The implications of the analysis below will confront generally-held paradigms in such a way that your initial reaction may be to refute them. Initial disbelief is the expected reaction, in fact, because regardless of how clear the evidence may be, our tolerance for cognitive dissonance, the mental pain experienced while holding two contradictory beliefs, is limited so ideas very contradictory to our paradigms need time to take on board. I ask the reader to give yourself time to consider my claims (there is no particular rush, it certainly took me awhile) and be ruthless in matching those claims against the evidence. I also ask the reader to ensure you consider all the evidence before refutation. In my vast experience of argument, I find that people will take an item that supports an hypothesis and provide a possible alternative explanation as if this acts as refutation. However, this reasoning is an example of the logical fallacy known as cherry-picking. While an alternative explanation may be possible, the possibility of it doesn't mean it actually applies and without evidence that it does, it doesn't debunk the claim. Most importantly, it is only one item among many. All the evidence must fit an hypothesis and the best-fit hypothesis is the one that logic says must be chosen. My endeavour is always to ensure that my chosen hypothesis is the one that fits best.
Consider the following:
In the lead up to the 2001 Australian federal election on November 10, three major events occurred:
While certain events on Australian soil or more specifically connected to Australia indicate they are of the same ilk, the analysis will focus only on the Tampa affair and the SIEV 4. For the Tampa affair and the SIEV 4, the analysis is based on the wonderful treasure trove for the staged event analyst, the documentary, Leaky Boat, made by Screen Australia/Screen West and released in 2011. It is a must-watch through the staged-event lens, simply gobsmacking. The timing is significant - it would never have been made soon after the pre-election events, it would have been too obvious then, but a decade later it will pass. For 9/11 various sources are used.
Tampa affair - August 2001
"... a fishing boat was about to sink, the engine blew, the boat flooded, fish swam across the decks. ... The ship's crew watched in amazement as out of the little boat came 433 refugees."
Comment: No images match this claim of a boat where fish might be swimming across the decks and we have to wonder why at this point the significant number of 433 people were able to move directly from the boat into the rescue ship as implied.
Brigadier Gary Bornholt: "In Defence it wasn't a big deal because these numbers of people were very, very small and that's why they didn't represent a security threat."
Admiral Chris Barrie, Chief, Australian Defence Force: "We don't actually remember that most of our illegal immigration takes place at our airports."
Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie: "It was the news story of the particular time that we were in and you can drive anything to hysteria by beating it up enough."
Comment: When does Defence come out and say something of this nature? These Defence personnel who speak rather blandly, almost smilingly, strike me as telling the truth in a controlled manner. The film, overall, seems a very controlled production so I see no reason to believe that these personnel are telling the truth "genuinely" as it were but rather in a controlled manner.
"The Tampa presented an opportunity. If an Australian boat had performed the rescue, the refugees would have gone into detention in Australia but here a large Norwegian rabbit had appeared from the hat of the Indian Ocean bringing for the first time the chance to say no."
" ... a large Norwegian rabbit had appeared from the hat of the Indian Ocean ..."
Comment: Doncha love it?
Over footage of a cargo ship we hear John Howard:
"The Government has requested that the Tampa not enter Australian territorial waters."
Then Arne Rinnan, Tampa captain, says:
"When I was looking down from the bridge the people were listening in to a radio they'd smuggled on board.
John Howard continued:
"Whilst Australia is a decent humanitarian country we are not a soft touch, we are not a nation whose sovereign rights in relation to who comes here are going to be trampled on."
"And then they went on the hunger strike. The only man on board who was really happy was the cook."
Comment: So, It seems the implication is that the refugees happened to catch John Howard's speech in Parliament on the smuggled-aboard radio, angrily comprehended his message of unwelcome and decided to go on a hunger strike. At the start of the film, we are told:
"The ship's crew watched in amazement as out of the little boat came 433 refugees. They told their rescuers to take them to Christmas Island or they would go crazy."
Three Afghan refugees appear and speak of their experience. The first two speak of the third and how he was in need of medical assistance. The third, Ghulam Amiri, says:
"That was me. That was me. I was unconscious because I've been eating or drinking three days."
