Feb 202015

By Peter Drew
Global Research, February 19, 2015

The Bishop of Guildford

The Right Reverend Andrew Watson
Willow Grange

Guildford, GU4 7QS

Dear Reverend Watson,

As the Bible says about God, “His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Does the Church of England stand by that statement and support it with their actions? I refer to the Church of England’s seemingly inconsistent and racist approach to the issue of 9/11 in relation to the recent announcement of your decision to ban Reverend Stephen Sizer from using social media due to his posting a link and a comment raising questions about who committed 9/11.

I have an interest in this issue as I am the UK Coordinator for the international organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth). This is an organisation made up of more than 2,300 qualified and professional Architects and Engineers from around the world who believe that the scientific and forensic evidence they have gathered proves that the collapse of the three towers on 9/11 could only have occurred through controlled explosive demolition and are asking for a new and independent inquiry, with subpoena power. This evidence has now been presented in over 30 countries around the world and in over 80 cities across the US. The reaction from the audiences to this evidence has been overwhelmingly supportive everywhere it has been presented. So much so that the Washington Journal news network (C-SPAN) in the US recently ran a 40 minute live and in depth interview with Richard Gage, the CEO of AE911Truth, which was shown live to millions of American citizens.

I must say that I find the decision to ban Reverend Sizer from all social media a little difficult to understand and I find it an extremely inconsistent approach by the Church of England, especially following so closely on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo event in Paris. In Paris we had 3 million people gathered in the streets in a quite amazing show of public unity and public strength behind a common cause of peace and freedom of speech. Those who gunned down the innocent victims in Paris sought to quash freedom of speech when they didn’t agree with the message. While the Church of England has not fired any physical bullets of terrorism or racism with this decision, the principle is the same. Why has the Church of England not also publicly condemned the allegations by our government officials and mainstream media about alleged Muslim involvement in 9/11? These are allegations that have been made with absolutely no evidence to support them. But yet any mention of possible Israeli involvement is met with instant condemnation by the Church of England. No group or nationality should have the finger of blame pointed at them for anything unless there is clear evidence to support the allegations, so where is the consistency by the Church of England with regard to Muslims?

More than one million innocent people have so far lost their lives in the Middle East since the US and UK launched their military attacks on the back of 9/11. More than half a million of these victims have been innocent children. In addition, most people in the UK are not aware that millions more in the Middle East will die or be deformed at birth in the coming decades and for centuries to come from the massive amounts of depleted Uranium shells that have poisoned Iraq and surrounding regions. Iraq and the wider Middle East have now had their own holocaust, and it is still ongoing right now as we speak. This holocaust was launched on the back of totally baseless allegations that 9/11 was committed by 19 Muslim hijackers.

Instead of banning your staff from attempting to ask questions about who was really responsible for 9/11, the Church of England should instead be supporting the hundreds of thousands of courageous and peace loving individuals around the world who have been campaigning tirelessly for new investigations into what really happened on that day of 9/11, and exactly who was involved. Because the one thing that is absolutely certain about 9/11 is that we have not been told the truth by our governments and our military officials.

I have no idea if Israel was involved or not, and I have no idea if Muslims were involved or not, but I do know that we have not been told the truth and that very serious questions and very serious investigations need to be carried out which could potentially alter the course of history in a positive manner. Any hatred towards another specific sector of the community such as Anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. But could you please explain to me how this is any different from accusing Muslims of committing 9/11? Muslims have been blamed for 9/11 and as a result of this there has been a massive global backlash against the Muslim community. Are you aware that despite what we have been told by our government officials, there is not one shred of any evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers were the perpetrators of 9/11? None. And yet Muslims have been blamed for committing this horrendous crime and a holocaust has been unleashed in Iraq and the Middle East. Has the Church of England ever asked our government officials and media to provide evidence of their allegations against Muslims, or if they can’t provide this evidence then to stop spreading these false allegations about Muslims being the perpetrators of 9/11? The silence from the Church of England on this has unfortunately been deafening, despite attempts made by the public for the Church of England to look at this issue.

Are you aware that there is no video footage of the alleged Muslim terrorists getting on board the airliners that day, and no evidence of their names being on the passenger lists? Are you aware that many of the 19 alleged Muslim hijackers on 9/11 have been confirmed to be still alive and well today, and as such they are wondering why they are on a list of alleged suicide terrorists who died on 9/11? This is a quite incredible fact that has even been highlighted on BBC documentaries. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden was never put on the FBI wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI stated themselves that they had absolutely no evidence to implicate him with 9/11, despite what the US government was saying? Muslims have been accused of this horrendous crime with literally not one shred of evidence. They are just baseless allegations by our government officials which we are told to believe while they launch a holocaust on the Middle East. That is racist in the extreme. Why is the Church of England not seriously challenging this situation instead of quashing the freedom of speech to raise some very difficult questions about 9/11? You have said to Reverend Sizer that his Facebook posting was racist. But it is also racist for the Church of England to condemn allegations against Israel but not to condemn allegations against the Muslim community when there is zero evidence to support those allegations?

Are you aware of the incontrovertible scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence which proves conclusively that the three towers on 9/11 collapsed as they did not because of fire from the airliners, but because of explosive, controlled demolition? This evidence has been provided and supported by thousands of professional experts as well as eye-witness testimony from 118 of the first responder fire fighters on 9/11. Are you aware that World Trade Centre Building 7, the third tower to completely collapse on 9/11, was a 47 storey sky scraper not struck by a plane and yet it collapsed totally, in near perfect symmetry, in less than 7 seconds, and achieved free fall (gravitational) acceleration during its descent? As our 2,300 professional architects and engineers will confirm with you, the ONLY way that this can occur in a high-rise tower is through controlled demolition using perfectly placed and perfectly timed explosives. There is no other possible explanation within the known laws of physics. It is as simple as that, despite what our government officials and media try to tell us. As we speak, NIST, the official US government investigators into the collapse of the three towers on 9/11, have a major legal action against them for criminal fraud on the basis of their fraudulent investigations and fraudulent findings into the collapse of those towers.

This raises extremely difficult and psychologically challenging questions about who could have been responsible for making those towers come down in that manner, because it certainly wasn’t Muslim terrorists who would have had the ability to make that happen. In further support of what I have just stated here, are you aware that 100,000 citizens of New York have just signed a petition in support of the ‘High-Rise Safety Initiative’, which calls for a new investigation into the free fall collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7? These calls for new investigations are also supported by numerous family members of victims of 9/11 who want the truth about who killed their loved ones. President Obama is under extreme pressure at the moment from many members of US Congress to release the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report. The two members of US Congress who have been granted special permission to view those 28 pages have demanded they be released to the public because they say the content will shock the nation, and the public needs to know.

Here in the UK, we have Matthew Campbell who lost his brother in the North Tower on 9/11. He has been campaigning tirelessly with British and US officials to have his questions answered about his brother’s murder. All he has asked for are some answers to some very basic and straightforward questions that would be a standard part of any proper investigation into someone’s death. In effect, there has been absolutely no investigation into his brother’s murder and he has not been able to get one single answer or positive development on this situation from the British Embassy, the US Embassy, President Obama, or the coroners involved. Consequently he is still tormented by the fact that his brother has been murdered and that no one is willing to investigate that murder in any way or answer even the most basic of questions about how he died. If a major organisation such as the Church of England were to provide some support to Mr Campbell’s endeavours to find a little peace of mind and justice then that would be a noble cause worthy of such an establishment. Is this something that you would be willing to assist Mr Campbell with? I am copying him on this letter for his reference. If so, I can provide you with his contact details. I am sure he would be most grateful for some support from the Church of England.

To finish with here, I repeat my earlier point about freedom of speech and having the freedom and courage to be allowed to ask what can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant questions in the pursuit of truth. We don’t know who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and exactly how they did what they did. What we do know is that what we have been told happened on 9/11, and who did what, is incontrovertibly false and that there were other unknown entities that must have been involved. Those unknown entities have been responsible for unleashing the most horrific carnage/holocaust imaginable in parts of the Middle East which will continue to cause terrible human suffering for a very long time to come. Reverend Sizer may perhaps have been a little misguided, but well intentioned, in raising his questions about 9/11 in the way he did. The Church of England has made the decision to supress this type of questioning towards a specific sector of the community, and that is fair enough if that questioning cannot be backed up sufficiently with clear and incontrovertible evidence. But has the Church of England done anything to support the global Muslim community against the terrible baseless accusations that have been made against them about 9/11, and which have led to them suffering their own horrendous holocaust?

