First real interview with Australian (world wide) hero Kevin Bracken!

This story is in relation to:
[Australian]Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken calls 9/11 'conspiracy'; Prime Minister responds

Source: www.911truth.org...

Since making his public splash onto the scene with his feelings and questions concerning 9/11, he has been demonized, just like everyone else, in a clear attempt at discrediting him and discouraging anyone else from asking very logical and natural questions concerning 9/11.

Now, Mr. Bracken gives his first real interview, so we can see past the discrediting and demonizing attempts. There should be nothing wrong with people asking questions about 9/11 and just the fact that the media and world governments are so against it, is telling in its own right. It indicates that they are hiding something and trying obfuscate the truth.

Sadly, I believe that most people who look into the events of that day, beyond what is spoon-fed to us, feel that there is much more than what we are being told, it's only that most people aren't willing to lose their livelihoods by going public with their beliefs, thus only a small group of people actually do. So in effect, it's not that it is only a small amount of people who believe that a insider conspiracy could be at play, it's that only a small amount of people are willing to publicly come out with it. Demonizing those that do, has been extremely effective at obfuscating the truth and silencing very credible voices who would otherwise voice their reason and logic on the issue.

Anyway, I recommend that everyone read the article and show Kevin Bracken their support.


--airspoon

So let me get this straight...out of all the people who qualify for the title, "hero", from a pilot who saved his passengers' lives by setting his malfunctioning plane down in a river to an army specialist saving his buddies' lives and rescuing them from capture in Afghanistan, your definition of a hero is...some guy in Australia who's reciting the drivel he read on Prison Planet.

Is this really what you're telling me?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


A little off-topic, don't you think? Never the less, my definition of a hero, is someone who sets aside their own personal well-being for a cause greater than themselves. Take for instance the hero Robert E. Lee. He wasn't a hero for his actions in battle, rather he was a hero for setting his own personal well-being aside to sacrifice for a cause greater than himself. He did what he felt was right, in the face of severe consequences for his actions. He sacrificed for a cause greater than himself, which is what a soldier does in battle when jumping on a grenade or saving his brothers from capture.

The same with Mr. Bracken. He decides to voice his opinion in spite of the fact that he knows there are severe consequences for his actions, presumably to help expose the truth.

Furthermore, you are making an assumption that he is basing his beliefs on what he read on Alex Jones. That's a pretty big stretch on your part and a clear attempt at not only disinformation but to attack the messanger, instead of the message. I guess it's not too hard to believe that you can make such stretch after all, now is it? It does seem to be the theme, where official conspiracy theorists make wild assumptions without evidence to back them up, then run with it.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

Another troop in the army of truth.

We need all good men on the side of justice.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by airspoon

 

Another troop in the army of truth.

We need all good men on the side of justice.

You'd do well to research the guy you're championing.

He wanted MORE security at one point because after 911 he felt the dock where he was a Union rep for was a target for terrorists.

He's nothing more than a blowhard...

but you can have him...

reply to post by badw0lf

He wanted MORE security at one point because after 911 he felt the dock where he was a Union rep for was a target for terrorists.

So what? What's wrong with wanting security, especially when your government is telling you that terrorists want to kill us all because they are jealous of our freedom. After 9/11, I wanted my job site secured from terrorists too, as I originally bought the OS, being temporarily blinded by emotion, trust and consensus. Then, I realized that I still want security, as it doesn't matter which uniform the terrorists wear, targets still come under attack.

You fault the guy because he wanted more security at a dock where he worked after 9/11? Is that the extent of the smear campaign thus far? Surely it has to get better than that, at least in order for a smear or discredit campaign to work effectively. Hurry up with the child porn accusations or maybe even rape. Lets get the no-name bloggers out who will claim that they caught this guy lying before, yet fail to provide any proof.

It's almost like there is a script for discrediting credible people when they come out with their opinions. After all, you can't have the public believe that anyone sane would ever ask questions or imply something more, in regards to 9/11.

So far, we have:

He got his information only from InfoWars

He wanted more security at the docks after 9/11

Is that really all thus far? There are more bullets to be filled.




--airspoon

edit on 25-10-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

reply to post by badw0lf

I don't care if he cheats on his wife, got a ticket for 5 mph over, or thought OJ was innocent, he is on the right side of 911 truth.

