many believe to have been recruited by the CIA during his years as a student in the US.¹⁶ Amin halted Tariki's reforms, which was hardly surprising given that the feudal landowners, reactionary tribal chieftains, the fundamentalist mullahs, and the drug warlords, all of whom had felt threatened by the Tariki reforms, supported him. Amin was himself in turn overthrown by survivors of the PDP plus elements of the military.

In late 1979 the Afghan government asked the Soviet Union for a contingent of troops, to assist it to ward off the large-scale attacks of Islamic fundamentalists. It took several requests before the Soviet government agreed.¹⁷ Brzezinski publicly admitted, months before the Russian troops entered Afghanistan, that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to the Islamic mujihideen to subvert the Tariki government.¹⁸

The Soviet intervention was a godsend to the Americans. It provided a huge propaganda coup enabling them to portray the Russians as imperialists, embarking on the next stage of their interventionist program that would eventually lead to the takeover of the Middle East oil fields. Such a view was widely disseminated uncritically by the western media.

From Brzezinski's point of view, it was a golden opportunity to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam. In his book, The Grand Chessboard¹⁹ he openly boasted of both the aims and its claimed success. When asked in 1998 by Le Nouvel Observateur about the pursuit of policies that would knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention he said that "a few irate Muslims" was a price worth paying for the destruction of the Soviet Union.²⁰

As a result of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA stepped up its program of subversion. Scott refers to the policy as not only the largest covert operation in history, but also one of the worst conceived. He identified five core elements of the policy developed and implemented under the direction of CIA Director William Casey and US Vice-President G.H.W. Bush.²¹

(1) The decision to favour Islamic fundamentalists rather than Sufi nationalists.

(2) To sponsor an Arab-Afghan foreign legion that from the outset hated the US almost as much as the USSR they were being paid to dislodge.

(3) To use narcotics as a means to weaken the Soviet army.²²

(4) To help expand the resistance campaign into an international jihadi movement to attack the Soviet Union itself.

(5) To continue supplying the Islamists after the Soviet withdrawal, allowing them to make war on Afghan moderates.

These policies included the formulation of the organization known as al Qaeda. Originally the term translated as "the data base". It contained the names of Islamists recruited for the cause of waging jihad, or holy war, against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. That limited role rapidly evolved however, with al Qaeda assets being used by the Americans not only as proxies in Afghanistan, but for forays into the USSR and China to foment unrest among the Muslim minorities in those countries.²³

Between 1986 and 1992 the CIA, MI6 and the British SAS trained more than 100,000 Islamic militants in Pakistan camps. The leaders, including Osama bin Laden, were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. The program was known as Operation Cyclone. The program continued long after the Soviet withdrawal in February 1989, with CIA/MI6 trained units being utilized in Libya, Kosovo, Chechnya and elsewhere.²⁴

The Soviet withdrawal was followed by an intense struggle by different factions of the mujihideen for control. Most of the factions were less interested in control of the government, which lasted a further three years, than in re-establishing the heroin trade. Within two years of the Soviet withdrawal the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's biggest producer of heroin.

The factional fighting and brutality of the warlords led to the rise of the Taliban, and even more extremist form of Sunni Islam. They were largely funded by Saudi money, the Pakistan ISI and the CIA, the same trio of forces that had financed the mujihideen during the Soviet occupation.

By 1985 the Taliban had succeeded in taking over the country. Drawing its main support from the illiterate and impoverished Pashtun tribes to the south that had been most opposed to the PDA's attempts at reform, the Taliban imposed a reign that was unsurpassed in its brutality, not least in its treatment of women.²⁶

The Taliban government was successful however in eliminating the drug trade. By 2000 they had eradicated the cultivation of the poppy in areas under their control. The United Nations Drug Control Program lauded it as perhaps the most successful drug eradication program it had witnessed.²⁷ Opium cultivation and drug production continued only in those areas not under Taliban control, mainly the northern regions where there were close ties between the CIA and major drug lords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmed Shah Massoud.²⁸

Oil and Gas

Historically, the US had shown little interest in Afghanistan.²⁹ The question then is, what caused a change in perspective sufficient to lead to the investment of lives and treasure in what for Americans was a remote and scarcely understood nation?

It was argued above that Brzezinski in the 1970s saw Afghanistan as a vehicle for luring the Soviet Union into a trap that he hoped would lead to its disintegration. But that is insufficient to an understanding of US policy then and subsequently. The other factors that have to be taken into account are oil and gas reserves, the importance of the drug trade, and the geographical position of Afghanistan viz a viz the Soviet Union and China.³⁰

In the 1980s vast oil and gas reserves were discovered in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, at that time still part of the Soviet Union. As early as 1991 the Pentagon had plans for a military presence in Central Asia.³¹ The location of US military bases, as well as much of US military interventions abroad, can best be understood in the context of the location of scarce and valuable resources such as oil and gas. The disintegration of the Soviet Union made plans for Central Asia more feasible.

US oil companies rapidly acquired the rights to 75 percent of the Kazakh and Turkmen reserves.³² The problem was how to transport the oil and gas from this landlocked region to a safe port from where it could be transported to the US and European markets.

Routes via China, Iran or Russia were ruled out for strategic reasons. The alternative, favoured by Unocal, a US based oil company, was Afghanistan. Two Unocal executives were Condoleeza Rice, later National Security adviser and Secretary of State under George Bush Jnr, and Hamid Kharzai, later to be installed by the Americans as President of Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding its appalling human rights record the US government had no trouble in dealing with the Taliban government. In fact, up until mid 2001 the US government had paid the wages of the members of the Taliban government.³³ In July of that year there were negotiations with the Taliban government over the terms of the pipeline through Afghanistan from the Caspian basin to an oil refinery on the Pakistan coast operated by Enron. The Taliban refused to accept the American's demands. According to reports of that meeting the Americans delivered a blunt ultimatum: the Afghans could have either a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.³⁴

Shortly after the Taliban refusal of American terms President Bush signed a directive ordering the bombing of Afghanistan.³⁵ Plans for this operation had been in place for more than a year. All that was needed was a means by which the invasion could be justified.

On 11 September 2001 that justification duly arrived. Within hours of the first plane striking the north tower of the World Trade Centre the FBI had named the nineteen alleged hijackers.³⁶ It was said by the US government to have been an al Qaeda operation masterminded by Osama bin Laden from his hideout in Afghanistan where he was being "sheltered" by the Taliban government. Completely absent from US government statements at the time was the central role bin Laden had played on behalf of the CIA as a mujihideen leader trained in the US and financed in part by American money.³⁷

The US demanded that bin Laden be handed over to them. The response of the Afghan government was immediate. If the Americans would provide proof of bin Laden's involvement then they would hand him over to an independent tribunal for trial.³⁸

This was not how the US government or the US media portrayed it. Instead, the Afghan government's response was described as a "refusal". The following month an attack was launched on Afghanistan by the US and its allies. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State promised before the attack was launched that he would produce a White paper demonstrating proof of al Qaeda complicity in the attacks of 11 September.³⁹ The following day he was forced to make a humiliating withdrawal of that promise. To this day no such proof has ever been offered.

The American people were never told of the United States' long standing interference in Afghanistan that preceded the Soviet intervention. They have never been told that bin Laden was a CIA asset, trained in the United States, nor his important role on behalf of American interests in the 1979-89 period. Rather than proof of his involvement in the attacks of 11 September 2001 the public in most western countries, including Australia, has been subject to an argument of iteration and repetition.⁴⁰

The tone for Australia was set by the then Prime Minister John Howard on 25 October 2001. In addressing the Australian Defence Association on why Australia was joining the coalition of countries attacking Afghanistan he said:

"No one now doubts that the al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks and that the Taliban has allowed Afghanistan to become a safe haven for international terrorism."⁴¹

Mr Howard had a similarly unshakeable belief in Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction when he told the Australian parliament why Australia was joining that coalition of the willing led by the Americans to attack yet another country.⁴²

Of course, to claim that "no one now doubts" al Qaeda culpability in the attacks in general, and the involvement of the Taliban government and bin Laden in particular was not true in October 2001 when he made that speech. It is even less true now. But even if it were true, was the attack justified in international law?

The Legality of the Afghanistan War.

Australian troops have now been involved in the war in Afghanistan for more than eight years. At the time the Australian government took the decision to join the American attack and in all the years since there has never been a public debate in Australia about the legality of that momentous decision.

The United Nations Charter is the starting point for a consideration of whether or not a State is justified in going to war. Article 2(4) of the Charter stipulates a general prohibition on the unilateral use of force. The International Court of Justice has confirmed that a general ban on the use of force exists in customary law, running parallel to the Charter. Ironically, the leading case in this area, Nicaragua v USA (1986) ICL Reports, the US was the defendant.⁴³

There are three exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force: the right to self-defence (Article 51); action authorized by the Security Council (Chapter vii of the Charter); and action by regional bodies with Security Council authorization (Chapter vii of the Charter).

The US government sought Security Council authorization for military force against Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 events. Although the Council passed two resolutions condemning what had happened on 11 September, neither resolution contains an authorization for war. Indeed, the resolutions are careful to refer to "terrorist attacks" not "armed attacks" by one State upon another.

The Nicaragua Case established a broad definition of "armed attack". It is improbable in any case that the Afghan government sent al Qaeda forces to the United States to commit terrorist attacks, and as noted, no evidence has ever been adduced to demonstrate that they did. If such evidence existed, as the Americans claim, then they have a duty under the Charter to disclose that evidence to the Security Council. They never have. Further, the Security Council resolutions specifically stopped short of using the terminology of "armed attacks."

The third option regards the use of regional bodies such as NATO or in Australia's case ANZUS. The US invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, claiming that an attack upon the US was an attack upon all its members, thereby invoking the treaty's collective security provisions. It is implicit in the Security Council resolution however that its members did not accept that there had been an "attack" as that term is understood under the Charter.

In his October 25 2001 speech referred to above the Australian Prime Minister John Howard said:⁴⁴

"On 14 September [2001] the Australian government, in consultation with the US, decided that the relevant provisions of the ANZUS Treaty would be invoked. Under ANZUS we each agreed that an attack on the other would be dangerous to our own peace and safety and that we would act to meet the common danger in accordance with our constitutional procedures."

Although the decision to commit Australian troops was approved by the Australian parliament, the government has never published any White Paper setting out the basis of its involvement in the Afghan war. It has similarly not made available any briefing papers prepared in connection with Cabinet's consideration of the decision. Eight years later there is still no parliamentary debate on the legality of the war.⁴⁵

Invoking either the NATO or ANZUS mutual assistance provisions is not the end of the matter. There is still an obligation to act within the terms of the UN Charter. Regional treaties of the ANZUS type are subservient to the Charter.⁴⁶

There remains the issue of whether customary law could be invoked. In the Caroline Case⁴⁷ it was established that force in terms of self-defence under international customary law needed to be immediate, proportionate and necessary.

The "immediate" component of this classic formulation is sufficiently flexible to allow time to establish the source of the attacks and the responsibility to allow a targeted response. As has been argued above however, attribution of the attacks has at best been tenuous and on at least one view wholly spurious.⁴⁸

The test for "necessity" is that there be "a necessity for self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".⁴⁹ That clearly is not applicable in the present case.

The last component of the Caroline test is proportionality. While proportionality does not require that the response exactly match the quantum of the attack, it must be commensurate with the type of attack actually suffered.⁵⁰

The prevailing view is that a full-scale invasion of a country cannot be considered a proportionate response. The objective, stated by both Bush and Howard, of replacing the Taliban government of Afghanistan was not proportionate and almost certainly contrary to international law.⁵¹ No international instrument permits armed intervention to impose "regime change" on another State, even if the stated goal is the nominal one of establishing a democratic State.⁵²

The US has hitherto not been noted for its support of regime change when the incumbent one was amenable to US foreign policy goals, no matter how repugnant that government might be.⁵³ In the case of Afghanistan the US had actively subverted the nearest thing Afghanistan had to a democratic government under the Tariki regime.⁵⁴ Its changed attitude to the Taliban government only came when the pipeline plans of Unocal were thwarted in June 2001, more than two months before the events of 11 September.⁵⁵

The United States and Australia therefore have no basis in international law for the attack upon, and occupation of, Afghanistan. Before leaving this issue however it is necessary to address whether the Afghanistan government's alleged "harboring" of al Qaeda terrorists who allegedly attacked the United States on 11 September 2001 might provide a justification for an invasion and occupation.

Again this was the justification invoked by both Bush and Howard and repeated by Obama last December.⁵⁶ The issue of State responsibility for allegedly harboring illegal actors has been considered in the Nicaragua Case, op cit, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v Tadic,⁵⁷ and by the International Law Commission in its draft articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts published in 2001.

The Nicaragua Case established that it would require the United States to demonstrate that the Afghan government issued "specific instructions" to al Qaeda to carry out the attack. The Tadic Case established that the Court had to be satisfied that the State in question exercised "overall control" over the relevant actors. The ILC's draft articles regards a State as responsible only.

"if the ......group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direct control of, the State that is carrying out the conduct; if the group of persons is in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities; and if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own."

There is no evidence that any of these three conditions prevailed, and indeed neither the US or Australian governments have sought to demonstrate that they have any evidence to support such an inference.⁵⁸

Lacking any mandate in international law or under Article 51 of the UN charter the United States and Australia have nonetheless sought to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (i.e NATO) to draw in its European allies and Article V.of the ANZUS Treaty to involve Australia. This latter article provides that:

"For the purposes of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties..."

It needs to be noted however that this Article is to be read subject to Article VI which says that the Treaty:

"Shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations."

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty also requires an "armed attack" to justify the invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. As noted above, in the circumstances of this case Article 51 does not apply and cannot therefore be invoked, rending null and void the purported invocation of both the NATO and ANZUS treaties.

Further, the NATO North Atlantic council, meeting on 13 September 2001 passed a resolution that:

"if it is determined that the 11 September 2001 attack against the United States a was directed from abroad against the North Atlantic area it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty."⁵⁹

The resolution also required that it be shown that al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had ordered the "attack from abroad" on the US and that the terrorist attacks of 11 September constituted a bona fide military operation by an alleged foreign country against a NATO member State.

That evidence has never been forthcoming.⁶⁰ The so-called "confession videos" of bin Laden admitting responsibility for the attacks has been widely discredited, not least because they are almost certainly fakes.⁶¹ In one of the two videos put forward the person in the video was not even bin Laden himself.

It was previously been announced by the NATO Secretary General that the evidence was contained in a report prepared by a US State Department officer named Frank Taylor. His report was provided to the NATO Council on 2 October 2001, five days before the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan began. That report has never been released and therefore its purported evidence never subject to critical scrutiny. As noted above, a Member State intending to use force is required to provide the evidence justifying the force to the Security Council. Mr Taylor's report has as far as can be ascertained never been given to members of the Security Council.

It is astonishing that a war that has now lasted more than eight years was allegedly based on information that has never been disclosed. It is all the more surprising given that Member States of the United Nations are obliged to comply with the provisions of the Charter. They cannot supercede the Charter's provisions by the invocation of secret evidence.

This is reinforced by the fact that two United Nations resolutions passed in the wake of 11 September 2001 (Resolutions 1368 and 1373) called upon Member States to co-operate in a variety of measures, including the suppression of terrorism financing, but nowhere mentioned the authorization of military force by a Member State against another Member State.

What has been said about the NATO Treaty applies, ceteris paribus, to the ANZUS Treaty purportedly invoked by the Howard government after "consultations" with the Americans and referred to in Mr Howard's speech of 25 October 2001. In short, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by United States, Australian and other troops is almost certainly illegal. That there continues to be an almost complete absence of informed debate on these issues is perhaps the most concerning of all.

What is the Real Reason?

If the claimed reasons for invading Afghanistan are false, what are the real reasons? It is submitted that on the basis of the available evidence there are three principal reasons.

1. Oil and Gas.

In his speech on 1 December 2009 cited above, President Obama said that he was convinced that US security was at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that it was important to recall that the US and its allies were "compelled" to fight a war in Afghanistan because it was from there that the US was attacked on 11 September 2001. The spurious nature of this claim, so readily adopted by Australia, has been discussed above. Notably absent from the President's address was any reference to the importance of Afghanistan to supplies of oil and gas upon which the US economy, and its war machine, are so dependent.

On 10 September 2001 an article in Oil and Gas Journal had pointed out that "those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and distribution of revenues from new production."⁶²

Enron, which in 2000 was George W. Bush's largest campaign contributor, had conducted a feasibility study on the Trans-Caspian pipeline. This pipeline was to be built in accordance with a joint-venture agreement signed in February 1999 by Turkmenistan and US companies Bechtel and GE Capital Services.⁶³

In 1998 Uzbekistan ambassador to the US had met with then Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss the proposed pipeline. It was agreed that the Texas based Enron would have the rights to Uzbekistan's natural gas deposits. The company slated to build the pipeline was Unocal, two of whose executives were Condoleeza Rice and Hamid Kharzai.

As noted above,, the Taliban government refused the American's terms for the building of the pipeline. According to a report from one person present at the meeting, the Afghan government was offered "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs."⁶⁴ That was in June 2001. Bush approved the plans (already drawn up) for the invasion shortly thereafter. All that was lacking was a casus belli and the attacks of 11 September 2001 provided that.

Afghanistan was the logical route for transporting the vast Caspian reserves to a secure warm water port. This is dictated by geographical and geo-political considerations. Russia is to the north of the "stans", China to the east, and Iran to the west. As Dorion had pointed out in his 2001 article in Oil and Gas Journal,⁶⁵ those who controlled the routes could dictate the distribution and supply of an increasingly scarce commodity. The US was not prepared to cede that control to Russia, China and Iran.

It is no coincidence that the four major US military bases that have now been built in Afghanistan (and hundreds of smaller ones) closely parallel the pipeline route, due to be completed in 2014.⁶⁶ Once built, the pipeline would have to be secured. For that reason alone any voluntary withdrawal by the Americans is highly unlikely.