Perhaps you were not previously aware of the abundant scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence that I have mentioned here. Perhaps this is why you and the Church of England have not previously rallied to the support of the Muslim community as you are now rallying to the support of Israel. If that is the case then there is still an opportunity for the Church of England to have a positive impact here and help change the course of history in a direction more aligned with peace, as should be the mission of the Church of England, according to the Bible. The Church of England could take a proactive approach to helping to put forward to the public the abundant and incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence that challenges the official story of 9/11.

This doesn’t have to point the finger at anyone, as Reverend Sizer has done to some extent. The Church of England could take exactly the same stance as ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, which is to help allow the public to see the true evidence that is being covered up, call for independent investigations into this evidence, and then let the cards fall where they fall in terms of where those investigations lead to and who is found to be responsible. The Muslim community and the millions of victims in the Middle East deserve that evidence and information to be put forward, and they deserve those investigations to be conducted.

I am sure that the Church of England supported the Nuremburg trials, so will the Church of England also support this request to help bring forward the true evidence about 9/11? The current holocaust must be stopped/mitigated and the true cause identified. Reverend Sizer may not have approached this issue in quite the right way, but he was certainly correct in his belief that there are very serious questions to be asked about 9/11 and he has shown great courage to at least be prepared to put his head into the line of fire and try to raise some questions about what really happened on 9/11 and try to help address the ongoing Middle East holocaust.

I believe that Reverend Sizer’s intentions, if not his methodology, were consistent with my opening message about the Bible’s stated mission of the Church of England…..“His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Will the Church of England honour those words of the Bible and support justice and righteousness being sought for the victims of 9/11 and the victims of the Middle East holocaust?

Thank you for considering what I have said here, and I would be more than happy to provide further information about anything here and to provide contact details for Mr Campbell if you would be interested in following that up.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew (MSc)

UK Coordinator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dec 152014


Last updated 09:34, December 16 2014

Prime Minister John Key says it would be naive to think an attack similar to the Sydney siege couldn’t happen in New Zealand.

Three people, including the gunman, are dead after the Martin Pl siege ended in a volley of gunfire shortly after 2am local time today (4am NZT).

“I think you have to say yes,” Key said.

“There is always that risk, there’s that risk everywhere in the world. There’s the risk that there’s a person who is somehow attracted to the teachings and kinds of messages and propaganda that these people are peddling.”

In a landmark security speech last month, Key revealed government agencies were monitoring up to 40 possible foreign fighters within New Zealand because of their engagement in “extremist” behaviour.

“We know that as part of those 30-40 people we identified on the first list, that there are people who spend a lot of time on the internet, basically delving very deep into the messages and the propaganda that is coming out of ISIS [Islamic State],” he said.

Last week the “foreign fighters” bill passed into law, 94 votes to 27. It followed a similar tightening of security laws in other countries including Australia and Britain.

The Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill aims to tackle home-grown terrorism, with the Government arguing the rise of the Islamic State (IS) terror group in the Middle East increased the risk of an attack here.

The new law allows warrantless surveillance for 24 hours, and includes powers to cancel passports for up to three years, when authorities suspect terrorist activities.

Key said the events in Sydney only showed how dangerous IS was, even if it wasn’t directly involved.

Read more here

Jun 242014

The Three tall buildings

The Three Tall Buildings
That one day that changed everything – when Building 7 collapsed in almost perfect free-fall – it was the day ‘they’ huffed and puffed, and ‘pulled’ the baby building down.

Unlike the other books from the Awaken series which have comic illustrations and are A4 in size, this book – smaller and A5 – has hand painted illustrations by a young art student in Lisbon, Mariana Santos, and words by Dalia Mae Lachlan.

Or available from www.awakenyourkids.com

Apr 282013


April 29, 2013

The Assad regime has dismissed as a ”barefaced lie” US and British claims it might have used chemical arms, with staunch ally Russia warning against using such fears to launch a military intervention.

The developments come with at least 10 people have been killed in shelling on the town of Douma, north-east of the capital Damascus, and renewed fighting in other areas on Saturday.

”I want to confirm that statements by the US Secretary of State and British government are inconsistent with reality and a barefaced lie,” Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zohbi said in an interview with the Kremlin-funded Russia Today TV network.

