Australian Media Cover 9/11
Vngelis
Vngelis
18 May 2008 11:23:08am
Dave
You miss the X Files, dont you?
Reply Alert moderator
#
Mulga Mumblebrain :
18 May 2008 11:26:58am
Yes Dave, and always remember who established al Qaeda to attack
Afghanistan and embroil the Soviets and who later transported their
'mujihadeen' killers to Bosnia, Chechnya and Kosovo, to serve their
creator's purposes. Why the good old US of A, who probably continue to
pull the strings from behind the curtain. I mean, the al Qaeda boogey-
man is just such a convenient excuse to terrorise the entire Middle
East, destroy countries, kill millions and steal the hydro-carbon
riches (all activities immensely pathopsychologically rewarding for
the psychopaths who run the US)forever, all under the stupefyingly
fraudulent pretext of self-defense.
Reply Alert moderator
Funny how on the other side of the earth apologists for the USA use
exactly these arguments which leaves me with a new idea?
Is Holmes, David and Diamond all playing the old police game?
Good cop, bad cop, chief cop?
The difference in their political positions is minimal.
The fact that they are American and of jewish descent is an indicator
that they all are playing a game.
For why would anyone argue in such a manner if not alibing the USA?
But the game is up. Israel wont survive the Arab Revolution neither
will the USA.
vngelis
Vngelis
Where have I heard this shit before?
Fron Michael Shermer, writing in the Scientific American:
Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy
theories
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can
undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all
conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and
the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11
conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are
easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on
single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from
multiple lines of inquiry.
and
"All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the
Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be
filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the
same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered
by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me
that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this
off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a
tell-all book?"
My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists
when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses,
and dead men tell no tales."
nada
> #
>
> 18 May 2008 11:23:08am
>
> Dave
>
> You miss the X Files, dont you?
In fact I do, very much. A new X-Files movie is due out in July,
however. Of course I have you, too, so that'll hold me over.
> Reply Alert moderator
>
> #
> Mulga Mumblebrain :
>
> 18 May 2008 11:26:58am
>
> Yes Dave, and always remember who established al Qaeda to attack
> Afghanistan and embroil the Soviets and who later transported their
> 'mujihadeen' killers to Bosnia, Chechnya and Kosovo, to serve their
> creator's purposes. Why the good old US of A, who probably continue to
> pull the strings from behind the curtain. I mean, the al Qaeda boogey-
> man is just such a convenient excuse to terrorise the entire Middle
> East, destroy countries, kill millions and steal the hydro-carbon
> riches (all activities immensely pathopsychologically rewarding for
> the psychopaths who run the US)forever, all under the stupefyingly
> fraudulent pretext of self-defense.
Actually, Al Qaeda existed before US aid went to it. It's US aid that
provided the needed fertilizer to make them grow. It was always a
minor group with other Mujihadeed much more powerful in Afghanistan,
and, in anyevnt, there were not Afghanis in the AQ, mostly Arabs. But
the other stuff is about right.
> Reply Alert moderator
>
> Funny how on the other side of the earth apologists for the USA use
> exactly these arguments which leaves me with a new idea?
Can you name a single person who 'apologizes' for the US? Just
curious, you love to act the clown and, like a good Stalinist, accuse
your political opponent of working for 'the other side'. You could of
written for Beria you know.
> Is Holmes, David and Diamond all playing the old police game?
> Good cop, bad cop, chief cop?
Now spell it: S T A L I N I S M (tyical of all cop baiters, most of
whom turn out to be cops themselves...that is the old "police game").
> The difference in their political positions is minimal
Evidently you are an idiot.
.
> The fact that they are American and of jewish descent is an indicator
> that they all are playing a game.
Counting Jews again. I never thought until now, it just occured to me,
that your politcial shcizophrenia is a form of Nazi-Stalinist Bipolar
Disorder. You're sort of a living "Red-Brown Alliance" in one person.
> For why would anyone argue in such a manner if not alibing the USA?
Why don't you tell us...you...represent...the USA now? Wouldn't that
make you tri-polar?
> But the game is up. Israel wont survive the Arab Revolution neither
> will the USA.
