More about this advertisement here: Watch the Ad One Million New Yorkers will See

Additional references:

• Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth

• Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?

• BuildingWhat.org

______________________

Unlike the US Greens, Australia’s Green Party has been timid and poorly-informed about 9-11.

We need some Glasnost in Canberra, Bob Brown.

How about inviting the 2008 US Greens Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney to visit Australia?

She is more than familiar with the 9-11 lies most Australians prefer not to think about – lies the corrupt, lazy and Zionized Australian mass media has tacitly ruled ‘off limit’ for serious discussion.

As this excellent video by Brasscheck.TV shows most effectively, poisonous memes were planted in the public psyche over the first few hours of the 9-11 atrocity, at a time when shock and grief had shut down most viewers’ critical faculties.

Jerome Hauer, incidentally, who’s featured in this video, keeps popping up on TV as a ‘terrorism expert’.

Here’s Winter Patriot’s file on one man who should be on trial for complicity in crimes against humanity.

Al Quaeda does not exist – not in the form conjured up by a never-ending succession of TV talking heads and bought-and-paid-for-columninsts.

The western world has been hoaxed by Zionist conspirators, whose power and influence within the western mass media has been crucial in selling a 1984-style nightmare to a credulous general public.

British Brigadier Roger Lane: a 'useful idiot'

Arguably, the gravest failure of all has been the role of the ‘western intelligensia’. History will record that in the first decade after 9-11, the great majority of the world’s academics favoured their careers and convenience over pursuit of truth. They should be truly ashamed. Their cowardice and conformism puts civilization in jeopardy – and has helped isolate and endanger the honourable exceptions among their ranks.

The great lie of our era – The ‘War on Terror’ along with its bogus rationales – has been perpetuated for nine long years in the western mass media and in mainstream political discourse. Each day, the terror-myth loses potency. Public exposure of the many liars involved in this gigantic hoax draws closer.

The conflict between competing paradigms is not stable. Traditionally, instability of this kind has been broken by a NEW false-flag atrocity and/or a major war: a new state-sponsored weapon of mass distraction, in other words. Yet the purveyors of mass murder and deceit have already stretched the credulity of the western masses to breaking point. It’s far from certain that another 9-11 style-atrocity would con most westerners the next time round.

Here’s a brief extract – consisting of a few sourced quotations – from the webpage on the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth website entitled WTC 7 Gallery of Evidence:

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition“

The near-freefall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: “Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.“

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

With the dust of 9-11 long-settled – the drama of that day now nine years in the past – things become clearer.

Dr Niels Harrit: a latter-day Copernicus

We live in a world of two principal political paradigms, locked in competition.

One paradigm attempts to explain the most crucial event in recent history with an open mind.

It concludes that the 9-11 atrocities could not have been carried out, as alleged, by marginalised terrorists on the fringe of power.

Consideration of a single aspect of 9-11 alone – the collapse of the THREE world trade centre towers – leads any open minded observer, once appraised of the basic facts, to conclude the official narrative is bogus.

The almost inevitable conclusion to be drawn by such an intelligent open-minded observer, once persuaded that 9-11 was carried out by perpetrators other than ’19 Islamic extremists’, is that agents of the State of Israel played the crucial role in perpetrating the 9-11 atrocity.

As in many a classic whodunit novel, the main accuser turns out to be the villain all along. The first-accused were victims of a frame-up. In the language of our era, 9-11 was a ‘false-flag’ operation: a Zionist false-flag operation.

The other paradigm is that the 9-11 Commission was broadly correct, that the collapsed World Trade Centre buildings fell as a result of fuel fires triggered by plane crashes into the twin towers – and that the perpetrators of the attacks were indeed Islamic extremists, members of an organisation called ‘Al Qaida’ under the direction of a villainous Islamic extremist, Osama Bin Laden.

I don’t know Craig Murray, but I do have considerable respect for the Briton who resigned from the UK Diplomatic Service during  the Blair Government’s reign of terror, in protest at its worse-than-dubious behaviour.

Craig runs a popular blog and covers hot political topics with insight. He also had the guts to run for the British Parliament last year as an Independent. This is not a silly man.

I visit Craig Murray’s blog occasionally and post comments less frequently. Some have been approved for publication; others not. That’s fine. I know from my own experience of running a blog how hard it can be  to make calls on controversial posts.

Today I noticed a recent article withe the engaging title ‘The Ethics of Banning Trolls‘. In it, Mr Murray explains why he’s banned a particular commentator who goes by the name of ‘Larry from St Louis’. After mentioning Larry’s latest annoyance, Murray writes (emphasis added):

It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.

He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.

Each era throws up new poets.

Les Visible‘s classic Let me see if I have got this right? is still my favourite 9-11 ballard.

Let me see if I have got this right
some stone age arabs hi-jacked four commercial flights
then flew them all at high speed into targets on the ground
and none of them were stopped cause, uh… no one was around?

Les Visible: 9-11 was an inside job

there were lap dancers in Florida and passports in New York
where nothing else survived. Is this some kind of joke?
three enormous buildings melt to nothing on the ground
like timed demolition but no evidence was found

No evidence was found cause they carted it away
they quickly melted it all down and shipped it to Bombay.
the president read nursery rhymes to a peer group in the south
banal cloaking lunacy kept pouring from his mouth

While the two towers burned
while the pentagon trembled
while the nation stood in shock
the president dissembled

let me see if I got this right
seven of the hijackers weren’t even on the flights
and no jet fighters scrambled though they were supposed to be
well like they did for that golfers plane, lade dade de.

the president said he saw a plane crash on TV
But according to the timeline there’s no possibility
The medias in lockstep ballroom waltzing through the lies
and nobody knows anything, they just let it slide

The so-called War on Terror is like a toxic package.

No matter how many times the parcel gets passed along, it contains the same uninspected lethal contents.

The rule, which each new ‘owner’ of the Terror Wars is expected to obey, is simple:

Never open this package; never inspect the contents!

Rudd and Gillard. Both 'embraced' the war against Afghanistan, leaving its underlying rationale unquestioned. Whose national interest benefits from this?

Owners are encouraged to scrutinize only the wrapping paper, which is re-designed a little from time to time but invariably carries the grim message: ‘KEEP ON FIGHTING!‘

To look inside the War on Terror package would be to reflect, in a considered manner, on the original stated reasons for invading Afghanistan in 2001. Afghanistan, after all, was the first ‘war’ of the War on Terror Grand Series and remains, in Pentagonese, an ‘ongoing situation going forward’. In plain English, the war drags on and on…

To examine the contents of the ‘WoT package’ requires an honest appraisal of what really took place on September 11th 2001.

If the official story is correct,  ‘Islamic extremists’  became supermen for a day, contriving to collapse THREE Manhatten skyscrapers in their own footprints at near free-fall velocity, despite not having prior access to the three World Trade Center buildings and not using hi-tech explosives (samples of which have since been discovered in dust samples from the 9-11 atrocity in NYC).

Quadrant of Belief on Climate Change and 9-11

Many issues divide public opinion around the world. This chart depicts just TWO prominent issues:

1. belief that the International Panel on Climate Change ‘consensus’ is broadly correct on climate change – versus the belief that climate change is NOT a serious threat to humanity’s well being.
2. belief that the official reports on the 9-11 atrocities is broadly correct – versus the belief that the 9-11 atrocities were not orchestrated by ‘Al Qaida’ and consequently the 9-11 attacks were a ‘false-flag’ operation.

A quarter century ago, neither topic was on the agenda.

In 1985, the atrocities of September 11th 2001 lay 16 years in the future. To state the obvious, no-one could have a view about 9-11 at that time.

‘Global Warming’ and ‘Human-Induced Climate Change’ were also topics unfamiliar to most scientists in the mid-1980s – let alone the general public. It’s was only around then that irrefutable evidence became widely available indicating steadily rising carbon-dioxide levels in the global atmosphere.

I was actively involved in the environment movement during the 1980s and took a keen interest in the climate change issue. It came to prominence around the same time that satellite data was confirming an alarming growth in the so-called ‘ozone hole’ over the poles, especially the Antarctic. At the time, hard-to-refute evidence that human activity was changing the entire global atmosphere in significant ways was a novelty.