911oz - Australian 9/11 Truth Movement

contact: admin@911oz.com

Bookmark and Share   PageRank Checking Tool    RSS

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Syndicated Articles

To share your thoughts, join the 911oz Forum

Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:


Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”


Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)


Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)


Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos


Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust


Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds


Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves


Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance


1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint


Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away


Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet


Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.


Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)


Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.


FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples


More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.


Slow onset with large visible deformations


Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)


Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

9/11 - Key Issue of our Time

Australian 9/11 Truth Movement Statement
11 September 2010

Mike Rudin (BBC): Controversy and conspiracies

BBC Editor's Blog

27 June 2008


In my last blog earlier this month about the London bombings of 7 July 2005 there was a lot of concern expressed by people who say that when they question such events they're told they're "mad, crazy or in a state of shock". I haven't done this and won't.


What we will do is investigate an issue. For the new series we have looked for key proponents of alternative theories.


So for the new programme about World Trade Center Building 7 ("The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" for next Sunday) we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.


We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.


We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.


It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.


The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.


I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.


But I've seen there's already a campaign for letters of complaint well before the programme has been aired.


Alex Jones' Prison Planet website ended an article headlined BBC Hit Piece by urging readers to comment on this blog. And comments in 911blogger.com urged people to prepare a "counter strike" and to start letter writing and e-mailing. A lot of the later comments on my last blog came soon after those.


It would be good if people watched the programme first. So far we've put out a three minute trailer:


In response to dotconnect: yes I'm interested in investigating a host of issues such as the death of Anna Politkovskaya, the financing of al-Qaeda, British agents in Northern Ireland - and it does not as you suggest hinge on whether "our side" was allegedly "behind it". But the BBC has already covered these stories and is currently investigating many of them.


In response to cyncastical: the original allegation made in the papers was that we had paid Nicholas Kollerstrom to appear in the programme about 7/7. We did not. We reimbursed him for £30 worth of his expenses. The newspapers corrected their original copy.


"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" to be broadcast on BBC 2 at 2100 BST on Sunday 6 July, repeated on BBC 2 at 1120 BST on Tuesday 8 July, and on Signzone at 0130 BST on Wednesday 9 July.


Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files



Naomi Wolf: Call sex crimes what they are

Sydney Morning Herald

26 June 2008


Naomi Wolf

Sex crime has a telltale signature, even when those directing the outrages are some of the most powerful men and women in the United States. How extraordinary, then, to learn that one of the perpetrators, Condoleezza Rice, has just led the debate in a special session of the United Nations Security Council on the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.


I had a sense of deja vu when I saw the photos that emerged in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. Even as the Bush Administration was spinning the notion that the torture of prisoners was the work of "a few bad apples" low in the military hierarchy, I knew that we were seeing evidence of a systemic policy set at the top. It's not that I am a genius. It's simply that, having worked at a rape crisis centre and been trained in the basics of sex crime, I have learned that all sex predators go about things in recognisable ways.


We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by the former secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld; the Vice-President, Dick Cheney; and Rice - who chaired the torture meetings. The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorised sexualised abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by females. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, "checking in" on the sexualised humiliation of prisoners.


The sexualisation of torture from the top turned Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay into an organised sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic sadism-and-masochism nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this.


The non-sexual torture ranged from beatings and suffocation, electrodes attached to genitals, and forced sleep deprivation, to prisoners being hung by the wrists from the ceiling and placed in solitary confinement until psychosis was induced. These abuses violate both US and international law. Three former military attorneys, recognising this blunt truth, refused to participate in the "military tribunals" - rather, "show trials" - aimed at condemning men whose confessions had been elicited through torture.


Although we can now debate what the penalty for water-boarding should be, America as a nation, maintaining an odd silence, still cannot seem to discuss the sexual crimes involved.

