by James O’Neill*
Being a resident of Queensland I do not have any exposure to Mr Jon Faine, a radio host on an ABC Melbourne station. As my name was mentioned on his program I was sent a recording of a recent show. After listening to the show it was clear what Mr Faine’s modus operandi was.
I understand that Mr Faine has a law degree. If this is indeed the case, then he either slept through or has forgotten what he was told in the Evidence classes. That is a compulsory component of a law degree so he must have had some degree of exposure to the subject.
The law of Evidence, like all subjects, has its own particular requirements. One of those is the so-called ‘best evidence rule’. A court is required to consider only the best evidence that is available on any subject.
It manifestly does not allow anyone to cherry pick from among a range of opinions only those that equate to one’s own particular viewpoint. Any opinion that is proffered must be an expert one from someone suitably qualified to give such an opinion.
Mr Faine’s preferred approach however is to select a particular view, and then label all opposing views either those of a “fruitloop” or that old favourite of the illiterate, a ‘conspiracy theorist.’
Again, as a trained lawyer, Mr Faine would have been taught that a ‘conspiracy’ is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out an (usually illegal) act.
Very often the official version of a given event is itself a conspiracy theory. A simple example is the events of 11 September 2001 (“9/11”) that provoked Mr Faine’s displeasure and a rebuke to and rude dismissal of his caller, this journal’s editor.
In the 9/11 Report, the Commission upon which Mr Faine apparently places such total reliance, told us that 19 Muslim men under the guidance of Osama bin Laden from his cave in Afghanistan, conspired to hijack four aeroplanes and fly them into prominent buildings. It is thus by definition a conspiracy theory.
But any person with a genuine inquiring mind, apparently not one of Mr Faine’s attributes, would not dismiss the official conspiracy theory on that basis. Instead, they would pose a logical question: does the best evidence actually prove the theory? If it does not, then some alternative theory must have greater explanatory power.
Mr Faine is so intent on using ‘conspiracy theorist’ (aka fruitloop to Mr Faine) in a pejorative sense that he forgets his legal training and chooses to ignore the actual evidence.
In the case of 9/11 the best evidence rule can rely on the laws of physics. One cannot pick and choose selectively with physics: either something is scientifically possible or it is not.
Applying the immutable laws of physics to 9/11 we observe for example, the following:
- WTC1, 2 and 7 for at least some part of their collapse fell at free fall speed.
- The concrete in WTC1 and 2 was pulverized to an average size of 60 microns.
- With WTC1 and 2 there was a pyroclastic dust cloud.
- Steel beams were hurled horizontally several hundred feet.
- Molten steel from the rubble persisted for weeks afterward.
There were many other features, but those five illustrate the point. They are all literally impossible from a combination of fire and gravitational collapse, which is the official NIST explanation for the WTC1 and 2 collapses. WTC7 was simply ignored by the 9/11 Commission, itself telling in a different way.
For the three buildings to have collapsed in the manner that they did required the intervention of explosives. There is argument about what types of explosives were used, but that is immaterial to the point. The use of explosives, and the demonstrable characteristics of the destruction of the buildings are entirely inconsistent with the official theory.
Is that not something to be considered on a rational basis Mr Faine? Insulting people who do not share your remarkably limited view is not a substitute for rational discussion.
Why then do programs such as Mr Faine’s refuse to engage in that debate? Let me illustrate the answer to that question by reference to another historical example.
In 1968 the American civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis Tennessee. This was on the eve of what was to be a massive demonstration in Washington DC.
The designated patsy in that case (another common characteristic of state sponsored terrorism) was a small time criminal named James Earl Ray. The details of Mr Ray’s alleged involvement are readily ascertainable and are not necessary for my point.
The King family did not accept the official conspiracy theory. Over many years, with the assistance of British barrister William Pepper (read his excellent books on the topic, Act of State and the Plot to Kill King), the King family sought the truth about MLK’s assassination. He was, let us not forget, one of the towering figures of the 20th century.
The King family were finally able to bring a civil action in the Court in Memphis, Tennessee. The suit is known as King v Jowers & Others. The “others” were the FBI, the Memphis Police Department and the Department of Defence. The trial was held in 1999.
One might have though that such a trial might qualify as one of the trials of the century, attracting serious media attention. In fact, only one reporter from the mainstream media attended, a reporter from the local Memphis newspaper. That reporter’s editor refused to publish any details of the evidence from the trial.
After hearing more than 70 witnesses over three weeks, the jury took only two hours to unanimously conclude that King’s killer was not Ray. A Memphis Police officer in fact killed King. The US Army provided back up snipers. The FBI were co-conspirators.
None of this was reported at the time in any mainstream media outlet. To this day, seventeen years after the trial, one has to go to the alternative media outlets or read Pepper’s books on the subject to learn what actually happened.
Those readers who have followed the aftermath of the assassination of John F Kennedy, 53 years ago this month, will recognise the pattern: a designated patsy, an official whitewash commission, ignoring subsequent inquiries, and above all ignoring the actual evidence. It is little wonder that Mr Faine feels at home in such a milieu.
In 9/11 it was the laws of physics. With JFK it was the laws of ballistics, mathematics and forensic pathology. Mr Faine could easily bring himself up to speed on these matters by reading for example Jim di Eugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland or Sherry Fiester’s Enemy of the Truth. He probably won’t, because such evidence is too disturbing to the official narrative and hence Mr Faine’s comfort zone.
The other common feature to these three events and countless others is the real conspiracy and that is a conspiracy of silence among the various branches of the mainstream media. They obfuscate, conceal, ignore evidence and on occasion even lie about what really happened. Mr Faine’s conduct is entirely consistent with this pattern.
Whether that conduct is tacit acceptance of blatant nonsense, ignorance or deliberate conduct does not matter. Mr Faine is failing in one of the fundamental duties of a genuine free media, and that is to inform his readers/listeners/viewers of the truth, or at least as close an approximation of the truth as is possible in all the circumstances. By virtue of his failure to do so, it is he who is deserving of the epithet of fruitloop.
* Barrister at Law. He may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org