2. Geopolitical Ambitions.

The second major reason for the American occupation of Afghanistan is the expansion of its vast network of military bases. The bases already built, and excluding the nine additional major bases announced by the then Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in December 2004 are hardly necessary to "smoke out al Qaeda," as Bush defined the American mission in December 2001. The Americans own intelligence estimates say that the number of al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan now numbers probably fewer than one hundred.⁶⁷

Nor is the extension of the war into Pakistan justified in terms of al Qaeda members alleged to be taking refuge in the North Western provinces. The major US goal is the assertion of "full spectrum dominance" set out in the Defence papers of the late 20th century.⁶⁸ It is a policy that has been pursued by successive American Presidents since at least the end of the Second World War. Despite his rhetoric of "change" the present incumbent of the White House is to all practical intents and purposes indistinguishable from his predecessors in this regard.

These bases perform a number of functions, as Chalmers Johnson among others have pointed out, only some of them military.⁶⁹ In Afghanistan they are used for the training of fighters who are then inserted into Iran and the Muslim regions of China and Russia for the purpose of disruption through terrorism in those communities.⁷⁰ This is after all only an extension of the mujihideen insurrection in Afghanistan during the years of Soviet occupation of that country.

In the huge Bagram air force base and other so-called "dark sites" in Afghanistan they also play a major role in the interrogation, torture, rendition and disappearances of hundreds of Afghan and foreign citizens captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan.⁷¹

In his 1997 book Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that with the collapse of the Soviet Union a non-Eurasian power had emerged as the key arbiter of power relations in Eurasia and the world beyond. The way in which this was to be exercised he said, was:

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."⁷²

Brzezinski's view is hardly unique among senior American strategists. In 1992 during the dying days of the elder Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby drafted a Defence Planning Guidance for the then Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney, in which they argued:

"We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". Those views were reiterated in later documents such as the 2000 PNAC study "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and the National Security Strategy of 2002.

In the Joint Chiefs of Staff strategic document Joint Vision 2020 full spectrum dominance was defined as:

"The ability of US forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations."⁷³

Scott describes this as "overblown rhetoric, out of touch with reality, dangerously delusional, and even arguably insane."⁷⁴ That is a conclusion difficult to challenge, but it has not prevented the US from pursuing precisely those policies for many years. When one views those policies in the light of Brzezinski's "brutal terminology" quoted above it is not difficult to see how those policies are given effect.

American hegemony is increasingly threatened by the development of those regional blocs that so concerned the neo-cons back in before the advent of the second Bush administration.⁷⁵ One of the most significant of these is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that includes not only China and Russia but also the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The American counter to this development has been to increase its asymmetrical warfare, partly through the huge increase in the use of so-called private military contractors such as Xe (formerly Blackwater), Diligence and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).⁷⁶ Much of the funding for these operations comes from the so-called ‘black budget' i.e off the books funding not accountable to congressional committees. The source of that money is the CIA's involvement in the illegal drug trade, discussed below.

Another advantage of using private military contractors, better known by their former title of mercenaries, is that their activities give a degree of deniability to the US when their activities are exposed to public scrutiny.

The on-the ground part of the asymmetrical warfare operations are also carried out by soldiers of the US joint special operations command (JSOC) whose former head was General Stanley MacChrystal currently head of all allied military operations in Afghanistan.

According to a report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation magazine⁷⁷ JSOC black operations are carried out in Pakistan, the Baluchistan province of Iran, and Uzbekistan, and include kidnappings, torture, attacking villages and wedding parties, and general acts of terrorism. Holding these soldiers and their commanders and the politicians who authorise them to account is difficult. Not only is there an almost total mainstream media blackout of accounts of these operations, but any protests by affected countries are muted by the threat of or actual action against their leadership. International accountability is further rendered difficult by the refusal of the United States to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.⁷⁸

None of this is consistent of course with the stated objectives of American foreign policy in general and their public rationale for being in Afghanistan. It is consistent however with the long-standing public policy goals of the US "prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."⁷⁹

3. Drugs

Insofar as the role of drugs in the Afghanistan war are discussed in the mainstream media it is usually limited to a grudging acceptance that heroin production declined during the years of the Taliban government but that it has once again increased. The increase is impliedly the responsibility of the same Taliban leaders who are portrayed as seeing heroin as a means of income to finance their "insurgency" against the Americans and their allies.

Like much of the media's portrayal of the war this is a gross distortion of reality. According to the United Nations ODC annual report the Taliban received only 3 percent of the total income earned from heroin in Afghanistan that is about 5 percent of the crop's value on the world market.⁸⁰ As McCoy and Scott have both documented, there is a direct correlation between American military intervention in key areas of the world and increases in local drug production.⁸¹

In the 1950s in Burma following CIA intervention in that country heroin production rose from 40 tonnes in 1939 to 600 tonnes in 1970. Similar increases were observed in Thailand (from 7 tonnes to 200 tonnes between 1939 and 1968), and Laos (less than 15 tonnes in 1939 to 50 tonnes in 1973). Heroin production in Indo-China was enormously assisted by the Vietnam War and the opportunities that provided for export to the United States.⁸²

In Columbia US troops intervened in the late 1980s, purportedly as part of the so-called ‘war on drugs'. Coca production in fact increased between 1991 and 1999 from 3.8 to 12.3 thousand hectares and cultivation of the opium poppy increased from 0.13 to 0.75 thousand hectares.⁸³ Cocaine was shipped to the United States by CIA linked entities through Mena Arkansas among other pipelines.⁸⁴ In Los Angeles the CIA Inspector General's report confirmed the earlier newspaper reports of the late Gary Webb that the CIA was the major instrument of the crack cocaine epidemic in that city.⁸⁵

In Afghanistan the use of illegal drugs for military and political purposes was a central part of US strategy since at least 1979. Under a plan known as Operation Mosquito heroin, hashish and cocaine was used to addict Soviet troops.⁸⁶ One of the American's key allies in this endeavour was a warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who apart from his notoriety as a warlord was known for throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women. He was and is a key American ally.

In the decade of the mujihideen fighting against the Soviet army, half of US aid went to Hekmatyar who rapidly consolidated his position as one of Afghanistan's leading drug traffickers.

The huge funds generated by this trade were laundered through the CIA-ISI linked bank, BCCI. The closure of BCCI did not diminish the cash flow. A report from the US Senate in 2001 estimated that between $500 million and one trillion dollars in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide, of which half goes through American banks.⁸⁷

Heroin production in Afghanistan was 3276 tonnes in 2000 and dropped to 185 tonnes in 2001, the year of the Taliban ban on production. Following the American invasion production leapt again to over 8200 tonnes in 2007. According to the United Nations Afghanistan now accounts for 93% of the world's production.⁸⁸

James Petras argues that largely as a consequence of these capital flows the US economy has become a narco-capitalist one, dependent on these huge sums to remain solvent.⁸⁹ He says that US banks have developed highly elaborate policies for transferring these funds to the US where they are invested in legitimate businesses or US government bonds to "wash" them clean.

In 2009 Antonia Maria Costa the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime said that drug related billions "kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global [financial] crisis."⁹⁰ He said that a majority of the $352 billion in drug profits in 2008 was absorbed into the economic system and that this money was the only liquid investment capital available at that time. The source of this information he said was intelligence agencies from around the world.

It is not only the banks that benefit. Since at least the 1950s profits from illegal drugs have been an important source of finance for the CIA. This money is not allocated by Congress and is thus not subject to congressional budgetary scrutiny, even by the standards of the notoriously lax oversight of CIA activities. It is probably the central reason why increases in drug production invariably follow US military and intelligence agency involvement in countries capable of providing both the raw materials and the means of production.⁹¹

Heroin is shipped across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan by truck or flown out from the US Bagram air base in Afghanistan or the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan.⁹² According to at least one report much of the heroin is flown to yet another major US base in Kosovo where the Kosovo mafia then transship it to Germany and other European markets.⁹³

This transshipment is important. The value of the current Afghan opium crop is approximately $65 billion. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime only 5 or 6 percent of that sum stays in Afghanistan itself. More than 80 percent of the profits are earned in the countries of consumption, mainly the United States, Russia and Europe. Those profits are used not only to finance off the books intelligence operations and provide liquidity for western banks but also provide the means for the corrupting of governments.⁹⁴

The persistent refusal of the western mainstream media to recognize and report upon these realities raises inevitable questions as to whether or not our system is so compromised that events as diffuse as the Kennedy assassination and the attacks of 11 September 2001, far from being deviations from social norms are in fact reflections of the way we are systematically governed.⁹⁵

Conclusion

Australia's involvement in the Afghan war is based upon multi-layered levels of deception and illegality. Although there is a long history of western interference in Afghanistan's affairs the present troubles can be directly traced to the plans formulated by Brzezinski in the late 1970s to arm and finance Islamic militants to destabilize the Afghan government of Tariki.

Having successfully enticed the Soviet government to send troops to support its Afghan ally, the destabilization through terrorism was expanded beyond Afghanistan into Kashmir, the Muslim areas of western China and the Caspian Sea Muslim states of the former Soviet Union.

The objectives were multifold. Beyond destabilization the mainly American oil majors had their eyes on the huge oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea states. The military saw the opportunity to expand their empire of bases in pursuit of full-spectrum dominance, and the lucrative drug trade financed both covert activities and the bottom line of western banks.

The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government's version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post world war 2 US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia's adherence to the policies of its powerful ally.

Even if al Qaeda could be shown to have been responsible for the attacks of September 2001 as is constantly claimed but never proven, that would still not have provided a justification in international law for the attack and occupation of a sovereign nation. Australia is therefore a party to what amounts to an ongoing crime against international law.

We know that the attack on Afghanistan was planned and approved prior to 11 September 2001 and was designed in furtherance of the geopolitical goals set out above. Given that US intelligence estimates put the number of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan at fewer than 100, the public rationale for the war has morphed into "defeating the Taliban" and "bringing democracy" to Afghanistan. The logical absurdities of that argument are never subject to critical analysis. Much less is there ever any discussion in the Australian media about the legality or otherwise of the war.

The acquiescence of the mainstream media and the major political parties in this charade strongly supports the proposition that the decisions are not being made by the elected representatives of the people of Australia (a majority of whom support withdrawal). Rather, as is the case in the United States, those people whom Scott refers to as making up the "deep state" make these critical decisions.

The continuation of this state of affairs poses a deep threat to the public state and the democratic values it purports to represent. It may be too late and the deep events that Scott refers to are in fact components of our political structure and not deviations from it. In that case nothing short of major structural change is likely to lead to meaningful changes in our body politic.

Absent such radical change Australia is likely to continue the role it has played at least since the Vietnam War of being America's loyal acolyte facilitating the undermining of democratic nationalist movements, promoting chaos whose main objective is the pursuit of private profit, and creating a world where the lives of billions are affected by the decisions of the unaccountable few.

* Barrister at Law in Brisbane. He may be contacted at j.oneill [AT] bigpond.net.au

Footnotes

1 [back] Mr Obama repeated the same message in a flying visit to Afghanistan shortly before Easter 2010. The repeated invoking of the events of 11 September 2001 as justification for the use of military force, renditions, torture and other offences against international law makes the critical examination of the official "9/11" conspiracy theory all the more important.

2 [back] Reported in the Sydney Morning Herald 2 November 2009.

3 [back] Hansard 28 October 2009

4 [back] The issue worthy of further examination and public debate is why Australia so readily aligns itself with America’s foreign policy goals when they are manifestly of little or any direct concern to Australia’s vital interests. The historical antecedents of this attachment to a major colonial power are explored in an important new book Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds What’s Wrong with Anzac: the Militarisation of Australian History, New South, 2010.

5 [back] A more detailed history from which I have borrowed freely is P. Fitzgerald and E. Gould Afghanistan’s Untold Story. City Lights Books 2009

6 [back] A. McCoy The Politics of Heroin. Chicago Review Press, 2003. Along with the work of Peter Dale Scott, cited below, this provides the most insightful analysis of what Scott refers to as the "deep state".

7 [back] The foremost modern exponent of this neo-colonial strategy is probably Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His best known book in which he candidly discusses his motivations and strategy is The Grand Chessboard Basic Books, 1998

8 [back] M. Parenti Afghanistan, another Untold Story Common Dreams 2 December 2008 Art. 34940

9 [back] W. Blum Rogue State 2nd ed. Zed Books 2006

10 [back] James Douglass JFK and the Unspeakable: why he died and why it matters. Orbis Books 2008

11 [back] ibid

12 [back] McCoy op cit.

13 [back] The same persons were to feature prominently in the drumbeat for war in Iraq more than 20 years later.

14 [back] Fitzgerald and Gould op cit

15 [back] S. Coll Ghost Wars Penguin Press 2004

16 [back] Parenti op cit.

17 [back] The western media preferred to portray it as a Russian "invasion" and the event was used to foster public alarm about Soviet expansionism as far as the Middle East oil fields. Fitzgerald and Gould op cit

18 [back] ibid

19 [back] Brzezinski op cit

20 [back] Les Revelations d’un ancient conseiller de Carter. Le Nouvel Observateur January 15-21 1998.

21 [back] Scott, Road to 9/11 University of California press 2007

22 [back] This was part of a scheme known as Operation Mosquito J.K. Cooley Unholy Wars Pluto Press 1999

23 [back] N.M. Ahmed The War on Truth Olive Branch Press 2005

24 [back] ibid

25 [back] Footnote deleted.

26 [back] Fitzgerald and Gould op cit.

27 [back] United Nations Office of Drug Control Annual Report

28 [back] Scott Road to 9/11 op cit. See also US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategic Report 2002

29 [back] Fitzgerald and Gould op cit. 30

30 [back] The latter two aspects are discussed below.

31 [back] Scott Road to 9/11 op cit.

32 [back] M. Klare Resource Wars Metropolitan Books 2001

33 [back] Parenti op cit.

34 [back] Cited in D.R. Griffin The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. Olive Branch Press 2008. This book was Publishers Weekly’s book of the week in November 2008. It has yet to be reviewed in the Australian mainstream press.

35 [back] ibid.

36 [back] P. Zarembka (ed) The Hidden History of 9/11. 2nd ed. Seven Stories Press 2008.

37 [back] Scott Road to 9/11 op cit.

38 [back] K. Gannon Taliban Willing to Talk. Associated Press 1 November 2001.

39 [back] Seymour Hersch What Went Wrong? New Yorker 1 October 2001. After Powell’s back down the British government offered to produce a White Paper. This duly eventuated, but the Prime Minister admitted that its "evidence" would not be good enough for a court of law. Good enough apparently, to launch a war.

40 [back] There has been a persistent refusal by the mainstream media to engage in rational debate. For example in April 2009 a paper by Harrit et al was published in the Open chemistry and Physics Journal disclosing the discovery of nano-thermite (a military grade highly secret explosive material) in the debris of the three WTC towers destroyed on 11 September 2001. More than a year later not a single reference to this paper has appeared in the Australian mainstream media despite its enormous implications.

41 [back] J.W. Howard We are allied with a just cause. 25 October 2001 Australianpolitics.com

42 [back] Hansard 18 March 2003. The speech is remarkable for two aspects in particular. First, virtually every proposition advanced to justify the invasion was false, and arguably known to be false at the time it was delivered. Secondly, no-one in the Australian government has been held accountable for the manifold untruths told about Iraq, and before then the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan.

43 [back] 1986 ICJ Reports

44 [back] Address to the Australian Defence Association 25 October 2001

45 [back] In July 2009 and February 2010 the Green Party through its Senate representation attempted to have the Afghanistan war debated in the Senate. On both occasions Labour and Coalition senators blocked the move. A debate of sorts was subsequently held in October 2010 but the legality of the war was never seriously addressed by any of the speakers in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

46 [back] See the discussion in the text below and also Article VI of the ANZUS treaty purportedly invoked by the American and Australian governments.

47 [back] 1837 Brit & For. Papers 1137. See also The Caroline Case: Anticipatory Self Defence in Contemporary International Law. www.unimiscolc.hu/www.drint/20042rouillard1.htm See also Steven Welsh Preemptive War and International Law (2003) www.cdi.org/news/law/preemptive-war.cfm

48 [back] D.R. Griffin The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Olive Branch Press 2008; Paul Zarembka (ed) The Hidden History of 9/11 2nd ed. Seven Stories Press 2008

49 [back] D. O’Sullivan The Bombing of Afghanistan [2001] New Law Journal 1178

50 [back] A.C. Arend & R.J. Beck International Law and the Use of Force rev. ed. Routledge 2009

51 [back] O’Sullivan op cit.

52 [back] The publicly stated rationale for the invasion has morphed over time. The one constant is the repeated invocation of the events of 11 September 2001 as a justification for the invasion and occupation. A more realistic appraisal of both the causes and current consequences of the invasion can be found in P.D. Scott "Can the US Triumph in the Drug-Addicted War in Afghanistan? The Asia-Pacific Journa14-5-10 5 April 2010.

53 [back] Blum op cit.

54 [back] Fitzgerald and Gould op cit.

55 [back] Scott, Road to 9/11 op cit.

56 [back] In a speech to West Point Academy 1 December 2009. Mr Obama repeated essentially the same argument during a flying visit to Afghanistan shortly before Easter 2010.

57 [back] Prosecutor v Tadic Case Number IT94-1-A Judgment 15 July 1999.

58 [back] See footnotes 34, 36 and 45 supra.

59 [back] For a discussion on the NATO involvement see M. Chossudovsky "America and Nato Declare War on Afghanistan." Global Research 21 December 2009 Article 16573.

60 [back] See the chapters by Griffin, Kolar and Ralph in Zarembka (ed) op cit. Even the official conspiracy theory advanced by the US government says that four planes on internal flights within the continental USA were hijacked by 19 Muslims armed with no more than boxcutters. Even on the most elastic of definitions that hardly constitutes an "armed attack" from a foreign country. Even the boxcutter element of the story is to be doubted. The sole source of that part of the official story was said by the 9/11 Commission Report to originate in a cell phone call by Barbara Olsen to her husband the then Solicitor General. Mrs Olsen was said to have been a passenger on Flight 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. The FBI’s sworn evidence to the Moussaui trial however disclaimed that any such phone calls took place.

61 [back] D.R. Griffin Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive Olive Branch Press 2009; A.M. Codevilla Osama bin Elvis The American Spectator March 2009.

62 [back] Cited in Jerry Mazza Ramping Up Afghanistan War to Control Caspian Oil and Gas Transport Routes. Online Journal 8 December 2009

63 [back] Scott, Road to 9/11 op cit.

64 [back] Griffin The New Pearl Harbor Revisited op cit.

65 [back] Ref 62 supra.

66 [back] ibid.

67 [back] Testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee December 2009.

68 [back] For example Defence Planning Guidance 1992 prepared for then Defence Secretary Richard Cheney by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defences (2000) which among other things noted that the required military build-up to achieve that status would take a very long time unless a "new Pearl Harbor" persuaded Americans to commit to greater military expenditure; the Bush-Cheney National Security Strategy (NSS 2002); and the JCS strategic document Joint Vision 2020 (2007). See also F.W. Engdahl Full Spectrum Dominance (2009).

69 [back] Chalmers Johnson The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic. Holt 2004

70 [back] Engdahl op cit; Scott Road to 9/11 op cit.

71 [back] A. Worthington The Guantanamo Files Pluto Press 2007

72 [back] Brzezinski op cit.

73 [back] See footnote 68 supra.

74 [back] P.D. Scott The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War Global Research 11 August 2009 Article 23249.

75 [back] Footnote 68 supra.

76 [back] D.C. Bartlett and J.B. Steele Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow Vanity Fair March 2007; A. Leander The Power to Construct International Security. Journal International Studies 2005 33, 803; T. Shorrock Spies for Hire: the Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. Simon & Schuster 2008.

77 [back] J. Scahill The Secret US War in Pakistan the Nation 23 November 2009.

78 [back] The United States has preferred to negotiate individual status of forces agreements with more than 100 countries. The net effect of these agreements is to exclude criminal acts committed by US servicemen from local jurisdiction.

79 [back] Brzezinski op cit.

80 [back] United Nations ODC Annual Report quoted in Scott Can the US Triumph op cit.

81 [back] Scott ibid; McCoy op cit

82 [back] McCoy op cit.

83 [back] UN International Narcotics Control Report 2008

84 [back] Hopsicker op cit.

85 [back] Scott Road to 9/11 op cit.

86 [back] Scott Fuelling America’s War Machine: Deep Events and the CIA Global Drug Connection Rowman and Littlefield 2010 (forthcoming).

87 [back] US Senate Report of Subcommittee A Gateway for Money laundering 5 February 2001

88 [back] UN footnote 83 supra

89 [back] Petras Global Depression and Regional Wars Clarity press 2009; Petras US Bank Money Laundering Global
Research

90 [back] Rajeev Syal Drug Money Saved Banks in Global Crisis, Observer, London 13 December 2009.

91 [back] McCoy op cit.

92 [back] Ahmed op cit.

93 [back] ibid.

95 [back] Scott Drugs Oil and War Rowman and Littlefield 2003; Scott Fuelling America’s War Machine op cit.

96 [back] Mercille Afghan Hash at an all-time High Asia Times Online 20 April 2010 See for example Parenti Dirty Truths. City Lights Books 1996. The evidence emerging about the events of 11 September 2001 completely discredit the official version. Even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have publicly distanced themselves from their own report saying, inter alia, it was clear they were lied to and that crucial information was withheld from them. The discovery of active thermitic material in the debris of the three WTC buildings raises questions that the mainstream media refuse to address. See: Harrit et al Open Chemistry and Physics Journal April 2009. Their refusal to report these findings is in itself hugely significant

The US government's bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, "was not armed."by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Originally Published on Global Research on 4 May 2011.

See also: Bin Laden Home Videos Released ... Why Does the Terrorist Kingpin Look Better Than He Did in 2001? of 7 May 11 on Global Research

The US government's bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, "was not armed."

The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as ‘the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth."
(See http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43817.)

Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn't bin Laden's wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn't bin Laden's son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

Carney blamed the changed story on "the fog of war." But there was no firefight, so where did the "fog of war" come from?

The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government's story that "we got bin Laden," the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?

According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, "the mastermind." Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the "world's only superpower" on 9/11.

When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged "discrepancies" that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.

There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government's story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.

As one reader put it in an email to me: "What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible."

Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. "Remember the Maine," the "Gulf of Tonkin," "weapons of mass destruction," "the Reichstag fire"--the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.

The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the "death of bin Laden" designed to further?

There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama's poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, "the glow of national pride" rose "above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president's job performance, up from 46 percent."

In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.

Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar's rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually--an easy way to have a major spending cut.

If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama's agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden's killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate "homegrown violent extremists" into making terrorist attacks. "Homegrown violent extremists" is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like "suspect," the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.

Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.

This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.

See also: Bin Laden Home Videos Released ... Why Does the Terrorist Kingpin Look Better Than He Did in 2001? of 7 May 11 on Global Reserch

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. Originally Published on Global Research on 2 May 2011.

If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool’s joke this morning’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans [and Australians - Editor].

Think about it.  What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade?  If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?

Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that “bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.”  That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about?  What banking system was helping him?  The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent.  Why not bin Laden’s?  Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?

This morning’s headline has the odor of a staged event.  The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting “USA USA.”  Could something else be going on?

No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory.  He committed the fool’s error of restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat.  The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake.  And re-election time is approaching. 

The various lies and deceptions, such as “weapons of mass destruction,” of the last several administrations had terrible consequences for the US and the world.  But not all deceptions are the same.  Remember, the entire reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden.  Now that President Obama has declared bin Laden to have been shot in the head by US special forces operating in an independent country and buried at sea, there is no reason for continuing the war.

Perhaps the precipitous decline in the US dollar in foreign exchange markets has forced some real budget reductions, which can only come from stopping the open-ended wars. Until the decline of the dollar reached the breaking point, Osama bin Laden, who many experts believe to have been dead for years, was a useful bogyman to use to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Other Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

Whatever you think about 9 11, this story is so revealing of the contempt our public media and our Primeminister have for public opinion and free expression and for that reason needs to be promoted. (Ed.) The interview by Jon Faine of Kevin Bracken about 9/11 on 20 October 2010 was "possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy."

Whatever you think about 9 11, this story is so revealing of the contempt our public media and our Primeminister have for public opinion and free expression and for that reason needs to be promoted. (Ed.).The interview by Jon Faine of Kevin Bracken about 9/11 on 20 October 2010 was "possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy."

The particularly good report that follows on the Faine/Bracken interview is by John Bursill, of 9/11 Truth Australia, and was originally published as Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1785

To many the name Kevin Bracken is a new one in regards 9/11 Truth. The reality is that Kevin has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth cause since 2006 by disseminating information throughout the Victorian Union Movement and the Maritime Workers Union of Australia. He has distributed DVD's, shown films and shared information regularly with his associates and the people of Melbourne and he achieved motions calling for a new investigation from both the Victorian Trades Hall Council where he is the President and the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia of which he heads as Secretary. Kevin has also attended numerous conferences on 9/11 and has been the facilitator of such in Melbourne, Australia. Over the years Kevin and I have developed a close working relationship, both striving for the truth 9/11 to come out to bring end to the wars and to get our rights back that have been eroded since 9/11!

This is the motion passed on the 28th of March of 2008 at the VTHC;

"That this meeting of VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent enquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11.

The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars "that will not end in our lifetime". They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities.

There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for proper investigation into the events around that day."

On the 20th of October 2010 Kevin was asked to ring into ABC 774 Mornings with John Faine although Faine disputes this. This was following an email that was sent to Faine by Kevin questioning 9/11 in the context of Australia's ongoing support of the Afghanistan occupation. After the recent Australian Election it was demanded by the Australian Greens in a "balance of power" deal that the Australian involvement in the Afghan War be debated in parliament in it's first sitting. This debate had been going on this week and it was the first time any such debate had happened since 9/11, which is simply outrageous.

This interview by Faine was possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. A reasonable explanation of what happened and also with attached audio can be found here. This story titled "Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken Stands by his 9/11 Conspiracy" has been reported all around the world and included a poll which started off running at around 50/50 asking if Kevin's questions about 9/11 were "reasonable" but has continued to move in his favour ending up at the time of writing these notes at 75% in favour of Bracken.

Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you's from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was "stupid and wrong" and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously "no debate to have". It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called "journalists" dare to tread such a path.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.

The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed.

Appendix: YouTube presentation of 'your' ABC's Jon Faine's persecution of of Kevin Bracken for speaking the truth

YouTube broadcast, originally created by A Lawson (alawson911) can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3pMPObcGU). For your convenience, we have reprinted A Lawson's accompanying comments below.

Listen to an overbearing gatekeeper, Jon Faine, attempt to rubbish the genuine concerns of an Australian trades unionist, Kevin Bracken, in an attempt to stifle any debate about the many anomalies in the official 9/11 story.

Seldom have I heard anyone, who obviously wants the issue to go away, do more to attract attention to it. He did this during a phone-in on the publicly-owned Australian Broadcasting Commission's 774 ABC Melbourne radio station.

A small amount of sound editing was necessary, but the integrity of the conversation was retained. The unedited sound file of the conversation can be found on this Internet page.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2...

The following web page has more background.

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vict...

John Faine refused to debate Kevin Bracken, a caller to his Melbourne ABC 'talk back' show on the September 11 terrorist atrocity, after which Faine, in seeming league with Labor and Coalition politicians and the corporate newsmedia, whipped up what almost became a national witch-hunt against Bracken. However, they got more than they bargained for when public opinion swang behind Kevin Bracken. We have transcribed in full, with comments, one of Faine's videoed "defences" of his conduct, so that readers can judge for themselves.

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11

9/11 conspiracy theorists swamping talkback: Faine

And welcome to the Friday wrap-up. It is a bit chaotic today. We've got Di Fingleton, Bill Mc Innes and a cast of thousands.

It's been an extraordinary week , too.

(Inaudible response to Jon Faine.)

I don't want to talk about 9/11 conspiracies theorists and the like. Well, I kind of do, but I don't. I don't want to start it up again.

Editorial comment: After refusing to debate Kevin Bracken and starting what came close to becoming a national witch-hunt against Bracken for his supposedly outrageous questioning of the official account 9/11, Faine tells his listeners that he, himself "kinda do[es]" "want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like." Perhaps he should explain to his listeners why he thinks he should judged any less harshly than he judged Kevin Bracken for raising the taboo topic of questioning 9/11 on his 'talk-back' show.

We are clearly being targeted now after what happened on Wednesday afternoon when Kevin Bracken from the Maritime Union and the President of the Trades Hall chose to call in₁. We didn't call him. He called us. ...

Editorial comment: It's a talk-back show, I would have thought. What is Jon Faine trying to say? That he thinks that a member of the public, such as Kevin Bracken, with a view about the principle justification for this country's, so far, nine year intervention in Afghanistan, is not entitled to ring up a talk-back show in order to put that view?

... He said you can't have a parliamentary debate about Afghanistan unless you are prepared to talk about what really happened and the truth of what happened at the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September and off it went. ...

Editorial comment: So Jon Faine believes that the principle justification for the war in Afghanistan should not be discussed by the very same body which voted to send our soldiers to fight in that war?

...And now it's Friday and I have probably countless e-mails, text messages and phone calls. We are clearly being targetted now, by all the people who think there is more to it than we've ever been told and "the media" (with a gesture with both hands indicating quote marks) are part of the conspiracy. And having just got a little crack in the door open, we're getting phone calls from all around Australia. We're getting e-mails from around the world. People are saying "Uhh! Here is a point where we can have our claims fully explored. It's been a very intense week because of that. Ahh! On the other hand, I stuck my neck out. I've called them loonies. I've had a go.

I think this is corrosive of peoples' trust in the rule of law and democracy. I still believe that. I don't resile for a moment from anything I've said. , but in the background you can see that --- There's John Standish, one fo my producers -- dealing with all the complaints of people saying that we're arrogant, we're high-handed and we're dismissive and that's not our role here at the ABC and that will take weeks for us to deal with. Such is life!

Footnotes

1. [back] See also PM story "Vic union leader says September 11 attacks a conspiracy" for some of the dialogue and my comment. As with the dialogue show above the actual words of a person, baiting someone for having expressed an honestly held opinion about an important issues do that person making those remarks no credit.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3043700.htm

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11

Jon Faine refuses to debate justification for continuing 9 year old Afghan war -another 10 years. As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald sun poll is showing that over 60% of respondents agree with Union leader Kevin Bracken's view that the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Republished from 911oz.com. See also: comments Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken and Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11, 'Anti-racists' silence on the most racist lie of all

Update, 31 October:

A more recent figure of support for Kevin Bracken on the abovementioned poll is 76.78%, or 8277 votes to 2501 votes) so those, who agree with Jon Faine that discussion of the controversy raging over 9/11 should be suppressed must be, as they should be in any free and educated society, a small minority .

Let us know your opinion! Please leave a comment

As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald sun poll is showing that over 60% of respondents agree with Union leader Kevin Bracken's view that the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. ₁

Radio host John Faine previously attacked Bracken's views on air over two days, describing him as a nutter and an extremist, and stating that his views were "offensive".

In Parliament on Wednesday Australian PM Julia Gillard stated that Bracken's views were "stupid and wrong".

Herald Sun poll clearly shows that Kevin Bracken's views on 9/11 are now mainstream

Republished from 911oz.com. See also: comments Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken and Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11, 'Anti-racists' silence on the most racist lie of all

Update, 31 October:

A more recent figure of support for Kevin Bracken on the abovementioned poll is 76.78%, or 8277 votes to 2501 votes) so those, who agree with Jon Faine that discussion of the controversy raging over 9/11 should be suppressed must be, as they should be in any free and educated society, a small minority .

Footnotes

1. [back] Editorial comment: In an earlier comment I reported that 46% of the respondents to that poll had agreed with Kevin Bracken and had disagreed with thought policeman Jon Faine. Since then, the proportion in agreement with Kevin Bracken has grown to 66.34% (to 33.6%). The numbers of votes were 4740 to 2405. The fact that the majority of the public oppose Faine's edicts on what they can think on the September 11 terorist attacks shows just how out of touch Jon Faine is. Even if the figure had remained at 46% opposed to Jon Faine with a majority in support, the listening public surely have every right to expect of hosts of 'talkback' shows to allow those views to be publicly expressed. If Jon Faine is right about the views of September 11 "conspiracy theorists" being so absurd, this would surely be demonstrated very quickly very in any fair debate on his program, and the harm that Faine claims that such discussion will cause will be limited and quickiy put behind us. In fact, there has not been one fair debate in the Australian newsmedia, least of all on Jon Faine's own program in the 9 years since the attack. Surely, those, like Faine, who have prevented debate should not be surprised that the raising of this issue, in Faine's own words, causes "corrosion of peoples' trust in the rule of law and democracy". Faine, no doubt, prefers his listeners to have unquestioning trust in a system of 'democracy' that allows bloody and destructive wars lasting decades to be waged without their claimed causes being scrutinised by our newsmedia.

How could Martin Bryant, whose IQ of 66 placed him amongst the bottom 1 or 2% of the Australian population, have performed the deadly feats of marksmanship at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 that few fully trained soldiers are capable of? (Includes embedded YouTube videos "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'", "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2", "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 2 of 2".) See also: "The Port Arther Massacre - Was Martin Bryant Framed? parts 1, 2 & 3 (pdf 100K, 111K & 126K) by Carl Wernerhoff in Nexus₁ magazine of Jun-Jul 06, "Schapelle Corby is innocent, and the Australian Government knows she is" of 6 Sep 09. 3

Update, 29 July 2013 : Please download and freely distribute Mass Murder - Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (pdf - 13Mb) by Keith Noble completed on 27 July 2017. Keith was inspired by this article and embedded video broadcasts to write this book. On 9 May 2013, the Hobart Mercury, owned by Rupert Murdoch, in the article Port Arthur conspiracy anger by Zara Dawtrey, again labeled Martin Bryant a "mass murderer" in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. - Ed, 19 May and 29 July, 2013.

I was motivated to write this brief article when fellow candobetter blogger, TigerQuoll, mistakenly in my view, in his article "Animal abuse inculcates social deviance" repeated the accepted wisdom of the guilt of Martin Bryant, now imprisoned for the rest of his life for the murder of 35 people at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.

Over a year ago, I became aware that a number of credible people, some of whom had been directly affected by the terrible events of that day, disputed Martin Bryant's guilt and, instead, maintain that the real killer remains free.

Having viewed video presentations and speeches, it seems to me that the case in favour of Martin Bryant's innocence is compelling.

It is my hope that my having assembled the material here in this way will motivate people who hold Martin Bryant to be guilty to explain why they believe so.

Some factors which cause me to doubt Martin Bryant's Guilt

Many who are behind bars today for the crime of murder following hotly contested jury trials are most probably guilty. Examples which come to mind are Ivan Milat and Bradley John Murdoch, however others who have been convicted by jury trial for crimes have been found to be innocent. The most celebrated case, is of course, Lindy Chamberlain.

In August last year I came the firm view that Schapelle Corby, is innocent of the absurd crime of having attempted to smuggle marijuana worth $35,000 in Australia into a country where it would have been worth $5,000. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of Corby's innocence, almost the whole of the Australian political establishment and newsmedia is apparently resolved to uphold the fiction of her guilt and to let her rot away in the hell of Kerobokan prison for another 15 years at the grave risk of her losing her sanity, if not her life.

That they can be nearly unanimously wrong on this issue is cause to open our minds to the possibility that they might have also got it wrong in regard to Martin Bryant.

One indisputable fact is that the Australian newsmedia shamelessly inflamed public opinion against Martin Bryant, thereby destroying what little chance he stood of having a fair trial, should he have decided to maintain his initial 'not guilty' plea. Even the Wikipedia article acknowledges this:

As alluded to in the title of Andrew MacGregor's 10 minute talk "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" the Port Arthur massacre in many ways fulfilled a similar role in Australian politics that the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack fulfilled in US politics. It caused much of the Australian population to view Prime Minister John Howard as some kind of benevolent caring father figure, rather than the leader of the malevolent, socially divisive government that he was. Strikingly, most of the supposed 'bleeding heart' small 'l' liberal chattering classes almost instantly forgave Howard for his vicious spending cutbacks because of his alleged 'courage' in introducing gun control to ostensibly prevent further Port Arthur massacres.

This largely helped to derail effective political resistance to the Howard Government for much of the ensuing decade.