Comment: The refugees are not native English speakers, of course, but it's interesting that Ghulam says "I've been eating" rather than "I hadn't been eating". This is the kind of anomaly we expect in a staged event.
Arne then tells us that 10 people were unconscious, going in and out of coma. It seems unusual that out of 10 people going in and out of coma none died without medical assistance and why were all these people going in and out of coma? Did the alleged hunger strike have a radical effect so early on?
Major Peter Tinley:
"The mission was to board the Tampa and on command stop it."
Question: What does "on command stop it" mean? How do you stop a cargo ship in the middle of the sea? Was the captain to drop anchor and if this was the seemingly unlikely scenario, surely not the correct lingo?
A refugee says:
"Just running towards us with the guns and saying 'Don't move. If anybody move, we'll shoot.'"
Comment: Is this credible?
Another refugee says:
"First time the soldiers come up they think we are tourists."
Comment: Is this credible?
The first refugee says:
"And we were surrounded by them and then we saw that they are on the top level as well [laughs] with the guns.
Question: Why does he laugh? Seems a pretty scary situation, no? And how credible?
Major Peter Tinley:
"When I talked to the guys when they came back off the boarding parties, and said 'how did you find the group' they said 'Well, they're a bunch of refugees.'"
Question: Isn't this gobbledegook?
Major Peter Tinley:
"I'm not sure if they had thought about the threat environment in more depth that they couldn't have just sent a naval vessel there or sent a customs vessel."
Question: Why would they send a customs vessel to a refugee boat?
Tinley then goes on to say that he couldn't but feel that John Howard viewed the SAS as something that would resonate politically to the message of border security. "You can't amp it up more in the public's mind than saying, 'We're going to send in the SAS, we'll show you how tough we are on border security.'"
Beazley was right behind Howard (and we see evidence of this earlier and later in the film as well).
"And in these circumstances this country and this parliament doesn't need a carping opposition."
Comment: Beazley touches his nose in a seemingly obvious fashion twice. Touching the nose is believed by some, at least, to be body language indicating deception (here someone suggests, interestingly, possibly a sign of internal conflict). Was Beazley helping Howard to his election win? What's going on here? Carmen Lawrence, Labor member, wasn't in accord with Beazley but is she a "controlled opposition" to Beazley or genuine? If genuine, I'd say she's about the only person in the film who is.
"Over the week of the Tampa the government's approval rating rocketed 10 points."
SIEV-4 - 6 October, 2001
"In the weeks after September 11th, the government's polls continued to climb. John Howard called the election."
"This is a time, of course, to choose strength and purpose and stability over the alternative."
Stephen Mills, New Zealand Political Researcher, smilingly:
"It was as close as you can get to a khaki election, that's an election that's held during a war where incumbents are usually massively favoured and fear, anxiety, hatred, anger tend to rule voting choices."
Comment: Political researcher, eh, Stephen? Perhaps Stephen made a contribution to the "leaky boat" strategy.
"The very evening that Howard called the election, the most talked about, most misunderstood and most significant of the leaky boats that came that spring set sail, SIEV 4, the boat that came to be called the Children Overboard boat. On board with her mother and brothers was Zaynab Hassan. It was the first time she'd been on a boat."
Smilingly, Zaynab, an Iraqi refugee, says:
"For us as young kids, for me and my brothers it wasn't like scary, it was sometimes exciting to be on a boat ... it was like a movie or a cartoon."
Comment: This is not credible. I became a penpal of a refugee held in detention and his description of his trip sounded like pure terror and hell similar to other refugees’ experiences. And we see her suggest the truth “… it was like a movie …”.
Able Seaman Bec Lynd, on HMAS Adelaide, was told that a lot of the people on those vessels came from possible "terrorist countries" and our job was to stop any immediate threat to our country.
Question: What's a "terrorist country"?
"The Adelaide fired 23 rounds across SIEV 4's bow. The refugees matched the escalation instantly."
Comment: A little reminiscent of the fish swimming across the decks of the Tampa? How credible is this? And the refugees were all set up in a leaky boat to match the escalation instantly?
"A dozen people threw themselves overboard. Fearing that the whole lot would jump, Banks [captain of rescue ship, HMAS Adelaide] sent a boarding party to bring the situation under control. The camera caught a rough image of the exchange."
