Home 911Truth Analysis of 9-11, Part 1: How Australia’s Prime Minister Got Drawn In

Analysis of 9-11, Part 1: How Australia’s Prime Minister Got Drawn In


 10 sept howard stephen jaffePrime Minister John Howard meets President Bush, 10 September 2001

by Dee McLachlan

It is time for Australians to have a fresh think about 9-11 and its effect on our nation. This article introduces Gumshoe’s series of analyses, in anticipation of the fifteenth anniversary of that famous event. September 11, 2016 is only 6 weeks away.

In this initial article I look at how our prime minister became such an ardent and unquestioning supporter for the war in Afghanistan, then Iraq. This was only the start. We now know there was a memo in the Pentagon that had outlined the destruction of seven countries. 

Howard was deeply affected by 9-11, because he was physically present in the capital of the US when it happened. He could see the Pentagon attack from his hotel window. And from that moment he was easy pickings and became a pawn for those planning the war of terror – or so I argue below.

The rationale for that (first) war, you may recall, was to hunt down Osama bin Laden, hiding in a cave.

Getting Friends Involved

To wage war you need to draw in your allied leaders.

It was clear early on that Prime Minister Tony Blair would happily follow the US to war. During a joint press conference at Camp David in February 2001, President Bush and Blair both warn Iraq, and Bush warns of a new era:

“…we need to think differently about the post-Cold War era… that there are new threats that face people who love freedom. …There’s the threat of potential blackmail when one of the nations develops weapons of mass destruction…”

And as Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to the U.S., 1997-2003, put it:

“…Blair and Bush had had a series of meetings. The relationship was warming up nicely as we went along. Sept. 11 was the great accelerator in that relationship.

“Britain had been consecrated as the closest ally, and Blair and Bush were, if you like, two leaders in harness, together with whoever else was going to join them to slay the dragon of international terrorism. …”

So let’s ask: when and how did John Howard become part of the war-making team?

The Prime Minister of Australia

For the first half of John Howard’s prime ministership, relations with America had not been that cosy. Howard’s government rejected an offer to negotiate a bilateral free trade pact in 1997. There were differences over global warming; a US ban on Australian lamb; and US–Australian relations over East Timor were tense.

And when John Howard visited Washington in 1999 all he got was a 20-minute chat with President Clinton.

Well all that was to change. He was to be invited to the “event.”

2001 happened to be the 50th anniversary of the ANZUS treaty — which used to be the main alliance-forming document of the US and Australia. For that anniversary, John Howard gave a speech at a reception in the Sydney Opera House. Here’s a quote from his speech, dated May 30, 2001:

“…The ANZUS Treaty is of fundamental importance to both our countries and the goodwill and mutual support implicit within it will never be taken for granted… I myself expect to have the opportunity of seeing President Bush in Washington early in September…

“All of us desire only peace, and it’s our hope that never again will it be necessary for young Australians such as Frank Milne, or young Americans such as Joseph Paul, to give their lives in the defence of freedom.” (full speech)

Washington then scheduled Howard’s trip to the US for a further ceremony regarding the 50th anniversary of the (rarely mentioned) ANZUS treaty.  So, lo and behold, John Howard was in Washington on 9th September 2001 to participate in the other part of the ANZUS fifty-year celebration.

Michael Thawley, Australia’s ambassador to the US, had organised (or had he?) an Aussie Sunday barbecue on the 9th for the PM to meet and greet the “President’s men.” The Vice President, Dick Cheney; the Secretary of State, Colin Powell; and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld were all there.

On September 10 – imagine, the eve of the great calamity — Howard met Bush for the first time. They spent four hours together, and Howard had lunch at the White House. As Howard later said:

“We didn’t talk about terrorism. Nobody knew this terrible event was just around the corner.”

Actually Washington certainly did know it was coming. But I assume they did not let Howard know about it.

While Rumsfeld was announcing the missing $2.3 Trillion at a press conference elsewhere, Bush and Howard attended a ceremony at the Naval dockyards.

howard 10 septBush and Howard, 10 September, 2001

Howard was scheduled to address a joint sitting of Congress two days later, on the 12th.