A good "Education for Socialists" dosseir called "The Arab
Revolution". Very good. You should order it from the US SWP.
But...while I would agree with you that Israel won't surive the Arab
Revolution I think the US probably will.
dusty
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/#s2240510
Good stuff Vn. I will post his article and a few of the
552(!!!!!!!!!!!!) comments since 19 May. They felt the need to close
of further discussion!!!!!
Hereward Fenton:
The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is
arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less
well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they
did.
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering
professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the
National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the
destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural
damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation,
states, in part:
"...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the
possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind
the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources,
including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as
they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings,
eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical
composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone.
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been
used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the
buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led
by
Professor Steven E. Jones and the results published in the Journal of
9/11 Studies.
The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is
worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr.
Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr.
David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of
Sydney is a registered member of the group.
A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the
47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any
plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the
afternoon of September 11, 2001.
Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive
dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the
Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day.
Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough
energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete
into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of
the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that
the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass
above.
Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made
to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is
through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed
sequence.
This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a
precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through
supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings
down under their own weight.
The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled
demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube.
Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this
observation.
"A team of experts did this", he said.
The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade
Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge:
"As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings
collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had
collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to
have started the investigation of this surprising event would have
been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did
not occur.
The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively
collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and
ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific
method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public
is entitled to receive from their paid servants."
The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many
eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described
massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior
to the collapse.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly
rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive
explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane
struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118
witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive
demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included
or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11
Commission.
There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of
victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the
investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press
For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family
members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was
created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of
questions raised by these courageous women.
Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by
millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown
that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official
narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while
others believe that September 11 was an "inside job".
As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new
investigation for several reasons.
First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed
thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11
official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan
may be a war crime.
Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form
of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of
surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the
primary justification.
Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake,
which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in
upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we
need a new investigation.
Send to a friend | del.icio.us | Digg | Furl | Reddit | StumbleUpon |
ma.gnolia
Comments (552)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.
IA :
19 May 2008 12:43:13pm
More from 911oz.com:
Hi guys & thanks for the support. I spent quite a bit of time on that
article, and was unsure about whether it would ultimately be knocked
back by the ABC.
It looks to me now that they have made a policy decision to allow this
topic within the confines of "opinion". The next step is to move it
into the "news" category.
I think there is a good chance that a TV show like Lateline would pick
it up. This should happen as a natural progression, but I won't hold
my breath.
-------------------------------------------
Comments now at 262 - the challenge is, can we beat the article on gay
marriage which has 607 comments?
--------------------------------------------
Moderator: In view of allegations that comments on this subject have
become part of a campaign, no more postings on this article will be
accepted. With over 500 comments, the issues have been well canvassed
- Ed.
Alert moderator
Andy from Brisbane :
19 May 2008 12:19:59pm
At last an article in the mainstream media.
Bush used 9/11 to create a blank cheque book to do what he, Cheney,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfled liked in the middle east. Afghanistan is a
necessary sideshow.
All those mysterious "red alerts" post 9/11 which kept the US
population cowed and frightened, including the anthrax (from US
military lab) posted in letters. Great fertile soil for the Patriot
Act and narrowing Constitutional rights.
Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident?, the Manchurian Incident? arranged
excuses to go to war - whilst blaming someone else. US military can
pinpoint an insect from space but still can't find OSB? what a joke -
well it helps to have an ogre-like enemy to keep the nation scared.
9/11 was a lie - swallowed by the media (vested interests).
Corporations like Halliburton are the new nation states and wars will
be fought in their interests
Alert moderator
Hereward Fenton :
19 May 2008 11:39:07am
I am moved and inspired by the overwhelmingly positive response this
article has generated.
The ABC has my heartfelt thanks for allowing this discussion to take
place.
