Welcome to the Unhypnotize Truth Community!
A great place to discuss conspiracies, UFOs, NWO, truth, reality and enlightenment.

• » Conspiracies Discussions
• » UFOs and Extraterrestrial
• » Spiritual and Paranormal
• » World and Alternative News

Its time to wake up to the global conspiracy...and move beyond...
Our community is here to spread truth, discuss the Global Conspiracy and the world wide Truth Movement!

YES! I want to register for free right now!
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Ahmadinejad UN speech sparks walk-outs

  1. #1

    Ahmadinejad UN speech sparks walk-outs

    US and EU delegates walk out during President Ahmadinejad's UN address
    The US and other Western delegations at the 65th UN General Assembly have walked out in protest at the speech of the Iranian president.


    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said some saw the 11 September attacks on the US as part of a US conspiracy to protect Israel.

    Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking on the first day of a week-long UN diplomatic marathon at its New York headquarters.
    The US denounced his remarks on the 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, as "abhorrent and delusional".

    The American delegation was joined in its walk-out by representatives from 32 other nations - including all the EU countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Costa Rica.

    But Mr Ahmadinejad appeared undaunted by the protest, continuing his attack on Zionism and Israel, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

    Capitalist 'failures'

    The Iranian president's speech was part political diatribe, part sermon, adds our correspondent - a wide-ranging presentation of his own particular world view.

    Mr Ahmadinejad did not accuse the US directly of being part of a conspiracy behind the 11 September attacks.

    But he did suggest that one theory he claimed was popular was that the US government had orchestrated it to provide a pretext to reverse its declining grip on the Middle East.

    At that, US diplomats got up and left the hall, followed by the British and some other Western delegations.

    In fact the hall was less than half full. Most senior Western politicians were deep in discussion at a separate meeting on the UN Security Council's role in peace and security.

    That did not deter Iran's president. He said sanctions against Iran were unjust and ineffective, and he stood ready for an annual public dialogue with the US president to air their differences.
    The Iranian president said he would host a conference on terrorism next year and that 2011 should be the year of nuclear disarmament.

    Repeating Iran's denial that it was seeking the capacity to build nuclear weapons, Mr Ahmadinejad said some members of the UN Security Council had "equated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs".

    He also said Tehran would not submit to what he called unnecessary pressure from the the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Mr Ahmadinejad had started his speech by outlining what he called the failure of the existing world order and capitalism, saying the world should be run by virtuous people like the Prophets.

    Although he said that Iran was ready to have a serious discussion with US statesmen, our correspondent says that on the evidence of this speech there would be little for them to talk about.

    In response to the speech, Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the US mission at the United Nations, told AFP news agency: "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."

    At the UN General Assembly, leaders take to the stage to make speeches on a subject of their choice.

    Iran has already endured four rounds of increasingly punitive economic sanctions over the nuclear dispute.

    Foreign ministers from countries including the US, UK, China, France, Germany and Russia discussed the issue at a meeting on Wednesday, and it is also likely to be raised on the fringes of the General Assembly.

    Dozens of fringe meetings take place and correspondents say they constitute the most important business of the event.

    Peace-keeping in Somalia, the possible break-up of Sudan, the conflict in Yemen, climate change and UN reform are all set to feature in these smaller meetings.

    'Hard realities'

    Speaking shortly after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched the diplomatic marathon on Thursday, US President Barack Obama urged the audience to support direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations which started on 2 September.

    Mr Obama said the road to peace in the Middle East had "few peaks and many valleys" He said those longing for an independent Palestine must not try to tear down Israel, and called on Israel to extend a moratorium on building new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    Mr Obama accepted that many remained pessimistic about the peace process, with cynics saying the two sides were too distrustful of each other, and too divided internally, to forge lasting peace.

    "Some say that the gaps between the parties are too big; the potential for talks to break down is too great; and that after decades of failure, peace is simply not possible."

    But the US president called on his fellow leaders to consider the alternative.

    "If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbours who are committed to co-existence.

    "The hard realities of demography will take hold. More blood will be shed. This Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity."

    In his opening address, Mr Ban urged the nations to stand together in a time of growing challenges and uncertainty.

    He said the UN provided a moral compass for a world in which social inequalities were growing, with women and children bearing the brunt.

    He called for a "stronger UN for a better world".

    Mr Ban said the UN had embraced an ambitious agenda for a more prosperous world free of poverty, and for a greener, safer world free of nuclear weapons.

  2. #2

    Establishment Feigns Outrage At Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 Rant

    Neo-Cons still embrace the official explanation behind the event that tripled the size of government and led to the feds targeting conservative Americans as domestic terrorists

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, September 24, 2010

    The spectacle of a minority of UN diplomats walking out on a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he questioned the official story behind 9/11 was instantaneously seized upon by the establishment media and exploited as a way of demonizing any inquiry into the terror attacks.