Why? It's not as if the sex crimes that US leaders either authorised or tolerated are not staring Americans in the face: the images of male prisoners with their heads hooded with women's underwear; the documented reports of female US soldiers deployed to smear menstrual blood on the faces of male prisoners; and the reports of military interrogators or contractors forcing prisoners to simulate sex with each other, to penetrate themselves with objects, or to submit to being penetrated by objects. Indeed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was deliberately written with loopholes that gave immunity to perpetrators of many kinds of sexual humiliation and abuse.


There is also the testimony by female soldiers such as Lynndie England about compelling male prisoners to masturbate, as well as an FBI memo objecting to a policy of "highly aggressive interrogation techniques". The memo cites a female interrogator rubbing lotion on a shackled detainee and whispering in his ear - during Ramadan when sexual contact with a strange woman would be most offensive - then suddenly bending back his thumbs until he grimaced in pain, and violently grabbing his genitals. Sexual abuse in US-operated prisons got worse and worse over time, ultimately including, say doctors who examined detainees, sodomy.


All this may sound bizarre if you are a normal person, but it is standard operating procedure for sex offenders. Those who work in the field know that once sex abusers control a powerless victim, they will invariably push the boundaries with ever more extreme behaviour.


Abusers start by undressing their victims and, once that line has been breached, you are likely to hear from the victim about oral and anal penetration, greater and greater pain and fear being inflicted. There is more and more carelessness about exposing the crimes as the perpetrator's inhibitions fall away.


The perpetrator is also likely to engage in ever-escalating rationalisations, often arguing that the offences serve a greater good. Finally, the victim is blamed for the abuse: if the detainees would only "behave", and confess, they wouldn't bring all this on themselves.

Silence, and even collusion, is also typical of sex crimes within a family. Americans are behaving like a dysfunctional family by shielding sex criminals in their midst through silence.


Just as sex criminals - and the leaders who directed the use of rape and sexual abuse as a military strategy - were tried and sentenced after the wars in Bosnia and Sierra Leone, so Americans must hold accountable those who committed, or authorised, sex crimes in US-operated prisons.


Throughout the world, this perverse and graphic criminality has added fuel to anxiety about US cultural and military power. These acts need to be called by their true names - war crimes and sex crimes - and people in America need to demand justice for the perpetrators and their victims. As in a family, only when people start to speak out and tell the truth about rape and sexual assault can the healing begin.


Naomi Wolf wrote The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot and the forthcoming Give Me Liberty: How To Become An American Revolutionary. She is the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign, a US democracy movement, and is part of Project Syndicate, 2008.


Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 24/06/2008

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations

The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

Story from Telegraph News:

Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global


Special to The Japan Times

Tuesday, June 17, 2008



In a September 2003 article for The Guardian newspaper, Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism "bogus." Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day. Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America's official 9/11 narrative — until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita.


In January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.


Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.


"Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like 'Loose Change' and '911 In Plane Site' and I began to ask questions," Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.


"Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, 'The New Pearl Harbor') about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished."


Fujita's presentation to the Diet and Fukuda focused a great deal on yet another aspect of 9/11 that now quite a few around the world find extremely suspicious: the Pentagon crash.

"I don't think (a) 767 could have hit the Pentagon," Fujita reckons. "There is no evidence of the plane itself. Almost nothing identifiable was left on the lawn or inside. The official story says the entire plane disintegrated, but the jet engines in particular were very strong (two 6-ton titanium steel turbine engines). And the damage to the building is much smaller than the size of the supposed airplane. The official claims just don't fit the facts."


While some label that claim "wacky" and label critics of the official 9/11 story "conspiracy theorists," Fujita has impressive company. For one, former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'


"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"


Fujita urges the Bush administration to put the issue to rest simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon. Instead, only a few grainy images have been released to the public. More disconcertingly, many videos taken by surrounding businesses were confiscated by the FBI immediately after the Pentagon explosion.


The Pennsylvania crash, like the Pentagon explosion, also yielded virtually no recognizable plane parts at the crash site. Rather, small pieces of debris were found up to 10 km away. The official story — that the plane "vaporized" when it hit the ground — is inconsistent with the evidence left by every other plane crash in the history of aviation.