As you all know, the issues raised in my article are only tip of an
iceberg. Questions surrounding the failure of NORAD, Cheney's presence
and role in the command center while the president sat helpless in a
classroom in Florida, Norman Mineta's testimony about the young man
who asked the vice president "do the orders still stand?", the
improbable path of flight 77 and the piloting skills required to bring
the plane into the Pentagon along the alleged trajectory, the E-4B
"doomsday" plane which circled the White House shortly before the
Pentagon was hit, the unusual volume of Wall St put options on United
and American Airlines, connections between the alleged hijackers and
the FBI, the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, the pre-planning for the war
against Afghanistan, the neo-conservative call for a "New Pearl
Harbour" prior to the attacks, are but a few of the list of hundreds
of anomalies which need to be examined and explained.
John Pilger recently suggested (in answer to a question during a
lecture) that, if we are to get to the truth of 9/11, we will need a
grass-roots citizen's investigation, see:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/carc/john-pilger-video-6-12-07/index.html
He may well be right, and discussions such as this at abc.net.au may
indeed constitute the beginnings of such an international non-partisan
investigation.
Let's hope the discussion continues.
Alert moderator
IA :
19 May 2008 12:00:18pm
Hereward
The overwhelmingly positive response is because you and the rest of
the 911 troofer bumpkins have been posting like crazy on forums to get
your numbers up.
Vngelis
SRD on record stating the USA has many more decades of this shit...
You then repeat the same...
You then say I am counting ...Jews.
I am counting zionists soft-ones and hard core ones, who are jewish
and are a specific product of US imperialism in decline. The old
'left' has morphed into a globalist neo-con war on terror brigade...
The 'theory' of interpenetrated peoples, the two state solution, or
the existence of Bin Laden are zionist options.
That is no coincidence that you all 3 peddle these lines and appear to
be ...different.
To a novice who just is learning about the world yes. To Arab
Holocaust deniers who have been on the circuit some time you may think
I am born yesterday but I aint.
You have the same positions on most issues and this has been revealed
for those who are observing. The fact that you all know each is just
part of a game. The latest version of which is lets say vngelis is mad
and stop talking.
No problems there either, as you assumed we were talking? I must have
missed that one as well.
vngelis
nada
I'm not predicting. It could well be more decades, if we're talking
total collapse and/or revolution.
> You then say I am counting ...Jews.
> I am counting zionists soft-ones and hard core ones, who are jewish
> and are a specific product of US imperialism in decline.
Know...you make the assumption based on stating that SRD, JH and
myself "are Jews" and ergo this has something to do with our politics,
which neither of the 3 of us agrees on everything or most things.
Ergo, why count us as "Jews" except to generalize and/or appeal to
some sort of 'conspiracy' between us and/or all Jews? Why?
> The old
> 'left' has morphed into a globalist neo-con war on terror brigade...
OK, if you say so.
> The 'theory' of interpenetrated peoples, the two state solution, or
> the existence of Bin Laden are zionist options.
Bin Laden exists or he doesn't. All evidence suggests he does,
sponosred by the US in fact, at one point. The frist two political
points are different but in one form or another recognizes "Jewish
exclusiveness" and therefore are, as you state, a form of left-
Zionism.
> That is no coincidence that you all 3 peddle these lines and appear to
> be ...different.
Because...they are different? How can it be "not" conicidential that
all 3 of us have DIFFERENT opinions??? This is totally nonsensical.
SRD has, to my knowledge, never poised his solution to the issue of
Palestinian Self-Determination and his view of Zionism. JH has
(Interpentrated peoples) amd my position, I believe, is almost exactly
the same as yours: destruction of the zionist entity and the establish
of a unified single state in Palestine.
> To a novice who just is learning about the world yes. To Arab
> Holocaust deniers who have been on the circuit some time you may think
> I am born yesterday but I aint.
Which is why you should know above all else.
> You have the same positions on most issues and this has been revealed
> for those who are observing.
I just showed you that we don't, be even if we did, you'd have to find
out what they are, and, more importanly, if the issue or position is
the same as or different than your own. That's the only thing
important.
>The fact that you all know each is just
> part of a game.
I know John because he's active in the labor movement in the city as
me. You know SRD as well as I do: never met him outside this forum. He
will confirm this.
> The latest version of which is lets say vngelis is mad
> and stop talking.