    The media hyped the event as a massive walkout even though the majority of diplomats remained seated during the speech, and launched a talking point centered around feigned outrage in an effort to characterize skepticism of the 9/11 official story as an extremist, fringe viewpoint held by vulgar people.

    Ahmadinejad may be a petty dictator and an odious character who oversees a regime of oppression and disregard for human rights, but he hasn’t invaded and occupied any countries and he hasn’t been involved in the murders of over a million innocent people, unlike a certain Tony Blair, who upon the recent release of his book was lauded by the establishment press and is regularly applauded by UN delegates when he makes speeches in front of diplomats.

    Just because Ahmadinejad discusses a certain topic doesn’t instantly discredit the basis of that issue.

    Indeed, despite the fact that blowhard neo-cons who acted as cheerleaders for George W. Bush’s brutal and disastrous invasion of Afghanistan as a means of figuratively extending their stunted manhood are claiming Ahmadinejad brazenly stated that “9/11 was an inside job,” in an effort to demonize Alex Jones, this actual term was never even used and in reality Ahmadinejad merely listed the different culprits people around the world have blamed for the attacks.

    In reality, Ahmadinejad afforded equal time to the official U.S. government version of the events and never even specifically embraced any of the explanations put forward.

    So-called opponents of big government like the folks over at Red State love to defend the sanctity of the official 9/11 story, despite the fact that 9/11 was used to triple the size of government and set up the covert police state that now targets conservative Americans as domestic terrorists.

    In addition, political operatives who support the Obama administration have gone on record suggesting that another terror attack would be the perfect tonic to reverse Obama’s plummeting approval ratings and eliminate his political opposition – conservatives and Tea Party members – so let’s stop being naive and denying the fact that governments would exploit or even provoke terror attacks as a means of influencing elections – just as Tom Ridge admitted was the case when Homeland Security issued fake terror alerts for political purposes during the Bush administration.

    But the overriding issue to the Ahmadinejad controversy is the fact that whatever Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks about 9/11, it doesn’t make the literally dozens of unexplained contradictions with the official story simply vanish into thin air.

    No amount of feigned outrage can put the 9/11 truth genie back in the bottle – all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put the official 9/11 story back together again.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 does not answer why Building 7 collapsed in seven seconds within its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a plane and having suffered minimal damage.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 does not answer why the US air defense system failed to follow standard operating procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 does not answer why cell phones worked at 30,000 feet in 2001.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 does not answer why US authorities failed to respond to scores of warnings from foreign intelligence agencies as well as their own Able Danger program which was tracking the hijackers before the attacks.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 does not answer why Osama Bin Laden was working for the US right up until 9/11, as revealed by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 doesn’t answer why unprecedented numbers of put options, speculation that a stock will fall, were place on airline stocks, in the days before 9/11.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 doesn’t answer why there has been no formal indictment of bin Laden nine years after 9/11 when it only took three months to charge him with the 1998 embassy bombings.

    - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 doesn’t answer why the US government allowed the entire Bin Laden family to fly out of the country without even questioning them when all other air traffic was grounded.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking about 9/11 doesn’t answer a mountain of other issues that clearly indicate the official story is impossible and that millions of people around the world acknowledge this, and no amount of smear-by association will eliminate the thousands of respected individuals and whistleblowers who have spoken out on the issue.

    Listed below are just some of the many prominent military, government, scientific and legal officials who have all questioned the official 9/11 story.


    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “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”.

    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”


    According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

    Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”

    Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”

    Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11

    Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11

    Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

    Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”

    Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job


    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt” (bio)

    Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

    U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
    President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11

    U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”

    Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

    Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”

    Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

    U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
    “I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ….

    Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

    We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”
    U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
    “This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …

    Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

    If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ….

    Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”
    U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story”.

    The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

    Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

    Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

    Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

    Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

    Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)


    Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers“. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

    A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

    A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).

    20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

    A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that .

    The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”

    Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.

    The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said “9/11 should have and could have been prevented”

    A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).


    A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

    A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
    The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”

    The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was “very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters” (Richard F. Humenn), stated that “the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down.”

    Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:
    A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

    A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

    An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

    A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

    A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”

    A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

    A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, “WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this” (translated)

    A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers “were brought down by planted explosives.”

    A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

    The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

    A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said “The official explanation that I’ve heard doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized”


    A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

    Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

    Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California

    Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California

    Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England

    Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia

    Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado

    David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland

    Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California

    Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona

    David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

    Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

    Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

    Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

    Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

    William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

    An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)


    Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence “Terry” Brunner) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government’s version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.

    Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

    Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

    A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being “disrespectful to the victims and their families”.

    However, half of the victim’s families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

    Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also ).