Plane crashes always yield plane fragments, Fujita explained, which can be identified by the plane's serial number, but that's not the case for the four planes which crashed on 9/11. Strangely, the U.S. government managed to produce passports and DNA samples of individuals killed, but no identifiable plane parts. In an online article entitled "Physics 911," 34-year U.S. Air Force veteran Col. George Nelson notes, "It seems . . . that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."


Fujita has largely relied on the voluminous amount of video and written material published in books and on the Internet, including the "Patriots Question 911" site, on which hundreds of allegations are leveled against the official story by senior officials from the military, intelligence services, law enforcement, and government, as well as pilots, engineers, architects, firefighters and others.


While not many other Japanese have taken an interest in this story, a few notable individuals besides Fujita have disputed the U.S. government's version, including Akira Dojimaru, a Japanese writer living in Spain. In his book, written in Japanese, "The Anatomy of the WTC Collapses: Flaws in the U.S. Government's Account," he uses photos, drawings and blueprints of the WTC buildings to back up his claim that buildings one and two could not have fallen in the manner they fell due to the plane crashes and subsequent fires. "And even if it was conceivable that they could fall due to the damage that day," Dojimaru wrote in an e-mail, "they never would have collapsed horizontally, and would have scattered steel beams and smashed concrete much farther than 100 meters."


For Fujita, it was Dojimaru's meticulous research, combined with the aforementioned Web sites, that convinced him the official story was nothing more than a house of cards.

One book that Fujita found unconvincing was the "9/11 Commission Report."


"The head of the 9/11 Commission is close with (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice and (Vice President Dick) Cheney. One commission member (Sen. Max Cleland) resigned, saying the White House did not disclose enough information."


On Democracy Now's radio show in March 2004, Cleland even went as far as to say, "This White House wants to cover it (the facts of 9/11) up."


More recently, a New York Times article in January quoted Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, as saying that "the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives," and concluded that that "obstructed our investigation."


Following the lead of Fujita, Karen Johnson, a conservative Republican senator from Arizona, has publicly voiced her doubts about 9/11 before the U.S. Senate. Inspired by Blair Gadsby — who on May 27 started a hunger strike to bring attention to the 911 Truth Movement — Johnson, like Fujita, is encouraging politicians to conduct a thorough, independent investigation.


Fujita, who worked for more than 20 years for the international conflict resolution NGO group MRA and the Japanese Association for Aid and Relief (AAR), has become something of a global cause celebre since his extraordinary questioning at the Diet. In February 2008, he participated in a conference at the European Parliament led by EMP Guilietto Chiesa calling for an independent commission of inquiry into 9/11. While in Europe, he met with NGOs from 11 European countries to discuss 9/11.


One month later Fujita spoke at the "Truth Now" conference in Sydney, Australia. One focus of these meetings was the Italian documentary "ZERO," whose release will mark the first time the 9/11 movement's message has moved from the "cyberworld" to public venues. Fujita has also spoken about his 9/11 doubts on two U.S. radio shows, one hosted by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, and another by Alex Jones of infowars.com.


He is also making ripples in Japan. Fujita was featured in a March 2 article by well-known critic Takao Iwami on "How to deal with doubts about 9/11" in the Sunday Mainichi weekly. He was also featured in a March 26 Spa! magazine piece headlined, "European conference discusses 9/11 doubts."


However, not everyone is enthralled with Fujita's bold line of questioning.


"One person showed strong anger towards me," Fujita noted, "and another (Japanese person) threatened my life. A few others advised me to be extremely careful."


Still, Fujita says, the vast majority — around 95 percent — have been positive.


"One man said, 'You're a true samurai.' Another man came all the way from Okayama in western Japan to thank me personally. And among other Parliament members, I received only words of encouragement and support."


