Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Debate w/ABC Regarding Jon Faine -
Kevin Bracken Call-In

By Karl Schwarz
Hello Jeff,
The following is in regards to the recent radio show in Australia hosted by Jon Faine and the trade union president Kevin Bracken called in.
There are three emails in the text below. First, my original to ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and was directed to Mr. John Standish, the producer. That is at the bottom of this article.
Second is Ms. Cath Hurley, their Local Content Manager responding to my email. Her email to me appears as the middle #2 email in this discussion Note at the very bottom now ABC has plastered their ­ Disclaimer Statement ­ to the conversation.
The third email is my reply back to Cath Hurley and is just below the next two paragraphs.
In reading the email Cath Hurley sent to me, it appears that ABC has accepted without question the hugely flawed NIST cover up study and the 9-11 Commission report that even some of the 9-11 Commission members are admitting was a fatally flawed farce of an investigation.
(I have never mentioned it but the only thing about the NIST study that I thought was interesting is the high level of aluminum (WTC exterior cladding) that had found its way into the structural steel of the superstructure. That is what happens in galvanic corrosion, especially if electrically induced.)
Sent: November 29, 2010 is my reply to Cath Hurley.
Greetings Cath,
Maybe it is due to distance from the crime scene between Manhattan and Australia. If your network does nothing but repeat the lies of the US government regarding what happened on September 11, 2001 you are not serving the public by being a Mynah bird for a completely false account of what happened.
The NIST report you cite for 'official position' it a totally corrupted report. They did not do their job or even come close to it. I am now the CEO of a nanotechnology company, but in the past was a licensed architect. Their report is a travesty, a painfully laughable joke. Never in history had any fire brought down a steel skycraper, but miraculously did three in one day on September 11, 2001.
If ABC were to dig into the matter it would find that there are about ten times as many [experts] who have revealed that the NIST fable is pure mythology.
As a matter of scientific fact, jet fuel does not burn at high enough temperatures to cause the structural failure of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
Have you heard that thermite has been found in WTC evidence and do you know what thermite is used for? It is used for the demolition of buildings, especially tall structural steel buildings so they will collapse in their footprint, not topple over and take out other buildings, too.
Thermite does not weaken steel, it cuts it in half by turning what it touches to molten steel almost instantly. If you do just a little digging, there are excellent videos showing molten steel pouring out of one of the towers. Jet fuel cannot turn structural steel to molten steel, far from the temperatures necessary to do that.
The 9-11 Commission intentionally did not look at much of the key evidence. It is very apparent that Building 7 was not hit by a plane and it was demolished long after the two towers came down. The 9-11 Commission skipped right over the fact that three buildings came down. Maybe you should talk to many experts as to why they call it 'The 9-11 Omission Commission'.
Have you not heard about the US District Court judge who asked an attorney 'what three buildings?' That judge had focused only on the two he saw on TV and was completely unaware that three building came down on 9-11.
See the PDF attached. My presentation in NYC was based on those facts, and they are facts. They are also in the book I wrote "One Way Ticket to Crawford Texas, a Conservative Republican Speaks Out". It was 837 pages of facts, 957 footnotes. After it was published the US government rushed to kill many of the links I cited in the book. For most of those links I copied and pasted what was in the articles that have now been 'disappeared' by the US government.
Maybe your network should dig into the name 'Bridas Corporation' and their business in Afghanistan, for I have written on it many times.
My information on that matter goes back to 1999, not September 11, 2001.
Maybe your network is unaware that the Port Authority of New York and New Jesery lost a multi-billion asbestos claim against its insurers shortly before 9-11-2001, and the appeal was rejected in 2002.
Here is a link and note that they tried the matter in New Jersey where no one would think to look or pay attention.
That lawsuit was specific to all three airports in the New York and New Jersey and World Trade Center 1, 2 and WTC Building 7. One has to dig into the underlying case to find the truth.
Maybe you are not aware that Bridas Corporation won almost $500 million in the US Courts for 'interference of contract' in Turkmenistan, the origination point of the TAP - Trans Afghanistan Pipeline.
Try to find the asbestos matter in the NIST report you rely on.
Surely their 'sophisticated equipment and tests' detected the very high levels of asbestos that the lawsuit was about. You see, the US government does not want anyone to know that if the asbestos lawsuit failed those buildings were scheduled for DEMOLITION.
The US government is hoping that most Americans fail to hear about Thermite being found at the WTC sites, and it was very special, extremely hard to get Thermite even within the US.
Try to find the issue of 'asbestos World Trade Center' in the 9-11 Commission report. They failed to address the third building that came down that day and was a definite building implosion.
Try to find any mention of Bridas Corporation in the 9-11 Commission report. One of the people sitting on that commission is with the law firm of Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw and kept Bridas tied up in court for years. Some would call that a conflict of interest since Bridas had the entire TAP pipeline sewed up from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean.
Maybe Australia was relying on that oil and gas promised by Bush and Blair and it makes it easier to look the other way. Maybe it is the official position of the Australian government and media so that neither have to tell Australian troops and families they were sent into harm's way on the basis of a lie. To aid and abet the grand theft of a pipeline right-of-way hidden behind a fabricated global war on terror.
Or maybe you are unaware of my presentation in New York City on the third anniversary date of September 11, 2004. This video is only 9 minutes of what was 22 minutes of presentation and almost 40 minutes of answering questions from the audience.
Maybe the Australia Broadcast Corporation is unaware of The National Policy Forum, a group that was created by the Republican National Committee in DC and that the group was planning the Global War on Terror in 1994-1996. I know, I was there, I walked out on them. When that group had to be disbanded it was reformed as The Project for a New American Century, (PNAC). If you do not know what role that group played in current US war policy, do your homework.
By the way, who I glared at when my presentation was over were two people from the CIA who were daring me to state the truth publicly.
They left before I answered questions to the audience for almost 40 minutes.
I have said it many times in my writings: if you believe in a lie you are living a lie.
Check into what is going on inside of main stream media these days.
Even Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera are starting to see the flaws and the lies in the Official US story. They are both mainstream media in the US.
I trust you folks in Australia have heard about Bush and Blair lies regarding Iraq. Seriously, most of the world knows about that. Dig deeper and it is not hard to find that they lied about Afghanistan, too.
My latest piece is on TSA, but within its text are some hints as to what you people in the main stream media are missing.
Kevin Bracken was right and ABC would be doing its job as a Fourth Estate if it took the time to understand why Bracken is right and ABC is wrong.
I would be more than happy to debate Jon Faine on the facts he seems to be unaware of to maintain his position. I have done over 200 radio shows as the featured guest and can discuss these matters in great detail. The biggest conspiracy theory about 9-11 is that 19 wily Arabs attacked the US and brought down three steel superstructures in one day, when that has never happened to even one steel skyscraper.
And no, those jets did not come equipped with Thermite of the type found at the WTC sites.
best regards,
Karl W B Schwarz
Managing Director, CEO
Rokkors Nanotechnologies GmbH
Vienna Austria A-1010
From: ABC 774
To: Karl Schwarz
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 5:44:10 AM
Subject: RE: Attn: John Standish
Dear Mr Schwarz,
Thank you for your comments concerning Jon Faine's talkback call from Kevin Bracken.
The essence of the view Kevin Bracken expressed, is that the officially accepted account of what happened on 9/11 is a "conspiracy". He declined to elaborate, despite being asked, on who organised or coordinated the conspiracy or what the motives may have been. He did, however wish to engage Jon Faine in a debate on specific aspects of what occurred on that day. The principal example he raised was the theory that because aviation fuel burns at a temperature below that required to "melt" steel then the building must have been imploded.
In Jon Faine's view, the theory that the twin towers of The World Trade Centre were imploded lacks sufficient plausibility to be considered a worthwhile subject of debate. As he mentioned on air, the subject was carefully examined by the 9/11 Commission (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf ). Its conclusion on this matter has been confirmed by many experts, most notably by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which conducted an exhaustive three year study of the collapse of the twin towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ).
In talkback programs such as this, both Jon Faine and Kevin Bracken are entitled to express their views as strongly as they wish as long they do not incite discrimination or disparagement or involve the gratuitous use of coarse language.
Jon Faine's language was intended to communicate the strength of his disagreement with Kevin Bracken's views on this particular subject.
He did not make any judgements about Kevin Bracken's broader political views or character.
Although Jon Faine declined to engage directly on the issues of fact with Kevin Bracken, he allowed both Mr Bracken and many talkback callers to expound on their views. Mr Bracken was given two opportunities to put his case and calls on both sides of the debate were taken over two days.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to both ABC Radio management and the producers of the program.
Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Cath Hurley
Local Content Manager
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl W B Schwarz
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2010 7:02 AM
To: ABC 774
Subject: Attn: John Standish
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
Karl W B Schwarz) on Saturday, October 30, 2010 at 07:01:36
response required: Yes
From: http://abc.net.au/melbourne/contact/
comments: Hello John, I am watching this flap regarding the union president call in and Jon Faine's arrogance. You need to make Faine do his homework unless your network stands for nothing.
I am a DC insider and wrote the book on George W Bush and this complete farce of a Global War on Terror. Check out One Way Ticket to Crawford Texas, written by me. Just a few copies are left on Amazon.com.
Also, Google 'Schwarz Afghanistan Bridas Corporation' and see what I have written about the subject.
I used to be part of the RNC in DC. I was part of what was called then the National Policy Forum and I walked out on them. The new name after they cured their illegal funding problem was PNAC, Project for a New American Century. The folks responsible for 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I was there and went public.
Make your reporters do their research and stick the arrogance up the ass, or arse as you sub-Brits love to say.
I can tell by the tone of the interview why Jon Faine could not cut it as an attorney. Seems to have an aversion to the truth.
It will all come out, I am part of the movement that is making sure that will happen. Scoop it or lose it.
I was there, Faine was not.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros