[Last updated 21 Dec 2019]

The following headline is telling of the prevailing hype, censorship and propaganda, specifically when it comes to climate change: Bernie Sanders wants to take fossil fuel companies to criminal court. Another example would be the warning by former Australian High Court Justice Kenneth Hayne that company boards must take the issue very seriously or face the legal consequences:

“International opinion is now firmly behind the need for all entities with public debt or equity to respond to climate change issues in their governance, their strategy, their risk management and their metrics and targets and, importantly, to record their responses to the issues in their financial reports.”

What Kenneth Hayne says about climate change, Australian Financial Review, 9 Dec 2019

Indeed, as the world awaits a final decision on the case brought by the Urgenda Foundation against the Dutch Government (the judgment commits the Dutch Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020), and ExxonMobil and others are currently being dragged through the US courts (although without the desired result), self-righteous shareholders and lobby groups the world over are pressuring companies to take steps to not only reduce their carbon footprint (whatever that means), but to reduce their climate change liability risk (whatever that means).

Keep Reading

A new draft report, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, sponsored by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was published on 3 September.

The study comes to the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 could not have been caused by fire (the official story), but that it was the result of a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

This should have been all over the news, especially with the anniversary just around the corner, but the mainstream media have so far completely ignored the release of this report, despite a press conference being held at the National Press Club in Washington on 11 September where the newest modelling was also presented, and PR Newswire reporting the release of the report.

An international search of the print media via Thomson Reuters Westlaw news service shows that so far there have only been a handful of mentions of this significant report. The UK’s Daily Star and the Express, and The Asian Age are the only non-alternative news publications that have so far acknowledged the new report in some way. No major newspapers – none!

Some of the alternative news sources I know of that have written on the report are Truth in Media and The Corbett Report, as well as the German alternative media outlets Rubikon and KenFM, which have published the same article by Swiss peace researcher Daniele Ganser.

At least on Twitter a bit of a storm has broken out.

Whether you swallow the official story of 9/11 or not – the fact that a new report on a major event of that day is simply ignored by the mainstream media should make us all very worried about the state of the so-called 4th pillar of democracy.

Now here is something truly newsworthy: On 26 November, over two weeks ago, it was announced that at long last the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has agreed to convene a special grand jury to consider important 9/11 evidence – evidence which has been dismissed, ignored and denied for years.

But since the press release was issued by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and distributed by the not insignificant PR Newswire, only a handful of minor news outlets have picked up this story. Not even the New York Times thinks this announcement is worth mentioning. Nothing in the Australian media either. Zilch. Rien. Nada. Nichts. The obvious question is: why not? After all, the events of 9/11 served as a justification for a long series of war crimes committed by the US, aided and abetted by many countries, including Australia. So would not a truly free and independent media be keen to report on this latest development that could mark the beginning of the exposure of the potentially biggest and most brazen cover-up there ever was? What a headline story that would be! Maybe our media are afraid to be accused of spreading fake news or following a conspiracy theory, or they are worried about looking foolish for swallowing the official cock and bull story. But I think it’s more likely that a lot of people must be very keen to let sleeping dogs lie for as long as possible, and sadly the mainstream media seem either complicit or simply lack courage.

A very general Google search (from 11 Dec) says it all:

Compare and contrast with an equivalent search on an in my view ultimately pointless story: