January 2006 - 911oz Goes Live
"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie..."
(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.134)
"... if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. "
(Gen. Tommy Franks, interview, newsmax.com)
"The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people."
"To fuel yet another war, this time against Iraq, by cynically manipulating people's grief, by packaging it for TV specials, sponsored by corporations selling detergent and running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning. What we are seeing now is a vulgar display of the business of grief, the commerce of grief, the pillaging of even the most private human feelings for political purpose. It is a terrible, violent thing for a State to do to its people."
Barely a day goes by without a politician or a journalist reminding us how 9/11 changed the world forever. This event was the trigger for tough anti-terrorism laws in Australia in 2001, and was used as a justification for laws which have nothing to do with terrorism, such as the border protection acts.
Four years later, the London bombing of 7 July 2005 became a springboard for a new round of security related legislation.
And it was all quite atmospherically changing, it really was. And I think that, I mean that had quite an effect on me, and ... the reality is that we are worried there are people in our community who might just do this. And we need the power to the extent that it's possible to stop it happening.
(John Howard at the COAG JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE ).
According to John Howard, the reality of the London bombings has changed the way we perceive the world, despite the fact that the singular world changing effect of 9/11 was already used as a justification for the first round of anti-terrorism laws back in 2001.
We have been told that there is a new kind of crime and a different kind of threat which necessitates draconian changes to our legal system. These include tougher anti-terrorism laws, including provisions regarding sedition, preventive detention and the gagging of the media.
We are left to wonder: what will be the consequences of an attack on the mainland?
"To withdraw from Iraq prematurely would be to give victory to the terrorists, which would be detrimental to Australian Security and our broader interests."
While the government assures us that we must stay the course in Iraq, in many Islamic countries there is growing distrust of Australia because of its support of this illegal war. This exacerbates the resentment already built up in Indonesia over the past decade due to Australia's interference in East Timor and the impression that the government supported the racist policies of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
The new anti-terror laws and publicised arrests of 'terror suspects' have fanned simmering flames of racial hatred. News of beach riots in December 2005 has, no doubt, given many Muslim extremists reason to see 'white' Australia as an enemy.
Clearly, the Iraq war is regarded by millions of Muslims as unjust. Clearly, Australia would be a far less likely target for terrorism if it were not participating in this war. Clearly the Iraqi 'terrorists' are seen by many as freedom fighters.
There is however a more serious problem at the core of the so called 'war on terrror', which is the main theme of this website.
Many people around the world do not accept the official story of 9/11.
Consider: 1) none of the main conspirators has ever been brought to trial for the 9/11 crimes, 2) Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind, was at one time funded by the US Government , 3) the current U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly a response to the surprise attacks on 9/11/2001 is the fulfillment of an agenda already laid out by the Project for the New American Century in a strategy document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses dated September 2000, 4) founding members of this neoconservative group include Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby , Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. (For a range of articles on this topic, try doing a Google search on this key phrase: multiple simultaneous major theater wars.)
We all know that there were no WMD's found in Iraq, but there is a dissident view, gaining in popularity around the world, that the 9/11 attacks 1) were not accurately covered in the media, 2) would have required complicity from powerful agencies within the U.S, and 3) were probably staged by the U.S. military industrial complex to create the impression in the public imagination of a new 'Pearl Harbour' which would facilitate various pre-planned 'imperial' campaigns. The movement associated with this view goes by the name of 9/11 Truth or sometimes '9/11 skeptics'.
The occasional references to this movement in the mainstream press employ a mixture of ridicule and moral outrage in their coverage. Popular Mechanics, for example, ran a lead article titled Debunking 9/11 Lies in March 2005. This was followed in June of the same year by a Scientific American article which uses the colourful term 'conspiratorial codswallop' to describe the 9/11 skeptics' theories. The National Review ran an article which stated that Thierry Meyssan's work 'fits neatly with those of the Holocaust deniers' (link).
If you are new to the subject of 9/11 skepticism, I suggest you read these and other articles in the Official Theory section (left of this page) in conjunction with the more skeptical material presented here.
Many people probably find the possibility of official complicity in 9/11 too disturbing to contemplate, which is understandable. As with the assassination of President Kennnedy a generation before, people find it easier to believe a more simple scenario of the 'lone nut' or a group of fanatics who 'hate our freedoms'. The mass media helps them to avoid thinking about this possibility mostly by ignoring the growing number of websites, books, videos and detailed multimedia presentations which question the official story. This has many parallels with the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, but in this case the internet has allowed a far greater number of people to access alternative information.
I decided to create this website because I could see there was a need for genuine thinking people to participate, share knowledge and generally help each other to understand '9/11' .
If you are still interested in this subject, and want to know more, I suggest you start with my article 9/11 For Dummies. Then explore the rest of the website at your leisure.