- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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,
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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,
- 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.