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

Kevin Bracken exposes 9/11 cover-up - compilation and commentary by Anthony Lawson


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.

The following web page has more background.

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

The Facts Speak For Themselves


Jon Gold | 1 September 2010

Thanks to www.historycommons.org.

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, The Swift Boat Veterans and the “Ground Zero Mosque” got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”

Fact #1
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event ñ like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Fact #2
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.

Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill said that Saddam was “topic A” ten days after the inauguration at the very first National Security Council meeting, and eight months before 9/11. According to O’Neill, “it was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”

In a 2007 interview with former Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, he states that between March 2001 and May 2001, members of the Bush Administration discussed creating a “casus belli” for war with Iraq.

According to Merriam-Webster, a “casus belli” is “an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict.”

Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.

Fact #4
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or “Energy Task Force” for short.

He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress.

It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussion during these task force meetings was Iraq’s oil fields. Five months before 9/11.

The Vice President’s office fought long and hard to make sure the informationfrom those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the Supreme Court. Many were suspicious of the hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case. Scalia was proud of the fact that he didn’t recuse himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was decided that Cheney’s Task Force documents may remain secret.

ASIO internet offensive on Aussie militants


Sean Parnell, FOI Editor | The Australian | October 25, 2010

Extremists will be targeted in an unprecedented internet offensive aimed at heading off the threat of homegrown terrorists in Australia.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation -- which is investigating hundreds of potential terror concerns and is worried about the activities of some citizens abroad -- has advised the federal government to improve the domestic security situation.

Documents obtained by The Australian after a Freedom of Information search reveal ASIO's strategic assessment -- so sensitive even the name of the document has been kept secret -- was provided to then prime minister Kevin Rudd last year, on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

National Security Adviser Duncan Lewis took Mr Rudd through the intelligence, on the day a separate Countering Violent Extremism Taskforce formally completed its planning work.

ASIO director-general David Irvine later briefed cabinet's national security committee on the potential threats.

That led Attorney-General Robert McClelland to obtain approval for a series of measures, including the budget announcement of $9.7 million over four years for "targeted programs to reduce violent extremism in Australia", focusing on "high-risk hotspot areas".

At the time, Mr McClelland said he expected the programs to help identify and divert people at risk of violent extremism, support rehabilitation and deradicalisation, and improve social cohesion and resilience.

Mr McClelland also vowed to examine the role of the internet in the radicalisation process and improve the response to "violent extremism messages".

One of the briefing notes obtained under FOI laws reveals the taskforce had recommended enhanced intelligence-gathering and "exploiting technology to counter violent extremism". This indicated the internet would be used not only to spy on people, but also to disrupt their recruitment and rallying methods.

Mr McClelland said yesterday the government would provide grants for youth mentoring, initiatives in prisons, and community and internet engagement.

"Further work on countering violent extremism online will be shaped by lessons learned by international partners such as the United States, United Kingdom and The Netherlands," he said.

Given the potential sensitivities, Mr McClelland will continue liaising with affected groups on how such measures will be implemented.

ASIO issued eight adverse security assessments against Australian passport holders in the last financial year, compared with none in 2008-09, and has expressed growing concern at the rise of "homegrown potential terrorists and an increase in the number of Australians seeking to travel overseas for terrorism-related purposes".

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken - A True Working Class Hero!


John Bursill | 24 October 2010

Download audio: click here (right-click, save link as...)

To many the name Kevin Bracken is a new one in regard to 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 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 about 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 on 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 yous 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 in 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.


John Faine Remains Unrepentant

23 October 2010


In an extraordinary display of hubris, ABC radio host John Faine has flouted public outrage at his insulting treatment toward Unionist Kevin Bracken over his views on 9/11.

Faine now claims he is being "targeted" by conspiracy theorists.

On 20 October Bracken called into Faine's morning radio show during a Parliamentary debate on the war in Afghanistan to say the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2010/10/22/3046082.htm?site=melbourne

Herald Sun poll: 60% agree that the official 9/11 story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny

22 October 2010

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.

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

UPDATE (5:30pm): Support now at 65%

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


UPDATE (11:20pm 23 October): Support now at 71%

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


9/11 conspiracy discussed on the floor of Parliament (Truth News Radio Australia)


Posted: October 21st, 2010

icon for podpress  Podcast [83:08m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

Julia Gillard says that the substantive claims of the 9/11 truth movement are stupid and wrong

Unionist’s 9/11 comments stupid and wrong: Gillard | ABC News.