Research him?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

A little off-topic, don't you think? Never the less, my definition of a hero, is someone who sets aside their own personal well-being for a cause greater than themselves. Take for instance the hero Robert E. Lee. He wasn't a hero for his actions in battle, rather he was a hero for setting his own personal well-being aside to sacrifice for a cause greater than himself. He did what he felt was right, in the face of severe consequences for his actions. He sacrificed for a cause greater than himself, which is what a soldier does in battle when jumping on a grenade or saving his brothers from capture.

That's rather a stretch. Robert E. Lee hated the idea of secession and he hated slavery, but he went with the south out of his sense of duty. This Australian guy OTOH loves the idea of conspiracy and secret plots to take over the world, which is completely contrary to any sense of duty he has to Australia. Even the prime minister says his behavior is an insult to the fighting forces in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, you are making an assumption that he is basing his beliefs on what he read on Alex Jones. That's a pretty big stretch on your part and a clear attempt at not only disinformation but to attack the messanger, instead of the message. I guess it's not too hard to believe that you can make such stretch after all, now is it? It does seem to be the theme, where official conspiracy theorists make wild assumptions without evidence to back them up, then run with it.

It's not an assumption, it's an established fact that this guy is getting all his information from one or another of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. I know this becuase in every single case where someone claims he "wants to know the truth behind the 9/11 attack" it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the case they're basing their opinion on rubbish the conspiracy people are circulating around (I.E. "no interceptors were scrambled", "some of the hijackers are still alive", "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from the WTC before the attack," "noone saw what it was that struck the Pentagon", etc). All you need to do is listen to this guy and you'll see the drivel he's spouting isn't original to him. It's all a repeat of what you people are saying.

It may not be Alex Jones that he's quoting, per se, but then it really doesn't matter who the specific snake oil peddler is.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

That's rather a stretch. Robert E. Lee hated the idea of secession and he hated slavery, but he went with the south out of his sense of duty

That is exactly the point, Lee did what he felt was right, in the face of severe consequences. Had Lee not have been a hero and instead looking out for his own interests, he would have sided with the United States, instead of his home-state of Virginia.

Mr. Bracken would have to know that his voiced opinions or opposition to the OS would not gain him any points and instead draw heat, yet he did what he felt is the right thing to do, for a cause bigger than himself.

This Australian guy OTOH loves the idea of conspiracy and secret plots to take over the world, which is completely contrary to any sense of duty he has to Australia.

First of all, you can't say what this guy likes or doesn't like. In fact, everyone believes in conspiracies, we only differ on who is conspiring. No matter what you believe about 9/11, you most likely believe in a conspiracy theory and more often than not, it isn't because you love the idea of conspiracy, rather it's that the evidence you have weighed is pointing one way over another.

Just because you believe in a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that you love a conspiracy, in the same way that just because you believe in the Holocaust, doesn't mean that you love the idea of killing civillians. Such a notion is absurd and I would expect at least a little better out of you, Dave.

Finally, his beliefs don't contradict his sense of duty and again, such a notion is absurd. In fact, his beliefs are probably right in line with his sense of duty, not only to his country, but the world as a whole. His duty is not to the politicians or certain business interests, rather it is too his fellow citizens and even his Constitution and it is up to him to interpret.

It's not an assumption, it's an established fact that this guy is getting all his information from one or another of those damned fool conspiracy web sites.

Everyone gets their information from somewhere. Some people even use their own logic and reasoning to know that something is up, such as the fact that a steel-framed sky-scraper (which wasn't hit by an airplane) doesn't fall (at almost free-fall speed) due simply to a couple fires on a couple floors. Then, they factor in scientific evidence (something the OS is extremely light on) to understand that there is something more. OS believers or official conspiracy theorists also get their information from conspiracy websites or sources focused on conspiracy, seeing how 9/11 was a conspiracy, regardless of whether you believe that a bunch of Arabs conspired together, influences in government conspired together or both conspired together. An official conspiracy theorists besically gets all of their information from conspiracy sources as well, though they have to ignore key pieces of evidence in order for that logic to work. Where would you want someone to get their information? Furthermore, many people who don't believe the OS, do so out of reasonable logic, common sense and the denial of ignorance, all things that have to be thrown out to believe in the OS or that the OS is all there is.

I would think that most people believe there is more to the story and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Bush admin had things to hide, therefore they conspired to hide these things. If there was nothing to hide, then Bush wouldn't have opposed the 9/11 commission, then refused to meet with them under oath or alone even. Bush wouldn't have interfered with funding or installed a member of his administration and close friend, Philip Zelikow, to be the ED of the commission.

Regardless, everyone gets their information from somewhere, unless of course they were there, however many "truthers" use the logic and their brains that they were born with, while the conspiracy sources that official conspiracy theorists believe, require you to ignore that brain or critical self thought.