It would be interesting to know if, when in 1998, the Howard Government unleashed mercenaries and Rottweilers on Australia's waterfront workforce in its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, or when, in 2003, John Howard sent our armed forces to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq on the pretext of the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction, those members of the chattering classes ever contemplated their pronouncements of John Howard's sincerity in his professed abhorrence of violence back in 1996.

I will include below, some links to resources about the Port Arthur massacre, mostly against the official account, but some for.

Useful articles

The Port Arthur Massacre - Was Martin Bryant Framed? parts 1, 2 & 3 (pdf 100K, 111K & 126K) by Carl Wernerhoff in Nexus₁ magazine issue 77 of June-July 2006.)

Suddenly One Sunday of (undated) on by Patrick Bellamy on trutv.com. This is an article which accepts the official account of the Port Arthur. The article also includes three other pages: 2, 3 & 4.

The Port Arthur massacre conspiracy of (undated) by Joe Viallis₂.

The Port Arthur massacre - 10 years on the secrecy continues of 2006(?) by Joe Viallis.₃ (Second copy, less images to be found here.)

Martin bryant's mother speaks out of 5 Jun 99 by Joe Viallis.₄

Port Arthur killer like a zombie: mum of 28 Mar 06 on Nine MSN News, Mother Carleen accuses Martin Bryant authors by Matthew Denholm and Matthew Clayfield in the Australian of 6 May 09.

Sour Dealings on ABC TV's Media Watch of 18 May 09 about complaints by Carleen Bryant against the authors of Martin Bryant, Born or Bred.

YouTube video broadcasts

Video broadacasts are, in my own experience, the fastest way to gain an initial understanding of a complex issue, although they are no replacement for a well-written and well sourced textual article. I recommend that readers begin by viewing the 10 minute video "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" of former policeman Andrew McGregor putting the case for Martin Bryant's innocence. If that sparks your interest, then please proceed to watch the subsequent videos of longer and more in-depth presentations, "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (59') and "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (98'). There is a 10' "conspiracy theory debunking" style video with the misleading title "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". The last two are two 10' videos of straight Channel 7 news reporting of the time, "Port Arthur massacre part 1 of 2" and "Port Arthur massacre part 2 of 2".

"Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" (10') featuring former policeman Andrew McGregor. View original video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj7oveOuOvkhere.

"Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (59'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYxtultxZU.

"Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 2 of 2" (98'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9qD87yUag.

The misleadingly titled "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". This is, in fact,a suposedly "debunking" video. In its 10 minutes it focuses mostly on personally attacking Andrew McGregor and Wendy Scurr, but addresses almost none of the arguments they have put. Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCmLCQdiOXs

Channel 7 news reporting, "Port Arthur massacre part 1 of 2" (10'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9qD87yUag

Channel 7 news reporting, "Port Arthur massacre part 2 of 2" (10'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=siun7RHSyqA

Footnotes

1. ↑ Although Nexus magazine has printed material that I consider unscientific, such about UFO's or the Hollow Earth Theory, so too does the mainstream media every day of the week when they uphold the fictions of free market economic theory, that population growth is beneficial or or the Official account of 9/11. Nexus does publish quality articles about issues that the mainstream media will not cover.

2. ↑, 3. ↑, 4. ↑ Joe Viallis died in 2005. A web-site containing other articles by Joe Viallis can be found here. Whilst I have to reserve judgement on some of the other articles he has written, his treatment of the Port Arthur Massacre, from my having skimmed over the article, seems sound.

Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under US President Ronald Reagan and whose distinguished journalistic career, includes 15 years as an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been banned, so far, for six years from the US mainstream media. He has been banned becasue he questions the myths used to justify US domestic and international policy - that offshoring of jobs and high immigration will bring prosperity to the US and the official account of 9/11.

Originally published on Information Clearing House on 24 Mar 10.

by Paul Craig Roberts

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

March 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded "anti-American," "anti-semite" or "conspiracy theorist."

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. "Free market economists" are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by "the New Economy," a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this "new economy" are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of "the New Economy."

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted "studies" that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the "studies."

The Council of Europe is investigating big pharma's role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which climate scientists, financed by Wall Street and corporations anxious to get their mitts on "cap and trade" and by a U.N. agency anxious to redistribute income from rich to poor countries, concocted a doomsday scenario₁ in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby's testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a "threat," he wasn't impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don't carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO "performance bonuses," have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these "performance awards" by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about "the Muslim threat," Wall Street, U.S. corporations and "free market" shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government's claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect "terrorists," and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week's first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American "mainstream media."

For the last six years I have been banned from the "mainstream media." My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush's wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America's fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government's account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington's deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar's role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar's value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called "entitlements" as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 percent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington's greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the "war on terror," the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Editorial Comment: Whilst Paul Craig Roberts' despair expressed at the end of this article is understandable, we remain hopeful that it will be possible for the people of the US, Australia and the rest of will be able to see through the lies and act to stop them from pushig human civilization over the precipice.

Footnotes

1. ↑ Paul Craig Roberts is correct to oppose the scam of emmissions "cap and trade", or what is known in Australia as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Nevertheless, to draw the conclusion that global warming is not a threat as many who oppose of the agenda of the world's rulers do, would be seriously mistaken.

Update, 18 April 2010: After numerous e-mails to Mark Bahnisch and his moderator, a request to Mark Bahnisch in person on Saturday 10 April 2008 at a forum on the $15 billion Queensland fire sale at which he spoke, a further e-mail and my writing about the censorship of my views on johnquiggin.com here (14 Apr), here (16 Apr) and here (4 Mar), a comment of mine finally appeared on Larvatus Prodeo today, but only after it had been first placed in their moderation queue. The comment announced the meeting called by Concerned Residents Against Milton's Excessive Development to be held this Thursday 22 April. Hopefully, at least I will be free to put my views on most issues (if not subjects deemed taboo such as 9/11) from now and more hopefully without my posts being singled out for moderation.

Update (3 March 2010): Larvatus Prodeo moderator tells me she is "comfortable with how [she's] represented," but I am still waiting to be advised if I have been intentionally banned and why. See Appendix 3: Further Correspondences with the Larvatus Prodeo administrators from 2 Mar 10.

Introductory explanation for update, 2 March 2010

This article was first posted on 29 December 2009. When I originally wrote it, I was given the assurance that I would not be banned from Larvatus Prodeo and I acknowledged that in my article. However, shortly after I found that my posts were being blocked again. Other priorities prevented me from following that up until now. On 1 March 2010, when I found that my posts were still being censored, I felt motivated me to update this article with two appendices in order to better substantiate the original article.

The appendices are:

Appendix 1: Excerpt from Larvatus Prodeo Forum: This contains some of the exchanges which occurred shortly before the discsussion was suddenly ended on 28 December 2009. I believe those exchanges clearly demonstrate that I was winning the argument. They comprise what I think is a good case study in dishonest debating techniques and how to overcome them.

Appendix 2: Correspondences with the administrators of Larvatus Prodeo This concerns the abrupt ending of the forum, my being smeared as an anti-Semite by a moderator and my subsequently being implicitly scapegoated for the abuses that others had perpetrated by being banned from that site. Should those I corresponded with believe that they have been unfairly dealt with by this article, they are more than welcome to state their case by posting comments to this article.

Main article

In the last three months of 2009 a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo, about the controversy surrounding 9/11, turned into the online equivalent of a lynching. On 28 December at the point at which the intended victim (myself) was able to turn the tables on his tormentors, the moderators abruptly closed the disccussion. I have been barred from contributing to that site ever since, as if I had been blamed for the abuses of others.

The following is a brief response to what was written (be warned before you click this link, the total size of all the files comprising that page is now 5.3MB) posted by someone I will call 'Barry' on the "Saturday Salon -- The Truth is Out There! edition" on the Australian forum discussion site Larvatus Prodeo. I initially asked that a post that this article is based upon be posted, but that request was refused.

After I pressed with my complaint, the offending words, included below, were removed to the credit of the Larvatus Prodeo administrators and they have assured me that I am welcome to continue contributing posts to (in fact, it turned out that I was not welcome after all -- see footnote)Larvatus Prodeo₁. However, a number of concerns remain. These include the fact that I have been asked not, at least for a while. to raise the issue of 9/11 on that site, even though the official myth of 9/11 remains the justification for the current "War on Terror", including in Afghanistan. Barely a week goes by, when this justification is not repeated₂ in at least one of our major daily newspapers.

The attack below was the last of a long line of nasty personal attacks that I have been subjected to as a result of my choice to put and defend my views on the controversy over the 9/11 attacks. The latest of the personal attacks, BTW include being accused of advocating the views contained in the anti-Semetic forgery of the Russian Tsarist secret police known as "The Protocals od the Elders of Zion". Now that that forum has been closed, I am no longer able to defend myself against such smears on that forum.

'Barry' wrote:

Daggett, whatever personal or emotional problems you are avoiding by transference onto this weird little obsession of yours, you'll be a much happier individual if you just confront your own demons instead of insisting that there are demons "out there" that we must all confront.

This is the kind of put-down that political activists have become accustomed to, We are told that there is nothing essentially wrong with the world and all that needs to be fixed with the world lies within ourselves.

Well, tell that to the million-plus dead who died as result of wars, for which 9/11 was used as a pretext.

Also, why assume it is me and not those on the other side of the discussion, who is avoiding his/her own demons?

'Barry' continued:

This is not the kind of discussion that Mark set up this blog to encourage, ...

It's not the kind of discussion I like to participate in either --- a dozen plus people, attacking me personally, just as you did last night, doggedly and tenaciously, over many long months, employing every conceivable dishonest debating technique that was ever devised, whilst generally avoiding discussing the facts on hand. As I wrote, last night to [two Larvatus Prodeo Administrators]:

In a way it would be a relief if you were to confirm that I had been [banned], but I think principles of open and free discussion are more important than my personal convenience, particularly when we are all facing the threat of Mandatory Internet Filtering.

I didn't want to get involved in such a long, time-consuming discussion, but I believe it is important to defend one's views when they are attacked, and not run away (of which I was accused on more than one occasion when I momentarily ceased contributing to that forum) in the way that they were.

If you had examined the discussion, you will notice how it was those on the other side of that discussion, and not me, who insisted on needlessly bloating the size of their own contributions, and who added trivia against my objections, for no better purpose than to make the forum reach some new unprecedented record for this web-site and who openly welcomed the opportunity that it gave them to publicly humiliate me:

"Welcome to StoushGym TM."

"Let's face it folks, this thread has turned into StoushGym TM with Daggy as a multfunctional piece of workout equipment.

"So far Fyodor's been hogging it but at least he's not leaving any sweat behind on the seat."

"WE really all should club together and buy Daggy a yearly StoushGym TM pass."

"100 comments to go! [until the 2,000th post]"

"I really don't think M. Fyodor is looking to change Daggy's mind here so much as to work out the kinks in his left jab. Gotta work on not dropping the shoulder so slightly to telegraph the punch."

Well, in the end, it was those people, and not me, who were humiliated, simply because I persisted, amidst the torrent of smear, abuse and ridicule to patiently put the facts and expose the illogicality and outright deceit of my opponents' case. My two main detractors have said little in 10 days and nothing over the last four, and I somehow doubt if it was just because of Christmas.

Anyhow, no-one need take my word for it. They can check for themselves (but see above warning about the 5.3MB size of the page).

'Barry' continued:

... and we've indulged it faaaaaaar too long. ...

As I have just pointed out, I am not the person who has been indulged by this forum.

'Barry' continued:

... Start your own blog, patiently build up a large audience over many years and maybe you'll get a readership. ...

I have already done so and achieved precisely that. Why not follow the link to my own home page, and see for yourself?

'Barry' continued:

... But your days of attempting to leverage off our audience are over.

Why assume that I was attempting to do that? I saw no evidence of any sizable numbers of your audience that were particularly worth my effort.

I persisted in the argument only because I believed it important to win the argument and show that it had been won. The fact that it was won by me remains on the record, however much my detractors try to pretend otherwise.

Footnotes

1. ↑ In fact, contrary to the assurances given, I have found that my posts to Larvatus Prodeo have all vanished without trace. My latest attempt to post to Larvatus Prodeo on 1 March 2010 failed.

E-mails to the administrators even to simply ask if I have been banned have been ignored by Mark Bahnisch the owner of Larvatus Prodeo and moderator Anna Winter. I include below correspondences with them.

If you agree with me that free speech, democracy is not best served by the banning from the pages of Larvatus Prodeo my views on a large range of topics including 9/11, then please consider making them known, perhaps by saying so on the pages of Larvatus Prodeo or by contacting the Larvatus Prodeo administrator by e-mailing vodkandlime at gmail dot com. Please be sure to send us a copy, perhaps as comment to this article.

2. ↑ See, for example in "We must stay the course in Afghanistan" of 17 Aug:

It is all too easy in the face of this appalling human loss to question why Australia and its allies should continue to dedicate so much precious human capital to a country so far away. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's answer to that vexed question was to note that the mission to defeat the Taliban was essential to his country's security because "three-quarters of terrorist plots against Britain come from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan".

Essentially the same argument can be mounted for Australia's continued military involvement in the country. Australians are all too aware, courtesy of vile and deadly bomb attacks in five-star hotels in Indonesia or alleged terrorism plots here in Australia, that the web of al-Qa'ida-inspired extremism is truly global. We have little choice but to attempt to confront this violence at its source, and to help Afghanistan restore a semblance of stability and security.

An editorial "Taking on the Taliban" in the Australian, another of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, of 23 Sep 09 stated:

NATO nations must pull their weight in Afghanistan

...

And what would be a catastrophe for Afghanistan would be a disaster for the rest of the world. The last time the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it harboured Osama bin Laden. It seems certain a second Taliban state would be a safe haven from which to launch terror attacks across the globe, including at Europe. Mr Obama and Mr Rudd say they have always understood the dangers of Taliban rule. It is time they convinced the Europeans that they have no choice but to join the US, Australian and Britain in taking the terrorists seriously.

Political leaders such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and US President Barack Obama, frequently repeat the lie of 9/11. Here's Kevin Rudd speaking to US news presenter Jim Lehrer as reported on the ABC radio's The World Today of 26 Mar 09:

... the bottom line is this: [Afghanistan is] the right place to be.

When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down₃. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.

We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again. It's going to be tough, it's going to be hard, and it's going to be difficult and dangerous.

3. ↑ See article "Why Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should take another look at the 'image of the twin towers coming down'" of 30 Dec 09.

Appendix 1: Excerpt from Larvatus Prodeo Forum

Explanatory introduction: I have copied below just a very few of the 1979 posts comprising the Larvatus Prodeo forum dubbed by the moderators as "Saturday Salon - The Truth is Out There! edition". Before anyone clicks on the link, please bear in mind that its sizes is 5.6MB.

The critical posts are mine (daggett's) numbers 1929 and 1944 at the end. The posts I was responding to precede those. In turn others of mine that they responded to are included. It may be easier to understand the discussion by starting at the end and working backwards. I don't expect anyone to find reading my detractors' posts any less gruelling than I did, but they are included here to better allow people to form their own judgement.

The dates at the start of each post link back to the original post in the forum itself. Anyone is welcome to check the original forum itself, although as it is, overwhelmed with bloated posts (simlar to Bob's posts on this forum) and all sorts of irrelevent and trivial comments, most obviously intended to disrupt the discussion, it would be quite a challenge to navigate through. If time permits I woud like to extract more useful content and make it more accessible, either as additions to this page or elsewhere.

My Main detractor "Bob" changed his identity at each post. Not knowing what his actual identity was, I decided to refer to him as "Bob" because his gravatar image was that of the Simpsons character, Sideshow Bob Terwilliger.

1889 daggett
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 am

Bob,

Can you explain the following?

On Page 18 of "Chapter 1 INTERIM FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS" at http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf we find this:

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. (my emphasis)

Yet in "Figure 3-6 : Progression of Simulated Fire on Floor 12 of WTC 7" on page 30 of the "Final Report of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 -- Draft for Public Comment" (aka NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation) we find a raging out-of-control fire at 5.00PM barely 15 minutes later. There is also a raging fire at 4:00PM

.

How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been "burned out" by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?

--

BTW, a very illuminating post on WTC 7, sadly buried amidst the spam and trivia, but well worth going back to, is Andrew's at 1042 . My most recent somewhat substantive post is 1873.

1890 Nick
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 am

"How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been "burned out" by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?"

1) You compared a statement from an interim report released in June 2004, up against the final report released four and a half years later in November 2008. If you'd cared to download and read Chapter 5 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9, and examined all the additional photographic evidence collected and analysed since that June 2004 interim report, you would have come across Figure 5-152, which showed that fires were still burning on Floor 12 at 5pm +- 10mins. They were not found to have been "burned out" by 4:45PM.

2) NIST stated very clearly above Figure 3.6:

There were far fewer photographs and videos of WTC 7 than of the towers; and, thus, the details of the WTC 7 fires were not as precise as for the fires in the towers. However, the imagery was sufficient to guide the WTC 7 fire simulations. Unlike the computations for WTC 1 and WTC 2, the fire simulations for WTC 7 were conducted for each floor individually, as there were no obvious pathways for the flames and heat to pass from one floor to another, aside from the debris-damaged area in the southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 9). The fires on Floors 7, 8, and 12 were simulated using input from the visual imagery and established fire physics. The fire on Floor 9 was similar to that on Floor 8, and the simulation was derived from it. For the same reason, the fires on Floors 11 and 13 were derived from the fire on Floor 12. While use was made of the appearance of flames and window breakage in photographs and videos in formulating the simulations, the Investigation Team realized that the absolute timing of the simulations might not align exactly with the timing of the fires on September 11, 2001.

Let me take a wild guess: you didn't read any of it, did you, dags.

You ripped this straight from a troofer site and threw it up here without any questioning or attempting to verify the information for yourself.

You're the best.

1892 A clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 am

It seems as if Bob, in his last post, is attempting to imply that, because, in the following sentence:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.

...David Chandler omitted the qualifying phrase "in that 2.25 second period", he was therefore must have meant over the whole observed collapse period.

No, Daggy, I'm not "seeming" to "attempt to imply" that David Chandler omitted the phrase. I'm stating it, because he did not qualify his statement.

This is what any clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person will recognise as pedantry used in a desperate ploy to avoid having to admit what a pathetic, miserable liar he has been through the long course of this discussion.

