Unfortunately it now appears that a war between the US and it’s allies with Iran is imminent. By any military analysts assessment this has a real chance of changing the current multi-theatre war against terrorism and so called rogue/terrorist states into a real World War III scenario!

Following the Main Stream Media (MSM) in the west over the last few months, you would be sensing that many things have happened to support the war with Iran rationale, hearing that Iran wants a Nuclear bomb and would be prepared to use it against Israel and the US. Other alarming stories include Iran trading in weapons with “rogue states”, Iran killing innocent people abroad, Iran’s President is insane and wants to “wipe Israel off the map”, Iran has been involved in terrorist plots/bombings and may attack inside the US and Iran is trading drugs. The list of baseless accusation goes on and on.

Interesting to remember that after 9/11 the MSM did little to question the actual events and who benefited but devoted massive media speculation to Iraq being involved while no evidence existed; managing to convince the vast majority of the American public that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks leading to growing public support for the 2003 invasion.

Many times over the last decade it was obvious by the rhetoric out of Washington and from their many think tanks like PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) and leaked memos from the Pentagon that the Caspian Basin would be central to their future plans of an expanding Empire. The only obstacle was then generating the public and political support to do so. Prophetically the Neo-Con document “Rebuilding America’s Defences (year 2000)” had said a “New Pearl Harbour” type event was required for this purpose and then very conveniently, it happened on September 11 2001. This facilitated the new American Empire they wanted by enraging the US population to a war mentality and allowing massive budget increases.

It was soon obvious which countries were marked for “regime change” or worse in the Middle East including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. The most probable reasons for the desire to control these countries was to complete it’s dominance of the Caspian Basin oil reserves, protect its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia and to ultimately usurp any possible arrangements between Iran, China, India and Russia that could threaten the trading of oil in US Dollars. In my opinion the US deep state believe if oil rich countries get the idea they can trade direct with sovereign nations without using the US dollar, the US Empire will certainly be finished, well economically at least. If this means the death of millions in the Middle East and of tens of thousands of their own troops by these wars then that’s fine with them as long as they keep control of the oil trade.

This increasing projection of US force is even more likely as the US Empire begins to crumble for it will wish to deny the rising economic giants a secure supply of energy. To quote Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham in their recent article “War Plan Iran” “From the Western powers’ point of view, Iran is both an elusive prize and a frustrating obstacle. Bringing Iran back into the orbit of Western capitalist control has the added significance of depriving energy and other geopolitical advantages to rival powers, in particular Russia and China.” This situation is not going to be allowed to eventuate without pushing diplomatic relationships with China and Russia and many others to breaking point. Will they act economically or militarily is the only question in my view. Either way the world will be in for more economic stress, debt and expanding military budgets but most worryingly, a possible nuclear exchange.

So lets look at the picture being painted at present, i.e. the hype and propaganda v’s the actual situation and why this confrontation is now apparently imminent.

The situation;

- Iran has no Nuclear Weapons Program says all US and western intelligence agencies
- Iran is ideologically opposed to Nuclear Weapons
- Iran has continued to threaten the US Dollar dominance trading through it’s own oil bourse dropping US dollar trade completely on March 20 this year
- China and Russia is increasingly upset by US Policy in the gulf and an Iran/Syria intervention may be the last straw
- Massive build up of US military force in Persian Gulf
- Positioning of large troop contingents in Israel and Kuwait
- War Games have recently escalated in the strait of Hormuz
- US has recently announced the biggest ever arms sale to Saudi Arabia (60 Billion USD)
- Israel is “ready” for war with Iran and could strike at any time
- US Sanctions on Iran, while diplomacy ends, historically means the step is a military intervention
- Russia prepared to use military force to protect interests in Gulf region say Russian Military Experts
- Main Stream Media Critics of US Middle East Policy barely exist and continue to be shut down or sacked

The propaganda and hype;