But on the 11th, while he was speaking to reporters at his hotel, the first tower was hit. In an article entitled “Australia’s Howard a surprise 9-11 witness,” Howard recalls:

“While we were doing the news conference, the third plane, Flight 77, drove into the Pentagon. We pulled back the curtains and we saw the smoke rising… . We knew then, beyond any argument, that this was a concerted terrorist attack on the United States.”

The remainder of Howard’s US program was of course scuttled. Still, on the 12th, Howard and his party did attend the US House of Representatives while it conducted an emergency debate on the tragedy. He was the only visitor in the gallery and was given a standing ovation from the lawmakers for his gesture of support.

By this time the mainstream media and Washington had rolled out the “Osama bin Laden myth.”  Could Howard have held any doubts as to its legitimacy?

Howard also attended a memorial service regarding the 9-11 disaster, at the National Cathedral in Washington. He spoke to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on the phone about the market implications of the attacks.

A deeply shaken Howard said:

“I was there… and having been there I experienced, I absorbed, the sense of disbelief and dismay.”

Robert Manne wrote in The Monthly:

“On 12 September Howard flew back to Australia with Schieffer on Air Force Two, the Vice President’s aircraft, which had been made available to him. After a telephone conversation with his Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, while ‘high above the Pacific Ocean’, as he later put it lyrically, Howard informed Schieffer that, for the first time in 50 years, the ANZUS Treaty would be invoked. …

“According to the US National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, Australia ‘clamoured’, as it turned out successfully, to be invited to participate in the invasion force….”

John Howard had been a witness to the event. There is a strong possibility that he was purposefully invited.

In later parts of this series I will look at how other members of the Australian government got involved in the road to war in the Middle East, and how the mainstream media refuse to question the official conspiracy.


Adapted photos by Stephen Jaffe and Tina Hager (Navel Yards).


  1. There are people in Canberra who are as thick as a pallet of hardwood planks or just wasting our money with their lies and criminal negligence…………..pretenfing with the BS of ‘just protecting us’…whilst creating those who now have reasons to harm us.
    Time they went and were killed rather than deceiving our good soldiers and their families with serial lies to go invade, kill and thieve for globalist corporate agendas.
    Hey, Mr. Ex Prime Minister of Australia; Mr John Winston Howard…and your fellow ‘sucked in’ crew.

    What; did not learn any history at school from historical events of the early 1930’s?
    Not to forget the criminal mass media conglomerates and their patsies!
    Step up Pauline, there is a lot to learn and do……try researching building No 7 on 911 at; http://www.ae911truth.org and back some time to;
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ (look up all the ex military types and professors who are not gullible and stupid ‘official government 911 conspiracy theorists’)
    Howard; you may as well go and earn a bob doing another address/speech for dumbies and suckers.

  2. I wish Australia had its own independent Foreign Policy instead of taking orders from Washington. Each new PM trots over there to get orders; or recently Biden came here.

    • and to be shown the treaty agreement from WW11 with MacArthur, handing over Australia to the US until the end of hostilities???
      Of course the US makes sure that the ‘hostilites’, whatever that means, never are ended.
      Additionly, one wonders whether the new PM is shown the pictures of a assinated head that caused trouble…..so it has been claimed??

    • Frances, I am half-dingo, half Seppo — and I, too, wish “my” two nations would have completely separate foreign policies.

      By the way, the photo of Inspecting the Troops looks odd. It is true that we Seppos put hand on heart when honoring the flag but (as far as I can recall) we have never asked, or expected, foreign visitors to join us in that gesture.

  3. Keep up the good work, Dee. Australian politicians, especially on the Liberal side, thrive on theatres of war. This gives them a “fear base” to use as a control mechanism, “bogey man” if you will, as well as a platform to get themselves noticed on the world stage. These are evil people doing evil work.