While in Europe, Fujita met British former MP Meacher, who dared to question the official story when it was still considered gospel. Time, the Iraq war and well-sourced online videos are emboldening many people, including politicians, to step out of the cyberworld and voice their doubts in newspapers, magazines, theaters, and — most importantly — government chambers.


"Now Blair is gone, and Bush will soon be gone," Meacher told Fujita. "Our time is coming."


Mark Dice is interviewed on Fox about 9/11 Truth mail campaign directed at US troops




A political activist group is sending letters and DVDs to U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq telling them 9/11 was an inside job

San Diego, CA -- A group of over three thousand political activists are planning to send letters to soldiers stationed in Iraq telling them that America is largely to blame for the 9/11 attacks.


"We support the troops in their efforts to protect the Iraqi people, but want them to know the real reason they have put themselves in harms way," explains Mark Dice, founder of The Resistance, a Christian media watch dog group based in San Diego.


Dice is urging people in his organization and others to write letters to soldiers in Iraq and explain the evidence that the 9/11 attacks were aided by corrupt U.S. officials for political purposes. According to a 2006 Scripts Howard News Service poll, 36 percent of Americans believe that elements within the U.S. government purposely allowed the attacks to happen, or aided the terrorists to ensure the attacks.


"I personally know U.S. Marines who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and they tell me that many Marines suspect that this is the case but are afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment," says Dice.


"I don't want the soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq to be used as pawns in the creation of the New World Order."


"We want U.S. troops to know that we care about them and are doing our best to make sure that they don't have to risk their lives based on false pretenses," concludes Dice.


Aside from writing letters and sending declassified documents to the troops, The Resistance is encouraging people to send DVDs to soldiers, since some of them have access to portable DVD players and computers. Recommended DVDs are Loose Change: Final Cut, Terror Storm, and 9/11 Press for Truth.


People can register for free at www.AdoptAusSoldier.org and will then be given a specific soldiers name and the address to send your materials to. Also check churches online or in your area, because many have similar programs.


Dice has handed out over 1000 free DVDs of the documentary film Loose Change at college campuses in southern California, and had a highly publicized confrontation with actor Danny Bonnaduce on the streets of Hollywood where Bonnaduce almost attacked him for saying 9/11 was an inside job. His activism will be featured in Alex Jones' new film 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising, which will be released on DVD July 4th and available for free on Google Video.


The Resistance is an international media watchdog organization with over 3000 members. They have made international news for rebuking various Hollywood celebrities for their ridiculous behavior, including Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, 50 Cent, Tom Cruise and others. They recently launched a boycott of Starbucks saying the company's retro logo looks like a prostitute with her legs spread, and called the company "Slutbucks."



Mark Dice


Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament


New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies delivers a Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation, in Canada's House of Commons during Routine Proceedings at 1:10 pm on June 10, 2008

Here is the full text of the petition, available to sign at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ca...


We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.

Committed to truth and accountability,


Senator Karen Johnson Brings 9/11 Truth to Arizona


June 10, 2008 will be a moment in the 9/11 Truth movement we can all look back on and be extremely proud.

For all of you who have spent countless hours reading books, watching DVD's, searching the internet, investigating what happened on 9/11, researching til 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, knowing you had to get up soon to go to work but you couldn't pull yourself away from this.

For all of you who have been ridiculed, laughed at and have been told that you are nuts. For all of you who decided that it's time to do something about the obvious lies and cover-up by our government and media.

For all of you who have stood on a street corner holding a 9/11 Truth sign and have absorbed a middle finger or heard the voice of a sheeple yelling, " GET A JOB !! "

For all of you who have sacrificed your time, energy and money to organize a speaking engagement in your home town, only to be completely ignored by the media. For all of you who have made phone calls to your local representatives, radio stations, television and print media urging them to look into 9/11.

For all of you who have experienced sleepless nights because you know something is very wrong with our country, our press and our democracy.

For all of you who have a voice, but at times go unheard or suppressed. For all of you who stand up when it's uncomfortable, when it's inconvenient or when it's down right hard to do so.