How would you know what a "clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person" would or would not recognise? You've shown yourself totally incapable of clear thinking or critical analysis. You're the muddle-headed dupe of some dopey conspiracy theorists.

There's no pedantry, no avoidance and no lying from me, Daggy.

YOU are the one who has been caught lying.
YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU are the one caught up in pedantry and trivia.

The fact of the matter is that you claimed I was lying about Chandler and challenged me to quote the guy, and I have.

I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it.

Anyone who watched and understood those videos would have to know from the overall context, in which he was measuring the acceleration in that 2.25 second period of free-fall, that the qualifying phrase was implied.

Bullshit. There's no implication or inference required or indicated -- THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. As I told you, if you have a problem with WHAT HE SAID, tell him.

The fact was, whether Bob chooses to acknowledges it or not, that in the earlier draft reports, NIST attempted to conceal the 2.25 period of freefall by averaging the acceleration over the whole period.

Rubbish. As I told you, they hid no such thing. They found, correctly, that WTC 7 took longer to collapse than a free-fall. That's an incontrovertible FACT, Daggy.

The rest of his post consists of similar games with the meaning of words designed to keep this discussion going around in circles or indefinitely or until I give up.

Squib. The only nitwit going round in circles here is you, Daggy, returning over and over again to debunked and discredited arguments.

Again, I can only suggest that others read my previous post and decide, for themselves, whether it makes more sense than Bob's.

As your comment contains no evidence, why should they even bother?

1895 daggett
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Bob demands to know:

How would you know what a "clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person" would or would not recognise?

Once, again, because of the context, Bob.

The whole point of his measurement of acceleration is explained towards the end of "WTC7 in Freefall" that I linked to above:

Notice that a little after the three second mark on our graph. abpit two and a half seconds after the building begins to drop, the acceleration ceases to be uniform. This indicates that the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance. Any measurement of the of the average acceleration that contains more than the first two and a half seconds[1] of fall, will show that for a significant two and a half seconds, the building was in literal free fall.

The article in which the video is embedded states:

Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5[1] seconds during the fall.

How velocity and acceleration are measured of that about 2.5 second interval are clearly shown by David Chandler.

Given all this, I would have thought the question that should be asked is why anyonewould insist that David Chandler's quoted statement could have been mistaken for meaning:

Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.

... as Bob wrote and as I responded to earlier.

Footnotes

1. I have taken the free fall period time to be 2.25 seconds, David Chandler has taken it, here to be "around 2.5 seconds". Given that it is not easy to establish, with great precision, using the video evidence, where this interval began or ended, this is not important. It was certainly at least 2.25 seconds.

--

Nick,

Figure 5-155 on page 239 taken at 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figure 5-151 on page 236 taken at 4.40PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figure 5-150 on page 235 taken at 4.39PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12

.

Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

Figure 5-146 on page 232 taken at 4.20PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.

The only evidence of any fire at all is Figure 5-152 on page 237 shows only one small fire in the North Western corner burning, and nowhere else, supposedly at around 5.00PM.

That is no doubt why in 2004 the NIST interim report stated as I cited above:

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. (my emphasis)

Now again, I ask Bob, or you, if you like, to explain this massive discrepency between the evidence and the computer simulation that supposedly explains the first and only 'collapse' in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition, of a steel-framed building, caused entirely by fire.

1896 A ginger-headed, personably-minded thinking critic
Dec 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Bob demands to know:

How would you know what a "clear headed, critical-minded thinking person would or would not recognise?

Once again, because of the context, Bob.

Nope. Context doesn't affect your assessment of the recognition ability of people with clearer heads and more critical minds than yours. As I implied, you simply don't know what such people would or would not recognise. The context of the situation has no bearing on your incompetence in assessment.

The whole point of his measurement of acceleration is explained towards the end of "WTC 7 in Freefall" that I linked to above:

Notice that a little after the three second mark on our graph. abpit two and a half seconds after the building begins to drop, the acceleration ceases to be uniform. This indicates that the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance. Any measurement of the of the average acceleration that contains more than the first two and a half seconds of fall, will show that for a significant two and a half seconds, the building was in literal free fall.

The article in which the video is embedded states:

Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds during the fall.

How velocity and acceleration are measured of that about 2.5 second interval are clearly shown by David Chandler.

Given all this, I would have thought the question that should be asked is why anyonewould insist that David Chandler's quoted statement could have been mistaken for meaning:

Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.

...as Bob wrote and as I responded to earlier.

There's no mistaken meaning -- that's WHAT HE SAID. Let's look at it again, shall we? Chandler's assertion to the NIST hearing was:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

There's no qualification there. There's no mention of 2.25 seconds -- or 2.5 seconds, for that matter -- of freefall. The meaning is clear: Chandler asserted to NIST that the building fell with an acceleration equivalent to gravity. He even refers to NIST's (accurate) calculation of total observed collapse taking 40% longer than estimated freefall time. He is thus CLEARLY referring to freefall over the whole period of collapse. There's no other meaning in that statement.

Now, Daggy, you may have found instances -- unsurprisingly -- where Chandler contradicts himself and, as I suggested to you, you should take up those inconsistencies with him.

However, you cannot refute the fact, and the fact is that he asserted to NIST that the building fell at gravitational acceleration. It didn't, obviously, but that's WHAT HE SAID.

As I said, get over it.

Now again, I ask Bob, or you [i.e. Nick], if you like, to explain this massive discrepancy between the evidence and the computer simulation that supposedly explains the first and only 'collapse' in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition, of a steel-framed building, caused entirely by fire.

First, there is no "massive discrepancy". As Nick pointed out to you, photographic evidence from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows that fires were still burning on Floor 12 around 5pm. Let me quote from the report (page 245):

[Regarding the 12th Floor] An image taken around 5:00pm showed that the fire had continued spreading West, and intense flames were coming from windows on the North face at the Northwest corner.

Second, the building did not collapse in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition. Collapse was progressive, not instantaneous, and there was no evidence of any explosives or controlled demolition of any kind -- no material evidence and certainly no audio evidence.

Third, as I pointed out to you before, the WTC buildings were not the first or only steel-framed buildings to collapse due to fire, and nor did WTC 7 collapse solely due to fire -- it also withstood damage from the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.

Fourth, Nick was right: you ripped this crap straight from a troofer site without bothering to verify the information yourself. [HINT: reading the NIST report would have saved you the embarrassment, AGAIN]

1905 daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 am

Bob is attempting to put a different meaning to David Chandler's words to the meaning that is abundantly clear from the context that I described, by isolating them from the context.

If Bob is so adamant that David Chandler could only have meant from these words that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the whole observed period, then why was that ridiculous meaning not also abundantly clear to Shyam Sunder at that briefing about the NIST preliminary report?

Why, instead of refuting Chandler's argument, which would surely have been so easy to do, did he, instead, make a complete fool of himself?

The only conceivable reason can be that Sunder, as had everyone else who was there or who had watched his videos, took the meaning of those words to be exactly as I said they were, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for around 2.5 seconds and not for the whole observed period.

This, of course, makes Bob not only a liar, when he claimed,

Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.

... but also a time-wasting pedant.

And he remains a liar for having claimed that I have produced no evidence and that I have been debunked in places where I clearly have not.

The part of Bob's post dealing with the discrepencies between the photographic evidence and the simulated fires contains nothing new and has all already been answered in the posts he is purporting to respond to. They are 1889, 1895.

His (implied) claim that other steel-framed buildings have been totally destroyed by fire has been shown to be a lie early on.

His implication that the collapse of the North Tower somehow contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7 has already been acknowledged by NIST itself to be false.

1910 What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am

What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am

Bob is attempting to put a different meaning to David Chandler's words to the meaning that is abundantly clear from the context that I described, by isolating them from the context.

Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.

If Bob is so admant that David Chandler could only have meant from these words that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the whole observed period, then why was that ridiculous meaning not also abundantly clear to Shyam Sunder at that briefing about the NIST preliminary report?

I agree that Chandler's meaning was ridiculous, but it was also clear, to me and to Sunder. Let's look at Sunder's response [from 1:41 onwards] in this video:

Chandler [as read by some dude at a computer]: Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

Sunder: Can you repeat the question, please?

[Repeated]

Sunder: Well, um, first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure, applies to every body, all bodies on this particular...on this planet, not just on ground zero. The analysis showed there's a difference in time between a freefall time -- a freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it -- and if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the 17...for the roofline of the video, to collapse down the 17 floors, that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, what the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows, the same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds, it's about 1.5 seconds, roughly 40%, more time for that freefall to happen, and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.

Now, Daggy, Sunder isn't a particularly eloquent or confident speaker, but we do know he heard the question correctly, as he asked for it to be repeated.

We also know that Sunder clearly addresses the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE -- the 5.4 seconds, or freefall plus 40% -- questioned by Chandler. There is no mention of 2.25 seconds or 2.5 seconds of freefall by either Chandler or Sunder -- the whole discussion, both question and answer, addresses TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, not some discrete period within the overall collapse. Clearly, Sunder took the obvious meaning of Chandler's assertion and question.

Not only that, but Sunder explicitly reaffirms that the collapse of WTC 7 took 40% longer than estimated freefall time, REFUTING Chandler's assertion that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration.

Why, instead of refuting Chandler's argument, which should surely have been so easy to do, did he, instead, make a complete fool of himself?

As noted, he refuted Chandler's assertion. As for making a fool of himself, I suggest that you're not competent to judge the foolishness of others, for the obvious reason.

The only conceivable reason can be that Sunder, as had everyone else who was there or who had watched his videos, took the meaning of those words to be exactly as I said they were, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for around 2.5 seconds and not for the whole observed period.

I've just demonstrated that Sunder took the same meaning I did, because THAT'S WHAT CHANDLER SAID.

This, of course, makes Bob not only a liar, when he claimed,

Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse.

...but also a time-wasting pedant.

I've just proved, again, that I did not lie and the only pedant wasting time here is you, with your ineffectual blather.

And he remains a liar for having claimed that I have produced no evidence and that I have been debunked in places where I clearly have not.

Nope. You have produced no evidence and you have been debunked, each and every time I say so. Every single time, you have been defeated by the facts and logic and anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.

The part of Bob's post dealing with the discrepancies between the photographic evidence and the simulated fires contains nothing new and has already been answered in the posts he is purporting to respond to. They are 1889 1895.

I didn't claim I was presenting anything new on the photographic evidence. Indeed, I noted that Nick had introduced it in his refutation of your assertion. And, no, Daggy, you did not "answer" Nick's evidence, which showed clearly that fires were observed on Floor 12 at or around 5pm on the day in question. He proved you wrong, and I simply reminded you of that.

His (implied) claim that other steel-framed buildings have been totally destroyed by fire has been shown to be lie early on.

No, it hasn't. Produce the comment where you claim this occurred.

His implication that the collapse of the North Tower somehow contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7 has already been acknowledge by NIST itself to be false.

Nope. From NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page xxxvi:

The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 110m (350ft) to the south. The debris also cause structural damage to the southwest exterior of WTC 7, primarily between Floors 7 to 17. The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and last until the time of the building collapse. These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings. Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented. However, the collapse of WTC 7 highlights the importance of designing fire-resistant structures for situations where sprinklers are not present, do not function (e.g. due to disconnected or impaired water supply) or are overwhelmed.

Now, NIST states later on that it was the fires that brought down the building, not the structural damage done by the nearby collapse of WTC 1. However, the fires were ignited by the collapse of WTC 1, and it was the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 that impaired the water supply to WTC 7, preventing the sprinkler system from working properly in containing the fires that eventually brought down the building. The collapses of WTC 1 & 2 most definitely "contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7".

If you had the read the report, you would know this, and would not have embarrassed yourself. Again.

1914 daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am

Bob wrote:

Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.

I would have thought that "what Chandler said" isolated from the context I described was ambiguous.

If Bob insists that David Chandler must be held to the literal meaning of that sentence:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.

... in isolation from the context, how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to, if he did not qualify it in that sentence did not refer to the whole period of collapse and not just the observed period of collapse?

He cannot, nor can he claim that the meaning of the words did not apply to the 2.25 second period.

Of course, if we put the sentence back in context the meaning is clear.

So, as I wrote, Bob is a time-wasting pedant.

And there is nothing in that last post that adds anything to this discussion.

I would concede that I have not yet directly answered Nick's latest piece of sophistry regarding the supposed behaviour of the Towers as brilliantly efficient 'pistons' during the 'collapses', which had not been put at the time Bob falsely claimed I had been thoroughly debunked on that question, but I don't see why I should be obligated to respond to each and every piece of sophistry by people who have shown themselves to be disingenuous at best and liars at worst.

Besides, Nick has not responded to my latest post in regard to the claimed 'piston' effect either.

The rest of the post is yet another pretence aimed at the willingly gullible on this forum and casual vistors who don't have the time to wade through it all that the previous post has in some way answered, when they have not been.

If any of the individuals here can show me anything new in Bob's latest post, then I will respond to it.

If not, I don't see why I should risk having by broadband choked by furhther responding to this forum, now that I have used up 8Gig of my allowed 10Gig, largely thanks to the spam and trivia posted here by Bob and others.

My previous posts that Bob has claimed to have responded to include 1905, 1895, 1889, 1873, 1870, 1868.

1915 daggett
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am

...

As I wrote, I don't consider myself obligated to participate any further in this circus, except on my own terms.

So don't be too surprised if I only post every other day, or even less frequently, from now on.

At least this forum stands as a record, from which people can learn
a lot about various online contributors, including at least one historian -- and I very much doubt if it will be to their credit in the eyes of
critical thinking and open-minded people -- as well as, in between, 9/11 itself.

1918 What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away
Dec 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Bob wrote:

Nope, I'm just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.

I would have thought that "what Chandler said" isolated from the context I described was ambiguous.

Yes, you've already said that you thought that, and you're wrong. His meaning was unambiguous, as evident from Sunder's reply, as I showed in my last comment.

If bob insists that David Chandler must be held to the literal meaning of that sentence:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.

...in isolation from the context, how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to, if he did not qualify it in that sentence did not refer to the whole period of collapse and not just the observed period of collapse?

How can I -- and thus we -- know this? Because of Chandler's sentence after the one you quoted, which you left out for a reason not impossible to fathom.

Here's the full quotation of Chandler's statement/question to Dr. Sunder of NIST:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the North-West corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

As highlighted in bold, Chandler was referring to NIST's timing of the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, to which sunder replied, as I noted in my last comment.

He cannot, nor can he claim that the meaning of the words did not apply to the 2.25 second period.

I can, to both. Chandler CLEARLY referred to the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE. There is no mention of the 2.25 second period.

Of course, if we put the meaning back in context the meaning is obvious.

The meaning is obvious regardless of your spin. It was the meaning that Sunder replied to.

So, as I wrote, Bob is a time-wasting pedant.

Says the twit who's just received another lesson in English comprehension on the same bit of text.

Honestly, Daggy, have you considered taking lessons in literacy? It's one thing debunking your garbage, it's another having to teach you the fucking language while I'm at it. And you have the gall to accuse me of wasting time?

And there is nothing in that last post that adds anything to this discussion.

Apart from debunking your dopey assertions yet again, squibber.

I would concede that I have not yet directly answered Nick's latest piece of sophistry regarding the supposed behaviour of the Towers as brilliantly efficient 'pistons' during the 'collapses', which had not been put at the time Bob falsely claims I had been thoroughly debunked on that question, but I don't see whay I should be obligated to respond to each and every piece of sophistry by people who have shown themselves to be disingenuous at best and liars at worst.

Squib. Nick demolished your arguments and the fact that you have failed to rebut his arguments says all we need to know about who is the disingenuous liar on this thread.

The fact is that you're not under any obligation to substantiate your assertions, Daggy. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. Of course, if you fail in this, as you have repeatedly, we'll form the natural assumption, correct to date, that you have no case and your arguments are bunk, as they are.

The rest of the post is yet another pretence aimed at the willingly gullible on this forum and casual visitors who don't have the time to wade through it all that the previous post has in some way answered, when they have not been.

If any of the individuals here can show me anything new in Bob's latest post, then I will respond to it.

Yeah, that's right, Daggy: keep squibbing on the same stuff over and over again.

If not, I don't see why I should risk having my broadband choked by further responding to this forum, now that I have used up 8Gig of my allowed 10Gig, largely thanks to the spam and trivia posted here by Bob and others.

*plays world's tiniest violin for poor widdle Daggy*

Boo-feckin'-hoo, Daggy. This thread is so long because you insisted
on recycling discredited and debunked troofer garbage over and over
again. Your case was destroyed more than a thousand comments ago and
yet here you are, moaning about the length of the thread. Grow up. The
ONLY person responsible for using up your 8Gig is YOU.

As I wrote, I don't consider myself obligated to participate any further in this circus, except on my own terms.

So don't be too surprised if I only post every other day, or even less frequently, from now on.

The only surprise coming from you, Daggy, would be a solid argument.

At least this forum stands as a record, from which people can learn a lot about various online contributors, including at least one historian -- and I very much doubt if it will be to their credit in the eyes of critical thinking and open-minded people -- as well as, in between, 9/11 itself.

Heh. Oh, it'll be a record, alright. I warned you it would be more than a thousand comments ago, but you wouldn't listen.

You should ask yourself, Daggy, what you think people will think of you when they read it. Better yet: why don't you ask some of those critical thinking and open-minded people you keep mentioning?

1929 daggett
Dec 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am

Bob wrote:

[HINT: reading the NIST report would have saved you the embarrassment, AGAIN]

No, Bob. We both know that out of you and me I am not the person who need feel embarassed. We both know that there is nothing in that the claptrap in your post that answers my previous posts (@ 1895 and 1889), however much you and all your sycophants here choose to shout and scream otherwise.

And we also both know that my reading all the NIST reports from one end to the other as well as the 9/11 Commission Report and any other piece of lying US Government propaganda would not alter one iota your refusal to argue logically and with due acknowledgement of the evidence I have presented.

Bob wrote:

How can I -- and thus we -- know [how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to]? Because of Chandler's sentence after the one you quoted, which you left out for a reason not impossible to fathom.

Sure, Bob. I left out the second and third sentences, hoping that no-one else, least of all, you, would see that when you quoted it in your previous post (@ 1910), there was another sentence following that I didn't want others to know about.

Bob then goes on to insist that those two sentences:

Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

... must somehow qualify the literal meaning to the previous sentence.

No, Bob. It does not. The literal meaning, in isolation remains ambiguous.

If you want to add implied meaning to words, you just can't just broaden the context to an arbitrary degree that suits you, but refuse to allow the context to be broadened any further.

Bob wrote:

Not only that, but Sunder explicitly reaffirms that the collapse of WTC 7 took 40% longer than estimated freefall time, REFUTING Chandler's assertion that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration.

Sure, Bob. David Chandler can only have meant that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for all of the 5.4 second period of 'collapse', even though that contradicts his statements and all the measurements demonstrated in those YouTube Broadcasts and repeated many times before and since that free fall occurred only for (around) 2.5 seconds.

Anyhow, even if David Chandler inexplicably tried to make the claim on that one occasion, that Bob insists that he was, the fact remains that free-fall did occur for 2.25 seconds during which WTC 7 fell through 8 floors.

This brings me back to that other glaring piece of idiocy that Bob and Nick try to pass off as a rebuttal of the controlled demolition hypothesis. Here it is again (and, no doubt, Bob will moan and groan that we have "been over this" before, but, of course, 'neglecting' to show anyone where we have "been over this' before):

I wrote:

If all the structural strength in those 8 floors had been lost before the observed free fall period began, then free-fall would have commenced at that point.

Then Bob wrote:

Yes, free-fall commenced in Stage 2 after the structural strength had been lost in Stage 1. We've been through this.

I had also written:

Until a structure begins to fall at free fall acceleration, then, logically, something, namely structural strength, is preventing that structure from falling at free fall acceleration.

To which Bob responded:

Yes. As noted oh-so-many times now structural strength was lost during Stage 1. AFTER Stage 1, during which structural strength was lost, Stage 2, a period of gravitational acceleration, was observed.

This, we are told, "thoroughly debunks" my argument, but it doesn't even acknowledge that argument.

"[S]tructural strength was lost during Stage 1" he tells us.

But how much? And for which floors?

Clearly it could not have been all the structural strength and it could not have been for all 8 floors.

So, what does that statement mean?

1944 daggett
Dec 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am

Bob 'rebuts' posts 1895 and 1889:

First, there is no "massive discrepancy". As Nick pointed out to you, photographic evidence from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows that fires were still burning on Floor 12 around 5pm. ...

No, Bob. There is a massive discrepency and you are a shameless, barefaced liar to have claimed otherwise.

On the one hand, NIST's 'explanation' of the 'collapse' requires raging fires for 3 to 4 hours as illustrated in figure 9-11 on page 384 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2. On the other hand, the photographic evidence from 8 photos from 4.20PM until 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire. I could add to that list 4-145 on page 231 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 at 4.10PM and 5-144 on page 229 at 3.55PM. The latter two flatly contradict the simulated 4.00PM image in figure 9-11.

Only in one image ('crudely estimated as being around 5.00PM') do we see any fire at all on Floor 12 and that is one very small isolated fire. (Where you meaning to construe this single fire as two so that you could use the word 'fires' instead of 'fire', Bob?)

So, that makes at least 10 photographic images of Floor 12 from 3.55PM until 5.13PM containing no evidence of fire and only one with a single small isolated fire -- all this during a periond when a fire hot enough to cause the total structural failure of steel on that floor was supposedly raging throughout Floor 12.

As I pointed out before, even NIST had acknowledged that the fires on Floor 12 had burnt out by 4.45PM.

The reason for this massive discrepency, is that NIST could not possibly have hoped to come up with an even remotely plausible explanation for the first ever global collapse of a steel-framed building caused by fire alone without grossly exaggerating the severity of those fires, and that is what it did. And in doing so, NIST is guilty of scientific fraud and both Bob and Nick by peddling their lies on this forum are accomplices in that fraud.

This is all abundantly demonstrated in chapters 9 and 10 of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 -- Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin. (BTW, the page number of the above reference is 227).

 

Appendix 2: Correspondence between myself and Larvatus Prodeo administrators

 

I am placing this corrrespondence on the public record in order to allow readers to form their own judgement.

Few of the arguments and facts I put to Anna Winter or Mark Bahnisch were acknowledged.

Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur
 Date: 27/12/09 10:51 pm
 From: James Sinnamon 
 To: Mark Bahnisch, Anna Winter 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon
 
Dear Mark and Anna,

I have now been accused of advocating the World View of The Protocols of the 
Elders of Zion, etc. etc. and cannot reply.

So, could you please either post the attached file that briefly answers that 
or unblock the post containtin the same?

I have not been able to at 
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/ ?

I hope I have not been banned.

In a way it would be a relief if you were to confirm that I had been, but I 
think principles of open and free discussion are more important than my 
personal convenience, particularly when we are all facing the threat of 
Mandatory Internet Filtering.

If I have been banned, I think it would only be fair to stop others from 
attacking me personally.

Sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur
 Date: 27/12/09 11:19 pm
 From: Anna Winter
 To: James Sinnamon 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch
 
James, don't repost comments again, it just makes the spam filter more
likely to take your comments.

Your comments are out now.

2009/12/27 James Sinnamon 

> Dear Mark and Anna,
>
> I have now been accused of advocating the World View of The Protocols of
...

Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 10:18 am
 From: James Sinnamon 
 To: Anna Winter 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon 

(Subject was: Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur)

Dear Anna Winter,

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> James, don't repost comments again, it just makes the spam filter more
> likely to take your comments.

I have followed that advice this time.
>
> Your comments are out now.

Thank you.

However, the discussion has since been closed (and as owners of 
larvartusprodeo.net it is obviously your right to do so, as much as I may 
disagree with that decision).

In closing that discussion, mercurius made a number of further personal 
attacks against me, which I consider unfair and I believe that I am entitled 
to respond to those.

I also believe that I am entitled also to respond to a further unfounded 
smear, made by another that I promote the anti-Semetic views of "The 
Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

So, I posted a response to 
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/26/saturday-salon-christmas-edition-2/

However, it disapppeared into your spam filter, that is, if it was not 
deleiberately deleted.

Could you please either take my post out of the spam filter, if you can, or, 
else, publish the attached html snippet on my behalf?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon
Ph 0412 319669

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 12:23 pm
 From: Anna Winter
 To: James Sinnamon
 CC: Mark Bahnisch

I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own judgements
about everyone on it. I'm not even a little bit interested in having that
debate spill over to any other threads. You have already responded, and your
comment at 1971 will remain there in that thread.

You've had plenty of opportunity to make all of your points now, and others
had the right to respond to you. And to be very clear, I won't be changing
my mind on this point, so don't think that sending more and more emails will
get me to do that.

Cheers
A

2009/12/28 James Sinnamon

> (Subject was: Re: Please allow me to respond to anti-Semite slur)

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 02:42 pm
 From: James Sinnamon
 To: Anna Winter 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon 
 
Hi Anna,

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own judgements
> about everyone on it. ...

You are failing to acknowledge that a discussion can be disrupted if a number 
of people are resolved to do so.  That clearly has happened and has happened 
over a long period of time.

If you check the forum, you will see that a least the following "Unacceptable" 
practices from 
http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/ have been 
repeatedly employed by my detractors:

# Excessively long comments, which break up the give and take of discourse. 
Please post such screeds on your own blog and post a summary in comments with 
a link to your own post

# imputing ideas or motives to others ...

# Consistently repeated and aggressively stated opinions which fail to engage 
with others is regarded as a form of trolling.

So, for these and many other reasons I won't go into, I don't accept your 
contention that, in these circumstances "[I had] plenty of opportunity to 
make all of your points." 

In spite of all that, I believe that I had finally reached a point in the 
discussion where it was no longer possible for my detractors to employ those 
techniques against me as successfully as they had before.

I believe that the fact, that the moderators stood back whilst, for months on 
end, I was subject to relentless open cyber-bullying by a large number of 
other contributors all proclaiming their glee at their claimed humiliation of 
me, but chose to close down the discussion, just at the point where I was 
clearly winning, will seem suspicious to others.

> ... I'm not even a little bit interested in having that debate spill
> over to any other threads. ... 

OK, then why not put it on the thread that it concerns?

> ... You have already responded, and 
> your comment at 1971 will remain there in that thread.
>
> You've had plenty of opportunity to make all of your points now, and others
> had the right to respond to you. ...

The point remains that the forum has ended with yet a further unwarranted 
personal attack against me.

If the forum had simply been closed down without my having been smeared in the 
way I was, then I would have been prepared to let things stand.

However, I have been pronounced as effectively a nutcase by a moderator, as 
well as an anti-Semite.

I believe that I should be entitled to an apology for that, but I have not 
even given a chance to defend myself.

> ... And to be very clear, I won't be changing 
> my mind on this point, so don't think that sending more and more emails
> will get me to do that.

Well, I think you should change your mind.  But, if you choose not to, I 
believe that others will recognise that I have been treated unfairly.

>
> Cheers
> A

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 02:53 pm
 From: Anna Winter
 To: James Sinnamon
 CC: Mark Bahnisch
 
I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post, so
that you've had a chance to respond to the last comment that insulted you.

Cheers
A

2009/12/28 James Sinnamon

> Hi Anna,
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> > I think that thread is long enough for people to make their own
> > judgements

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 03:56 pm
 From: James Sinnamon
 To: Anna Winter
 CC: Mark Bahnisch
 Reply to: James Sinnamon

Hi Anna,

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post, ... 

Thanks for doing that at least.

> ...so that you've had a chance to respond to the last comment that 
> insulted you.

I am still not happy that such an inflamatory statement as:

"I'm sure you'll find a way to pin it on the Jooooooooz, Dag.

"And that's why you deserve every ounce of spite you're gonna get,
here and elsewhere."

... as well as all the other unfounded accusations of me of being an 
anti-Semite have not been answered as adequately as I would have wished, in 
the short time that was available to me, or, else, repudiated by the 
moderators or else removed.

Anyway, in the longer term, I suspect those comments, if left there, will 
reflect more on those who posted them, as well as on LP, than on me.

> Cheers
> A

So, can you tell me, am I welcome to comment, henceforth, on the other forums 
on Larvatus Prodeo or not?

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 04:04 pm
 From: Anna Winter
 To: James Sinnamon
 CC: Mark Bahnisch

You are more than welcome to comment, however for the time being at least,
not about 9/11 issues. You've argued your case on that, and we don't want it
derailing any other threads.

Please consider that our blog isn't for your soapbox. If you contribute to
discussion and community on the topics of the posts then you are always
welcome. Saturday Salons are generally for fun, lighthearted subjects,
especially at Christmas time. Feel free to join in,

Anna

2009/12/28 James Sinnamon

> Hi Anna,
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Anna Winter wrote:
> > I have removed all references to you in the final comment on that post,
> ...

Re: Another post of mine filtered?
 Date: 28/12/09 04:59 pm
 From: James Sinnamon 
 To: Anna Winter
 Reply to: James Sinnamon
 
Hi Anna,

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> You are more than welcome to comment, ...

Thank you.

> ... however for the time being at least,  not about 9/11 issues. 
> You've argued your case on that, and we don't want 
> it derailing any other threads.

For my I don't intend to go out of my way to raise 9/11, not that I believe I 
did anything terribly wrong on that thread, as I have already explained.

> Please consider that our blog isn't for your soapbox. ...

I understand and accept that as a general principle.  In any case, I much 
prefer to use my own blog as my soapbox.

> ... If you contribute to 
> discussion and community on the topics of the posts then you are always
> welcome. ...

> ... Saturday Salons are generally for fun, lighthearted subjects, 
> especially at Christmas time. Feel free to join in.

Sure, thanks.

But, unfortunately there's a great deal more going on in the world that isn't 
fun and lightheated and if we don't come to grips with that somewhere our 
future will be very bleak.

>
> Anna

Yours sincerely,

James

A post of mine has vanished
 Date: 02/01/10 09:46 pm
 From: James Sinnamon 
 To: Anna Winter 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon 

Hi Anna,

I tried to post the follwing just now:

I have updated the story featuring that interview/debate between myself and 
Andrew Fraser I mentioned a few weeks ago.  I have included the full 
transpcript (warts and all) or all threeYouTube Videos.  I have also added a 
Table of Contents and other supporting documents as well as links to other 
articles.  The story is Anti-privatisation candidate 
confronts Queensland Treasurer".

... but it's nowhere to be found.

Can you tell me what happened?

Thanks.

regards,

James

Resend: A post of mine has vanished
 Date: 03/01/10 02:29 pm
 From: James Sinnamon 
 To: Anna Winter 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon 
 
(See above)

Appendix 3: Further Correspondences with the Larvatus Prodeo administrators from 2 Mar 10

Update (3 Mar 10): Larvatus Prodeo moderator tells me she is "comfortable with how [she's] represented in [my] post," but I am still waiting to be advised if I have been intentionally banned and why.

Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
 Date: 03/03/10 02:48:33 am
 From: James Sinnamon
 To: Anna Winter 
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 Reply to: James Sinnamon 

Hi Anna and Mark,

I have decided to put on the public record our correspondences over my being 
banned from publishing on Larvatus Prodeo, seemingly as a consequence of my 
being scapegoated for the abuses of others during the long running forum at 
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-846594 .

I published the correspondence in the article "Cyber-bullying, censorship, 
Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth" at http://candobetter.org/node/1741#appendix2

I was moved to do so, when, the day before yesterday, I found that I was still 
banned from your site.

Please let me know if you don't think the article is unfair to you.

You are welcome to post comments there, even if I am not welcome to post 
comments onto Larvatus Prodeo.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Re: Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
 Date: Today 09:57:29 am
 From: Anna Winter
 To: James Sinnamon
 CC: Mark Bahnisch

I'm comfortable with how I'm represented in your post.

...

Re: Cyber-bullying, censorship, Larvatus Prodeo and 9/11 Truth
 Date: Today 10:31:43 am
 From: James Sinnamon
 To: Anna Winter
 CC: Mark Bahnisch 
 
Hi Anna,

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Anna Winter wrote:
> I'm comfortable with how I'm represented in your post.

Thank you for your reply.

Can I take this as meaning that you intend to maintain the ban on my
contributing to Larvatus Prodeo?

If so, could you tell me what caused you to change your mind after you assured 
me that I was still welcome to contribute?

Sincerely,

James Sinnamon

The Australasian tour in November last year, by Richard Gage, (now) representing 1059 qualified architects and engineers, who are calling for a new investigation of the 'collapses' of the three World Trade Center buildings on 11 September 2001, was almost completely ignored by the mainstream newsmedia, evidently fearful that if the Official explanation of 9/11 were questioned by Australians, the whole rationale for our current intervention in Afghanistan, as well as the removal of our guarantees of democratic freedoms, would quickly unravel.

One of those 1059 architects, whom Gage represents, and whom he met and interviewed, is Jan Utzon, son of the late Jørn Utzon, who designed Australia's iconic Sydney Opera House, for which he now works as a consultant. In a rare exception, to the media's near total silence on the raging controversy surrounding the WTC 'collapses', was the publication, on 25 Nov 09, by the Sydney Morning Herald of the story "Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory". Although this article was largely disparaging, at least it made many Australians aware of, for them, Utzon's highly contentious views.₁

Below, we include an article, which explains how Jan Utzon's views changed from a full acceptance of the story we were all told to his current extremely sceptical. A video interview of Jan Utzon is also embedded.

Original article of 23 Feb 2010 published as "Jan Utzon A Compassionate Architect Who Cares About the Truth" on site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org).

 

---

 

I feel that if a large enough group of people are dissatisfied with the explanation they are given concerning a dramatic event in their society, it is in everyone's interest to have that event investigated to the extent that the subsequent explanation satisfies most people, including professionals at all levels. – Jan Utzon

At the time of this writing, 1,034 architects and engineers have signed our petition demanding a real investigation of 9/11 – which is a bigger population, by the way, than that of many towns. In such a large crowd, there is a huge diversity of personalities and perspectives, all of them valuable; all of them seeking truth, and one that stands out is the Danish architect, Jan Utzon – son of the late architect, Jørn Utzon, whose most famous work is the Sydney Opera House.

I recently had the privilege of interviewing Jan Utzon, current architect of the ongoing renovations at the Sydney Opera house. I was struck by his sense of fairness and humanity, both in his architectural vision, and in his reasons for signing our petition.

One charge we often hear in the mainstream media against those who voice doubts about the official story is that they are "insulting" the victims' family members. This charge is absurd and totally inapplicable to anyone who simply wants legitimate answers about 9/11, and it is especially inapplicable to a man like Jan Utzon. I asked Utzon, for example, whether he and his father had discussed the manner in which the World Trade Center buildings had fallen, hoping to get some intriguing angle on the collapses from the brilliant architectural minds of the elder Utzon and his son. Utzon responded, simply, that he and his father had "felt deeply moved by the thought of the many lives lost and felt compassion for the many people who were affected." I was humbled. That's what this is all about: Honoring those who died in the attacks of 9/11, and caring for the many of us who survived, but have been, and continue to be, deeply affected by the events of that morning. Utzon feels that the way to do this is to bring the truth to light. And for this he has paid a price. The Sydney Morning Harold, who normally expresses admiration for Mr. Utzon, wrote a stinging piece about him after discovering this remarkable interview (also on YouTube and embedded below) recorded at the Sydney Opera house by Richard Gage, AIA, in which he expresses his support for AE911Truth.

Simply pretending that the official story makes sense does nothing to honor those who died, or assuage the fears of their surviving family members and friends. Thus, in Utzon's words, "Presented with the many arguments for doubting the official explanations, I thought it only reasonable to request some sort of clarification on what had happened … if so many people have reason to doubt the official story, everyone would rest easier if an investigation shows that the official story is indeed the correct one." The best case scenario, in Utzon's mind, is that the official story turns out to be true after all – that would be the easiest and most palpable thing for us all to believe – that's what most of us started out believing. But we don't have the luxury of being able to invent our own truth for the sake of psychological convenience. There are serious holes and contradictions in the official story, and while these persist, no honest person can rest easy. There has to be a full, independent investigation – then and only then can we put this thing to rest.

