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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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”.
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
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. 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!”
“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? …”
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
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.
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 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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
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:
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:
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
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.
…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.
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”.
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 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:
“…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”.
“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.
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.
'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".'