For all of you who stood by Blair and cheered him on.

For all of you who continue to ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND ANSWERS.

For all of you who wish you had a State Senator who could be your voice for you. For all of you who know that there is only one Senator from Arizona who stands for the Truth and it's not John McCain. It's Karen Johnson !! For all of you who work to achieve accountability for the victims of 9/11 and their families and for all of you who know 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, this is for you.

Thanks for your support over the last 16 days. These days will always belong to all of us.

High quality video available here:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed makes first court appearence


Does my nose look big in this? … Janet Hamlin's courtroom sketch of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and, left, the FBI photo of Mohammed after his capture in Pakistan in 2003.William Glaberson in Guantanamo Bay
June 7, 2008

WHEN at last he got the chance to speak, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, called President George Bush a crusader and ridiculed the Guantanamo trial system as an inquisition.

Mohammed, the former senior al-Qaeda operations chief, said he would represent himself and dared the tribunal to put him to death.

"This is what I want," he told a military judge in his first appearance to answer war crimes charges for the terrorism attacks that killed 2973 people and set America on a path to war.

"I'm looking to be martyr for long time," he said in serviceable English, improved, perhaps, by five years of custody, including three in secret CIA prisons.

The arraignment on Thursday of Mohammed and four other detainees the US Government says were high-level co-ordinators of the September 11 attacks was the start of hearings in the case, which is the centrepiece of the Bush Administration's war crimes system.

But it was also the first public appearance by Mohammed, who has long cast himself in the role of super-terrorist, claiming credit in the past not only for the 2001 plot, but for about 30 others, including the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan.

Mohammed worked to get as much control as possible over the proceedings. Peering through big, black-rimmed glasses and sporting a bushy grey beard, he rejected US lawyers as agents of the Bush Administration's "crusade war against Islamic world," saying he would represent himself. He said the lawyers could stay to help him as advisers.

By day's end, each of Mohammed's four co-defendants had said he wanted to represent himself. That could turn the trial into a jumble of rhetoric and a new opportunity for critics to attack the Guantanamo system as designed to get easy convictions.

The judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, agreed to permit three of the men to represent themselves. But in the case of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was to have been one of the hijackers, he said he wanted to further investigate a report from a military lawyer that Binalshibh has been on psychotropic medication.

When Colonel Kohlmann asked Binalshibh why he was taking the medication, security officials cut the sound fed to reporters in a glassed-in gallery and a media centre. It was one of several times when a national security consultant cut the sound when detainees appeared to be discussing what several of them said had been years of torture.

Mohammed managed to get the reference through the censor twice. "After torturing" he said, "they transfer us to Inquisition land in Guantanamo."

CIA officials have said that Mohammed was one of three detainees subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Mohammed looked lean compared with the photo taken of him after his 2003 capture. He chanted verses in Arabic and then translated them into English, and he vied with Colonel Kohlmann for control of the courtroom.

All five accused men were held in the secret CIA program and transferred to Guantanamo to face charges in the military commission system.

The New York Times

Free Bees - 9/11's a Lie (Stayin' Alive)



The 'Free Bees' are looking for help in spreading their '9/11's a lie' music video and song far and wide. Reluctantly they have decided that even though they're extremely proud of the work, they are releasing it anonymously.

They believe that this music video has the potential to reach a large audience and as a work of infotainment is amusing, informative and thought provoking.

Regardless of your personal music taste please help spread this music video and song around.

Find us on:


Well you can tell
By the way the buildings fell
There was something wrong
Now it's time to tell
Spread the word it's nothing new
You've gotta educate yourself in truth
Well it's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
We can help you understand
The New York Times effect on man

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

Well we can't give in we can't let go
If we wanna see some justice flow
It's time for us to make a stand
And together we can end this plan
It's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
The wars they fight, just ain't right
I don't know how they sleep at night

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

We're getting stronger
Won't take much longer
The truth will set us free
Let's break our silence
No need for violence
Become the change we want to see
9/11 was an inside job
9/11 was an inside job

We need a peaceful revolution
We need to know we have a choice
We've let them get away with murder
It's time for us to find our voice

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah

Aimee Allen's *Unofficial* Ron Paul Revolution Video



see also:

Singer & Songwriter Aimee Allen on the Alex Jones Show

Aimee Allen: Revolution Video (2002) Blocked by US Government

from Aimee Allen:


Contact Aimee Allen: www.myspace.com/aimeeallen

I'm putting the "unofficial video" up on my page in honor of the cause...and due to popular demand.

I've tried and failed to get it removed from the internet because the director and myself and all the people involved including the editor were not even close to having it completed.

I want to have the credits up and the thank you's because the person that stole this footage and leaked it didn't have the courtesy to do so.

Full Brief of Evidence in Relation to War Crimes Allegations against the former Australian Prime Minister, John Winston Howard

To download the full brief, click here.
website: www.iccaction.com
contact: Glenn Floyd (http://floydaubrey.com)

The Prosecutor Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
The International Criminal Court,
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague,
The Netherlands

Re: War Crimes Allegations: Introduction

4 June 2008

Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, this ‘Brief Of Evidence’ is furnished for your further consideration under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part IV, Article 42, 1, http://www.un.org/icc/part4.htm  as persuasive, relevant substantiated evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed as defined within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, those war crimes are alleged as committed by the unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq. Specific war crimes alleged are the loss of life and injury to Iraqi civilians detailed herein and on public record, and damage to civilian objects and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment of Iraq. The alleged war crimes identified directly arise from the self titled ‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’ excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq as its optional but direct response choice; to its untested assertions of the republic of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s).

The submission is forwarded for your examination in support of specific and articulable facts and inferences that John Winston Howard Of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065, in respect of his express personal, executive order to commit Australian Defence Forces in direct support of the armed attack and invasion of Iraq; on and after 20 March 2003, caused significant deaths and injury to Iraqi civilians and widespread destruction of property and the natural environment of Iraq. It is therefore stated, that by this express personal executive decision and action, John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes by ‘the conduct’ of such an ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ armed attack and invasion. The allegation is made that the ‘excessively lethal’ nature, and the unwarranted ‘conduct itself’, of this armed attack and invasion upon Iraq; is a commission of war crimes.

In alleging the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal nature’ of the armed attack and invasion is in itself ‘criminal conduct’, it is stated it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Accordingly, ‘during this unwarranted and excessively lethal action’; John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

The case and evidence herein presented, relies on the claim at international law under the provisions of this statute; the ‘actual conduct’ of the action itself, as a reasonable option, is alleged as ‘criminal conduct’. That is to say, the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal conduct itself’ of such an attack by way of its questionable necessity, reasonableness, severity and impact, violated the ICC Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv).

The violation is alleged because the clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal decision and conduct was applied when Iraq had both declared it had no WMD’s and in good faith, to prove the facts of these untested assertions of possessing WMD’s, Iraq lawfully complied with the existing Security Council Resolution 1441(2002) inspections measures to prove the factuality of both this untested assertion and Iraq’s lawful declaration. In addition, Iraq being a totally economically and militarily broken country since the 1991 Gulf War; was not capable of disobeying any directives of the U.N. Security Council. It lawfully complied as obliged and as demanded.

Iraq’s non-functioning economy was ruined after its military collapse since the 1991 Gulf War, when a massive coalition force of 38 countries delivered the absolute destruction of Iraq, where only one hundred hours after the Gulf War ground campaign started, President Bush fulfilling U.N. Resolutions declared "Kuwait is liberated" and Iraq's army defeated” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
 . In this major military exercise 11 of Iraq's 26 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed and damaged, causing electricity production collapse to four percent capacity. Infrastructure was almost non-existent with the destruction of the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and sewerage treatment plants, which all turned Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward, where telecoms equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, roads, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. In addition, the parlous state of the entire societal workings of the Iraq republic at all levels was evident, and brought to further draconian collapse by the effective authorised U.N. economic sanctions, operating for over the following 12 years.

