Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

Duiske · 23-09-2010 09:20PM #1

The US delegation left the UN meeting after Ahmadinejad suggested that most people believe the 9/11 attacks were the work of people inside the US administration.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Thursday most people believe the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, prompting the U.S. delegation to leave the room in protest.

In his speech to the General Assembly, Ahmadinejad said it was mostly U.S. government officials who believed the Islamist militant group al Qaeda was behind the suicide hijacking attacks that brought down New York's World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon.

Another theory, he said, was "that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime." Ahmadinejad usually refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime."

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly, calling on the United Nations to establish "an independent fact-finding group" to look into the events of September 11.

The U.S. and several European delegations left shortly after Ahmadinejad made the remarks.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, reacted before Ahmadinejad finished speaking.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable," he said.

Ahmadinejad raised a third theory about the attacks, saying: "It was carried out by a terrorist group, but that the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently this viewpoint has fewer proponents."

He said the main evidence for that theory was "a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials."

"It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of suicide attackers was found," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M55W20100923

I don't believe myself that the US planned and carried out the attacks, but i do feel that certain people within the intelligence services knew an attack was imminent and for whatever reason did very little to stop it.

numbnutz · 23-09-2010 09:53PM

And so it begins again.....
Cant wait to see how the worldwide media,in particular the American media, take a hold of this one and spin against them ...again.Check out Geraldo for Fox news on youtube when Ahmadinejad was speaking at a University ,Its truly hilarious.if you can take thier brand of reporting seriously.
He is only repeating what a lot of people think when you step back and take all the facts in about 911..if you have the time.I find it funny that Iran gets blamed time and time again for threats to stability in the middle east.Is Israel not a factor in this too?Dont they have nuclear weapons?They are not even signed up to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.But thats ok I suppose:D
Tony Blair said on The Late Late that invading Iran is on the table so to speak and him being Israels salesman you can be sure the plan is already well revised by now.
The right to nuclear power is not for anybody to decide except for those who want it is it not?To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

humanji · 24-09-2010 08:19AM

US and Iran: two bickering children trying to embarrass the other. That's all this is. I'd say Ahmadinejad couldn't give a toss who was behind 9/11. He just wants to show up the US in any way he can.

bonkey · 24-09-2010 08:43AM

numbnutz wrote: »

To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

I've never heard Blair or the Americans suggest that Iran are likely to use them.

joebucks · 24-09-2010 11:25AM

bonkey wrote: »

I've never heard Blair or the Americans suggest that Iran are likely to use them.

Check out Blair on the late late.

meglome · 24-09-2010 01:41PM

Each and every time we look at the details not one person can show US involvement. Not once did the little details add up to any CT. Not once have we even got a consistent CT.

fontanalis · 24-09-2010 05:32PM

Ahmadinejad: "all of my regime believe we are BFF's with the big sky fairy"

Go away you nutter.

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2010 06:31PM

meglome wrote: »

Each and every time we look at the details not one person can show US involvement.

In your opinion

meglome wrote: »

Not once did the little details add up to any CT.

In your opinion

meglome wrote: »

Not once have we even got a consistent CT.

In your opinion.

Yitzhak Rabin · 24-09-2010 06:34PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well what, in your opinion, is a comprehensive and evidence based alternative to the official 9/11 account?

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2010 06:48PM

yekahs wrote: »

Well what, in your opinion, is a comprehensive and evidence based alternative to the official 9/11 account?

I'm open to parts of the official version being the reality. Especially the motive in the 911 Commission Report, ie US support of Israel. It would've been advantageous for the US to let it happen too. More motive for an let it happen / inside job though tbh OIL - Oil, Israel, and Logistics. Having said that it is hardly conclusive, nor is any CT on 911. I've an open mind to be honest.

Yitzhak Rabin · 24-09-2010 06:54PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm open to parts of the official version being the reality. Especially the motive in the 911 Commission Report, ie US support of Israel. It would've been advantageous for the US to let it happen too. More motive for an let it happen / inside job though tbh OIL - Oil, Israel, and Logistics. Having said that it is hardly conclusive, nor is any CT on 911. I've an open mind to be honest.

From what I've seen so far, the narrative of the 9/11 comission is true.

Now it is possible, that the US knew it was going to happen, or even covertly encouraged it in a CIA black ops.

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

However, all the stuff about missiles, explosives, thermite etc. All nonsense, imo. In fact, its exactly the kind of thing you would want associated with 9/11 CTs if the truth was actually that they knew it would happen and did nothing.

amacachi · 24-09-2010 06:57PM

yekahs wrote: »

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

Why would the Israelis want to prevent mass American hatred of the Islamic world?

iPlop · 24-09-2010 07:42PM

yekahs wrote: »

From what I've seen so far, the narrative of the 9/11 comission is true.

Now it is possible, that the US knew it was going to happen, or even covertly encouraged it in a CIA black ops.

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

However, all the stuff about missiles, explosives, thermite etc. All nonsense, imo. In fact, its exactly the kind of thing you would want associated with 9/11 CTs if the truth was actually that they knew it would happen and did nothing.

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??BTW I don't believe missiles hit the WTC ,But why did the towers turn to dust? first time ever for any building! Just dust and metal nothing else! strange?Laser guided planes maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19lofrMsbZA

meglome · 24-09-2010 08:13PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??BTW I don't believe missiles hit the WTC ,But why did the towers turn to dust? first time ever for any building! Just dust and metal nothing else! strange?Laser guided planes maybe?

Thermite is made up of material that would be found in the WTC buildings. The samples taken were not directly from the site and were taken some days after the fact. I have also not seen anywhere that can show this supposed nano thermite actually exists. Nor how the material could have been placed in the full buildings without anyone seeing or without going off immediately in the crashes and fires. Or showing how thermite would actually cut the columns, in the experiments I've seen they couldn't do it.

The towers were full of dry wall (plaster board) and had concrete floors which was mostly pulped in the collapses. No surprise as far as i can see. But to say that dust and metal was all that was found is not so.

iPlop · 24-09-2010 08:20PM

meglome wrote: »

Thermite is made up of material that would be found in the WTC buildings. The samples taken were not directly from the site and were taken some days after the fact. I have also not seen anywhere that can show this supposed nano thermite actually exists. Nor how the material could have been placed in the full buildings without anyone seeing or without going off immediately in the crashes and fires.

The towers were full of dry wall (plaster board) and had concrete floors which was mostly pulped in the collapses. No surprise as far as i can see. But to say that dust and metal was all that was found is not so.

look at this website

http://www.drjudywood.com

24-09-2010 08:20PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

first time ever for any building!

You know what else it'd be the first time for?
A controlled demolition of a building by thermite....

Septic Leper wrote: »

look at this website

http://www.drjudywood.com

Also the first time with space lasers....

iPlop · 24-09-2010 08:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

You know what else it'd be the first time for?
A controlled demolition of a building by thermite....

Also the first time with space lasers....

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful! BTW I can see where your coming from! But is the whole 9/11 thing not make you think?

bonkey · 24-09-2010 08:37PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful!

I believe he's referring to Dr. Wood's assertion that the "dustification" of the towers was evidence that they were actually destroyed by orbital directed-energy weapons.

24-09-2010 08:39PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful!

She has a section entitled "Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)".
"Directed energy weapons" as in lasers.
"Star Wars" as in the space based missile defence platform.
That's a far cry from laser guidance.

I've heard of this crank lady before, she claims that the twin towers where destroyed by space lasers.
I'm not the one making sound crazy...

Septic Leper wrote: »

BTW I can see where your coming from!

So if it's a problem for it to be "the first to fall like that" (which isn't exactly true either BTW) why then is it not a problem for it to be first to be destroyed by thermite (which, if the CTs are right, is true)?

Septic Leper wrote: »

But is the whole 9/11 thing not make you think?