Julia Gillard has now gone on record in Federal Parliament saying that the substantive claims of the 9/11 truth movement are “stupid and wrong”, and tonight we bring you full story behind these developments.

Previously Kevin Bracken, who is the Victorian secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia and president of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, called in to ABC talkback radio in Melbourne to say that “the official story doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny”.

The radio host John Faine reacted with dismay and went on to call Mr. Bracken a “nutter” and an “extremist”. However it subsequently became clear that these views had been debated by the union and the Trades Hall Council and both bodies had passed motions on the issue. Nonetheless, the focus of media and political attention has been on Kevin Bracken at a personal level, which is clearly a smokescreen tactic to divert attention from the fact that there is a massive worldwide movement for a new inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.

BREAKING NEWS (21 Oct 2010):  “Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

Kevin BrackenThis morning Mr Bracken phoned into Faine’s program again for a right of reply.

He said he wasn’t phoning as the president of the Trades Hall council or as secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.

Mr Bracken stood by his comments and said he had the support of 50 per cent of the community.

He also attacked Faine, claiming he was ridiculed on yesterday’s program.

“Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long,” said Kevin Bracken.

“I won’t be cowered down to bullies like yourself.”

- source

Listen to audio: click here (to download right-click, save as..)

Leave a comment on this story at the Herald Sun: click here.

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken calls 9/11 'conspiracy'


Shannon Deery | October 20, 2010 1:35PM

Download audio» click here

THE president of the Victorian Trades Hall has sparked outrage after controversially claiming the September 11 2001 World Trade Centre attacks were a conspiracy, not the result of terrorist activity.

Kevin Bracken

Kevin Bracken, who is also the secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, sparked a flood of angry calls after calling into ABC talk-back host Jon Faine's program this morning.

"I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny," Mr Bracken said.

"In my mind the buildings were imploded."

Faine thought the call was a hoax.

"I challenge you to a public debate," Mr Bracken said.

"Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire.

"I stick to scientific fact."

Faine described the claim as a "nutter theory".

Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said Mr Bracken did not speak on behalf of the organisation.

"The official Trades Hall position is not to entertain that theory," Mr Boyd said.

"We had almost 3000 working people killed in that terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it."

Mr Boyd said Mr Bracken's views had caused many debates behind the walls of Trade Hall.

"He is welcome to his views and we've discussed his theories," he said.

"But I totally disagree."

Mr Boyd said he stood by his colleague despite his extremist views.

"99 per cent of the time Kevin's a very good president," he said.

This is not the first time Mr Bracken has voiced his controversial opinions on the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

In 2006 he told The Australian he believed the attacks only worked because the American government was in some way involved.

"If they want to stop terrorism they've got to look at who was really behind September 11," Mr Bracken said at the time.

"It couldn't have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services. I am not saying the whole lot were involved. But I believe the official story for September 11 doesn't stack up."

Mr Bracken said in 2006 his views on the terror laws and September 11 were his own, and he was not speaking on behalf of the union.

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has broken his media silence


16 October 2010

"No sleeping, no talking, no moving, no looking, no information"... David Hicks describes his first two weeks imprisoned in Camp X-Ray as "a blur of hardships".

"No sleeping, no talking, no moving, no looking, no information"... David Hicks describes his first two weeks imprisoned in Camp X-Ray as "a blur of hardships". Photo: AP/GetUp!/Jarra McGrath

Turned over to US forces while trying to flee Afghanistan in 2001, David Hicks was later flown to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is his story of his arrival at Camp X-Ray.

I awoke on a concrete slab with the sun in my face. I looked around and saw that I was in a cage made out of cyclone fencing, the same as the boundary fence around my old primary school. Internal fences divided the cage into ten enclosures, and I was in one of the corner-end cells. Around me, I saw five other concrete slabs with what looked like bird cages constructed on top. A fence covered in green shadecloth and topped with rolls of razor wire was wrapped around these six concrete slabs, able to house sixty unfortunate human beings. Hanging on the inside of this fence were signs saying, ''If you attempt escape, you will be shot'', complete with a featureless person with a target for a head.

All around the outside of the shadecloth, civilian and uniformed personnel cleared and flattened grass and trees. They poured cement and assembled the wire cages, calling them ''blocks''. There was nothing much else around us except guard towers boasting large, painted American flags and manned by armed marines.

My block was only the second to have been built, but that would change over time. As this prison grew out of the grass, more ''detainees'', as they liked to call us, rather than POWs, arrived. About a month later, around 360 of us lived in these outdoor enclosures. They were open to the wind, sun, dust and rain and offered no respite. The local wildlife was being disturbed as their homes were bulldozed to make room for the concrete blocks, and scorpions, snakes and 23 centimetre-long tarantulas tried to find shelter in what were now our enclosures.

My cage, like all the cages, was three steps wide by three steps long. I shared this space with two small buckets: one to drink out of, the other to use as a toilet. There was an ''isomat'' (a five-millimetre-thin foam mat), a towel, a sheet, a bottle of shampoo that smelt like industrial cleaner, a bar of soap (I think), a toothbrush with three-quarters of the handle snapped off and a tube of toothpaste. When I held this tube upside down, even without squeezing, a white, smelly liquid oozed out.

This bizarre operation was called Camp X-Ray. Our plane was the first to arrive on this barren part of the island, and we remained the only detainees for the first three or four days. We had been spaced apart because of the surplus of cages. Every hour of the day and night we had to produce our wristband for inspection, as well as the end of our toothbrush, in case we had ''sharpened it into a weapon''. These constant disturbances prevented us from sleeping. We were not allowed to talk, or even look around, and had to stare at the concrete between our legs while sitting upright on the ground. If we did lie flat on the concrete, we had to stare at a wooden covering a foot or so above our cages, which served as some type of roof. Apart from blocking the sun for about two hours around noon, the roof offered no other benefit.

Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'


Victoria Ashley | Aug 1, 2009


plane crash damage and debris


This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.

Or so we are led to believe.

The general conclusion that "no plane" or "no Boeing" could have hit the Pentagon -- widely accepted by skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack, even as it is generally not carefully examined -- is based on a series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What the Physical Evidence Shows.

The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that CIT's claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01 are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event. The witness recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum readers, told they would see "proofs", frustrated and perplexed about what is going on.

At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise:

"Everything was faked!"

So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to "proofs" of how the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many "it was faked" claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely ridiculous premise for the "flyover":

And at this point, the doubts are just beginning. Given the complexity of such fakery and sleight of hand, most who attempt to confirm the full story end up at one of several dead ends in the scenario. The claim that so much evidence at the scene of the Pentagon was staged in advance, so precisely and amidst hundreds of people in all directions, simply to make it appear that the plane which approached the building had actually impacted it, strains credulity and logic.

Because as most readers and viewers quickly surmise, far easier than all of the elaborate fakery, would have been to simply ram a plane into the building, just as was done in NYC. That would be one part of the official story. While CIT claims that anyone who believes the plane hit the building is endorsing the official story, in reality, there is a overwhelming case for insider involvement in the Pentagon attack consistent with the impact of Flight 77.


New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions


Video clip NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains clear audible booms as eyewitness describes “continuing explosions” from direction of Building 7

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com | October 13, 2010

Newly obtained 9/11 eyewitness footage that NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains what appears to be the sound of explosions coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 after the collapse of the twin towers, offering yet more startling evidence that the building, which was not hit by a plane yet collapsed demolition style, was deliberately imploded.

The clip was released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) as part of a 3 terabyte package of video and photo data in response to a lawsuit brought by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. As we highlighted in our previous report, almost every single video studied as part of the release thus far contains damning evidence of controlled demolition on both the twin towers and WTC 7.

The fact that NIST dragged their feet for so long in an attempt to block the release of these highly incriminating videos clearly indicates that they were part of an attempted cover-up. In addition, the fact that some of the videos appear to have been edited in an effort to hide evidence of controlled demolition is another smoking gun.

The latest video is from eyewitness Richard Peskin, who filmed ground zero from a high rise building that appears to be about a dozen blocks down the street from Building 7. The first portion of the footage is filmed immediately after the collapse of the second tower of the World Trade Center. At about 10 seconds into the clip, two clear explosions can be heard.

The clip then cuts to a later time and the cameraman states, “…explosion or something because there’s a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground – new smoke – so there was some kind of additional explosion but I don’t know what it was….maybe it was a federal building or something like that,” as the camera pans across a shot of WTC 7.


At around 11am – around half an hour after the collapse of the north tower of the World Trade Center and an hour after the collapse of the south tower, Peskin states, “I still hear continuing explosions, I don’t know what it is,” as small explosions can be heard in the background.

At 1:49 in the clip, a louder rumbling explosion can clearly be heard coming from the direction of WTC 7 – “That’s another explosion,” says Peskin.

The clip was contained in the NIST folder named “Richard Peskin” and is a combination of footage from the files Peskin 25.avi, Peskin 28.avi, Peskin 29.avi, and Peskin 30.avi.

... read the rest at prisonplanet.com

posted 14 Oct 2010 07:10 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

Secret Iraq - Insurgency | Four Corners


Reporter: Quicksilver Productions | Broadcast: 11/10/2010

Watch on ABC iView

The invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, claimed he wanted to remove a dictator who is armed with weapons of mass destruction, and liberate a people. Instead the invasion provoked a bloody insurgency resulting in the death of thousands of civilians, massive troop casualties, and at the same time laying the ground-work for the arrival of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Made for Quicksilver productions by producer Sam Collyns, the series tells the story of Iraq not simply from the point of view of the invaders but from the insurgents who fought them. It tells how fundamental strategic mistakes made by the Americans pushed formerly peaceful Iraqis into the arms of the fanatical Al Qaeda.

"Time in Abu Ghraib (prison) helped recruit the insurgency ... even people who had not fought the Americans before their arrest vowed to die fighting them after their time in prison."

In the opening episode of "Secret Iraq", the insurgents reveal how their treatment at the hands of the allied troops instilled a hatred of Westerners and in turn sparked their rebellion. Many have never spoken before.

"I'm like any Iraqi who wanted to defend his honour, his family and his home."

A key C.I.A. operative explains how the decision to use private security contractors, instead of soldiers or police, also created massive problems for the Coalition:

"Their goal was to protect some guy in an armoured car. And they made a lot of bad enemies because of the way they behaved."

Other Iraqis explain how the decision to purge the military and police forces of anyone seen to be connected with Saddam and his Ba'athist Party allowed those same institutions to be taken over by murderous Shia militia, who set up death-squads prepared to kill anyone they did not accept.

"If you like they were police officers by day and terrorists or insurgents by night."

But the Americans were not the only commanders making major policy errors. The program also reveals the failure of the British to gain control of Basra.

What did the allies do wrong? What provoked the insurgency? Who was behind the death squads killing hundreds of people? And what will the invasion ultimately mean for Iraq? Those are just some of the questions this series tries to answer.

"Secret Iraq - Insurgency" goes to air on Monday 11th October at 8.30 pm on ABC1. It is replayed on the same network at 11.30 pm Tuesday 12th.

Four Corners is also replayed at 2.00 pm on Saturday of the same week on ABC 24. It can also be seen online at ABC iView and 4 Corners Video on Demand.

9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish | Col. Anthony Shaffer


Anthony Shaffer is a U.S. Army Lt. Col who has alleged that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly evaluate intelligence on 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Shaffer's allegations subsequently became known as the Able Danger controversy. In October 2003, according to his later statement to Congress, Shaffer told the 9/11 Commission staff director, Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, that in 2000 a DIA data-mining program known as Able Danger had uncovered two of the three terrorist cells eventually implicated in the September 11 attacks.

Shaffer reportedly told Zelikow that DIA leadership declined to share this information with the FBI because military lawyers expressed concerns about the legality of doing so. Shaffer also asserted that he briefed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on three separate occasions regarding his unit's activities. The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Shaffer's allegations, but in 2005 and 2006 the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon, publicized Shaffer's allegations in public statements and hearings.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer...

Cognitive Infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement: A book review by Adam Syed

Adam Syed | 10 October 2010

Buy the book at Amazon.

Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy TheoryThis work by David Ray Griffin is an engaging and captivating read, my personal favorite since "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," which was such a joy to read as I watched Popular Mechanics become exposed as the propagandists they really are when it comes to this issue.

A member of President Obama's cabinet, Cass Sunstein, in 2008 wrote an essay in which he purportedly made the case in favor of having a program in which government agents, mostly anonymous bloggers, would "infiltrate" "conspiracy groups" in an attempt to muddy the groups' research, in addition to derailing their unity, activism and overall effectiveness. The "conspiracy theorists" to which he most often refers are the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the growing number of world citizens who realize that the official account of 9/11 is false.

One serious problem with Sunstein's proposal is that it is Constitutionally illegal, a gross violation of the First Amendment. However, Sunstein's essay suffers from many other shortcomings as well.

To understand the significance (including the wit and irony) of Griffin's analysis, one first needs to understand that the term "conspiracy theory/ists" is virtually always used in a one-sided manner, usually as a pejorative term to dismiss instantly any person who questions the orthodox historical narrative of a major event. However, the true objective definition of conspiracy theory is simply this: a theory of who committed a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when two or more people agree in secret to perform an illegal and/or immoral act. When understood objectively, we can understand that the Bush Administration's official story is itself a "conspiracy theory," namely a theory in which Osama bin Laden and 19 al Qaeda hijackers conspired to attack America with the motive that they hate our freedoms (or in an alternative interpretation still consistent with the official account, that the attacks were "blowback" for decades of cruel US foreign policy in the Middle East).

Dr. Griffin's subtitle to this book is: "An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory." The question is, which conspiracy theory is Sunstein trying to undermine? The Bush Administration's official theory? Or the 9/11 Truth Movement's theory, the "inside job" theory?

One of the hallmark traits of "disinformation" is to accuse others of what you yourself are guilty. In "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," Griffin showed the deplorable depths to which the journalistic ethics of the Popular Mechanics senior editors had sunk in their hollow attempt to defend the official theory. Not only did the PM editors accuse "9/11 conspiracy theorists" of basically being unstable mental nut jobs who believe what they want to believe and disregard any information that doesn't fit their views, but the PM editors, all throughout their book, were guilty of these very sins themselves, as DRG so thoroughly illuminated!

Cass Sunstein's paper tries to put the "mental nut jobs who believe what they want to believe and disregard any information that doesn't fit their views" portrayal of 9/11 Truth activists into lofty academic-speak. He doesn't claim that 9/11 truthers are "mental nut jobs," just that we suffer from "crippled epistemologies" and "informational isolationism." However, as Griffin shows, it is the people who believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory who actually suffer from this informational isolationism; most of these people only rely on the corporate mass media for their world view. Also, the website PatriotsQuestion911.com lists over 400 professors, some of whom, Griffin notes, have taught at institutions in the same league as Sunstein's own (Harvard and University of Chicago). "Could Sunstein with a straight face tell these professors that the reason they disagree with him about 9/11 is because they have been 'informationally isolated?'" Griffin rhetorically asks. He goes on to list a veritable gold mine of names of people in the relevant professions of architecture, engineering, piloting, intelligence officers, journalists, political leaders and more, who have gone on the record to reject the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

So the "exoteric" (surface) interpretation of Sunstein's essay is that Sunstein wants his agents to undermine the 9/11 truth movement's conspiracy theory. The "esoteric" (deeper) interpretation of Sunstein's essay is that Sunstein knows that it's the official conspiracy that holds no water and needs to be undermined. Might the best way to gradually introduce the public to the truth of 9/11 be to let truths slip out gradually over much time, so that it's not TOO much of a shock to the American people once the truth finally gets out? Damage control, in other words, so that when the public finds out en masse, they will simply accept it, as opposed to actually rising up and demanding serious change?

One reason that Griffin is tempted to take this esoteric interpretation is because he knows that Sunstein, being a graduate of Harvard among other places, is not a dim bulb. He has to be a very smart man, and must PRIVATELY KNOW that the official 9/11 theory is without merit. Griffin points out that Sunstein leaves many "clues" to the fact that he knows the Truth Movement is on the right track by way of the footnotes he provides in his essay. If a person is thorough and follows up, going to Sunstein's sources for which he cites one quote, one will find that the very source itself completely contradicts the very claim Sunstein makes!

It is interesting that Sunstein writes about his plan to "cognitively infiltrate" the truth movement in the future tense, as if such a thing hasn't been happening with groups going back to at least the JFK Assassination (and indeed Sunstein himself goes on to acknowledge the existence of COINTELPRO). It has definitely been happening for years in the 9/11 movement. For one thing, there is the Popular Mechanics literature and the sites like ScrewLooseChange and 911myths, which claim to oppose the truth movement in its entirety. Indeed, Griffin sharply points out that in a preliminary draft of his paper, Sunstein included a reference to Popular Mechanics, which he deleted for his final draft. Sunstein's original words were: "One may see the game [of neutralizing the 9/11 movement] as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts --- such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics --- whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts." In the final version, the words "or the editors of Popular Mechanics" have been deleted, presumably because Sunstein that he had accidentally revealed that the government had "enlisted" the PM editors to wear the mask of "independent experts." Great catch, Dr. Griffin, or should that be "great cache?

Early interview with William Rodriguez


This video (obtained under FOIA) provides additional testimony about explosions and corroborates later statements made by Mr. Rodriguez.

posted 07 Oct 2010 16:09 | Permalink | Leave a comment.