Iraq was utterly broken as a nation and Iraq lawfully declared it had no WMD’s as demanded by the U.N., further, the untested assertions of Iraq possessing WMD’s was being fully proven out by Security Council enforced authorised inspections Iraq had lawfully complied with. There was no case whatsoever for such a clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion, this conduct was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. (See definitions of ‘Excessive’ pp12 to 13).


War crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

relevant statute ‘explicitly and clearly states’ a war crimes violation occurs when:

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: Inter alia,

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the

Established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Although the specific and articulable facts and inferences herein also presents compelling evidence that the decision and action are in themselves both unlawful and illegal, the case and evidence presented, does not rely ‘on the unlawfulness and illegality of the decision to commit an armed attack and invasion of Iraq’, nor does it rely on the ‘unlawfulness and illegality of the action of actually committing or assisting to commit the armed attack and invasion of Iraq’. Those matters of decision and action, although clearly unlawful and illegal, do not constitute material evidence of fact or commission of war crimes within the ICC jurisdiction, as it is understood the ICC has no powers to investigate lawfulness or illegality of any military actions within the provisions of The Rome Statute.

It is the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this attack and invasion defined under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv), which is the subject of war crimes allegations. However, the ‘unlawfulness and illegality’ of both the decision and action, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘excessive’ as ‘reasonable conduct’, when considering the potential impact of available options in achieving the stated aim of ‘proving the facts’ of untested assertions of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. Consequently, the ‘unlawfulness’ has compelling direct bearing on the ‘excessiveness’ of the conduct itself of the attack and invasion; as it ‘utterly removes all grounds’ for any level of military action whatsoever, being justified in any way.


This Brief Of Evidence therefore, fully demonstrates, the ‘entire conduct itself’ of this unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq ‘as reasonable conduct’ under the circumstances was ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’. This allegation relies on the fact that the self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ forces’ openly stated rationale for attack and invasion was its untested assertion that ‘Iraq actually possessed WMD’s.

However, this matter of ‘determining the facts of the existence’ of WMD’s as asserted, was ALREADY being fully managed ‘as reasonable conduct’ by the Security Council itself. This ‘reasonable conduct’ would have reasonably and fully tested at law, the facts of this WMD’s untested assertion, without any death, injury or destruction whatsoever.

In reasonably managing this most serious matter, the Security Council being the duly recognised authority itself, in also considering this potential attack and invasion path as a possible conduct option available, (with its intrinsic ‘excessively lethal impact’), chose to not attack, and instead used its powers and functions appropriately as ‘reasonable conduct’, to manage the risks of ‘untested assertions’ of WMD’s. The Security Council formally warned Iraq of serious consequences and not only gave Iraq the chance to comply with its warning to prove the untested WMD’S assertion, it actually forced Iraq into full compliance with the agreed WMD’s inspections testing regime. It therefore acted reasonably within the binding obligations of the war crimes Article 8, 2, (b), (iv) provisions; the untested WMD’S assertion was being legitimately and fully proven without risk and without an excessively lethal attack and invasion.


Only the Security Council had the lawful authority at international law to manage this ‘untested assertion’ of WMD’s and it reasonably chose this balanced ‘non lethal’ option by ‘proving the facts’ of the WMD untested assertion through inspections testing, without applying criminal conduct of an excessively lethal armed attack and invasion. It chose this reasonable path because it felt ‘proving the facts of asserted WMD’s through such a use of excessively lethal force; clearly, was not warranted. This was a deliberate, lawful, strong, effective, balanced and humanitarian decision.

Therefore, at law, given the object of Resolution 1441 to test the assertions of WMD’s and the consequential death, injury and destruction resulting from an attack and invasion; the duly authorised authority decided armed attack and invasion would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. The self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ however, with no authority to do so, by their decision and action have chosen and executed, the unwarranted and excessively lethal option of armed attack and invasion; alleged as criminal conduct resulting in war crimes.

Deaths and injuries to civilians and and widespread destruction of property resulting from the armed attack and invasion of Iraq are widely identified in the public domain and are specifically identified in this Brief Of Evidence. Accordingly, it is requested your office examines these claims and evidence under PART 2.  JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 15 (2) and further considers under Article 15, (3) http://www.un.org/icc/part2.htm, John Winston Howard’s alleged criminal culpability for indictment and criminal prosecution.

If your analysis of this Brief Of Evidence conforms with the view that a prima facie case of war crimes (identified in this Brief Of Evidence and elsewhere), exists as alleged and it is concluded that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, it is requested you submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber; a request for authorization of an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


It is further requested therefore, if such investigations consequently accord with these allegations of war crimes made herein, John Winston Howard be indicted under Article 21,1 (b) seeking invocation of appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict for war crimes violations specified for prosecution for war crimes.


It is previously stated the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this armed attack and invasion which is the subject of war crimes allegations. The unlawfulness and illegality of both the decision and action however, although not falling within the ICC war crimes jurisdiction, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘unwarranted’ as reasonable conduct (and therefore in this context, also excessive), in the total set of prevailing circumstances. This analysis is helpful in defining the use of the term ‘excessive’ when considering appropriate and reasonable options of conduct and the potential impact of all available options in achieving the stated aim of proving the facts of untested assertions of the existence of WMD in Iraq.

This focus is valuable because there are a wide ranging set of circumstances surrounding any behaviour in legal cases under analysis and many of them whilst not legally impinging upon defining criminality of actual decisions and actions of the case, have a direct bearing upon clear analysis of what is ‘reasonable behaviour’ (i.e. excessive behaviour), expected or obliged at law, in relation to the decisions and actions actually taken and acted upon.

There are two sides to analysis and determination of any war crimes committed under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). They are the absolute severity of the impact of the action which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated and there is also the legal, practical and ‘moral imperatives’ which are operating. These are the factors in an enlightened society at play of the pure compelling reasons to do or not do something which has a severe impact. They consequently may be defined ‘excessive’ –simply because they are breaches of these accepted or binding imperatives and consequently affirm behaviour as unnecessary or unwarranted ‘under these specific circumstances’ and not so in others.

*A separate case is under preparation alleging the attack and invasion of Iraq is unlawful and illegal and ipso facto,

premeditated criminal conduct and/or criminal negligence.

This focus looks at any morays, ethics, values, laws, statutes, norms of behaviour that we all understand and accept as forming or defining ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour. Such focus is material to the specific facts of the case itself because it shows by certain agreed societal operands we are clearly aware of, that such behaviour is clearly excessive, unnecessary and/or unwarranted etc. If the decision and action taken was also known to be unlawful, illegal and is wholly premeditated, this provides further strong evidence the decision was unwarranted, unnecessary as well as excessively lethal. The unlawfulness and illegality of such behaviour cannot at the ICC define war crimes, however the unlawfulness compounds the actual decision and action as irrefutable evidence the premeditated behaviour was fully understood as ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour at law. It therefore displays full knowledge of excessive impact ‘and under these circumstances’ shows behaviour as war crimes, because the action or ‘conduct’ clearly shows at law, in attack, ‘any’ military advantage is non-existent.



Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment

ABC News

Posted Mon Jun 2, 2008 1:17pm AEST


A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.


A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.


Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.


"We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard's actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute," he said.


Democrats Senator Lyn Allison says the legal brief sent to the ICC is justified.

Senator Allison, who is one of several eminent people supporting the move, says accountability is important.


"This action has been taken to hold those accountable for their action, so it's essentially our prime minister - he was the one at the time [who] was the executive of government, made the decision," she said.


'It wasn't put to the Parliament and as we all know, it turned out to be unjustified."

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.