- Mainstream Media (MSM) support the Neo-Con agenda that Iranians are “determined to become a nuclear power” are “crazy” and will use it
- The current US policy of sanctions is required to persuade Iran to stop it’s Nuclear Weapons Program
- Many allegations have been made by the US and its allies that implicates Iran in terrorist/criminal activities without any hard evidence
- MSM are beating the drums of war again with baseless stories. A quick search of YouTube shows many spun stories making it seem like Iran is determined to get a nuclear weapon
- Iranian Elected President Mamoud Ahmadinejad is continually misquoted to give a sense that he will “wipe Israel of the map” and believes the Jewish Holocaust never happened
- The current line up of Republican Candidates ( except Ron Paul ) continue to call for war with Iran
- Israel pushing hard for war and blaming Iran for attacks against their country without hard evidence
- Attacks against Iran and the murder of its scientists, supported by media and political talking heads as required and acceptable
- Iran being set up for the next 9/11 “false flag” to give reason for US attack

So there’s the background, now to the question: ‘can the war with Iran be stopped’ by rational actors calling for truth and sanity in the face of such propaganda produced by strong Neo-Con/Israeli control of the media, the US Congress and even within the UN itself? Can we deflate the hype?

Well I would say it’s unlikely with the current state of the paralysed Peace Movement and completely controlled MSM world wide. But I do believe with a raising of awareness in the general public, of exactly how dangerous this war could be for us all, both physically and economically it is possible to put a stop to the Neo-Con/Israeli plan once again. Also the broad awareness that 9/11 and other pretexts to war are not what we are told, has weakened the popular support of governments pushing for war without proper investigation of the events that lead to them.

I have found that the argument against a war with Iran leading to a possible WWIII is very easy to make, even if you propose it to those who support the US Empires’ control of the Caspian Basin or it’s support of Israel. Because turning the Middle East into one big war theatre by a likely confrontation between the US and China/Russia is obvious madness. This only makes sense to a few warmongering power elite who care little for life; the progress towards peace or the stability of the region. As hard as it is to conceive, their are people controlling America who have always been prepared to risk nuclear war, seriously thinking they can win and rule the world.

I personally recently decided to start a process to address this situation in Sydney Australia by organising a truth awareness rally see: Say NO to a WAR with Iran! Deflate the WAR HYPE with Truth Awareness

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

Thanks to Tim from “Time To Talk” Radio Show on 2WAY FM for having an open mind on this issue!

Source – http://www.theherald.com.au/ Newcastle Herald 9 11 Article pdf

Pivotal Moment in History Remains Unclear – Greg Ray 9 Sep 2011

IT’S been said that nobody who researches the subject of the so-called September 11 terror attacks in the United States ever ends up
believing the official story about what happened.

If that’s true, it puts the event in the same class as the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Both events have been regarded as pivotal hinges of history, both are surrounded by intense controversy and neither are satisfactorily explained by official accounts.

After many years, enough of the raw emotion has gone out of the JFK killing for more people to be able to acknowledge that the official ‘‘lone gunman’’ story is rubbish. But even though that story is as demonstrably full of holes as the proverbial Swiss cheese, I’m not sure that a definitive truthful account will ever emerge.

A decade after the September 11 attacks it still isn’t fashionable in many circles to draw attention to the defects in the official account of circumstances surrounding the disaster. That’s a shame, because this event has had immense consequences.

I’m always leery of official stories. That’s just as true whether it’s about the alleged risk posed to the public by ornamental fig trees, the sudden urgent need for a new dam that everybody said just months before might never be needed or airplanes whacking into buildings thousands of miles away.

I’m always irritated to be presented with some pat story whose proponents want everybody to believe them but who resist scrutiny of the basis of their claims.

And that was always the big problem with September 11. As soon as it happened, the authorities were ready with the story that a bunch of half-trained amateur pilots, at least some of whose names weren’t even on the passenger lists of the planes they allegedly hijacked, flat-footed the entire US defence apparatus.

Two skyscrapers that were specifically designed to withstand aircraft strikes pancaked to ground zero after being hit. The explanation
was that burning jet fuel melted the structural steel – including the colossal columns that ran up the middle of the buildings –and lower floors gave way as higher ones crashed onto them.

But hundreds of engineers and scientists say that story defies belief. They say jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt the steel that was in the buildings.

Scores of people said on the day of the disaster that they heard explosions in the lower parts of the building. Firefighters, in particular, swore black and blue that they heard and saw these explosions close up and even TV reporters could be seen breathlessly describing them as they happened.

I’ve read volumes on this topic since I last expressed some doubts about the official story (and copped it from people who insisted the
official story must be true).

My reading has only served to increase my doubts.

I’m not saying all we’ve been told about the attacks is untrue. But I feel that big parts of the story are probably false and that other big parts remain untold.

Greg Ray, a senior journalist with the Newcastle Herald for more than 25 years
You may contact Greg at gray@theherald.com.au

12 Sep 05:50am – Source -ThePunch.com.au

On this sad anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in post-war history I am reminded of the prophetic words spoken by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

Eisenhower was the supreme commander in western Europe who had led America to victory against one of the most evil regimes in history, a man who had witnessed the depths of human depravity, and wanted finally to warn us that the war machine which had been created to defend freedom in WWII could equally be used for the opposite purpose, and that it was up to the American people to guard against this possibility.

Eisenhower coined the phrase “military industrial complex” which became the catch-cry of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, describing an economic and political fusion of power involving armaments manufacturers, construction companies, banks, democratic governments and puppet dictatorships.

As Marine Major General Smedley Butler put it, “War is a Racket”. In his seminal book on the subject Butler declares, “I spent 33 years in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”

These and other observations about the racketeering, lying and theft that is the essence of war have informed many of us around the world who today call ourselves “9/11 truthers”.

The central argument of the movement is that 9/11 was a staged, false flag operation designed to propel the US and its allies into war for the sake of profit, oil and empire. False flags are defined in Wikipedia as “covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities”.

There are numerous examples in modern history where clandestine government agencies or rogue operatives have acted in this way, collaborating in the hatching of staged terrorist plots, the launching of self-inflicted military assaults to be blamed on the enemy, and in the formation of domestic terrorist organisations.

There is not enough space here to address these complex cases, but I encourage the reader to do an internet search on phrases like “false flag”, “strategy of tension”, “operation gladio”, “operation northwoods”, “attack on the Maine”, “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, “reichstag fire”, and “the power of nightmares”, to find historical precedents which have a chilling resemblance to the events and aftermath of 9/11.

Some readers may be indignant at the suggestion that a modern democracy would permit its military arm to sacrifice innocent citizens for the sake of a political, economic or military imperative. If you are one of those people then I’m sorry but you have some hard lessons to learn. Use the search terms above and you will discover that I am not lying . You will find this information confirmed by many scholarly sources, and in some cases by impeccably researched BBC documentaries.

So far I have been trying to illustrate the context and precedents for looking at 9/11 as a false flag attack, but let’s now take a look at the specific evidence we have about 9/11, and let’s agree on what we can agree on:

• Planes were flown into the twin towers.
• Towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, symmetrically, at close to free fall, pulverising most of the concrete of those buildings into a fine dust which covered Manhattan.
• The Pentagon was hit by a third plane.
• A fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
• Around 3,000 people died as a direct result of the attacks.

We can all agree with the mainstream account up to this point. Some have conjectured that the Pentagon may have been hit by something other than a Boeing 757, which is reasonable considering the US government’s refusal to release any video footage from dozens of security cameras, but this view is no longer widely held in the 9/11 truth movement.

It is when we consider the “why”, the “how” and the “who” of these events that I and many others radically depart from the mainstream narrative of 9/11.

I have already hinted at the answer to the “who” part. The evidence points to rogue networks within the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies who were using co-opted Islamic extremists as patsies. This view is corroborated by documented evidence that a key planner of the 9/11 plot and trainer of the hijackers was simultaneously an informant for the FBI, and other evidence that the NSA had been closely monitoring the alleged hijackers prior to 911.

In regard to the “how” questions, the only topic I will address in this piece is the collapse of the towers. All three collapsed at close to free fall, including Building 7, which was not even hit by a plane. There are numerous testimonies from first responders who saw heard and felt explosions before the buildings went down.

The free fall rate of collapse is strong proof that explosives were used, and there is no alternative to this conclusion that is consistent with the laws of physics.

This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of close to 2,000 qualified architects and engineers. Steel framed buildings do not simply crumble into dust as a result of fire. In the entire history of modern construction, including exhaustive large scale tests on real steel-framed structures, there is no precedent for this type of event.