    And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that .


    Finally, those who attack people who question the government’s version of 9/11 as “crazy” may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

    Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

    Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

    Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

    Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

    Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

    Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

    Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

    Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

    Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

    Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

    Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

    Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser


    The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 — literally thousands — to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

    The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

    Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to )

    Perhaps “the premiere collapse expert in the country”, who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a “very, very respected expert on building collapse”, the head of the New York Fire Department’s Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously “commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide” thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else(pages 5-6).

    Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

    Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says “The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.”

    Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government’s account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished

    Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said “If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up”. She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.

    SOURCE: http://www.911summary.com/


    Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.


  3. #3

    Ahmadinejad’s UN Speech; Comments on 9/11

    Sept 24, 2010

    I was mainly interested in the parts about 9/11, so I’ve included those below. The link contains the full text of Ahmadinejad’s speech in English.

    I lump all theocrats (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and all the rest) into the-worst-sort-of-nuts category, but on 9/11, Ahmadinejad sounds pretty rational.

    Via: Islamic Republic News Agency:

    …The event of the 11 September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.

    All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident.

    Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.

    But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.

    Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.

    Please take note:

    It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

    In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

    1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

    2- 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 also to save the Zionist regime.
    The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

    3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.

    The main evidence linking the incident 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 the suicide attackers was found.

    There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:

    1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?

    2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?

    3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

    It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.

    I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.


  4. #4

    Establishment Reacts To Ahmadinejad 9/11 Controversy Like Kid Caught With Hand In Coo

    Petulant tantrums over statements of fact betray guilt

    Steve Watson
    Friday, Sept 23rd, 2010

    The reaction of establishment politicians and their corporate media mouthpieces to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about 9/11 is akin to that of a guilty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate smeared all over his face.

    The move to inflate the situation by creating a media circus will ultimately backfire as more people discover that, unfortunately, the Iranian President’s comments, although cloaked in an ever present anti-Israel sentiment, are accurate.

    Ahmadinejad stated simply that millions of people believe there is evidence to suggest the 9/11 attacks were an inside job of some kind – a statement of fact, no matter how repugnant he who delivers it may be.

    US President Barack Obama has declared he is “outraged and offended” by the comments, later giving an interview to the BBC’s Persian service, in which he told the Iranian people that the comments were “offensive and hateful”.

    As ever, the truth of the matter has been distorted beyond recognition as a minority of UN delegates walking out on Ahmadinejad’s speech yesterday was transformed overnight into a full scale revolt by the corporate media.

    The EU, we are told, was so disgusted with Ahmadinejad’s comments that “all representatives of the 27 nations of the EU walked out”.

    However, in 2008 when the European parliament hosted a debate on the events of 9/11, the evidence that contradicts the official explanation and the reasons why an independent investigation should be carried out, there was no outcry whatsoever.

    When European member of parliament Giulietto Chiesa and former German defence minister Andreas von Bulow led the debate on 9/11 inconsistencies, no one walked out and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines, because there was no opportunity to smear and discredit the issue based on the characters of those raising it.

    Similarly, when prominent Japanese politician Yukihisa Fujita held debates and spoke on questions surrounding 9/11, prompting Parliamentarians of various countries to consider asking the UN to investigate, no establishment politicians denounced him and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.

    When the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, stated that in his view 9/11 was a vast intelligence operation overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus, the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.

    When several members of the officially appointed 9/11 Commission stated that the intelligence apparatus and the US government had actively obstructed their investigation, no establishment politicians expressed outrage and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.

    When military leaders, scientists, engineers, architects, legal professionals, first responders, family members and all of the other thousands of individuals listed in this article questioned the US government’s explanation of 9/11, the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.

    “that the United States was in any way responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks or that the majority of people in the US believe this to be the case, is outrageous and unacceptable.” said EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton today.

    Whether you believe the official explanation of 9/11 or not, it is clear from multiple polls and surveys conducted over the past few years that a majority of Americans do question it, they do want an independent investigation and they do blame elements of their own government. These are simply facts:

    CNN Poll: 89% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11

    New Zogby Poll: 51% Of Americans Want New 9/11 Investigation

    Scientific Poll: 84% Say 9/11 Is A Cover Up

    Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

    Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation

    Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe Government Complicity in 9/11

    The media hyped controversy rumbles on with British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to “denounce” Ahmadinejad at the UN today following the Iranian premier’s comments yesterday.

    “…once again, an issue of grave global concern has been overshadowed by the bizarre, offensive and attention-grabbing pronouncements by President Ahmadinejad from this podium yesterday. His remarks were intended to distract attention from Iran’s obligations and to generate media headlines. They deserve to do neither.” Clegg’s speech reads.

    If Clegg does not want headlines created why has he elected to switch his entire speech around thus creating them?

    “…the Iranian president said there was evidence that the US government had at least supported the attacks, including passports in the rubble of the twin towers of men who had been involved with US officials, while no trace of the alleged suicide attackers was retrieved.” The London Guardian article states.

    This paragraph is very interesting, because the Guardian journalist seems to think Ahmadinejad is implying that the evidence for elements of the US government being involved in the attacks consists of some passports found in the rubble, and that this is part of the “conspiracy theory”.

    In actual fact what Ahmadinejad actually means is that the evidence that Islamic extremists carried out the attacks consisted of passports found in the rubble. That implausible claim forms part of the official version of events.

    Indeed, if you actually read what Ahmadinejad said, it becomes clear that the point of his speech was to connect the 9/11 attacks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still ongoing. No matter how much you may abhor Ahmadinejad, with good cause, this is a key point that is rarely, if ever, reiterated at international summits by politicians.

    Without 9/11 as justification there would have certainly been no war in Afghanistan, and little international support for the invasion of Iraq. In accounting for the fallout of these wars of aggression, 9/11 must therefore be addressed. A thorough independent investigation of what happened on 9/11, how the attacks were carried out and by whom should have been the very least we could have expected – instead, it is now accepted as the norm that it is somehow “offensive”, “bizarre” or “hateful” to ask for a plausible explanation of the events, or even to talk about it.

    This mindset is one step away from erasing the event from history altogether. It only serves to create even more suspicion that in turn drives people to explore the evidence and discover the truth for themselves.

    You are expected to simply accept the fact that there are hundreds of thousands, most likely millions, of innocent Afghans and Iraqis now dead ultimately because of what happened on 9/11. If you do not unquestioningly accept that as just, you are “bizarre” or “offensive”.

    In a widely covered press conference today, the Iranian President repeated his comments, noting:

    “I did not pass judgment but don’t you feel that the time has come to have a fact finding committee?”

    He also lashed out at the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an overreaction to the attacks.

    “The Americans should not occupy the entire Middle East… bomb wedding parties… annihilate an entire village just because one terrorist is hiding there.”

    That a tinpot dictator with a disgusting record on human rights speaks more sense on this issue than our elected leaders is truly pitiful.

    Even if you wholeheartedly accept the official explanation of 9/11, it still cannot be made to jive with the attack on Afghanistan. The official story goes that the hijackers were trained at US air bases and the 9/11 plot was conceived in Europe. Furthermore, the Taliban had agreed to co-operate with the US government and extradite Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 and then again immediately following 9/11.

    Nevertheless, if you dare to ask why Afghanistan was attacked following 9/11, that is “offensive” and you are “bizarre” and “hateful”.

    In reality, the most “bizarre” thing to emerge from this sorry affair is the reaction of the establishment, in its underestimation of the public desire to understand and trace the source of a decade of intense global conflict and a vast economic and moral degradation within society.

    The more our so called politicians whine and posture, the more guilty they look.

    It is clear that the seizure upon Ahmadinejad’s comments by the establishment and the intense media circus now surrounding the story is an attempt to do two things, garner support for continued sanctions against Iran, and to smear those who continue to ask questions about 9/11 and the subsequent wars of aggression in the middle east by associating them with a manufactured “enemy” of the free world.


    Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.


  5. #5

    Amazing Speech by Ahmadinejad at the UN on 9/24!

    I listened to most of this speech last night...he not only calls the US out on the 9/11 attack (that either they planned it and did it, OR they knew about it and didn't stop it)...then he went on to talk about the colonialism, greed and materialism which motivated the attack. Later on, he talks about how mankind should be loving toward one another and stop the wars, and that all nuclear weapons should be banned worldwide.

    Honestly, he made more sense than any politician I'd heard in a long time...it was a very high vibrational speech, inspiring and truthful. And of course all of the western countries stormed out of the room, and today Obama criticizes the speech. Sigh. The world is turned upside down, when I am siding with Muslim extremists. But so it is.

  6. #6

    Applause for Ahmadinejad

    09-25-2010 02:48 AM

    'He was greeted by applause when he walked into the* United Nations General Assembly, and applauded again, even after questioning 9/11 and claiming that the American government may have been behind the attack. That’s right, applauded after questioning the motivation for the terrorist attacks, who was* responsible for them, and essentially suggesting they were a U.S.* plot.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a variety of claims over the years during his appearances here, but he never* has gone this far when talking about 9/11. During his General Assembly address, the Iranian President called for a “U.N. fact finding group” to investigate 9/11.

    He also said that ”the majority of the American people* as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime".'

    Read more: Applause for Ahmadinejad

Similar Threads

  1. Free speech versus hate speech
    By Unhypnotized in forum World News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 12:04 AM

Tags for this Thread