Curious about his philosophy as an architect, I asked Utzon what his sources of inspiration were. Of course, he mentioned the works and personality of his father – but he also mentioned "old structures like the Mayan compounds," as well as traditional Chinese and Japanese architecture, and other kinds of architecture that embody a "humanistic approach to the manmade landscape." The most important architectural works, for Utzon, are those that express "man's feeling for a place," and take into account "the people who use the buildings, and whose lives are affected by the structure." His goal as an architect is to use the inspiration of nature to create "humble and anonymous" buildings that "blend into the existing fabric of a city and enhance the lives of their occupants."

One can't help but see echoes of his architectural philosophy in his motivation for signing the petition. The goal is for everyone to "rest easier" – but without compromising the truth. His is what I would call a humanistic approach to the manmade political landscape. Signing the petition (which he no doubt meant to be "humble and anonymous" – and so I'm grateful for the opportunity to have interviewed him) isn't about pure intellectual curiosity as an architect, or about creating political friction. Rather, it's about helping restore our sense of place and stability in a post-9/11 world.

 

Footnotes

1. ↑ As if it were a propaganda organ of a totalitarian police state, your ABC refuses to give any coverage whatsover to this controversy. When Richard Gage attended a picket outside the ABC's Ultimo Centre, ABC staff members were even instructed not to accept the leaflets from Gage or the other picketers. So not even the ABC staff are allowed to make up their own minds, let alone the ABC's audiences. (See also the Online Opinion forum discussion "Fine tuning the ABC") of 24 Dec 09 and "Science Show too quick to close discussion of World Trade Center collapses" of 24 Dec 08.

Patty Casazza, Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, otherwise known as the Jersey Girls lost their husbands in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To learn why their husbands died and how a recurrence could be prevented, they forced the Bush adminisration to hold the 9/11 Commission. More than 8 years after 9/11, they have learnt, to their dismay, that all the same excuses for the intelligence failures which led to 9/11 are being made again today in regard to the attempted terrorist attack of 25 December 2009 (12/25). As a consequence, air travellers may soon face further impositions, including health-threatening full body scans whilst those, whose incompetence put air travellers' lives at risk, go unpunished again.

What's on: Free Screening of 9/11 Press for Truth about the Jersey Girls' struggle against the cover-up of 9/11. Where: Brisbane City Council Central Library(266 George St); When: 1PM Saturday, 16 January.

Also see below "Appendix: CNN Eyewitness testimony of well-dressed people helping terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab aboard Flight 253 at Amsterdam Airport"

Also published on 911blogger.com as "Statement of September 11th advocates in response to 12/25 terror attempt".

8 January 2010

It is with utter disbelief that we listen to the unfolding details of the attempted December 25, 2009 terrorist attack of Delta Flight 253.

Let us remind you, on September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists managed to evade all security measures, hijack four commercial airliners, slam them into three buildings and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 2,976 innocent people, including our husbands.

We responded by strenuously lobbying for an independent investigation to find out how on earth so many agencies could have failed in their duties to protect us, and our loved ones, from such an attack. We asked that they find and fix the loopholes that existed, in order to safeguard our nation.

After the 18-month 9/11 Commission investigation, countless systemic and human failures were uncovered, including: failure to analyze data, failure to share information, human error, failure to follow up, antiquated computer systems, too much information in the system, not enough information in the system, not enough time or people to analyze data, failure to watch list, failure to properly coordinate the watch list with other lists and visa issuance and monitoring failures. Despite all of this, the 9/11 Commissioners simplistically announced that it was a "failure of imagination" that caused the agencies to falter and allowed 9/11 to happen. Additionally, we were told that those in positions to protect us "could never have imagined this type of attack" and that "everyone is at fault, so no one is at fault."

The 9/11 Commissioners would not assign any accountability nor did they recommend that incompetent people be fired. Additionally, there was no urgency by the Bush Administration and/or Congress to make sure that common sense changes were made from "lessons learned". In response, we asked, "what will your excuse be the next time an attack occurs?" Apparently, the same excuses are being used again.

President Obama stated, "This was not a failure to collect intelligence ... it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had..." With all due respect to President Obama, we have heard these words before.

Watching the press briefing on January 7, 2010 and reading the summary of the White House Review of the December 25 Attempted Terrorist Attack and The Corrective Actions, left us stunned. The desperate attempt by the current administration to convince us that these problems were somehow different from the ones faced prior to 9/11 was absurd. We can tell you without a doubt, these problems are not new at all.

It was reported that on 12/25/09, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Mutallab), the Nigerian alleged terrorist, boarded a plane headed for the United States. Reportedly, he had no passport, no luggage and paid cash for his one-way ticket. As early as August 2009, the CIA was gathering information on a person of interest dubbed the "Nigerian". The NSA was listening to discussions of a plot involving a Nigerian man. As with 9/11, the "system was blinking red". Five weeks before this attempt, Mutallab’s father, a prominent Nigerian banker, walked into the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria and alerted the CIA Head of Station that he feared his son had become radicalized. Mutallab was reportedly put on a U.S. terror watch list. However, like the 9/11 hijackers, he held a valid U.S. visa and he was not put on the no-fly list.

Are we expected to believe that after spending billions of taxpayer dollars our agencies still do not have the ability to connect the dots – especially in light of the fact that post 9/11 (December 2004 to be exact) the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was created, with special analysts that were trained to understand the details of exactly this type of threat? Are we supposed to accept that almost eight and a half years post 9/11 our visa department still has an antiquated computer system and is still not integrated with the rest of our intelligence community?

Currently, many of the members of Congress, as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney, are loudly criticizing the current administration for how they are handling this latest terrorist attempt. We would like to remind them that they were in office during the years post 9/11. We would like to tell them they should be ashamed and should be held accountable. It was during this time that existing loopholes that allowed 9/11 to happen were supposed to have been fixed.

It is utterly offensive and dangerous when politicians attempt to turn a national security issue into a partisan battle over who is the mightiest terror warrior. The safety of American citizens is not a schoolyard game.

Over the course of the last eight and a half years, America was taken into two wars, costing billions of dollars, further fueling the fires of those who might want to do us harm. During this time, extraordinary measures were implemented, including changing laws to enable wiretapping, torture and holding prisoners indefinitely in specially erected, secret prisons.

p>As with 9/11, none of these measures were necessary to stop this attack. If the INS, FBI, CIA, NSA, State Department, airline security and both the post-9/11 newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the NCTC had been doing their jobs properly, this attempt could have been prevented. All the necessary dots of information were in the system ready to be connected and all the protocols already in place simply needing to be followed.

Throughout these past eight and a half years, we requested accountability for the individual failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. We insisted that without cleaning out the incompetence, the U.S. would remain a nation at risk. We reasoned that if the same people who failed to protect us on 9/11 remained in their jobs, they could ultimately fail us again.

President Obama has stated that he was less interested in passing out blame than in correcting mistakes, and he has made it clear that senior intelligence officials would be overseeing the reforms rather than looking for new jobs. However, it is clear that without accountability there is no impetus to prevent failures from recurring as is evidenced by this latest debacle.

Therefore, in spite of measures taken over the years reacting to whatever the latest threat (i.e. taking off shoes, allowing no liquids then allowing only four ounces of liquid), nothing has truly changed regarding air travel safety. Most importantly, nothing has changed in the way our multi-billion dollar intelligence apparatus works to protect the public. Washington continues to respond the way it always does, wasting tax dollars, this time proposing potential health-threatening, full body scanners in reaction to this last attack.

Post 9/11, billions of tax dollars have been thrown at programs and additional bureaucratic layers, such as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), DHS and the NCTC. This wasteful spending only pretends to protect us. It does not fix what is really broken, which is the bloated bureaucracy that prevents people from properly doing their jobs and fails to fire those who are inept.

Enough is enough.

President Obama, said "The buck stops with me. I am responsible."

Real accountability, from the top down is imperative. Unless people are fired for their incompetence, this statement is meaningless. Individuals who failed in their jobs need to be held accountable and fired, that’s what "the buck stops here" means.

This time it happened on President Obama’s watch and when the time comes, make no mistake, the American people will hold him accountable.

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Appendix: CNN Eyewitness testimony of well-dressed people helping terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab aboard Flight 253 at Amsterdam Airport

The following explanatory comment was posted to the story Tom "Flight 253: Anatomy of a Cover-Up" referred to below.

1) Mutallab had a handler at the Amsterdam airport. Two passengers on the endangered flight, American attorneys Kurt and Lori Haskell (husband and wife), were eyewitnesses to this and they told their story in the media right after it happened. They went on CNN, PBS and other major media outlets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtK7FFDukQ Their eyewitness testimony was that a "well-dressed man" escorted Mutallab and spoke to airline authorities to get Mutallab on the plane, among other things.

2) The eyewitness testimony of the Haskells is being ignored and suppressed by the FBI and the corporate media. If the coverage were on the level, wouldn't there be an international manhunt for the "well-dressed man" as a terrorist accomplice? Wouldn't the video footage of him at the airport be on TV? Shouldn't it be a big news story? It's as though the Haskells saw something they weren't supposed to see...an inconvenient truth that interferes with the official story being presented to the public.

In one sentence: Mutallab had a handler, and it's being covered up.

See also

"Flight 253: Anatomy of a Cover-Up" of 11 Jan 10 by Tom Burghardt on dissidentvoice.org (also published on 911blogger.com), "'Conspiracy or cock up?' White House reaction to ersatz bomber" of 8 jan 10 by Michael Collins on dailycensored.com (also published on agonist.org and 911blogger.com), "The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" of 4 Jan 10 by Tom Burghardt on dissidentvoice.com (also published on 911blogger.com), "Airport Droids Attack Human Gene Pool" about the health risks posed by full body scanners of 29 Dec 09 on peaksurfer.blogspot.com (also published on culturechange.org), "DNA Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA" of 11 Jan 10 on naturalnews.com, Passenger profiling at airports is unavoidable" in the Australian of 7 Jan 10.

During an interview with the US Public Broadcasting show NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on 26 March 2009₁, after having acknowledged that Australia's commitment to the war in Afghanistan was becoming increasingly unpopular, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd justified that commitment:

But the bottom line is this: [Afghanistan is] the right place to be.

When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.

We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again. It's going to be tough, it's going to be hard, and it's going to be difficult and dangerous.

If Kevin Rudd "cannot remove from [his] mind the image of the twin towers coming down," then perhaps it's time he took another look at those images in order to learn what really happened on 11 September 2001. He may then come to understand why not one single person with a proven link to September 11 has been captured in over 8 years of military occupation of the supposed "safe haven" out of which he insists those attacks were launched.

There is abundant evidence to be found on the Internet that conclusively proves that the 'collapses' of three tall buildings at the World Trade Centre, one of which, World Trade Center Building 7, was not even struck by an aircraft, were, in fact. controlled demolitions. Much of this evidence can be found on the web-site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth or sites linked to from there.

Amongst the latest is a video "Cutter Charges at Work in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" produced David Chandler a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Graeme MacQueen, Carolyn Chandler and Tony Szamboti, which is also embedded below.

Two videos, which captured different views of the 'collapse' have been combined to show clear evidence that a violent ejection of debris, observed at one of the corners of the North Tower as it was being engulfed by a much larger violent cloud of debris, had severed the two combined corner 14" supporting box columns at that point. The top of the remaining unsevered part of those columns was shortly after observed briefly above the swirling cloud before it began to descend at free fall speed. (For more information, see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 as well as the video itself.

Kevin Rudd should ask himself how Al Quaeda, operating out of Afghanistan, could have gained the access to the North Tower, which would have been necessary to plant the charges. If he thinks this unlikely, then he should support the demand of made by the current 985 professionally qualified members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for a new investigation into the collapses of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on 11 September 2001.

 

Article, including embedded video, has been adapted from material found in story "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" of 26 Dec 09 on 911blogger.com. See also: ae911truth.org, "WTC7 in Freefall", "'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie", parts 1, 2,3.

 

Appendix 1:David Chandler's introduction to this video

This project began with an email from Graeme MacQueen to me describing an explosion on the NW corner of WTC1. I started looking for other such explosions and found a prominent one right at the initiation point on the 98th floor. I further noticed a corner column sticking up after the roofline had fallen past. The top of the surviving column matched the height of the corner ejection moments before. This seemed to be the event that cut the column. The column hovered and swayed for several seconds then precipitously dropped. I wondered if Graeme's explosion was the one that triggered the drop. I found a way to synchronize the videos and then was able to verify that Graeme's "puff" occurred exactly at the moment of drop of the column.

The main significant points I see in this observation are:

1. The building is doing more than just blowing smoke out the windows. The puffs we see are part of the cause of the collapse.
2. We are seeing charges that can cut through the steel corners of the buildings
3. We are seeing a specific 14" column cut by explosives in two places: one to set it loose, and one to cause it to drop.
4. The two explosions occur in a time-delayed sequence, indicative of demolition

(Tony Szamboti and my wife, Carolyn, also made observations that contributed toward this video. All are acknowledged in a credits screen before the closing logo.)

Appendix 2: Key images from video

The quality of these images is poor. When viewed in motion within the video embedded above, the features described are easier to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

1. ↑ It's not completely clear that the interview of Prime Minister Keving Rudd occurred on that date. The source of this a report "Rudd backs Afghan war in talks with US leaders" of 26 March  09 on ABC Radio's The World Today.

Also published on Global Research and rickrozoff.wordpress.com. I have added footnotes to give my own perspective on some points raised in this generally excellent article. - JS

The "Obama Doctrine": Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."

By Rick Rozoff, 11 Dec 09

President and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States Barack Obama delivered his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance address in Oslo on December 10, which has immediately led to media discussion of an Obama Doctrine.

With obligatory references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi (the second referred to only by his surname) but to no other American presidents than Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy - fellow peace prize recipients Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter weren't mentioned - the U.S. head of state spoke with the self-assurance of the leader of the world's first uncontested superpower and at times with the self-righteousness of a would-be prophet and clairvoyant. And, in the words of German philosopher Friedrich von Schlegel, a prophet looking backward.

Accompanied by visionary gaze and cadenced, oratorical solemnity, his comments included the assertion that "War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man." Unless this unsubstantiated claim was an allusion to the account in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible of Cain murdering his brother Abel, which would hardly constitute war in any intelligible meaning of the word (nor was Cain the first man according to that source), it is unclear where Obama acquired the conviction that war is coeval with and presumably an integral part of humanity.

Paleontologists generally trace the arrival of modern man, homo sapiens, back 200,000 years, yet the first authenticated written histories are barely 2,400 years old. How Obama and his speechwriters filled in the 197,600-year gap to prove that the practice of war is as old as mankind and implicitly inseparable from the human condition is a question an enterprising reporter might venture to ask at the next presidential press conference.

Perhaps delusions of omniscience is the answer. The Oslo speech is replete with references to and appropriations of the attributes of divinity. And to historical and anthropological fatalism; a deeply pessimistic concept of Providence.

Obama affirmed that "no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint." Then shortly afterward stated "Let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls." An adversary's invocation of the divine is false, heretical, sacrilegious; Washington's is true, unerring, sufficient to justify any action, however violent and deadly. As unadulterated an illustration of secular Manicheaism as can be found in the modern world.

Toward the beginning of his speech the first standing American president in ninety years to receive the Peace Prize acknowledged that "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."

Understandably he exerted no effort to justify one of the two wars in question, that in Iraq, but endorsed and pledged the continuation of the other, that in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan - while elsewhere speaking disparagingly of the European Crusades of the later Middle Ages.

Neither the Nobel Committee nor its honoree seemed inordinately if at all concerned by the unprecedented awarding of the prestigious and generous ($1.4 million) Peace Prize to a commander-in-chief in charge of two simultaneous wars far from his nation's shores and in countries whose governments and peoples never threatened it in any manner.

In language that never before was heard during a peace prize acceptance speech, Obama added "we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed."

With not a scintilla of national self-awareness, balance or irony, he also derided the fact that "modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale," as he orders unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) linked by space satellites to launch deadly missile attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The central themes of Obama's speech are reiterations of standing U.S. policy going back over a decade with the waging of war against Yugoslavia in early 1999₁ without United Nations authorization or even a nominal attempt to obtain one; that the U.S. and its Western military allies can decide individually and collectively when, to what degree, where and for what purpose to use military force anywhere in the world. And the prerogative to employ military force outside national borders is reserved exclusively for the United States, its fellow NATO members and select military clients outside the Euro-Atlantic zone such as Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Israel and Saudi Arabia of late.

What is arguably unique in Obama's address is the bluntness with which it reaffirmed this doctrine of international lawlessness. Excerpts along this line, shorn of ingenuous qualifications and decorative camouflage, include:

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

He offered a summary of the just war argument that a White House researcher could have cribbed from Wikipedia.

"[A]s a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Gandhi's and King's] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."

"I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation."

Evil, as a noun rather than an adjective, is used twice in the speech, emblematic of a quasi-theological tone alternating with coldly and even callously pragmatic pronouncements.

Indicative of the second category are comments like these:

"[T]he instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."

"A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism....

"I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower."

Comparing a small handful of al-Qaeda personnel to Hitler's Wehrmacht is unconscionable. Whatever else the former are, they barely have arms to lay down. But Obama does, the world's largest and most deadly conventional and nuclear arsenal.

His playing the trump card of Nazi Germany is not only an act of rhetorical recklessness, it is historically unjustified. There would have been no need to confront the Third Reich's legions if timely diplomatic actions had been taken when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936; if Britain and France had not collaborated with Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy to enforce the naval blockade of Republican Spain while German aircraft devastated Guernica and other towns and German and Italian troops poured into the country by the tens of thousands in support of Generalissimo Franco's uprising. If, finally, Britain, France, Germany and Italy had not met in Munich in 1938 to sacrifice Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler to encourage his murderous drive to the east. The same four nations met 70 years later, last year, to reprise the Munich betrayal by engineering the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, to demonstrate how much had been learned in the interim.

As to the accusation that many nations bear an alleged "deep ambivalence about military action" and even more so "a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower," it bespeaks alike arrogance, sanctimony, and an absolute imperviousness to the reality of American foreign policy now and in the recent and not so recent past. According to this imperial "sole military superpower" perspective, the White House and the Pentagon can never be wrong. Not even partially, unavoidably or unintentionally.

If others find fault with anything the world's only military juggernaut does, it is a reflection of their own misguided pacifism and ingrained, pathological "anti-Americanism." Perhaps this constitutes the aforementioned "threats to the American people," as there aren't any others in Afghanistan or in the world as a whole that were convincingly identified in the speech.