”I want to stress one more time that Syria would never use [chemical weapons] – not only because of its adherence to the international law and rules of leading war, but because of humanitarian and moral issues.”

Read more

Oct 062012

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release 5th of October 2012
Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au

Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

Malcolm Fraser: Australia heading for nuclear war

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has sounded the same clear warning first issued by the Citizens Electoral Council and U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche a year ago: that the present direction of U.S. and Australian defence policy is leading to the unthinkable—nuclear war. His carefully-reasoned warning was met with outbursts of denial by most of Australia’s media, typified by an editorial in Murdoch’s The Australian, “Fraser should be dismissed”, and an hysterical rant by the ALP’s Michael Danby, chairman of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade, that “No rational examination of the foreign policy of the US under Obama or Australia under both prime ministers Gillard or Rudd could lead anyone to believe Canberra or Washington had sought or encouraged nuclear confrontation with China.”


Mr Fraser’s Sep. 25 speech to Melbourne University’s AsiaLink centre, on Australia-US Relations in the ‘Asian Century’, was followed by an even more sobering analysis from nuclear weapons expert Professor Richard Tanter, a former Senior Consultant to the Australian Defence College’s Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies, who emphasised Mr Fraser was not exaggerating: “If anything, Mr Fraser has understated those dangers, both in range and severity.”

Mr Fraser situated his warning in the context of the global strategic development following the 1990 fall of the Iron Curtain, which he recalled presented an opportunity for global economic development to build a “fairer and more just world”. Instead, the opportunity was “brushed aside”, and NATO [under Anglo-American control—Ed.] “behaved as if the Cold War was still on” and aggressively encroached on Russia’s sphere of influence.

“In so doing, the West destroyed the opportunity of building a cooperative partnership with Russia,” Mr Fraser said. “This was compounded by further mistakes when President Bush 2nd started talking of anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic. The public mantra was that these anti-ballistic missile sites would be a protection against Iran. It was one of those public lies which only the most fanatic would believe. It was of course, directed at Russia.” [Emphasis added.]

Fraser’s analysis parallels that of Lyndon LaRouche and the CEC, who have repeatedly exposed that America’s aggressive foreign policy, under British direction, is aimed at two targets: Russia and China. Towards China, Fraser said, the U.S. is pursuing “A policy of containment”, which includes:

“More use of naval facilities in the Philippines, Singapore and potentially Vietnam; troops based in Darwin; more use of air force facilities, surveillance and communications facilities and military exercising in Australia; spy planes based in Cocos Island; Stirling Harbour perhaps to become a home base for an Indian Ocean aircraft carrier taskforce, and strategic discussions with India.”

He added, “We should also note the recent report published by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies which feeds off a close relationship with the United States Defense Department. It may not be American policy yet, but the CSIS report points clearly to the direction of policy. It is worth looking at the extracts concerning Australia. They are written as though we are a strategic colony, taken for granted, total support for whatever the United States may do.

“They suggest an entire Marine Air-Ground Task Force which will be based in Darwin. Arrangements will also need to be made so that marines could be moved in high speed vessels and including appropriate naval facilities. America clearly expects us to pay part of the cost of the marines already agreed and also for the other elements that they intend to locate in Darwin. The wording of the report makes it quite clear that such discussions have begun. The Australian Government should be required to be open and honest about its intentions.”

(To this must be added another idea mooted in the CSIS report, of a U.S. aircraft carrier base at HMAS Stirling near Perth, which would escalate tensions with China even more. Defence Minister Stephen Smith recently denied it was on the agenda, but Smith has repeatedly lied on the subject of the US military presence in Australia.)

Continuing, Mr Fraser sternly criticised Australia’s present bipartisan attitude of mindlessly accommodating U.S. war plans. “President Obama’s inappropriate speech in the Australian Parliament last November implied that Australia was fully in support of American militarisation of the Western Pacific and the policies of containment which this involves,” he said. “If our Government and Opposition indeed take that view, they serve Australia’s interests very badly indeed. …

“The Australian Government, especially the Defence Minister says there are no American bases on Australia soil and there will not be. This is straight political spin of the worst kind because it is designed to deceive Australians on matters of peace and war. We certainly have both United States and joint bases in Australia, even if technically they are under Australian control. …

“Australia has under this Labor Government and with apparent consent of the Coalition, become the southern bastion of America’s re-arming in the Western Pacific and Southeast Asia. This is an extraordinary consequence of Australian Government ineptitude and of military planning, which might recognise America’s interest, but pays little account of our own. …”

And then noting that the U.S. would find a conventional military conflict against China very difficult, Mr Fraser zeroed in on the main danger—nuclear war. He warned, “Any use of nuclear weapons between the United States and China would be a global humanitarian catastrophe, and any armed conflict between nuclear-armed powers risks nuclear escalation. So conflict—and provocation that might lead to it—must be prevented at all costs.”

To this end, the former prime minister urged a major rethink of Australia’s foreign policy. “We must urgently re-establish the reality of independence in our own policies,” he stressed. “… We should also make it clear that United States’ communications and other facilities on Australian soil will not be used for targeting or triggering or facilitating use of nuclear weapons of any kind.”

The public has a right to know

Professor Richard Tanter then delivered a chilling follow-up to Mr Fraser’s speech, detailing the extent to which Australia is now a major target in a potential nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China. “The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap outside Alice Springs remains the most important US intelligence base outside the US itself,” he reported. “In the secret appendix to the 2009 Defence White Paper, the Defence Department confirmed it knows Pine Gap, the eyes and ears of the US military, is a high priority target in the event of US-China war. …”

The professor called for the government to be held publicly accountable for this defence policy: “We need to ask the Australian government questions and keep pursuing rational and responsible answers beyond spin—and contempt—for the public’s capacity to decide its view on the basis of comprehensive and reliable information.”

Prof. Tanter listed a series of incisive questions for the Australian government to answer:

“How will the government ensure that no operations of the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap contribute to a nuclear attack on any country?

“How will the government ensure that the planned deployment of a large space radar facility at North West Cape under the auspices of the US Joint Space Operations Center will not contribute to armed conflict in space and possible escalation into nuclear war?

“Under the US policy of ‘rebalancing to Asia’, including the application of the Air-Sea Battle Concept to offset China’s defence of its home waters, how will the government ensure that that US forces deployed to ADF facilities will not be drawn into an escalation to nuclear conflict? …”

Prof. Tanter concluded, “We are at peculiarly dangerous time strategically. If anything, Mr Fraser has understated those dangers, both in range and severity.” [Emphasis added.]

These striking warnings, from an experienced statesman, and an expert in nuclear conflict come in the wake of the saturation of 250,000 copies around Australia of the CEC’s June/July New Citizen newspaper under the banner headline: “British Crown’s End-game: Financial Collapse and Nuclear War”. In extraordinary detail, illustrated with maps of the subjects touched upon by Fraser and Tanter, this paper documented that the British-Obama policies of ballistic missile defence targeting Russia and China, combined with “regime change” in the Middle East riding roughshod over the principle of national sovereignty, have provoked both Russia and China to explicitly warn that they are being pushed into a nuclear confrontation. The paper also documents the foolhardy direction of Australia’s present defence policy, in support of the British-Obama agenda, which is almost guaranteed to provoke a war with China.

Jul 292012


AUSTRALIA passed 54 new anti-terrorism laws in the decade after the September 11, 2001, attacks, sometimes surpassing the scope of measures taken in the US, a study says.

On average a new anti-terrorism statute passed nearly every seven weeks under the prime ministerial watch of John Howard, writes Professor George Williams, one of the nation’s leading constitutional lawyers. In the Rudd-Gillard Labor era, from November 2007 to September 11, 2011, only six anti-terrorism laws were passed.

”It would be unthinkable, if not constitutionally impossible, in nations such as the United States and Canada to restrict freedom of speech in the manner achieved by Australia’s 2005 sedition laws,” Professor Williams writes.

Read more here

Jun 122012


By Kurt Bayer
Tuesday Jun 12, 2012

Kiwi soldiers are being head-hunted to join the Australian Army with $250,000 cash bonuses.

The hired guns are getting the lucrative sign-on fee, as well as fast-tracked citizenship, in a bid to boost Australia’s military ranks.

But the move to recruit foreign “mercenaries” from New Zealand – and other countries including America, Germany, South Africa, Poland and Singapore – has angered veterans’ groups across the Ditch.

Read article here