From under the linoleum
Old newspapers show Mussolini's imperialism looked a lot like today's

I sat on the floor and picked through the tragedy of the country we now call Ethiopia laid out on the yellowing pages. It was eerily reminiscent of the current Iraq adventure.

A tale for our times
The December 1934 assassination of Sergei Kirov

Seventy years on, the killing of Sergei Kirov casts an eerie light on the events of 11 September 2001, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the “war on Terror” and the state-sponsored hysteria surrounding the shadowy figures of Osama bin Ladin and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Ninety-three years of bombing the Arabs
It was the Italians, hell-bent on acquiring an African empire, who got the ball rolling. In 1911 the Libyan Arab tribes opposed an Italian invasion. Their civilians were the first people in the world to be bombed from the air.

Dispossessed all over again
After spending nearly two months in the West Bank the pull towards my village was growing stronger, especially after being detained twice and threatened with deportation … an Australian Palestinian returns to her ancestral home.

The tragic inevitability of a forlorn hope
Australia slides further into the Iraq quagmire
Cabinet documents recently released under the 50-year rule show that, in 1954, Liberal (conservative) Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, and key figures in his Cabinet were extremely gloomy about the prospects for success in an American war against nationalists in Indochina. But eventually they went to the Vietnam War anyway.

Bombing King David
One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist

Some historians date the beginning of modern terrorism from the 1946 bombing by Zionist terrorists of the British military HQ in Jerusalem.

Don’t loiter near the exit
Military debacle and economic decline haunt the Bush regime

When I was just a young possum in the school cadet corps there was a hoary old war story that we all knew. It was almost certainly apocryphal, but it ruefully expressed a nasty historic truth about the US role in the demise of the British Empire.


We've been online since 1997.
Check out the archives or …

powered by FreeFind

Locations of visitors to this page


© Nick Possum/
Brushtail Graphics

9/11: the questions that won’t go away

20 September 2008

The other night on the ABC, I watched the BBC’s second effort on the mysteries of 9/11 and I couldn’t help noticing the Beeb was rather more respectful towards the 9/11 truth movement than it was in its last disastrous foray into the subject. Their previous sneering effort came to grief because they showed live footage of the Beeb’s on-the-spot reporter burbling news just-to-hand that World Trade Centre 7 – the building that wasn’t hit by any aircraft – had collapsed. Alas, WTC7 could clearly be seen behind her and it was to be a further 23 minutes before it fell. The critics had a field day.

Seven years after 9/11 the questions just will not go away and it’s no wonder – the official explanations simply beggar belief. Just for starters, what are the chances that all three towers would collapse, almost symmetrically, and right into their own footprint, just as they would in a controlled demolition?

The theory that the collapse of the twin towers was finally brought about by raging infernos fed by thousands of tonnes of Jet A1 never made much sense. Watch those videos of the planes hitting the towers and you’ll see that the fuel in the aircraft burned up in a few seconds of brief spectacular conflagration, mainly outside the buildings. It didn’t remain conveniently pooled inside on the impact floors feeding fires hot enough to weaken, let alone melt, the steel frame.

And even if it had, the asymmetrical impacts would have ensured that structural damage and and the “weakening” effect of the supposed fires caused an asymmetrical collapse – but this is not what we see happening.

And what are the chances that Hani Hanjour, a bumbling novice who couldn’t fly a single-engine Cessna, could pilot a lumbering jet liner as if it were a fighter plane, to hit the Pentagon in just the place where it had been reinforced against such an eventuality?

And what are the odds that the supposed hijackers would pick, to pull off their coup, the very day that the US armed forces were holding a major war game involving just such a hijacking scenario?

And how is it possible that the Pentagon could be hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began, and not be intercepted by the US Air Force? The questions roll on and on.

One standard response to the critics is that if 9/11 was an inside job, it would require an impossibly large conspiracy – one too large to be concealable. This looks like a telling point and it has the advantage that you can make it – and sound tough and worldly – without having to master any of the details.

Actually it’s not such a profound point at all. The modern imperialist states have evolved very large-scale conspiratorial organizations with trained operatives and sophisticated techniques. These are our “security” and “intelligence” organizations and their role is to do illegal subversive things overseas (and at home).

Because the spooks do things that would often involve elected politicians in deep trouble if they were party to the details, the politicians prefer not to know. They effectively hand over enormous power to a tiny unelected group and the only guarantee they thereafter have that the organization stays within reasonable bounds is that its leaders will wield their subversive power with integrity, moderation and judgement.

Alas, power of this sort usually attracts dubious personality types, including those who are turned on by duplicity and the type of idealogue who thinks he (it’s almost always he, of course) knows what’s in the best interests of the ignorant masses and their stupid elected representatives.

These organizations are set up with military-style compartmentalisation. The foundation of ordinary military operational security is the restriction of knowledge of any one sub-section to the minimum necessary for successful operation. If foot soldiers are given the whole picture they’ll give the whole game away if they get captured or blab in the earshot of spies.

That principle is magnified enormously in secret subversive organizations. Operatives have narrowly defined jobs and, in the interests of secrecy, they do not discuss business or compare notes with other operatives in different departments. They do what they’re told and they don’t ask searching questions. They don’t get together after work at the pub to gossip or brag. That’s the foundation of the profession. You get into a lot of trouble if you breach the code.

So only the small group at the top know everything. Only they can see the whole picture. This hands the rogue manipulators enormous power. With it, they can set big conspiracies in train using relatively small numbers of people.

One of the most important of the conspiratorial black arts is “controlling the narrative”. Through it, the conspiracy spreads to involve what might be called “unconscious conspirators”. When a false flag operation like 9/11, or 7/7 in London is set in motion, the official line is promulgated and accepted by the mainstream media within hours, if not minutes of the deed. Most importantly, the “perpetrator” is quickly identified and his methodology established. It was Arabs, Muslims, suicide bombers, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden. They used TATP, or aircraft. Whatever.

All experienced state conspirators now know that in an emergency situation the official media can almost always be relied upon to avoid “irresponsible” speculation and inquiry and to rally patriotically to the defence of the nation. Ditto the politicians. In this special sense a conspiracy can be very large indeed. It is naïve to think otherwise.