It did. But the complete lack of anything of substance from the CT, means I'm yet to be convinced.
I agree totally with meglome, any claim that's been help up to scrutiny have always crumbled and failed to show what the CTers claim.

iPlop · 24-09-2010 08:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

It did. But the complete lack of anything of substance from the CT, means I'm yet to be convinced.
I agree totally with meglome, any claim that's been help up to scrutiny have always crumbled and failed to show what the CTers claim.

I have to disagree! sorry for mis-interpretation of space lasers ,I thought you were taking the p1ss.Can we continue this discussion tomorrow?

I have a long day in work!

24-09-2010 08:53PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

I have to disagree! sorry for mis-interpretation of space lasers ,I thought you were taking the p1ss.

I was doing both.

Septic Leper wrote: »

Can we continue this discussion tomorrow? I have a long day in work!

No you must answer immediately. :pac:

iPlop · 24-09-2010 08:55PM

King Mob wrote: »

I was doing both.

No you must answer immediately. :pac:

I believe you! I do,I DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

bonkey · 24-09-2010 09:00PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??

Here's why I dismiss it...

The original claim was that the buildings were demolished with explosives. It was then pointed out that there were significant telltales of explosives missing....most notably airborne and ground-carried shockwaves.

This led to the whimsical notion of "hush-a-splosive", which in turn led to the more-real-world-grounded idea of thermite. Thermite isn't an explosive, but could be used to cut through steel. There's a lot of problems with the idea of thermite being used, but it was an interesting step.

Part of the problem, of course, was that thermite, not being explosive, would take too long and would be too bulky.

Then terms like thermate, and nano-thermite, and all sorts of other exotic (and sometimes speculative) variations came onto the scene....stuff that wasn't explosive, but was smaller, and would work faster, and so on.

At this point, we should recap.

Its "obvious" that the building (or buildings) was (or were) brought down via controlled demolition, because it looks just like that. However, to explain how it bears all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, we've done away with the notion of explosives, and replaced them with a substance that not only has never been known to have been used in a controlled demolition, but which is "military", which means we don't really know a hell of a lot about it at all.

Put differently...the building(s) show all the hallmarks of having been collapsed in a manner that we have absolutely nothing to compare with.

Spot the problem?

Leaving aside this (massive) logical flaw, and the entire history of how the theory was derived in the first place, lets move on to the assertion that (military grade) thermite was found.

The first evidence-based claims showed the presence of iron oxide and aluminium - the hallmarks of thermite....as well as being massively common materials. The iron oxide, incidentally, was the more common "rust" variety, and not the less-common version typically used in thermite, on account of it being massively more efficient.

The follow-on evidence-based claims were more interesting. They showed what to all intents and purposes looked like anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust. Chemical analysis was consistent with anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust....as well as being consistent with something capable of combustion, possibly thermitic in nature. Combustion tests showed that it burned....in oxygen. The combustion was not carried out in an oxygen-free environment to show that it was thermitic. The energy of the combustion was not measured. The rate of combustion was appallingly slow....at least in terms of how fast one would need to convey energy in a controlled manner to perform a controlled sequence of cuts to perform a controlled demolition. The question as to how such combustible material could be safely used in an area with an uncontrolled fire to carry out controlled demolition wasn't even addressed.

Ultimately, though, its not entirely relevant how flawed the evidence is. The fundamental problem still remains. Controlled demolition uses explosives because the speed of the shockwave allows controlled cuts to be made in what is effectively zero time. There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

We've been presented with a video on youtube (at least once, in some thread) of a small amount of what is allegedly thermite going off with a bang, and cutting its way through a thin metal rod in a small amount of time. Fantastic. So for a massively thick piece of steel, we're going to need a massively bigger bang.....which brings us back full circle to asking where were the shockwaves?

24-09-2010 09:12PM

bonkey wrote: »

There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

Actually there was such a model linked by diogenes a good while back. It would have allowed the thermite(or whatever) to cut a beam horizontally, while protecting it from outside fires I think.
However it didn't solve the problem of thermite being hard to get going. Also the apparatus used would have been huge and not concealable.

iPlop · 24-09-2010 09:40PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Bombs at the very start;)good night!

