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

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth - mp911truth.org

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth http://mp911truth.org
press release

February 24, 2009 - An alliance of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, researchers, and other medical professionals today announced the formation of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth and its petition calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11.

From the website:

As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to alleviating suffering, to improving health, and to preserving life. We are horrified by the terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting from them.

The terrorist acts of 9/11 resulted in the immediate deaths of 3,000 emergency service workers and innocent citizens. The inhalation of toxic dust in the weeks following 9/11 will result in the premature deaths of additional thousands of rescue and construction workers and New York residents. The acts of 9/11 have been further used to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of military personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents.

Time to change terrorism laws


George Williams
February 24, 2009

One of the world's most respected legal bodies, the International Commission of Jurists, reported last week that the anti-terrorism laws passed after September 11 by Australia and other nations have undermined the rule of law and harmed the international fight for justice and human rights. This should come as no surprise.

After all, we live in a world in which measures that had been unthinkable, such as torture, detention without trial and illegal disappearances, have been used not only by despotic regimes, but by leading democracies such as the United States. The report concludes that the universal principles of human rights developed in the decades after World War II are "in jeopardy".

The three-year study of 40 nations found that the legal framework in place before September 11 was robust and adaptable and would have been effective without draconian new measures. Instead, governments took advantage of the public's fear of terrorism to pass laws that granted them and their agencies extraordinary powers. On the same day the report was released, the former head of the British spy agency MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, likewise accused her government of exploiting community alarm to restrict fundamental liberties.

The consequence of such actions is that nations, including Australia, "actively undermined" the rule of law and civil liberties in fighting the misnamed "war on terror". In our case, Australia did need laws to prevent terrorism. Unlike other nations, we had no such laws on the national statute book, and new legislation was justified to deal with the threat apparent after September 11.

However, Australia also fell victim to overreaction and political opportunism. In the name of protecting social cohesion and democratic principles, we did possibly irreparable damage to these same values. Along with the US and Britain, we undermined progress towards justice and human rights elsewhere. The report makes for sober reading in cataloguing not only how nations like the US came to compromise their once-high legal standards, but how this came to be used by totalitarian regimes to support their own repressive laws.

Much of the report applies with particular force to Australia. John Howard and his government have left the nation a dreadful legacy. From September 11 to the end of the Howard government, Parliament passed 44 anti-terrorism laws, an average of one every seven weeks. This volume of law-making has no parallel in any other democratic nation.

It is not merely the raw number of laws that causes concern. What really matters is the scope of the extraordinary, often insufficiently checked powers granted to government, and how this has been transferred at the expense of Parliament, the courts and the community.

Australia's anti-terrorism regime runs to hundreds of pages. It extends to sedition offences that imprison people for their words rather than their actions, control orders that permit house arrest without trial, laws that allow the secret surveillance of innocent people and ASIO being able to have non-suspects detained for up to a week to gather intelligence. These powers can often be exercised in secret, and even where mistakes are made or the power is misused, this cannot always be reported in the media.

Australia has a new government, but these laws remain. Some reforms are expected soon. The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, promised some positive changes before Christmas, including removing sedition from the statute book. The announcement of these reforms came with the release of the report of former judge John Clarke into the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

While that report exposed in graphic detail the mishandling of the case and the flaws and deficiencies in the law, Clarke made a disappointing set of recommendations. Faced with legislation that could allow the unlimited detention of a person not even charged with a crime, Clarke passed the buck in finding that this should be reviewed again by someone else. His report will not be the trigger for greater change.

The debate has stalled. While no new laws have been made, those already on the books remain in force. Unless they are reviewed and amended as a whole, the exceptional laws of recent years will come to be accepted as normal, and lower standards for justice and human rights will be accepted in Australia and by other nations in our region. Inaction will permit what should have been a short-term, exceptional response to unprecedented events to become a permanent feature of our system of government.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of law at the University of NSW.


posted 25 Feb 2009 00:08 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

More yellow journalism from Hearst publication Marie Claire

I think this is 100% disinfo/propaganda, probably drafted by someone in military intelligence.