The exact details of how the demolitions were carried out have not been proven, but what is clear beyond all reasonable doubt is that they were not brought down simply as a consequence of plane impacts and fires.

Currently there is one, and only one, peer reviewed scientific paper which addresses the question of whether explosives were used to bring down the towers.

The researchers, using electron microscopy, found that a residue of a high tech incendiary, nano-thermite, was present in all the dust samples retrieved from New York on 9/11. They also found iron micro-spheres in the dust, an indicator of intense heat way beyond that attained by office fires.

If you are curious to know more about the collapse of the towers, please visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and the Remember Building 7 campaign.

Let’s now return to the “why” of it all, which is the most controversial question of all. Apart from the conquests and theft of resources in the middle east, at home we have been incrementally losing our freedoms too. In Australia, the government has given itself the power to detain suspects without charge, wiretap without warrants, secretly search people’s homes and blast travellers with radiation at airports.

The secret detention laws are so extreme that even telling someone that you were detained is a federal offence. Those subject to these measures have no right to silence and can only use a legal counsel approved by the government. People can be put under “control orders”, a form of house arrest, even though they have committed no crime. Non-suspects can be detained by force for interrogation, and we have sedition laws which can imprison people merely for their speech rather than for their actions.

According to a recent ABC law report there have been 54 new anti-terror laws passed since 9/11 and 37 prosecutions under these new laws – they are not merely for show.

People have been convicted and given harsh sentences merely for thinking about terrorist attacks. These anti-terror laws were designed to intervene in a “predictive way”, which calls to mind science fiction dystopias like Minority Report. Although the changes have been happening incrementally, the effects are very real and the trend is away from democracy, toward a type of society which can only be called totalitarian.

In short, there has been a power grab, using the fear of terrorism as its justification, and I would argue that this was the plan all along. The power structure which has asserted itself, often described as a “New World Order”, is global in scope, and treats national sovereignty with contempt. It is therefore crucial that upstanding citizens begin to realise the danger we are in and take action to reclaim our national sovereignty and reverse these trends.

Ultimately, 9/11 truthers are average people who are willing to stand up and say that two plus two makes four and who will not be bamboozled by the corporate media or intimidated by Big Brother. Evil triumphs because good people do nothing.

We are trying to do something. Future generations will remember us.

Learn more at truthnews.com.au

September 5, 2011 – Source 911Truth.org

“Nearly 10 years on, many still argue who was really behind the 9/11 attacks….Ben Fordham investigates.” 2GB

This excellent debate can be heard at 2GB, Sydney’s number 1 rated talk station which has been broadcasting for over 80 years, part of Macquarie Radio Network, hosted by 2GB’s show, “The Lounge“, or via upload to YouTube here (Audio Part 1, Audio Part 2)
Sydney Live 3 till 6 is presented by Walkley award winning reporter Ben Fordham.

Who is host Ben Fordham?

Ben Fordham, Host of 2GB’s Sydney Live – 3 till 6, Ben Fordham is a Walkley award winning reporter who still can’t believe he gets paid to work in radio and television. Ben has called Channel Nine home for the past decade, reporting from around the world on 60 Minutes, A Current Affair, Nine News and Today Show. His stories have been broadcast internationally on CNN, SKY and ABC AMERICA. … On radio, Ben has become a popular part-time radio host on AM stations. His most recent stint was filling in for Steve Vizard on the morning shift on Melbournes MTR. He’s also the Australian correspondent for some overseas radio stations. Ben’s coming-of-age in journalism came before he celebrated his 21st birthday. Then a political correspondent on Sydney radio, Fordham won a Walkley Award — Australia’s top award in journalism – for his coverage of the Thredbo landslide tragedy and a Raward – the top accolade in the Australian radio industry – for excellence in journalism. He became the youngest reporter in history to win a Walkley-Raward double and was honoured on Australia Day with a Young Citizen of the Year award. (continued)

Who is Mike King?

I am trained in science but my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts. In the material below I have attempted to check and double check facts and calculations, but like all of us am prone to error. I would be delighted to hear from anyone who would like to point out errors of data or calculation, or errors in the flow of argument, and will be pleased to change the text and give appropriate credit. New evidence will undoubtedly come to light over time, and this may alter the known facts and the course of my arguments here or even reverse them. So much the better: I call that good science.

Mr. King has published a paper, “Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories,” at http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Who is John Bursill? (http://visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/)

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting national security, freedom and justice throughout the world.

His affiliations include:

Delegate: Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association
Member: Returned Serviceman’s League or Australia
Member: Amnesty International
Member: Lions International

John has been a serious 9/11 Truth Activist since 2006 when in January he viewed “Loose Change — 2nd Edition” on the internet after a fellow Aircraft Engineer he worked with expressed a concern that maybe one of those crazy “conspiracy theories” might actually be true and suggested he watch the film. John had a great struggle with the evidence presented in this amateur documentary and was very keen to debunk it. Unfortunately even though the film makers had made a few mistakes and allowed speculation to creep into their production it was obvious that the “Official Conspiracy Theory” was not true. Since then he is doing all that one man can to find the truth and to inform the public of that truth to hopefully create interest in questioning Australian and US foreign policy based on a 9/11 delusion.

John after many years of research is convinced that 9/11 was a psychological operation designed to promote a war agenda spelt out by the Neo-Cons around the Bush/Cheney Administration and specifically the “Project for the New American Century” in their manifesto “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. It seems to John based on the evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated and/or covered up by elements within the United States Government, the Military Industrial Security Complex and with the assistance of individuals in the FBI and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). It also is blatantly obvious that the “9/11 Commission” was set up to fail as has been said by many of the commissioners and their chairmen Keen and Hamilton; this is completely unacceptable and is a slap in the face for the family members of the victims which include ten Australian’s families.

Paper Link: Why Australia’s Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable – By Lawyer James O’Neill

US President Barack Obama, 1 December 2009 “I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11…….It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3000 people.”

From the essays Introduction “This article will suggest that the official rationale for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is false. It involves a rewriting and/or ignoring of history on the part of the participants. It shows the same cavalier disregard for international law that was apparent in Iraq. It accepts without question the validity of the two premises argued by Obama in the above quote. Perhaps most disturbingly it persistently fails to address the reality of the present policies and their likely true intention.”

Lawyer James O’Neill

In this outstanding historical analogy of the Afghan situation author and Lawyer Australian James O’Neill presents a story that the Australian and worlds population have been denied. O’Neill in this cutting and well documented essay makes a mockery of our current state of democracy in Australia; where neither the media, or the politicians of the major parties have attempted to even debate the legality of the US lead invaision and occupation of Afghanistan.

In brief this essays runs with these main themes;

- 9/11 is the excuse for being in Afghanistan and that foundation is not only fallacious it is contrary to international law
- The history of American political and corporate involvement and plans for oil and gas control in the region of the Caspian Basin and the context it provides
- The media’s failure to discuss how the Americans were the foundation for al Qaeda and financed terrorism in Afghanistan and the “stans” to the north, plus Russia and China, since the 1970s
- The media’s failure discuss the truth about the drug trade and it’s connections to the western military and intelligence networks
- The Australian parliament took 9 years (October 2010) to even debate (not legality) what is our longest ever war and only then because the Greens made it a condition of supporting the Gillard Governments formation

In his Conclusion O’Neill states “The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally.” He then goes on to say “The acquiescence of the mainstream media and the major political parties in this charade strongly supports the proposition that the decisions are not being made by the elected representatives of the people of Australia (a majority of whom support withdrawal). Rather, as is the case in the United States, those people whom Scott refers to as making up the “deep state” make these critical decisions.”

O’Neill continues with this statement regarding why an understanding of the public of this situation is so important “The continuation of this state of affairs poses a deep threat to the public state and the democratic values it purports to represent“

In this essay relies heavily on the work of Peter Dale Scott and we all are very grateful for Professors dedication to the exposing of the “deep state” or often referred to “the shadow government” in his extensive writings on the matter.

22 October 2010

As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald sun poll is showing that over 65% 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”.

Poll Screen Shot: 5:30pm 22nd of October 2010

Note: 911oz Editor would like you to comment at the site for the historical record!