Comment: Despite the shots across the bow wouldn't the refugees still have a better chance on board than throwing themselves into the sea?
"When the boarding party got back on board they were talking about how some people had jumped into the water and another guy held up his child saying look we've our family on board, we've got our children on board."
"In the middle of these events, Captain Banks received a phone call from his Commander in Darwin. Wires got crossed. Later Banks insisted he said adults were throwing themselves overboard. His Commander was just as certain he said he'd been throwing their children into the water."
Comment: How credible is this?
"The captain and the crew did what no sailor would ever want to do: waited and watched until SIEV 4 actually sank. Then, and only then, could they rescue these people."
"The sea was just littered with people everywhere. There were people jumping off the vessel and there were people clambering into the life rafts. ...
"I remember Laura Widdle jumping off the bridge wing onto ... into the water to swim out. [Unintelligble] she was slightly crazy for jumping off there."
How credible is it that if the crew of HMAS Adelaide could anticipate the inevitability of rescuing the refugees that they would wait till all 223 were in the water? Wouldn't that make the rescue operation so much more difficult? How credible is it that one of the crew would be rescuing by jumping off the bridge wing?
"Back home, the Adelaide was already big news and the media were demanding pictures. Not of the rescue, but from the day before when children - so the hottest story in the country went - had been thrown overboard. These two events, one real, one imagined, now became confused and the pictures took on a life of their own."
Comment: "These two events, one real, one imagined" applies perfectly to the whole event.
"I just looked at them [images] and said, 'Well, OK, people in the water, they're from Defence, release them.' I didn't have a view about what they proved or didn't prove. In fact, I didn't think they proved much anyway. [Laugh.]"
Comment: "I didn't think they proved much anyway." Couldn't agree more, Peter, couldn't agree more. As the images of the boat sinking and the people in the water are not convincingly real and perfectly fit rescue drill and as everything we are told about the event lacks credibility the question becomes obvious: why believe the story at all?
Brigadier Gary Bornholt:
"This is highly colourful and highly charged image[ry] that we're being presented with. You can't turn round, two days later ... or a week later and say, "Oh, that wasn't actually true because it then brings into play, well, maybe all the other stuff wasn't true maybe the Tampa people weren't as bad as we thought they were. Maybe this is not about security, maybe this is about politics. Maybe it is. [Smile.]"
Comment: Oh most definitely. Doing wonderfully as controlled opposition, Gary, doing wonderfully.
Three days before the election with lots of stagey finger-pointing going on, it was admitted that no children were thrown overboard ... but the real question was: did SIEV 4 happen at all?
"After the election two more SIEVs came and then the leaky boats suddenly just stopped."
Comment: A variety of reasons are given but I think we might hazard a guess at the real reason, no?
September 11, 2001
Interesting fact. John Howard was in Washington and allegedly a "surprise" witness to the September 11, 2001 attacks but I don't think for a moment his presence there was a coincidence. I think that Little Johnny had been privileged by the big boys with front row seats to the most spectacular terrorist event the world has ever known.
At the start of this article, I ask the reader to consider that if certain aspects of an event are true might we extrapolate those true aspects to apply to the whole event. This is what I ask the reader to do for 9/11.
While historian, Webster Tarpley, lists 46 drills on 9/11, Wikipedia also tells us of a large number of operations and exercises on 9/11 and informs us there is supposed confusion about an ongoing NORAD exercise called Vigilant Warrior (as opposed to the semi-annual Vigilant Guardian). This article by Elizabeth Woodworth, The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed, points out numerous anomalies in what is told to us about the military drills.
We have to wonder about so much confusion about drills. Shouldn't all exercises and drills be recorded clearly and be able to be listed without any confusion? So we have the remarkable coincidence of what we might guess is the greatest number of drills ever to occur in one day in the US, their anomalous confusion and the occurrence of the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever known. Could it be that 9/11 - far from being a terrorist attack conducted by 19 Muslim fanatics armed with boxcutters lumbering around the best-defended airspace in the world without a breath of interception or even a false flag where 3,000 people were callously murdered by their own government via destruction of only partially-evacuated buildings - was something of a completely different nature?
The bare bones of 9/11 are actually incredibly simple. 9/11 is a phenomenon exhibiting the following characteristics:
--- A Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation (or psyop) in the form of a massive anti-terror Full Scale Exercise comprising many drills and exercises pushed out as a real terror attack
--- An Emperor’s New Clothes/Hitlerian lie right in our faces showing blatant disregard for Newtonian physics both:
• horizontally - two 200-ton airliners melting into 500,000 ton steel frame skyscrapers and
• vertically - three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing to the ground symmetrically in a matter of seconds with one of the three collapses exhibiting all the signs of a classic implosion
--- Collaboration with the US government in the exercise by other national governments, the media, response agencies, corporations, banks and many others.
--- An ongoing propaganda campaign comprising two basic streams, one directed at the masses and one directed at those who recognise 9/11 is an inside conspiracy because of the clear fact of controlled demolition (9/11 truthers).
• Story to the masses - Osama Bin Laden, 4 hijackings by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters, 4 plane crashes involving incidental building collapses at the WTC and destruction of the West Wing of the Pentagon, DEATHS OF 3,000 PEOPLE AND INJURY TO 6,000
• Story to the 9/11 truthers, using a number of disinformation agents – Controlled demolition particularly focused on the collapse of WTC-7, minimisation of analysis and expression of ambivalence in relation to plane crashes, DEATHS OF 3,000 PEOPLE AND INJURY TO 6,000
• The reason for the two-streamed propaganda campaign is to keep the truth stagnant. While the truthers have one major piece of the puzzle correct (controlled demolition) but another incorrect (death and injury real) they will not be able to get anywhere because non-truthers will simply not accept that the US government killed all those people in the buildings … and in this belief the non-truthers are perfectly correct. That would never be the perps’ MO.
What we must do is detach ourselves from any story presented (and especially be mindful of how they play to our emotions with stories of tragic deaths) and make our own story from the evidence provided. We need to wrest control of the story from the power elite and make our own story directly from the evidence - which, admittedly, can be tricky when you have wall-to-wall controlled opposition as in the case of 9/11 so cleverly mixing truth with lies. It took me four years of overcoming the clever propaganda strategy to work out the pivotal truth of 9/11: the staging of death and injury.
"Those who do not have power over the story that dominates their lives,
the power to retell it, rethink it, deconstruct it, joke about it, and change it as times change,
truly are powerless, because they cannot think new thoughts."
You can read about the various aspects of 9/11 on the following pages:
Propaganda strategy to keep truthers persuaded of the lie that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11
Collapse of WTC-7
Four faked planes crashes
Fakery of death and injury
The "magic dust" that gave Ground Zero the appearance of a war zone
Australian 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, brother of David Holmgren, the co-originator of permaculture. Of all 9/11 researchers whose work I've encountered, Gerard is the one who most impresses me and with whom I feel I share a similar logical approach while recognising his far greater political knowledge and scientific understanding. I'm very sorry I only knew of him after his death.
Below I will provide the evidence for how the perps actually TELL us that they were responsible for 9/11.
Presages - Many instances of allusions to 9/11 in films and other media dating from the 1940s.
Fakery of death
We are shown few images of dead people which is not unexpected, however, this particularly gruesome one of a jumper who has hit the pavement is obviously fake and is reminiscent of a scarecrow with the stuffing taken out. See more on fakery of death and injury.
Dialogue after the collapse of WTC-7 at 5:20pm on 9/11 at the World Trade Centre
Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant
"Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
Jane Standley announced on BBC television that WTC-7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. How is this possible for an unplanned collapse by fire?
Owner claims he said to "pull it"
Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, says he said to "pull it", a term used in controlled demolition that no doubt originates in pulling buildings down using ropes and chains. Obviously, it wouldn't have been at his command the building came down, it would have all been pre-planned, his words are just one of their "signs".
Terrorists popped up alive
This is a good one, no?
Election fraud doesn't just take the form of fiddling votes, does it? Then again, judging by what we see of Kim Beazley in Leaky Boat he would have, against all democratic principles, taken us to war in Iraq too.