  4. All over the independent news net are reports of 7000 Turkish troops with heavy military back up closing off a US/NATO base in Turkey with 1500 personel supporting the base holding a 50+ nuclear arsenal.
    It could be a Erdogam wedge to grab Gullen who the Turkeys claim was behind the attempted coup.
    Dunford has gone/going to Turkey to chew some grain and have a ‘goblefeist’ to do something.
    Won’t read that on the front page will we, to replace some inane report on a rapist running around for 15 year in the Eastern suburbia?
    Even better the ABC will do another 30 year old strory on Pell or uncontrollable juveniles, whilst ignoring the decade of torture in Guantanamo and the killing of children in the ME for the last 15 years …… right sheep, be happy and trot off to the shearing shed to be run through the sheep dip to be ducked and deloused by the msm again.
    Malcolm; when are you going to commission a royal commission into why we have contributed to the killing of a million or so in the ME based on abominable lies and lost our own soldiers?
    I refer readers to James O”Neil’s article on GS last week to consider with Dee’s great contribution above.
    Senator Hinch, you going to be anything?

  5. Whilst much noise is made regarding the ANZUS treaty, it’s too bad we are never given the opportunity to actually see/read what this document actually says, or it’s terms of agreement, other than to “claim” member nations would come to the assistance to the other if attacked.
    Recently read history of Whitlam’s relationship with Nixon wherein the dividing cause, was exactly what that clause was supposed to mean. They way I understood it, and Whitlam did too, the U.S. contrary to popular belief, was not obliged to come to the assistance to Australia if we were attacked.
    Whitlam tried his utmost, to have this inserted into the Treaty in writing, and the harder he tried, the harder Nixon resisted, causing a very fractured relationship, ultimately resulting in the sacking of the Whitlam Government.
    Therefore, from those days, to this day, what exactly does this treaty say in the regard to U.S. assistance should Australia ever be attacked ??? Judging by historic precedence, I do not believe for a second, the U.S. would come willingly, without conditions, to our aid, ever.
    I for one, would love to see a copy of this alleged Treaty that appears to get so much attention between the U.S. and Australia, BUT, does it really say, what we are told it allegedly says ?????????

    • http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1952/2.html

      What about Article 1

      The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

      Bush and Howard did the exact opposite

      • Thanks for providing the whole treaty, Dee. And here is a remark from federal parliament’s website:

        “For New Zealand, formerly a partner in this relationship, this disparity proved excessive. New Zealand was not willing to accept US policy positions (on nuclear powered and armed warships) which Washington considered to be necessary conditions of an effective alliance relationship. Accordingly Washington withdrew from its alliance obligations towards New Zealand, converting it from an ally to a friend….

        “[Cost] is certainly becoming an issue for Australia as the costs of US-sourced ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ (RMA) technologies continue to rise, a trend accentuated by the fall in the Australian dollar vis-à-vis the US currency.”

        • Mary,
          Wanna buy a useless F35?
          I wii chuck in a $250,000 pilot’s helmet with each purchase.
          Great deal!
          Buy now and the taxpayer will only have to pay an extra mill per day on the interest on government borrowings presently per day of 40 mill, to the bankers.
          For a real bargain we have some US used Abrham tanks bought for about 200 mill by Nelson (?) Be great for missile testing targets.
          Get in early, the bankers have plenty of dosh to spread around to sub prime suckers.
          Did I forget some subs? New stock coming in about 2025 and could be a bargain.
          Keep in touch.
          For the curious government boffins, just search; ‘F 35 cost overuns’, but do not tell our poiticians. It will be a bit much for their intellectual defficiencies to comprehend.

    • I have read that Whitlam’s ‘demise” had more to do with Pine Gap.
      Note an early reference by E. P. Heidner in his report:
      ‘911 Commission Report revised December 2008’ at scribd. (The main report, not collateral or collateral 1.)
      By the way, Heidner explains 911, if anyone would be interested to read all of it.
      911 was a bank heist and a laundering exercise!!
      Someone should tell; our Mr. Howward, poor Derryn,
      mass media and public broadcasters and poor deluded Faine.

  6. I will wait until the end of the series before making a detailed comment, but there are a couple of points raised by the article and the comments thus far.

    The first point is that Howard did not see the missile (for that is what it was) hit the Pentagon. He looked out his window, as noted, and saw the smoke plume.
    It is a large part of the mythology that Hani Hanjour, who could not even fly a Cessna safely, was the pilot of flight 77. The myth of flight 77 was destroyed by, would you know, the FBI in their sworn evidence to the Moussaoui trial when they demolished the official myth about Barbara Olsen making phone calls to her husband the Solicitor General. A large part of the 9/11 Commission’s report dealing with the “Arab looking hijackers” relied upon Olsen’s phone conversations that the FBI said never happened. To no one’s surprise the msm omitted to mention this evidence.

    The other point briefly worth noting is that the ANZUS treaty does not provide that when a country is attacked then the others come to its aid. It only provides for consultation in accordance with constitutional procedures.

    There is of course the rather important point that the attack must come from another country, and even on the version of the official conspiracy theory the attack was not by any country. If one wanted to nominate a country, then again using the official myth, the obvious candidate was Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

    As Ned says, the real clue to 9/11 lies in the missing $2 trillion, the investigators of which just happened to be among those killed in the Pentagon, the $100 billion gold heist from the basement of WTC1, and the need to secure the Caspian pipeline and Afghanistan’s major contribution to the CIA coffers through the heroin trade.

    My final brief point here is that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001, which gives the lie to all the BS spouted by Howard et al about being surprised by the events of 9/11. As the PNAC document said, America needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to persuade Americans to spend up large on foreign wars. That is exactly what they got, as planned.

    • James,
      Of course you are aware that in regard to the evidence on 911, we are in the same paddock and I support your comment.
      Just for the record.
      I think that the gold was in buiding/s 6 and/or 7. (Ref: Heidner for one)
      Rodregues (sp) testifies as a witness to massive explosions in the basement of one of the towers ( not sure from memory which, that may support your theory as to the other tower) suggesting a mini nuclear device. That would not be good for gold bullion.
      The (not necessarily the only one used) double B truck loaded with gold bullion was hindered in the tunnel by a falling beam and the driver (and crew) scarpered.
      As for a missile alledgedy used against the NEW office office of naval intelligence (ONI) investigating the missing trillion or so I reserve an opinion. Their are various theories, some are deliberate misinformation.
      Suffice to say that all the security camera videos from the Pentagon have been witheld except for a few frames from the car park which disclose little. Clearly the government is hiding relevant information which sums up the government account….BS! Complete! Yet our politicians and mass media continue to support the obvious crap to protect mass murderers.
      As counsel, I need not lecture you on conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and being an accesory to a crime…..knowingly, and that is what the criminal bastards are ducking…….culpability for perverting the couse of justice. Sheer mass media evil.
      I cannot recite here 13+ years all of my analysis of 911.

      • I might add as a ps.
        Our politicians suck on the public teat and are employed to exhibit some moral integrity as our reprsentatives.
        A company director, profesionals et. al. are obliged to be professional in their professional occupations and apply competence and due diligence to their duties. The politicians legislate for that to be so and include used car salespeople in the ambit.
        Why do politicians and mass media conglomerates and their employees consider that they are excuded from such responsibilities?
        “Hypocrites’ and fraudsters come to mind.
        Clearly, they do not appreciate that they are the public’s servants.
        By pretending to be ignorant or ignoring information provided by the public is a spineless copout by our politicians and mass media and no defence to their betrayal of our democracy.
        One fofeshadowed example is the feigned ignorance by ministers in the NT to events with juvenile detainees.
        Now what if we had a Royal Commission into Howard and his crew invading and destroying the ME? Being a sucker would be no defence.

    • Hey wait a minute everybody. JUST A MINUTESKI PLEASE —

      Dee says JH held back the curtain and thus saw the post-Hanjour smoke. Why wouldn’t the curtains be already open at 10.30am? “Nice blue sky” as the 9-11 Commission report says.

      Oh please please don’t tell me this story is more bull. The Curtain Bull. “We pulled back the curtains” oh noooooo.

      Dee, you are going too easy on JH. He was no innocent in 2001 — he had already bathed in the waters of 1996.

      Wasn’t Paul Keating willing to do the needful or what. Please I can’t take much more of this.