You are using flawed logic and tired tactics to discredit those who refuse to believe in myths. It's kind of funny, as the Catholic Church used those same tactics in the medieval period, to get people to believe in their myths.

I know this becuase in every single case where someone claims he "wants to know the truth behind the 9/11 attack" it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the case they're basing their opinion on rubbish the conspiracy people are circulating around (I.E. "no interceptors were scrambled", "some of the hijackers are still alive", "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from the WTC before the attack," "noone saw what it was that struck the Pentagon", etc).

No, because you have never seen me say any of that, so it's not always the case. Some people do make those claims based on the information they are reading, but it is no different than the official conspiracy theorists doing the same things, based off of the myths that they read.

"Bantham publishers is fake scientific journal", "Bush's brother was not on the board of the company that was contracted to provide security for the WTC nefore 9/11", "The 9/11 Commission did a thorough investigation", "the 9/11 Commission was independent and had no conflicts of interest", "the government would not kill its own people for a political agenda", "the government didn't scramble or redirect interceptors prior to 9/11 for airplanes that veered off course or lost contact", "the government had no idea that airplanes could be used as weapons", "Building 7... what, where?", etc, etc, etc...

What serious and intelligent people do cite as evidence to a conspiracy possibly involving certain factions of government, is the fact that Bush opposed a 9/11 Commission, then staffed it with people who have clear conflicts of interests and have seemingly pulled through for these neo-cons before (Tower Commission). The fact that Bush and Cheney both refused to meet under oath with the 9/11 Commission and instead insisted that they not meet with the commission at all. They then only agreed when they could both meet together, not under oath and without the meeting being recorded. The fact that certain business and special interests stood to profit or benefit from this attack. The fact that the Commission left a lot of unanswered questions. The fact that anyone who asks serious questions about 9/11 is demonized and criticized for doing so. The fact that so many things are being left unanswered and there is a clear attempt to leave them unaswered. The fact that there is clear evidence that false flags were attempted before 9/11 (think Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty). The fact that government lies and has been caught lying before (think Iraq, WMD and the alleged Al Qeada connection). The fact that a peer-reviewed scientific study has been published, implying that there is evidence of controlled demolitions in the WTC rubble. The fact that there is no precedent, in history or in science for a steel framed building to collapse due solely to fire (think Building 7). The fact that so far, the authorities have ignored the possibility of controlled demolitions in the first place, even though they were at a loss as to why Building 7 collapsed. The fact that many in government has business ties (and were even meeting with certain people on the morning of 9/11) to people who may have had a part in the financing of the attacks (think Carlyle, Bin Ladens and the ISI). The very fact that the Patriot Act was ready to go soon after 9/11, then the anthrax attacks occurred a perfect time to the perfect people to get that legislation passed, then the handling of that case was also jumbled up. The fact that any debate is systematically stifled concerning 9/11 and any evidence that may contradict the official conspiracy theory. The fact that Bin Laden initially denied the attacks, though the media conveniently ignored that denial. They did however have not a single problem propagating the video that allegedly surfaced, showing a guy dressed similar to Bin Laden, admit the attacks, though many people, experts even, suggest that it isn't him. The fact that the subject all together is ignored, save to debunk a few of the outlandish theories, like no-planes or alien death-rays, then suggesting that the whole issue has been put to bed. Etc, etc, etc... I can really go on and on but you get the point.

Many people who don't buy the official conspiracy theory, do so out of logic, reason and a refusal to embrace ignorance. They don't do so because they read an article on InfoWars, but instead because the official conspiracy theory that they read on websites, simply doesn't add up, nor does the apparent on-going cover-up and obfuscation of what really happened and the stifling of the debate around it.

All you need to do is listen to this guy and you'll see the drivel he's spouting isn't original to him. It's all a repeat of what you people are saying.

The main point to get and the main point of "truthers", is that there needs to be an investigation and until there is, nobody is going to know what happened without a doubt. Really, the drivel that I hear and the flawed logic of official conspiracy theorists is no different than those believing that Alien death-rays cam from planet Zoltar to zap the buildings.

Hardly ever is the information spouted from anyone original, to include official conspiracy theories. You weigh the evidence and even conduct research to validate that evidence, then you go with the most accurate scenario pointed to by the evidence. The official conspiracy theorists repeat "drivel" just the same. Furthermore, just because your information isn;t original to you, doesn't mean that it isn't correct. Again, that is an absurd notion and has no merit to any kind of intelligent debate.

It may not be Alex Jones that he's quoting, per se, but then it really doesn't matter who the specific snake oil peddler is.

Such as the government? How about FOX News, CNN or MSNBC? Maybe even Comedy Central? I guess it really doesn;t matter who the snake oil peddler is, so long as they share your same biased world-view and spout the message that you want to hear, right?


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Good OP, good posts and great points, the negative criticism of Bracken is not very nice and not even suitable, its the worst kind of argument, mostly fallacies and innuendo, people are mostly very nuanced in their opinion and to say a person is this - or is that - is missing a lot of the picture. After 9/11 Bracken wanted more security - and that is hailed a a mark against him?!?
Saying that (this is to goodoldave) your quote 'Even the prime minister (of Australia) says his behavior is an insult to the fighting forces in Afghanistan' with respect ATS user goodoldave, you just don't get it, the PM of Australia is not a good person, they kowtow to power, and every word out of their mouth is suspect. Using her as a reference makes me more convinced I am on the right side of the debate.

I looked on the Herald site, the vote was about 74 to 26 non-OS vs OS per cent age, (re-Bracken debate)but it was possible to vote more than once, I had to cast an opposite vote to balance that up, and I think the coverage on conspiracy awareness sites did influence the vote - still, it is reasonable to question the actions of power.

Good post. The article you linked to linked also to this one visibility911.com... and I particularly liked this:

"Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you’s from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was “stupid and wrong” and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously “no debate to have”. It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called “journalists” dare to tread such a path.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.

The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed".

S&F

reply to post by Nonchalant

Here is a great video on the subject.

Good job Kevin! I wonder what Faine's job REALLY is?

Btw, I emailed Kevin Bracken last night to congratulate him on his stance...his contact details can be found here www.mua.org.au...

As is, sadly, to be expected, this story had legs for one day and I personally have seen nothing more of it....

It was not mentioned on the Mainstream News on TV, and I stumbled upon it by chance, when the story came up in passing in relation to Afghanistan and the debate the Australian Govt has been forced to have in Parliament( the first such debate on Afghanistan since the Invasion 9 years ago) due to its coalitions with the Greens(who are anti Afghan invasion...) which it required to retain power a few weeks ago.....


The more public figures going public, the more credibility the Truth movement gains....not a bad thing to me.

reply to post by airspoon


I personally know Kevin. He had no idea that what he said was going to be reported on in the news, let alone heard around the world. Good guy.

reply to post by Nventual


Yea I also sent him a one line email of support and he actually replied to say 'thank-you'...he certainly sounds like a top bloke

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So let me get this straight...out of all the people who qualify for the title, "hero", from a pilot who saved his passengers' lives by setting his malfunctioning plane down in a river to an army specialist saving his buddies' lives and rescuing them from capture in Afghanistan, your definition of a hero is...some guy in Australia who's reciting the drivel he read on Prison Planet.

A hero is generally defined as being a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and and noble qualities.

More specifically, and long before lexicographers began defining words in this modern age, there was, as there still is, the mythic hero. One of the most renowned and respected mythologists of our modern times was Joseph Campbell. Here is Campbell's definition of what a hero is:

a hero is any male or female who leaves the world of his or her everyday life to undergo a journey to a special world where challenges and fears are overcome in order to secure a reward (special knowledge, healing potion, etc.) which is then shared with other members of the hero’s community.

Conversely, a villain is generally defined as someone who does evil or wicked acts, such as, for example, purposely lying or skewing facts to make someone, something appear as if it is not worthy of respect. The villain generally presents them self as the foil to the hero. The villain willingly announces that they oppose the hero.

reply to post by Nonchalant

"Thanks Partner"

was the response I got.

Someone said this story doesn't have "legs", but of course it doesn't have "official" legs. But it is out there, it hasn't died like certain folks (like Faine) wish it would.

Originally posted by airspoon
That is exactly the point, Lee did what he felt was right, in the face of severe consequences. Had Lee not have been a hero and instead looking out for his own interests, he would have sided with the United States, instead of his home-state of Virginia.

Mr. Bracken would have to know that his voiced opinions or opposition to the OS would not gain him any points and instead draw heat, yet he did what he felt is the right thing to do, for a cause bigger than himself.

I would hardly compare someone voting to go with his conscience with someone swallowing the rubbish these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out. With Lee, there was no correct decision either way- either go with his country and betray his neighbors, or go with his neighbors and betray his country. On the other hand, time after time after time it's been proven the claims of these conspiracy truthers are hogwash (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, the hijackers are still alive, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, etc). The only way you can compare the two is if Lee had sided with the secession to make everyone believe two plus two equals five.

FYI Lee would have found these 9/11 hijackers to be reprehensible and ungentlemanly. You know that and so do I.

First of all, you can't say what this guy likes or doesn't like. In fact, everyone believes in conspiracies, we only differ on who is conspiring. No matter what you believe about 9/11, you most likely believe in a conspiracy theory and more often than not, it isn't because you love the idea of conspiracy, rather it's that the evidence you have weighed is pointing one way over another.

Just because you believe in a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that you love a conspiracy, in the same way that just because you believe in the Holocaust, doesn't mean that you love the idea of killing civillians. Such a notion is absurd and I would expect at least a little better out of you, Dave.

I'm not saying that people here are in love with their conspiracies becuase I want to insult anyone. I'm saying it becuase it's the only answer I can find that explains the unrepentent disregard the conspiracy truthers have for any information that contradicts their conspiracy claims. For example, it is perfectly reasonable assumption to them that the hundred of technical experts that comprise NIST and FEMA are all secret agents dedicted to covering up the truth in hive mind singularity, and it seems th be completely normal behavior for them to accuse everyone from Bush to Silverstein to NORAD to the FAA to NATO to the NYPA to the NYPD to the NYFD to the Red Cross to even a taxi cab driver of being complicit to murder and treason. There isn't even a microbe of evidence that shows NIST and FEMA are working to perpetuate a coverup in hive mind singularity nor is there even a microbe of evidence showing Ted Olsen is lyign when he said his wife called him from flight 77, so it's blatantly obvious the reason for their accusations isn't based upon any actual research, but entirely as an excuse for why they don't need to listen to it.

Fanaticism, blind zealotry, in love with a conspiracy theory, call it what you like. The end result is still the same- these people want to believe these conspiracy stories are true regardless of what the facts actually show.

I would think that most people believe there is more to the story and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Bush admin had things to hide, therefore they conspired to hide these things. If there was nothing to hide, then Bush wouldn't have opposed the 9/11 commission, then refused to meet with them under oath or alone even. Bush wouldn't have interfered with funding or installed a member of his administration and close friend, Philip Zelikow, to be the ED of the commission.

Of course Bush is hiding something. He's hiding the fact that he knows he was a little boy sent to Washington to do a man's job and he [censored] it up. All you need to do is look at the rest of his administration from fumbling the New Orleans hurricane relief efforts to not even being able to out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him to see there was a hell of a lot more monumental incompetence leading up to and during the 9/11 attack than what the gov't is admitting to. This secrecy by itself is no evidence of some secret plot to stage a terror attack to frame Afghanistan. THAT is coming entirely from your own imaginations.

If you want to play pretend the gov't is secretly plotting to murder us all, hey, whatever floats your boat, but I thoroughly despise the duplicious nature the truther movement is displaying to trick people into being as unreasonably paranoid as they themselves are. This is exactly what happened to this fellow from Australia and I'm not seing anything that shows the statement is incorrect.

Well I finally got a response back today from the ABC re my complaint to them about the way Mr Bracken was interviewed. It reads:

Thank you for your comments concerning Jon Faine’s talkback call from Kevin Bracken.

Your correspondence has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC Radio.

Your complaint alleges that Mr Faine’s broadcast was biased and treated Kevin Bracken rudely.

Talkback segments on radio are classified as topical programming by the ABC. In relation to impartiality in topical programming the ABC’s Editorial Policies state:

“where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe” section 7.4.1.

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 (govinfo.library.unt.edu... ). 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 (wtc.nist.gov... ).

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 and not to suggest that he was actually mentally ill. Nor did Jon Faine make any judgements about John 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.

On review of the broadcast you have mentioned and subsequent broadcasts over the following 24 hours, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcasts were in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards. 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. For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available at: www.abc.net.au...

Yours sincerely

Mark Maley
Audience & Consumer Affairs

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, this response is claiming Mr Faine did not insinuate Mr Bracken was 'mentally ill'. Yet its hard NOT to conclude this in fact is EXACTLY what Mr Faine was insinuating with his snide remarks & over-exaggerated astonishment at Mr Bracken's view of 9/11.

Mr Maley contends Mr Bracken declined to elaborate, despite being asked, on who organised or coordinated the conspiracy or what the motives may have been. Clearly, this is also incorrect.

The paragraph 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 (govinfo.library.unt.edu... ). 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 (wtc.nist.gov... ). is totally laughable

On a positive note, my complaint has also has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and a response.