What may be the most noteworthy - and disturbing - line in the address is what Obama characterised as the "recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason." Lest this observation be construed as an example of personal or national humility, other - grandiose Americocentric - comments surrounding it leave no doubt that the inadequacies in question are only applied to others.

One would search in vain for a comparable utterance by another American head of state. For a nation that prides itself on being the first one founded on the principles of the 18th century Enlightenment and the previous century's Age of Reason, that its leader would lay stress on inherent and ineradicable human frailty and at least by implication on some truth that is apart from and superior to reason is nothing less than alarming. The door is left open to irrationalism and its correlates, that the ultimate right can be might and that there are national imperatives beyond good and evil.

And if people are by nature flawed and their reasoning correspondingly impaired, then for humanity, "Born but to die and reasoning but to err" (Alexander Pope), war may indeed be its birthright and violent conflicts will not be eradicated in its lifetime. War, which came into existence with mankind, will last as long as it does. They may both end, as Obama believes they originated, simultaneously.

How the leader of the West, both the nation and the individual, has arrived at this bleak and deterministic impasse was also mentioned in Obama's speech in reference to pivotal post-Cold War events that have defined this new century.

It is only a single step from:

"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."

To:

"The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable."

In proclaiming these and similar sentiments, Obama made reference to his host country in alluding to the war in Afghanistan: "[W]e are joined by 42 other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks."

Again, threats are magnified to inflated and even universal dimensions. All nations on the planet are threatened and some of them - 43 NATO states and partners - are fending off the barbarians at the gates. It is difficult to distinguish the new Obama Doctrine from the preceding Blair and Bush ones except in regard to its intended scope.

It is a mission outside of time, space and constraints. "The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms....America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia....And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

"The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan."

The U.S. president adduced other nations - by name - that present threats to America and its values, its allies and the world as a whole in addition to Afghanistan and Somalia, which are Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe₂. All five were either on George W. Bush's post-September 11 list of state sponsors of terrorism or on Condoleezza Rice's later roster of "outposts of tyranny" or both.

Hopes that the policies of Obama's predecessor were somehow outside of the historical continuum, solely related to the aftermath of September 11, 2001, have been dashed. The rapidly escalating war in South Asia is proof enough of that lamentable fact. War is not a Biblical suspension of ethics but the foundation of national policy.

In his novel La Bête Humaine (The Human Beast) Emile Zola interwove images of a French crowd clamoring for a disastrous war with Prussia ("A Berlin!") and a locomotive heading at full steam down the track without an engineer. Obama's speech in Oslo indicates that America remains bent on rushing headlong to war even after a change of engineers. Veteran warhawks Robert Gates, James Jones, Richard Holbrooke, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal have stoked the furnace for a long run.

See also: Stop NATO Yahoo Group, Rick Rozoff's blog site

.

Footnotes

1. ↑ I have to admit that at the time, I considered the war against Serbia in response to its said ethnic cleansing of the province of Kosovo as one of the few wars waged by the US which was morally justified. I am aware that there is more to the story than what we were told, but I will need to study this issue more before I am personally able to condemn the action against Serbia as outright military aggression.

I also considered the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 as justified because of my acceptance of the US Government's explanation that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by a terrorist group known as 'al Qaeda' operating from sanctuaries in Afghanistan. I now know this to be a lie. - JS

2. ↑ In truth, all these countries seem to be tyrannies, but how much less tyrannical are many Western governments, such as the Government of the Australian state of Queensland, which intends to defy the will of at least 79% of its citizens in order to sell of $15 billion worth of public assets?

Virtually every state Government and the Australian Federal Government continue to implement policies, for which they have gained no popular mandate, that are harmful to their citizens' best interests . Another example is the Federal Labor Government's record high immigration program.

In regard to Third World tyrannies mentioned in this article, opponents of war often appear not to have provided realistic and practical alternatives to the continuation of those tyrannies. This is not to excuse military invasion but it has caused some to form the war-mongers the appearance of being the the only people concerned by these tyrannies.

Experience has shown that invasions invariably makes matters works. In theory, a military invasion by a country like the US to overthrow a dictatorship is one way to bring about democracy. However, Part 6 of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007 shows how the US occupiers prevented elections that the Iraqis wanted in order to impose a dictatorship and policies designed to allow favoured corporations to loot both the wealth of Iraqis and the US Treasury. - JS

On Monday, the 30th of November, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, gave his final presentation in New Zealand on the Hard Evidence Down Under Tour, to an audience of 143 in Auckland, at the Trades Hall in Grey Lynn.

Says Martin Hanson, who had also attended Gage’s Wellington presentation of the 21st of November: “The hall was full except for two or three empty seats.”

The event began shortly after 6pm and lasted for 3 hours. A show of hands at the beginning indicated that the audience was comprised largely of people who already were aware that the official story of 9/11 was a hoax. Only 11 indicated that they believed the WTC buildings were brought down by jet fuel and fires, while 18 indicated they were unsure.

Evan Ward, who was recording the event said: “Richard Gage was very professional. The presentation was down-to-earth and in layman’s language, so the information was accessible to most anybody.” Ward, who has been investigating the evidence of 9/11 for approximately 3 years, said he also had learnt something new.

Brian Reiersen, an Auckland bus driver who attended said: “The information Gage presented was very hard to argue with. It was very, very good. I couldn't fault what he had to say and any reasonable person shown this on TV would realise, given the free-fall nature of the collapses, that the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Centre, were brought down with explosives. Richard Gage proved it.”

What Reiersen found most convincing he said were the telling photos of all the cars in the vicinity of the WTC buildings that were covered in dust after the building collapses, that remnants of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were found outside the buildings’ footprints, including that huge girders were thrown 600 feet horizontally and were embedded in adjacent buildings, and that dust samples contained nanothermite.

As Gage points out, nanothermite is a highly advanced, highly energetic material that does not come from a cave in Afghanistan. Evidence indicates that the explosive material, known as the “loaded gun” of 9/11, was developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, not by Osama bin Laden.

There were five or six in the audience who were obviously 9/11 truth debunkers initially, says Reiersen. “I was sitting behind them. They were lawyers and intelligent, yet paradoxically they believed the official story. Gage easily handled their questions and then they became silent. He is a very, very professional person and exposed that there was a monster cover up.”

Near the conclusion of the presentation, Gage asked for a show of hands of those who still believed the official story and only one raised a hand, while five indicated they were still unsure.

Reiersen, who walked behind the vocal debunkers following the event, heard one of them say that they had a lot to think about now.

The 1st of December is Gage’s last night in New Zealand on this tour. He is flying out tomorrow morning to Japan for the start of the 7-city Japan Truth tour, which kicks off on the 4th of December and concludes on the 13th. He said he is particularly looking forward to meeting Yukihisa Fujita, the Japanese politician who has been challenging the validity of the official account of 9/11 in the political arena.

He said he regards the New Zealand tour as a huge success, largely owing to the mainstream media coverage it got. Gage was on Close Up, the country’s most popular current affairs program, and on Radio NZ’s popular Saturday morning show with Kim Hill. While he said the latter interview was not very good, he believes it helped to attract a lot of attention to the tour.

It also appears to have attracted a lot of attention to Radio NZ. Mark Cubey, the producer of the Kim Hill show advised via e-mail on the 2nd of November, that Hill has received over 350 e-mails from listeners regarding the interview, a representative sample of which she read out on air on the 28th of November. If the comments she read out are anything to go by, as they included: “Poorest interview I have ever heard…corporate whore..”, “Disgusting piece of trash..she should be fired,” “What a horrible stupid vile woman,” “Most dreadful interview…,” the Gage-Hill interview will likely go down in Radio NZ history, as one of their worst ever.

The night before he left New Zealand, I asked Richard Gage if he had anything he wanted to convey to the people of New Zealand. He replied that everyone must make every effort to spread the truth. Inform your family, friends and colleagues, even though it might not be easy to do so. He says you must go out of your way to wake everyone you know up to what really happened on 9/11.

---

Originally published on clareswinney.wordpress.com.

See also "Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 Nov 09 about how Jan Utzon, son of the late Joern Utzon, designer of the Sydney Opera House, is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of course, the SMH typically attempts to trivialise the 9/11 Truth Movement and Utzon by referring to their beleifs as a 'conspiracy theory'. They neglected to point out that the alternative theory of a world wide conspiracy based in Afghanistan is also a 'conspiracy theory'. In spite of this trivialisation, the publication of this story, nevertheless represents substantial improvement upon the almost complete media blackout, including by the ABC, endured by the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia up until now.

Tuesday, 10 November 2009, 11:36 am

Media release

Visiting architect presents evidence that undermines official 9/11 story.

Architect and internationally acclaimed speaker Richard Gage will present startling new evidence about the September 11, 2001 collapses of the World Trade Centre when he speaks in In Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Wellington this month.

A practising architect with more than 20 years experience, Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects) will present compelling evidence that calls into question official reports about how the WTC building collapsed.

Three steel-framed high-rise buildings spectacularly collapsed on Sept 11, 2001 after two jetliners were flown into the twin towers. Official reports attribute the building's failures to fire damage.

However, no other steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fire. Using video analysis of all three building's collapses, Gage will explain how they could not, and did not, collapse because of fire damage.

The seminar introduces the research of Dr. Steven Jones, (Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University), who, along with other scientists, analysed large quantities of nano-thermite, a highly-engineered explosive recently developed by the military, found in the dust at Ground Zero. These findings have been corroborated and published in the peerreviewed scientific journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

This corroborated evidence is the basis for a call for a new independent investigation into the WTC building failures, an investigation not encumbered with the lack of sub-poena power and limited terms of reference which has hamstrung previous investigations.

Gage is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a World-wide group of Architects and Engineers now approaching one thousand Architect and Engineering professionals and more than five thousand affiliated supporters. AE911truth is demanding a new investigation into the destruction of the three buildings based on hard physical evidence, witness testimony, video evidence and strict structural analysis using the original blueprints. As building professionals they have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to in bringing about this new investigation.

Richard Gage's presentation "9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction" will be followed by a question and answer session facilitated by John Bursill, Aircraft Engineer and founder of 911truth Australia. After a short break, there will be a video screening of Dr. Steven Jones lecture: "Nanothermite: What is High-tech explosive material doing in the dust generated on 9/11/2001?”

See also: ae911truth.org, Richard Gage addresses sell-out crowd at Commonwealth Club

See Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones at The Hard Evidence, Down Under Tour. Tour dates: Sydney: Sat-Sun 14-15 Nov, Melbourne: Tue 17 Nov, Brisbane: Thu 19 Nov, Wellington, NZ, Sat 21 Nov. See thehardevidence.com for further information.

English version: "French comic J-M Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz challenge Official 9/11 story on French Television".

Le 23 octobre 2009 Guillaume Durand, présentateur de l’émission, L’Objet du scandale (France2) reçoit le comédien, Jean-Marie Bigard et le metteur en scène, Kassovitz, soi-disant pour leur permettre de s’exprimer sur leurs doutes de l’explication officielle des événements du 11 septembre 2001 (« 9/11) à New York et en Washington, ou deux tours sont tombées suite à des collisions non-accidentelles de deux avions, et une troisième tour est tombée pour une raison inconnue et la façade du Pentagone serait pénétrée par un avion.

A l'origine l’objet du scandale faisait le pub pour une interview avec Bigard et Kassovitz, plus Éric Laurent – auteur français spécialiste du « 9/11 », habile aux interviews - et Niels Harrit, scientifique danois, professeur de chimie a l’université de Copenhague, qui a écrit un papier affirmant que les décombres de la troisième tour contenaient de la thermite, et qui a paru sur les infos danoises.

Puis, pour des raisons mystérieuses, qui ont étés peu élucidées par Durand à la fin de cette émission, Laurent et Harrit ont été décommandés.

Commentaire sur le débat

Je trouve que Bigard et Kassovitz ont eu la parole coupée par les interruptions de, ou anéantie par, le bruit que faisaient Bonnaud, Gattegno et Durand. Plusieurs fois on leur priait (à Bigard et Kassovitz) ‘juste de’ laisser poser une question ou un argument, mais quand ils essayaient de répondre, on leur faisait taire de nouveau, comme si c'avait été eux qui venaient de parler, en les adressant comme des enfants déraisonnables, tel : « Jean-Marie, oh, Jean-Marie, s’il vous plait ». C’était ignoble.

Vers la fin du programme Guillaume Durand a demandé que Bigard lui laisse la parole, en promettant de laisser répondre Bigard après qu’il eût dit ce qu’il avait à dire. Mais Durand a ensuite terminé l'émission sans donner la parole honnêtement à Bigard.

Bigard et Kassovitz ont été provoques par Frédéric Bonnaud et Hervé Gattegno qui ne me semblaient pas répondre aux quelques mots qu'on nous laissait entendre dire Bigard et Kossovitz, mais qui répondaient plutôt aux commentaires dans des extraits de filmes que l'on faisait passer.

Pourquoi inviter Bigard et Kassovitz si on allait commenter surtout sur des extraits des filmes ?

Cette émission aurait été beaucoup plus valable si Jean-Marie Bigard et Mattieu Kassovitz auraient pu dire pourquoi ils pensaient qu'une nouvelle enquête plus profonde sur 9/11 est nécessaire. On a essaye de les ridiculiser sans leur laisser se défendre. Cela paraissait très lâche !

Frédéric Bonnaud et Hervé Gattegno ne semblaient pas connaitre le sujet parce qu'ils ne faisaient que lancer des accusations en essayaient de faire tant de bruit et tant d'interruptions que l'on n'entendait presque rien de Kassovitz et de Bigard quand ils tentaient de répondre. Ils avaient l’air de vouloir couvrir ce que les autres avaient à dire.

Par exemple, quand Bigard ou Kassovitz demandèrent pourquoi, de toutes les caméscopes vidéos à filmer autour de la Pentagone, on ne semble pas avoir gardé un film utile simple de l’attaque, Bonnaud et Gattegno ont hurlé que seulement des idiots avaient besoin des photos ! Mais la question était de savoir pourquoi ils n'ont pas rendu tous les films pris par leurs caméscopes vidéo ce jour-là disponible pour le public ?

Aussi, l’explication que fournissait Bonnaud ou Gattegno pour le non-affichage de la personne de Bin Laden comme ‘cherché’ pour les crimes de 9/11 pourrait être vrai selon la loi nord-américaine (je ne sais pas) mais n’explique toutefois pas pourquoi alors l’on aurait poursuivi Bin Laden en faisant la guerre en Afghanistan et Iraq, si l’on n’était pas sure qu’il soit le responsable. [1]

Bonnaud et Gattegno ne réussirent pas, quand même, à faire taire Bigard et Kassovitz sur ce fait : Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas fait venir Harrit, le scientifique qui a écrit l’article que tous les ‘Truthers’ citent sur la thermite ? Il est vrai que si le co-auteur – Steven E. Jones - du papier sur la thermite a écrit des articles défendant l’idée que Jésus a paru en Amérique, que c’est déconcertant.[2] Néanmoins, ce n’est pas une façon de répondre a l’argument scientifique. Un homme peut croire aux fées, mais s’il avance une théorie scientifique il faut analyser et critiquer sa théorie sur la science qu’elle se pose dessus, et non pas essayer de la réfuter en changeant le sujet aux fées.

Apres tout, les scientifiques mormons, tout autant que les scientifiques islamiques et les scientifiques chrétiennes arrivent à construire des ponts, des bâtiments, des bombes et des avions tout aussi bien que les scientifiques non-croyants. Les Etats-Unis sont bourrés d’adeptes des religions des plus farfelus mais bourrés aussi de grandes œuvres technologiques.

En conclusion, moi je trouve que l’objet du scandale doit à Jean-Marie Bigard et à Kassovitz une nouvelle session avec les invités originellement prévus – Harrit et Laurent. Cette-fois-ci peut-être faudrait-il utiliser un chronomètre sur l’écran pour contrôler un peu l’allocation des paroles.

Si les medias françaises n’arrivent pas se conduire de façon équitables envers J-M Bigard et Kassovitz ils ne font que donner de la force aux théories de conspiration officielles.

Finalement, merci à France2 toutefois d’avoir essayé. On voit que c’est difficile pour les medias officielles de questionner les explications officielles. C’est pour cela que les medias non-officielles existent.

[1] «Le Bureau d’investigation fédérale dit que l’évidence liant Al-Qaeda et bin Laden aux attentats de septembre 11 est claire et irrécusable. Le gouvernement du Royaume Unie forma la même conclusion sur la culpabilité d’Al Qaeda et Osama bin Laden dans les attentats de septembre 11, 200q. Bin Laden nia au début qu’il y était implique. Le 16 septembre 2001, bin Laden lut une déclaration qui fut émise par Al Jazeera, une chaine satellite du Qatar, niant sa responsabilité.

Dans une vidéo trouve par les forces des E.U. en novembre 2001 a Jalalabad, bin Laden peut être vu en train de discuter l’attentat avec Khaled al-harbi dans une manière qui a indiqué la prescience. L’enregistrement fut émis sur plusieurs chaines d’infos le 13 décembre 2001. La fiabilité de cette traduction a été contestée. Arabiste Dr Abdel El M. Husseini en dit, « Cette traduction est très problématique. Les parties sur lesquelles on pose la culpabilité de bin Laden ne sont pas identiques à l’arabe.
Dans le video de 2004 d’Osama bin Laden, bin Laden laissa tomber ses démentis sans retraire ses precedentes declarations. Il disait qu’il avait lui-même dirige les dix-neuf pirates de l'air. Dans l’enregistrement de 18 minutes, transmit par Al-Jazeera, quatre jours avant l’election présidentielle nord-américaine, bin Laden accusa le President des Etats-Unis, George Bush, de négligence sur le piratage des avions de septembre 11. »

Ma traduction de:

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.

In a videotape recovered by US forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad, bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi in a way that indicates foreknowledge. The tape was broadcast on various news networks on 13 December 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[80][90] In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones On dit qu’il a interprété des pistes archéologiques des Mayenne préhistoriques comme témoignant que Jésus Christ aurait visité en Amérique.

English version: "French comic J-M Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz challenge Official 9/11 story on French Television".