      • Oops, From memory the Pentagon was hit at about 9.30 or soon after.
        Look up the testimony of Mineta the Secretary of Transport. Nevertheless Johnie had a bit of a sleep in!
        I went down to to the bunker ….. the VP was there…..We were trying to work out what happened and what to do……. during this a young man came in and said to the VP……incoming about 50 miles, the VP said Ok……. soon after the young man came in again and said to the VP, …… incoming about 30 miles …… the VP said …ok…….. soon after the young man came in and said to the VP…… incoming about 10 miles out and;. ‘Do the orders still srand’. Then the VP whipped his head around and said …’ of course they still stand, have you heard otherwise’..
        Soon after, something hit the Pentagon and wiped out the staff and records investigating the 2,3 missing trillion announced by Rumsfield the day before. (Excluding April Gallop.? Who later sued and lost)
        Who says Bin Laden was not a good shot?
        BTW. The VP at the time was one named Richard Cheney acting Pres whilst the Pres was reading to kids about pet goats.
        Who says Bin Laden could not pick his moments?
        In July 01 the protocols for authorising intercepts of hijacked planes was transferred from the military to the exective, i.e. to Dick Cheney. After 911 the protocol was returned to the military.
        Lucky Bin Laden, he only had to get past dimwit civilians to meander around for an hour or so with his box cutter gang controlling the aircrafts.
        Not so lucky were the 3,000 or so murdered in the towers and the kids killed over the last 15 years in the ME.
        (Coment made without recourse to any references …… just 13 years of recollections)

        • OK, Ned, so Binny had to be wakeful at one in the morning in Kabul in order to give the boys their instructions.
          Godamighty, I just looked up Kabul time and it’s on the half-hour like Adelaide. i thought Adelaide was the only place in the world whose distance from Greenwich Mean Time is not in whole hours.
          Yeah, I know Greenwich went out with long drawers and is now called UTC. Sort of like BCE for Socrates type thing.

          Your memory is good, Ned. Now this: what was Mohd Atta doing aboard Jack Abramoff’s yacht?

          And what time did Miss Habersham’s clock stop?
          In the case of Gallop v Cheney, April Gallop said her watch stoped when the Pentagon was hit; I guess u r right, maybe 9.32 or so. If JH were sleeping in, he had reporters with him in the boudoir, remember, per The Dee Papers.

    • Susan Lindauer talks about about massive trucks coming into the building for 10 days before between 3 am and 5 am each morning. She suggests they were bringing in the explosives. I suspect they were probably bullion trucks removing the gold.

  7. Ned, you are so right, in that, there should be a Royal Commission into this shameful affair of Australian service people being sent to kill humans and destroy the environment all over the globe to keep the U.S. happy. (Think Vietnam!) One problem of we the people that care, is that we can spread ourselves too thinly on the ground, over too many projects, which will be to the benefit of these psychopaths. In part answer to Eddy, I believe if we were attacked by another Nation (which I believe has always been unlikely, except for our alliance to the U.S.) we would be left to our own devices unless it was a benefit to the U.S. to come to our rescue. Being an ally to the U.S. is definitely a liability.

  8. Ned, you are so right, there should be a Royal Commission into this shameful affair of Australian service people being sent to kill humans and destroy the environment all over the world to keep the U.S. happy (Think Vietnam, Iraq!)
    Not many people have noted that our Services are named The Australian Defence Force, but are only used as The Australian Offence Force.
    One problem for we the people who care, is that we can spread ourselves too thinly on the ground, trying to cover too many subjects to the advantage of these psychopaths.
    In part answer to Eddy I believe if we were attacked by another Nation (which I believe has always been unlikely, except for our alliance with the U.S and U.K.) if the situation was of no benefit to the U.S. we would be left to our own devices. I pity those that still believe that U.S. saved Australia in World War II.
    Thank you James for portraying the truth of 9/11.

  9. In addition to the Galloway video on the Chilcott inquiry posted by Mary below, how about this 8 minutes of common sense and indictment of our warmongering killer Canberra politicians and their running dogs of the msm, from George Galloway at Oxford. Some debate, not sure of the date?
    I offer a can of pre-Fukishama canned North Pacific sardines for anyone who can nominate any member of our Federal Parliament (including the new lot) who has the intellect to take on the common sense of George Galloway. (sourced from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ on 1.8.16)

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion