New Paper at the Journal “Why Australia’s Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable” An Exceptional Historical Piece!

Review by John Bursill

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.

Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).

In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks!  There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of  9/11 that are most likely true.   The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.

Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Music by Root1, also known as Three Shoes Posse.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Physicist Steven Jones Interview for “911 Explosive Evidence – Experts speak out”

 

Kevin Ryan Returns to Visibility 9-11

Interview by John Bursill

It is a great pleasure to welcome back our regular guest Kevin Ryan to the Visibility 9-11 Podcast. Kevin is arguably the hardest working and most prolific scientific author within the 9/11 Truth Community!

In this show we ask Kevin to look back at the investigative work he and his peers have carried out for the Journal of 9/11 Studies of which he is a Co-Editor and leading author. There are simply too many topics covered in this interview to mention them all here in the notes.  Highlights include Kevin’s work on discovering who had access to the Towers, his recent correspondence with 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton and we also ask Kevin, “who did 9/11?”

Kevin Ryan lost his job due to the pursuit of truth and justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and has dedicated his life to discovering what happened on that dreadful day and will not be stopped until justice is done.

Any that wish to be educated on all matters 9/11, listen closely to what this man
is saying!

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Peer Reviewed “Active Thermitic Material” Article Translated to Spanish and German

Additions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and thoughts for 2Kten
by Dr. Steven E. Jones
Journal of 9-11 Studies

red-gray-chipI am pleased to announce the translation of the peer-reviewed article on “Active Thermitic Materials” by Prof. Niels Harrit et al. into Spanish and German, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

“Active Thermitic Materials”  in Spanish

“Active Thermitic Materials”  in German

May I take this occasion to wish all of you a Happy New Year.

In the past I have urged all to acquire at least a three-month (preferably 1-year) supply of food and water, wherever this is legal. Now to add to this – I urge you to have a rural place of safety to go quickly to, perhaps in groups of families or friends, far away from the large cities. In a case where trucking of food into the cities is curtailed, or the electric power is out, or an EMP blast, or any number of scenarios where services to cities are cut, it will clearly be prudent to have pre-arranged retreat(s). The goals of self-sufficiency and voluntary-simplicity that some have been discussing “theoretically” in the Truth Movement for years can be quickly achieved with pre-planning and work and cooperation.

I anticipate an adventuresome 2010, for I think the next several years will prove an adventure for all of us. We’re in it together.
Steven E. Jones

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD

channel-0000This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD to the program.  Dr. Legge is a chemist and serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.  He has contributed many essays and papers on the topic of September 11th, including his role in the peer reviewed article titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

This interview focuses on Dr. Legge’s new essay is titled What Hit the Pentagon? and is published in it’s latest version (v.5) at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.  This essay’s leading hypothesis states that:

The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and hence weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole.  The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also attack one another.

Dr. Legge also includes a minor hypothesis which says:

The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Both hypotheses are examined as well as the idea that the “no plane at the Pentagon” theory is a booby trap for the entire movement.  This idea states that if members of the 9-11 movement continue to promote this “no  plane” theory as fact, that as our efforts become increasingly mainstream, we run the risk of the government producing a video of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon.  We know the government has many videos which they have deliberately withheld from the public.  What little information we have been given through official channels has only fueled the “no plane” argument.  If a video were released tomorrow, it is suggested that this would thrust the entire movement into disarray as well as be used in the media to discredit us and irrevocably damage our credibility.

Also of importance in Dr. Legge’s essay is the section on The Precautionary Principle.  We at Visibility 9-11 endorse this approach and caution listeners and visitors to do your homework and only present to the public that information which is solidly documented or backed up by scientific research.

Lastly, is a brief mention of the fine work of John Bursill in hosting 4 events in Australia and New Zealand during the month of November.  The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 will feature my guest Dr. Legge as well as other solid and reputable members of the movement, and providing to the public only the best evidence we have.  Thanks to John Bursill for pulling together such a fine line-up and for setting a great example for everyone to follow when it comes to bringing to the public only that information which can be solidly proven.  If you want to help with the costs associated with these conferences, which are largely being funded by John himself, please send an email to johnbursill@gmail.com.

Direct Download this episode of Visibility 9-11 or listen in the embedded player below.

We All Fall Down

We All Fall Down
After 9/11, BYU prof. Steven Jones’ teaching career imploded just like the twin towers, but he still insists planes were not to blame.
By Eric S. Peterson
Salt Lake City Weekly

towersThe equation for free fall is pretty basic. Drop anything—from a dime to a rock—from a tall building, for example, and once that object hits an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, it’s free falling. This equation applies to everything, even to buildings.

In the fall of 2005, Brigham Young University professor Steven Jones presented this simple principle in a BYU campus auditorium packed with hundreds of people to illustrate how several of the World Trade Center towers fell too quickly on Sept. 11, 2001, to have only been hit by planes. To reach free-fall speed, Jones explained, the building’s floor supports would have needed to be blown apart. In other words, the carnage of 9/11 would have required another catalyst of destruction beyond hijacked planes—an explosive to cause the buildings to implode.

The discussion ran two hours and only ended because students began arriving for a class to be held in the room. Before concluding, Jones asked if anyone was not convinced more investigation was needed. Only one professor raised his hand. “And he tracked me down the next day on campus and told me I changed his mind,” Jones says.

Jones’ speech began his rise as an outspoken skeptic of the official 9/11 report. But, it was also the beginning of the end for his career as a college professor.

TowersCovJones and his colleagues theorized that a military-grade explosive called nano-thermite sliced through the building supports and brought down the buildings. Recently, they bolstered their theory with analysis of a mysterious powder collected from around New York City, a powder they asserted in the April 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal was nano-thermite.

If the theory sounds like bad science fiction, it is because a similar explosive substance, “nanomite,” was used by Cobra (the bad guys) in this summer’s over-the-top action movie, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. In the movie, Cobra uses nanomite to disintegrate buildings and national monuments in a cloud of green dust.

Nano-thermite, however, is no green powder from comic book fiction—it’s actually a red-chip substance that Jones and his researchers have matched specifically to an explosive residue using electron microscopy.

But before Jones recent red-chip research came to fruition, he continued to speak frankly about other pieces of the puzzle: the reported sounds of explosions on 9/11, molten steel at the site, steel beams shooting out horizontally like missiles from the buildings, and the sloppy federal explanations about what happened at World Trade Center 7, the third building that collapsed and the only one that did so without being hit by any planes.

Jones now casually rattles off the official testimony that claimed air defenses were called off and describes suspicious stock deals that netted mysterious individuals billions of dollars in profits from the 9/11 disaster.

“The problem in this country is that we accept one conspiracy theory,” Jones says. “That it was Al Qaeda—that’s the official conspiracy theory. OK, but it doesn’t explain the lack of air defenses that day, it doesn’t explain why World Trade Center 7 came down the way it did, and it doesn’t explain the billions made off these extremely suspicious stock trades. So, there really is a lot of evidence for foul play,” the professor says matter of factly.

Beyond the figures and formulas, perhaps Jones’ most incendiary conclusion is that the explosions were the result of an inside job. Ironically, Jones says his theory is supported by Occam’s razor: the principle that states where there are multiple competing theories, the simplest one is better. For Jones, the simplest theory is that the U.S. government conspired to commit terror on its own citizens and kill thousands in the process. The storm Jones has stirred up speaking out on 9/11 eventually forced him, in 2006, into early retirement from BYU.

Down but not out, the soft-spoken professor continues his controversial research, having created a peerreviewed journal for multidisciplinary 9/11 research. He continues to call for a complete investigation into the events of 9/11. Looking to explain this generation’s Day of Infamy, Jones fights to retain his credibility while fending off criticism from those more-or-less in his own camp for being dismissive of their 9/11 theories—laser beam attacks and holographic planes—all while reconciling his faith with his own controversial work.

Some see the exiled BYU professor as the voice of dissent against the greatest cover-up in American history.  Others see a reckless professor with a messiah complex, tilting at windmills that just aren’t there.

[Read more…]

New paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

New paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies by Prof. Graeme MacQueen
from Kevin Ryan
July 21, 2009

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called “Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?” Here is the abstract:

“In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers.”

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the Journal.

Pre-9/11 Upgraded GPS Service Provided 243 Foot Wide Aerial Navigation Corridors

Pre-9/11 Upgraded GPS Service Provided 243 Foot Wide Aerial Navigation Corridors
by Aidan Monaghan
Amended Version of Journal of 9/11 Studies PaperEnhanced GPS service (WAAS) now in use by the U.S. commercial aviation industry and activated 13 months prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, provided virtual aerial navigation corridors only 243 wide and a 95% confidence that an aircraft’s true position will fall within such a corridor . Such corridors can be navigated entirely by autopilot and flight management systems scheduled in 1996 and 1998 to be contained by United and American airlines Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft like those used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

RNP .02 / Boeing 767-200 / World Trade Center TowerWAAS also supports required navigation performance (RNP) operations, says Raytheon, providing a precision navigation capability down to RNP 0.02 (an accuracy of 0.02nm).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/01/07/159964/ups-wins-faa-cert…RNP is a required navigation performance level described by the specification of a numeric value indicating the required navigation accuracy for a specific operation, typically specified laterally in nautical miles – e.g., RNP 1 is a Required Navigation Performance of ± 1 nautical mile (95% Probability).

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc…1 nautical mile = 6,076 feet

RNP 0.02 = RNP (0.02 nautical mile radius) x 2 = RNP (121.5 foot radius) x 2 = a 243 foot wide corridor.


Boeing Example
(Boeing) http://clacsec.lima.icao.int/Reuniones/2008/CE73/NE/BoeingPresentacionFT… AMENDED VERSION: Wide Area Augmentation System Signal Now Available

[Read more…]

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
by Elaine Jarvik
Deseret News
Monday, April 6, 2009

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a “nano-thermite” material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate “who made the stuff and why it was there.”

A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine “the whole truth of the events of that day.” They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.

One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, “It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later.”

Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.

Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.

The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a “highly energetic” form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, “super thermite” is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.

Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn’t have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives.

Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. “I would like to think I could stand up for the truth,” he says.

The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. “As a young student said to me a while back: ‘It’s exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.’?”

Original article here.