24-09-2010 09:59PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

Bombs at the very start;)good night!

And as we all know bombs are the only thing that go "bang!".

Also another first time thing if the CTs are to be believed BTW. No controlled demolition of a building has ever involved explosives going off one at a time, at random times and well before the actual collapse.

iPlop · 24-09-2010 10:06PM

bonkey wrote: »

Here's why I dismiss it...

The original claim was that the buildings were demolished with explosives. It was then pointed out that there were significant telltales of explosives missing....most notably airborne and ground-carried shockwaves.

This led to the whimsical notion of "hush-a-splosive", which in turn led to the more-real-world-grounded idea of thermite. Thermite isn't an explosive, but could be used to cut through steel. There's a lot of problems with the idea of thermite being used, but it was an interesting step.

Part of the problem, of course, was that thermite, not being explosive, would take too long and would be too bulky.

Then terms like thermate, and nano-thermite, and all sorts of other exotic (and sometimes speculative) variations came onto the scene....stuff that wasn't explosive, but was smaller, and would work faster, and so on.

At this point, we should recap.

Its "obvious" that the building (or buildings) was (or were) brought down via controlled demolition, because it looks just like that. However, to explain how it bears all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, we've done away with the notion of explosives, and replaced them with a substance that not only has never been known to have been used in a controlled demolition, but which is "military", which means we don't really know a hell of a lot about it at all.

Put differently...the building(s) show all the hallmarks of having been collapsed in a manner that we have absolutely nothing to compare with.

Spot the problem?

Leaving aside this (massive) logical flaw, and the entire history of how the theory was derived in the first place, lets move on to the assertion that (military grade) thermite was found.

The first evidence-based claims showed the presence of iron oxide and aluminium - the hallmarks of thermite....as well as being massively common materials. The iron oxide, incidentally, was the more common "rust" variety, and not the less-common version typically used in thermite, on account of it being massively more efficient.

The follow-on evidence-based claims were more interesting. They showed what to all intents and purposes looked like anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust. Chemical analysis was consistent with anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust....as well as being consistent with something capable of combustion, possibly thermitic in nature. Combustion tests showed that it burned....in oxygen. The combustion was not carried out in an oxygen-free environment to show that it was thermitic. The energy of the combustion was not measured. The rate of combustion was appallingly slow....at least in terms of how fast one would need to convey energy in a controlled manner to perform a controlled sequence of cuts to perform a controlled demolition. The question as to how such combustible material could be safely used in an area with an uncontrolled fire to carry out controlled demolition wasn't even addressed.

Ultimately, though, its not entirely relevant how flawed the evidence is. The fundamental problem still remains. Controlled demolition uses explosives because the speed of the shockwave allows controlled cuts to be made in what is effectively zero time. There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

We've been presented with a video on youtube (at least once, in some thread) of a small amount of what is allegedly thermite going off with a bang, and cutting its way through a thin metal rod in a small amount of time. Fantastic. So for a massively thick piece of steel, we're going to need a massively bigger bang.....which brings us back full circle to asking where were the shockwaves?

At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means! Have you travelled to NYC ,I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged ,I refute that having been there in 2001 ,there was lots of damage to surrounding buildings.Just been there in March and all the buildings are repaired! I love that city!

24-09-2010 10:09PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means!

Well yea, not many other skyscrapers have had jetliners flown into them at high speed.
That's not exactly ordinary...

iPlop · 24-09-2010 10:12PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well yea, not many other skyscrapers have had jetliners flown into them at high speed.
That's not exactly ordinary...

great stuff !:rolleyes:

Jeboa Safari · 24-09-2010 10:14PM

numbnutz wrote: »

The right to nuclear power is not for anybody to decide except for those who want it is it not?To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

Do you think it would be a good thing if Iran got nuclear weapons?

24-09-2010 10:15PM

Septic Leper wrote: »

great stuff !:rolleyes:

So how could the collapse of the towers ever be considered "ordinary" when the very causes and scenario are inherently extra-ordinary?

Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

Comments