I also think it was probably drafted by a man and handed to "Autumn" for publishing. What do you think?

Love Lessons: Desperately Seeking Approval

By Autumn Whitefield-Madrano

When my boyfriend suddenly decided that the U.S. government had planned 9/11 to justify a war in the Mideast, I was alarmed, but not enough to ditch him outright. After all, I told myself, his penchant for questioning everything in his path was one of the things I loved about him. Surely he'd regain his senses soon.

So I refrained from rolling my eyeballs when he'd say things like, "I'm not sure the Pentagon was even hit by a plane — those photos could've been doctored!" And I kept my mouth shut when he'd futz around on the Internet all night, studying Bush's family ties to the Saudis and the melting temperature of steel. I even started attending weekly "truth meetings" in a dusty church basement, pretending to be very interested as he'd mutter, "Yes! Exactly!" to people's rambling diatribes.

Yes, I know it was nuts.

But it wasn't the first time I'd feigned interest in a subject in order to please a guy. Ever since high school — when I studied up on third-level Urdunnir dwarfs so I could converse with my Dungeons & Dragons — obsessed boyfriend — I've adopted a variety of interests that were not my own. I've taken Krav Maga classes; I've thrown batches of toast at the screen during repeated viewings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I've gone to Death Cab for Cutie concerts; I've hosted marathons of movies made by obscure Danish directors. I once seriously considered spending a week in the desert, unshowered, for Burning Man, with the arty, pot-smoking dude I was dating at the time.

I know it sounds a little pathetic, but I guess I just wanted whatever guy I was dating to like me. If he piqued my interest, I wanted to pique his. I wanted to be the woman who got all his pop-culture references ("I've never met a woman who's into prog rock," one carefully researched conquest enthused when I mentioned the band Genesis); I wanted to be a gal his friends thought was "awesome" — someone who inhabited his private world as comfortably as they did.

And yet, it was never a two-way street. Guys have been curious about my passions, sure, but they've never browsed my Gloria Steinem collection or bought pastry-making kits. Maybe it's because women, ever the multitaskers, are always trying a little bit harder to make things happen, to make things work. To accommodate. Men, not so much. I once attempted to bake a cake with the 9/11 guy. After it was in the oven and I started to whip up some frosting, he balked and said it was getting late. Then he stayed up until dawn watching conspiracy-theory videos.

That's when I decided enough was enough. Listening to Death Cab for Cutie was one thing; pretending that 9/11 was an inside job was another. Finally, I told my boyfriend I thought his theories were insane. After he accused me of betraying him and "the people," we broke up. Now I just need to get rid of that prog-rock collection.

Autumn Whitefield-Madrano has worked for Self, Ms., and Playboy. 

See also Autumn's previous cutting edge piece:
My boyfriend dyed his penis green for me

9/11 Truth and the "Big Tent" Approach

A short essay by John Bursill

Big TentIf you haven't heard of the "Big Tent" approach before then I will give you a quick explanation of why it is an ongoing problem for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The "Big Tent" approach is all inclusive approach, that believes all people professing to be "truth seekers" should be welcomed and supported by us and we should allow them a platform to push their ideas and theories regardless of their merits. By merits I mean; are those ideas and theories supported by evidence based rational arguments that are peer reviewed and accepted as credible? The great majority of the 9/11 Truth Community reject ideas or theories that are without merit as they believe this will marginalise, dilute, confuse and isolate us as a movement. They "the Big Tenter's" feel that we "the people" can figure out what is garbage and what is not and they should be able to present their ideas and theories on an equal footing to us in the name of free speech, regardless of their quality. On the other hand do I "hope" that these people publish our proven arguments, yes and am I thankful for this service, absolutely!

In recent times a few new groups have formed that support the "Big Tent" populist approach, such as "Truth Movement Australia" for one and I would ask all of you to be careful not to get to caught up with any group that might be getting off track with ideas that lack merit! Direct involvement and advertisement of these groups will only slow our progress to achieve their and our proclaimed aim: "the truth"! We must continue to be disciplined with our approach to "the truth" and maintain our push for a re-investigation of 9/11, which is simply the best chance for real change and peace in this world today. I know it seems like an impossible task sometimes but the formation of these "Big Tent" groups may be an indicator that we are closer than we think, as general interest and awareness that there is a "truth" problem increases? I fully accept these groups' right to exist, but I feel it is my duty to point out their flaws, and I know that many in these groups understand my point of view on this matter. They simply hold another view, primarily being that we need numbers and popular subjects and issues to get interest and that is simply more important than perfect credibility, as they feel exposure to the greatest number is the "key". 

Statement Against Racism - stj911.org

From Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice utterly rejects racial discrimination, as defined and condemned in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Our organization does not engage in denunciation of any group based on that group's race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or religion. We do not engage in denunciations of the Jewish people or deny the Nazi genocide, and we do not support the current Western attack on Muslim societies promoted as a "war on terror." We accept Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of a society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than by such superficial qualities as the colour of their skin. While strongly asserting our right to criticize any individual, state, idea, ideology, practice or policy, our organization does not tolerate racial discrimination in its membership and does not promote racist theories, but dedicates itself to the discovery of truth through unbiased scholarly research.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (Scholars) is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars emphasizes a scholarly and civil approach to inquiry.

Film Night: - Money As Debt - 7 March 2009

WeAreChange Sydney Presents...

Money As Debt - by Paul Grignon



Paul Grignon’s engaging animation answers the
question that is never asked in school or the media:

“Where does money come from?”


Fox News hack's venomous diatribe against Daniel Sunjata


Wednesday, February 04, 2009
By Greg Gutfeld

'Rescue Me' From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

An upcoming episode of the drama "Rescue Me" is about 9/11 being an inside job. The actor who spews the theories on camera, Daniel Sunjata, actually believes in it too. "They're not discussed a lot in the press," Sunjata says of the theories, in between eating his own hair.

But, that's not what chaps my chaps.

I just hate how the media treats those who spout such theories as risk-takers — when they're really just cowards.

Peter Tolan, the show's producer, defends Sunjata as "well read" and thinks it's great that "he's passionate about it." I guess if you feel strongly about something, then it's OK if you're wrong. See Mark David Chapman.

Look, the fact is, actors who barf this crap are doing it for their own egos. It makes them feel smart, because for once they're spouting something provocative instead of puerile. Never mind that it's an insidious insult to the victims of 9/11 — as it is to the rest of us, who may or may not be guilty, according to Sunjata's theory.

And what's that theory, exactly? Well, Sunjata's character accuses a neo-con government of the pre-emptive attack — something the actor really believes. So basically he's accusing a large group of Americans of killing a larger group of Americans. It's like saying Jews were behind the Holocaust — which Sunjata would probably believe too, if it were the 1940s.

He'd make an awesome Nazi.

And if you disagree with it, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Bob Dylan - Let Me Die In My Footsteps

Let Me Die In My Footsteps (1963) set to images from D.A. Pennebaker's Daybreak Express.


posted 06 Feb 2009 14:35 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

The War on Terror is a Hoax


By Paul Craig Roberts
February 04, 2009

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.
- source:

Paul Craig RobertsAccording to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.

If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.

The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.

I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow.

The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.

Dave vonKleist Vs Glenn Beck

I have not been a big fan of Dave vonKleist's work, but this piece is quite well made, and makes some very good points about mainstream media propaganda.


posted 05 Feb 2009 11:33 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

Truth Action - Sydney Town Hall - 11 January 2009

The Australian 9/11 truth movement is not going away.

We will continue to press for truth and justice - for as long as it takes. The Sydney group meets on the 11th of every month, usually at the Town Hall.