No, SRD completely distances himself from my view that you cross the
border into lunacy. He thinks thats wrong, just that you are a wee bit
paranoid like most people. All this is important even if we DID agree
how exactly? What would be the point in pointing out that 3 people on
the same internet forum have one or two positions that are the same?
Especially as we all come from various Trotskyist currents? I would
think this would be clear being on APST.
> No problems there either, as you assumed we were talking? I must have
> missed that one as well.
this time you are simply not making sense.
David
> - Show quoted text -
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 19, 7:16 am, Vngelis <meberr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/#s2240510
>
> Good stuff Vn. I will post his article and a few of the
> 552(!!!!!!!!!!!!) comments since 19 May. They felt the need to close
> of further discussion!!!!!
>
Dusty, could you describe a bit the overall attitude regarding "9/11" in
Australia and the propects for unrest it could generate?
On small addendum to the list of "peculiar facts", which I have seldom
seen noted: the date it happened. Quiz: Pick one day in the calendar
which would suggest "emergency" to a Yank public most strongly.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
dusty
wrote:
A hard one. Most people are sceptical about the official version of
9-11, just look at the huge intensity of postings to the Australian
Broadcasting Commission site. There is a large majority of Australians
who are anti-Iraq war and "support" the intervention in Afghanistan
only by apathy - the force there, as in Iraq, is very small.
There is a considerable post-war history of supporting the US, albeit
with relatively token forces, no matter what, or how dubious the
cause. In the middle of WW2 the US moved into Australia, replacing the
retreating British who largely departed the region after the fall of
Malaya and Singapore and the sinking of the British battleships Prince
of Wales and Repulse by land based Japanese aircraft.
This produced a real crisis in Australia and the ALP government
brought back its forces from the Middle East against the wishes of the
British, and the USA (MacArthur) took control of the Australian forces
(HQ in Melbourne) in the war against Japan in the Islands, using
Australia as their principal base.
There were considerable fears that Japan intended to invade Australia
– a fear that went back to the Russo-Japanese war, successful Japanese
industrialisation and economic ascendancy in the Pacific. Thus there
was a perceived coincidence of Australian and US interests.
I think the answer to your question would be that there would be a
further very deep undermining of US credibility, huge pressures to
break the US alliance and Australian military support in that
direction. But it would depend on other events – such as other
fabricated history looming at the time. But the main impact would come
from the forced response arising from the massive reaction from the
USA and Europe. In the former blood would flow in the streets.
nada
threatened Japanese invasion of Australia? My understanding is that
Isoroku Yamamoto had plans to do this but it was not 'strategic'. It
was based on trying to knock the Aussies out of the war and not invade
if they didn't have to. I remember reading this some place but
honestly I can't remember. It was not unlike Hitler's designs on
Britain, which was to force the Brits to capitulate and withdrawal
from the war without an invasion. But they had Operation Sea Lion
ready to go, almost, before Barbarossa. The Wehrmacht convinced Hitler
invading England was impossible (the only time they convinced him of
anything, in fact). Got any good sources on this?
David
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 20, 8:14 am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Dusty, could you describe a bit the overall attitude regarding "9/11" in
>> Australia and the propects for unrest it could generate?
>>
OK, thanks.
Say, is it just me or is there some kind of almost hysterical fear in
Australia of the Asian (especially Japanese) element?
I think it struck me similarly in some pieces I read about Australia
elsewhere, I think they were about the WWII period, too, how...
naturally it would seem for Australians to embrace US domination to
avoid Japanese domination. I mean, of course US rule most probably was a
better time than a Japanese would have been, yet it struck me how it
seemed to go without saying, as a question than wouldn't even make one
pause. Is this simply due to the common Anglo-Saxon background with the US?
dusty
Yes. Australia was definitely in the sights of Japan. David
Bergamini's monumental work Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, Panther,
1971, pp. 898, 899, gives the lie to the latter day revisionist
bullshit (PC motivated in my opinion - "they were not so bad all along
and you were mislead by your rotten nationalism and racism"). Wish I
could scan and post it – haven’t got the gear.
But here are some honestly chosen representative fragments,
substantiating my point:
“Admiral Yamamoto, the hero of Pearl Harbour, wanted to land an
expeditionary force on the undefended north coast of Australia and at
least terrorize the sub-continent with a division or two. General
Yamashita, the hero of Singapore, seconded Yamamoto and offered to
lead the invasion himself. Despite the vasteness of Australian
distances, he felt that it would be feasible to land a division almost
immediately at Darwin and thrust hard and fast down the north-south
railroad and road links (DT: all earth in those days) toward Adelaide
and Melbourne on the south coast. Later, he supposed, a second
division could leapfrog its way from port to port down toward Sydney.
Tough as they might be, not even Australian civilians, he felt, would
be any match for disciplined troops…
General Tojo, the Prime Minister, and most of the elders in the
General staff spoke against the Yamamoto-Yamashita plan. Admiral
Nagumo’s air raid on Darwin had been a successfully improvised
spectacular, but full scale invasion was another matter. The general
staff had no well-considered contingency plans for such an operation.
In the Australian barrens, a Japanese force would have to depend
entirely on supplies from the rear. The Japanese merchant fleet was
already taxed to the utmost without taking on new assignments. Also,
if the United States became alarmed and poured Flying Fortresses into
Sydney, it would be difficult to maintain air superiority. On the
Australian badlands Japanese columns would be fearfully vulnerable to
long range, high-level air attack.
On reviewing the arguments of both sides, Hirohito decided that the
invasion of Australia could be POSTPONED (DT: my emphasis) until after
the conquest of Burma….
dusty
wrote:
No hysteria, but genuine concern as indicated above in my reply to
David.
The USA never planned an invasion of Australia – “merely” imperialist
domination/division of labour in the Pacific with Australia as a
subordinate junior partner. And there is no doubt that Australia
historically has had closer cultural (and ethnic) connections to the
USA than emerging (from feudalism) Asia.
As well as this, here is my earlier response on this question:
“The essence of the issue of “white Australia” was not race except
in this way: working people in Australia always fought against either
unfair competition (initially the fight against the continuation of
convict transportation) or the oversupply of labour. The latter could
have come either from assisted passage immigrants from Britain - of
which there was a definite limit imposed by the British government
because of the very high costs of the passage from Britain in the
nineteenth century - making free immigration confined largely to the
middle class mostly potential landowners, or indentured labour largely
from China or the Pacific Islands. The attempt by mainly landowners
with large holdings to get labour from the latter source was blocked
in the south of Australia (with a more powerful working class) but not
so in the north where roughly the equivalent of slavery
(“blackbirding”) was successful on the sugar plantations in the north
– Queensland.
There was an influx of indentured Chinese into Australia during the
Gold Rushes of the 1850’s (on to the 1870’s). This started a new
chapter in the same struggle. With the phenomenal rush of working
people away from the land (etc) labour costs rose considerably and
agitation by landowners to import Asian labour increased. Despite this
head taxes were imposed on Chinese seeking to land in Australian
colonies. There was an intensification of anti-Chinese feeling when
the readily available alluvial gold ran out and working people sought
“normal” employment. Here there was intense competition and the focus
was turned to the Chinese. This resulted in a further tightening up of
Chinese and non-European immigration which was a central policy of the
very combative and effective Australian trade unions until the
1960’s. When they gave birth to the mass Australian Labour Party this
was part of its platform again till the 1960’s.
Proof that the policy was essentially about quantitative aspects of
labour supply was presented earlier when the widespread opposition by
the trade unions to the Empire Settlement Scheme of the 1920’s – in
which the British government sought to use Australia as a dumping
ground for what it considered its surplus working class population
(note: all British people).
It is important to look at the question of immigration from colonial
countries in the context of its widespread use by British Empire
capitalists – so-called Coolie labour. In all cases – including
Australia – the intention and effect of this was to undermine the
strength of the common people in various parts of The Empire. In
Australia this was blocked.
This is not to say that there were not excesses in Australia,
including in inter-trade union relations, but more recently till the
early 1970’s in the continuation of the qualitative restrictions on
people of non-European origin.
It should also be noted that similar policies were in operation in USA
and Canada.
and later the north of South Australia.