nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Duiske

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yitzhak Rabin

Thats an impressive list alright.

Is there anywhere where I can see a list of criticisms of the NIST report or the 9/11 commission report. Because its hard to read through each of their problems with it(in the cases where they actually state why they have a problem with it)

But as unqualified as I am, I think a lot of their criticism are unfounded.

Take for instance General Albert Stubblebine:

His problem is "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?

To me that claim has been long debunked

Or Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret):

"With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged."

Again to me, this is a nonsense. How does he think a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, given the amount of witnesses who bloody well saw it.

So, I haven't got to go down through the whole list. So thats why I think a list of criticisms of the report would be better than an appeal to authority.

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

Plenty of people question the official cover up including people in a far better position than the ordinary joe soap.
Here's a few, and I don't think they can be called nut's.
You can fool some people some time's, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.
I can't think of any motive the people below would have apart from genuine concern that it was a farce, which it was.

But what exactly is wrong with it?

I have to agree with Yekas on this.

Jeboa Safari

uprising2 wrote: »

Why would Iran invade any country?, they don't have a history of invading anybody.
No country should have any nuclear weapons, but the US,UK or Israel are hardly the moral authority to say who should and shouldn't have them.
Your view of Iran is distorted by the rubbish you listen to from western lying media.

Well they recently claimed that Bahrain should be returned as a province of Iran. They also currently occupy a couple of islands belonging to the UAE. They supply Hezbollah, and are reported to have many sleeper cells in various countries. If they got nuclear weapons and strengthened their army, I think they would use it to throw their weight around, particularly in the gulf region.

I think the fact that the superpowers have nuclear weapons has probably helped stop ww3 from happening.

I read stories from various sources, your view is distorted by your anti-Americanism

studiorat

uprising2 wrote: »

Plenty of people question the official cover up including people in a far better position than the ordinary joe soap.
Here's a few, and I don't think they can be called nut's.

Out of context. They are speaking about covering up the negligence of the security forces. Not that it was an inside job. :rolleyes:

uprising2

Senator Max Cleland
Article 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission: "It is a national scandal."
Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03

Transcript of audio interview 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story ... of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened.

William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
"David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too. I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen… The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions."
Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA.
"I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence?

Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.

"The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden.

Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
"'There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me,' Weldon told Fox News on Thursday, blasting the 9/11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger. 'What's the 9/11 commission got to hide?'"

Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001-2002.
"I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. … We can prove that the government’s story is false."

Paul Hellyer – Former Minister of National Defense of Canada.
"I think the inquiry has been very shallow, very superficial. I would like to see a much tougher, more in-depth inquiry. I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask those questions and insist on getting answers. We have to try and get the truth. I hope that somebody has the courage and persistence to keep at it until we get it."

Melvin A. Goodman – Senior Analyst, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, 1974-1976. Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst, Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA,1976 - 1986. Professor of International Security, National War College 1986-2004.
"I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission."

Fred Burks – Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
"How is it possible that our military's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?

An even bigger question is why isn't our media asking these questions?

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.
Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001: "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.
Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001: "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

I'll just take the last one for now... there isn't numerous concrete walls. The ground floor is open plan so anything that penetrates the front wall has only some partitions to break though to reach the back wall. And there are plenty of pictures of plane parts. So he's simply wrong. Of course we still have to ignore all the people who saw the plane to even get to a missile being used.

yekahs wrote: »

So, I haven't got to go down through the whole list. So thats why I think a list of criticisms of the report would be better than an appeal to authority.

and of course you ignored what yekas asked.

Brown Bomber

It did pass through multiple walls and exited at the C-ring.

Here is the exit hole: Notice no evidence at all of a plane hitting.

Now compare it to the impact of Raytheon bunker buster
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_011980.pdf

I can't see a difference between the two.

uprising2

meglome wrote: »

I'll just take the last one for now... there isn't numerous concrete walls. The ground floor is open plan so anything that penetrates the front wall has only some partitions to break though to reach the back wall. And there are plenty of pictures of plane parts. So he's simply wrong. Of course we still have to ignore all the people who saw the plane to even get to a missile being used.

and of course you ignored what yekas asked.

Ohh Lord, have a look at this, forget 911 myths for a minute.

Each floor's layout has five pentagonal concentric rings which are connected by ten spoke-like corridors.

Open plan???, the hole made it through 3 rings, there are 5 and the hole in the pic is in the 3rd ring and on ground level.
Can you post a link to the open plan layout, seems a bit silly that a building that houses the worlds no 1 military machine would build a fortress over an easily weakened open plan first floor.

Pentagon 2:D

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It did pass through multiple walls and exited at the C-ring.

Here is the exit hole: Notice no evidence at all of a plane hitting.

Now compare it to the impact of Raytheon bunker buster
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_011980.pdf

I can't see a difference between the two.

Thats the exit hole though. The link you posted shows entry holes. A 6" dia. rocket would be doing well to create damage this size and shape.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It did pass through multiple walls and exited at the C-ring.

Here is the exit hole: Notice no evidence at all of a plane hitting.

Lads if you like i can go get the plans for the pentagon and show that the ground floor is open plan but it's been posted in here numerous times. The blocks start on the first floor, the ground floor has a front concrete wall and back brick wall (the one in the picture), all the stuff in-between is light partitions.
The very easy way to see this even without the plans is look at the centre of the 3 rings in the picture. There are 3 rows of windows in that ring. Now look at the ring with the hole smashed into it, there are 4 rows of windows plus the space where the hole in the wall is.

MRPRO03

We see countless video's of the towers being hit and yet we only see 1 video of the Pentagon that has 5 frames, to me, something is not quite right in that regard.

Divorce Referendum

MRPRO03 wrote: »

We see countless video's of the towers being hit and yet we only see 1 video of the Pentagon that has 5 frames, to me, something is not quite right in that regard.

The tv crews and amateur filmers were there after they heard the north tower was hit and filming that. Thats why you have so many videos of the south tower being hit. Only two videos exist of the first plane hitting the north tower and thats even lucky. Why would you expect tons for the pentagon?

MRPRO03

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The tv crews and amateur filmers were there after they heard the north tower was hit and filming that. Thats why you have so many videos of the south tower being hit. Only two videos exist of the first plane hitting the north tower and thats even lucky. Why would you expect tons for the pentagon?

I would expect to see the footage from the CCTV cameras that were there at the Pentagon itself.

pokertalk

Septic Leper wrote: »

look at this website

http://www.drjudywood.com

even better ..have a look at zeigiest on 9/11 on you tube it raises some good points

Divorce Referendum

MRPRO03 wrote: »

I would expect to see the footage from the CCTV cameras that were there at the Pentagon itself.

How many cameras are in the grounds of the pentagon? How many were facing that side the crash happened? That will answer your question. Gaurds are at all five entrances so Im not expecting many to be honest.

meglome

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

How many cameras are in the grounds of the pentagon? How many were facing that side the crash happened? That will answer your question. Gaurds are at all five entrances so Im not expecting many to be honest.

How many would be pointing up into the air to see the plane approach?

uprising2

meglome wrote: »

Lads if you like i can go get the plans for the pentagon and show that the ground floor is open plan but it's been posted in here numerous times. The blocks start on the first floor, the ground floor has a front concrete wall and back brick wall (the one in the picture), all the stuff in-between is light partitions.
The very easy way to see this even without the plans is look at the centre of the 3 rings in the picture. There are 3 rows of windows in that ring. Now look at the ring with the hole smashed into it, there are 4 rows of windows plus the space where the hole in the wall is.

Sorry i forgot to post the link in my last post.
Each floor's layout has five pentagonal concentric rings which are connected by ten spoke-like corridors.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/aoguide/Pentagon_Map.htm

Because the space between the first 3 rings has a roof above the ground floor level does not equal open plan beneath it.
The ring walls would (all of them) continue through the seven floors (two stories below ground level) and stand on solid foundations.

The concentric rings are designated from the center out as "A" through "E" (with in addition "F" and "G" in the basement). "E" Ring offices are the only ones with outside views and are generally occupied by senior officials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon#Layout

Also the trajectory on the pic Bomber posted is slightly off, if you put a straight edge from hole to hole you will see that whatever went through the walls also went through atleast one of the walls of the connecting corridors, and the angle it went through add more mass for it to penetrate, I've read somewhere it would equal another wall.

meglome

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Look at page 5. It shows the open plan first floor and the floors above.

uprising2

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

How many cameras are in the grounds of the pentagon? How many were facing that side the crash happened? That will answer your question. Gaurds are at all five entrances so Im not expecting many to be honest.

CCTV footage from various locations outside the pentagon that would have shown the impact were taken by FBI officials, and guards at each entrance means they dont need cctv?, its the pentagon not xtravision, every inch of that building would be monitored from every angle.

Here's an interesting video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=122_1172160867

At 0:25secs it doesn't look much like a commercial airliner, have a look, there is NO plane.

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

CCTV footage from various locations outside the pentagon that would have shown the impact were taken by FBI officials, and guards at each entrance means they dont need cctv?, its the pentagon not xtravision, every inch of that building would be monitored from every angle.

Firstly all anyone has to do is show the cameras, should be easy right. All those pictures taken of the pentagon over the years, simple. And yet I've never seen a picture of these cameras after all these years. I dunno if you have armed guards all round your building maybe cameras weren't your first priority. And as I've repeatedly pointed out cameras point downward not up into the sky so what do you think they would see?

And seriously can we stop using highly compressed (and low fps) video as proof of no plane. When you compress a video file you lose detail.

Divorce Referendum

uprising2 wrote: »

CCTV footage from various locations outside the pentagon that would have shown the impact were taken by FBI officials, and guards at each entrance means they dont need cctv?, its the pentagon not xtravision, every inch of that building would be monitored from every angle.

Here's an interesting video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=122_1172160867

At 0:25secs it doesn't look much like a commercial airliner, have a look, there is NO plane.

I didnt say they dont need CCTV. You may be you misquoting me. I said that considering that there is guards at all five entrances there wont be as many cameras as you think as guards are far more effective security. If every inch is monitored can you show me some photograhs of the pentagon showing this mass of cameras attached to it.(bearing in mind i have seen photos of a couple of cameras that would be useless).

Are you aware of frame rates? Did you watch the cop car going out and it only gave you a frame a second? Its highly unlikely that with the speed of the plane this camera would pick it up. But hey I would like to hear what you believe hit the building instead of a plane?

uprising2

meglome wrote: »

Firstly all anyone has to do is show the cameras, should be easy right. All those pictures taken of the pentagon over the years, simple. And yet I've never seen a picture of these cameras after all these years. I dunno if you have armed guards all round your building maybe cameras weren't your first priority. And as I've repeatedly pointed out cameras point downward not up into the sky so what do you think they would see?

And seriously can we stop using highly compressed (and low fps) video as proof of no plane. When you compress a video file you lose detail.

Its all the video we got !!, this is going way off course.

A pentagon employee gives her version of accounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

TalkieWalkie

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

<snip>Camera pictures<s/snip>

Thanks now at least we are getting somewhere. The next point is can we find higher res pictures because I find it odd that these 'cameras' are spaced such short distances away from each other, i dunno almost like lights and not cameras. Though it seems likely that some of them are cameras. Then we'd need to see where they are pointed, cause as I keep saying cameras point at the ground not into the air.
You can see some of the cameras in that entrance shot are point in the wrong direction. Then I'd like to know when those road cameras shot were taken.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

Thanks now at least we are getting somewhere. The next point is can we find higher res pictures because I find it odd that these 'cameras' are spaced such short distances away from each other, i dunno almost like lights and not cameras. Though it seems likely that some of them are cameras. Then we'd need to see where they are pointed, cause as I keep saying cameras point at the ground not into the air.
You can see some of the cameras in that entrance shot are point in the wrong direction. Then I'd like to know when those road cameras shot were taken.

The traffic cameras update every 2 seconds - ie: a longer pause than the the plane would be visible for over that distance. It's pot luck whether they'd pick it up or not.

meglome

And anyone who believes the no plane theory at the pentagon should read here first: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/introduction.html

boltofourfaith

This photo clearly shows the path of the airliner as it approached the Pentagon knocking down the light poles colored yellow - the intact light poles are colored blue - before clipping a generator and striking the face of the building - the damaged supported columns within the building are also coloured

These two images show the damage caused to the facade of the Pentagon by the impact of fuselage and the wings.

These images show some of the wreckage of the American Airlines jet at the scene.

I think we can all agree that a hijacked airliner DID hit the Pentagon:)

Some links that 'truthers' should check out unless they want to continue living in a fantasy world.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

pookzta

King Mob wrote: »

Also the first time with space lasers....

Dear King Mob,

Dr. Wood does not conclude that 'space lasers' were what turned the buildings to dust. To clarify:

Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the corporations NIST had contracted to conduct the 9/11 "investigations", many of which are military / defense / weapons organizations involved in Directed Energy research (huge conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

Again, Dr. Wood has made no claims about "space lasers", but I have seen her continuously discuss and analyze the overwhelming amount of physical evidence she has gathered, which shows that directed energy weapons were used on 9/11 beyond any reasonable doubt.

I do not support any ‘explosives’ theory, because explosives of any kind do not explain all the evidence. I would be a poor scientist if I supported theories which claim explosives are what turned the towers to dust, because explosives do not explain all the evidence, not even close.

I support Dr. Judy Wood for one reason, and one reason only, because she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher who has explained all the evidence. All the evidence which must be explained, which explosives of any kind most certainly do NOT account for, can be found in this ‘cliff-notes’ style summary page, here: http://drjudywood.com/wtc

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained.

Please try to be more accurate when discussing her conclusions.

Thanks,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

http://facebook.com/AbrahamHafizRodriguez
http://youtube.com/pookzta

alastair

pookzta wrote: »

Again, Dr. Wood has made no claims about "space lasers"

Nah - she's only claiming some unspecified space-based 'energy weapon'. It all makes sense now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

meglome

alastair wrote: »

Nah - she's only claiming some unspecified space-based 'energy weapon'. It all makes sense now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

a little like that super duper wuper thermite. If you can't explain your theory make up some new 'weapon'.

pookzta wrote: »

...She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. ...

She was hailed as the saviour of the 911 truth movement until they realised what a head-case she is then she suddenly became a disinfo agent.