President Ahmadinejad new ally of 9/11 Truthers

[bill smith]

So what was I supposed to see in that video? The fellow in the video is Tom Feeney and you must know there are - shall we say - irregularities in his accusations. From a source as simple as Wikipedia you can find,





Really? I never heard the term until I started posting here. But then I am a pseudo-intellectual wannabe, after all. So I Googled the term and what da' ya' know, almost all the top hits come from Truther sites. I suspect you think it's colloquial English because all your buddies are stuck in the same groove.

Did you really think you were going to find 'false flag operation' on a NWO site Scott ? Sheesh...

 

[jammonius]

This just in. First, it was truthers vociferously defending Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, blaming everything on the Bush administration.

Now, they have a new friend and ally - Iran's President....politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows

'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States a “big fabrication” that was used to justify the U.S. war on terrorism, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West and Israel, made the comment in a meeting with Intelligence Ministry personnel.

It came amid escalating tension in the long-running dispute between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear program, with the United States pushing for new UN sanctions against the major oil producer.

Mr. Ahmadinejad described the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, as a “complicated intelligence scenario and act.”

He added: “The Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan.” Mr. Ahmadinejad did not elaborate.'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-calls-911-a-big-fabrication/article1492344/

Greetings alienentity

Thank you for posting up an interesting and thought provoking topic. I hope it results in a thorough going, reasoned and polite discussion. Given the nature of your phrasing, which can fairly be characterized as establishing an "us" versus "them" xenophobic premise, the "reasoned" and the "polite" part might be a bit difficult, but worth a try I would think.

You may have put us into a hole here from which the rules of reason will not be able to extract us from (no pun intended), but we'll see what happens. I can be specific about the xenophobia based on the following examples:

"First, it was truthers vociferously defending Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, blaming everything on the Bush administration."

["Them" versus "Us"]

"Mr. Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West and Israel, made the comment in a meeting with Intelligence Ministry personnel."

["Us = US, West, Israel; "Them" equal "Ahmadinejad and Iran Intelliegence]

I have been engaged for the last few days in the 20+ page "Flight 93" discussion, that I think you also contributed to. The irony is that in that discussion, the level of proof that has been put forward by supporters of the common storyline of what happened on 9/11, as it pertains to Shanksville, is rather low, I think. Almost any photo will do as proof and almost any source, including, for instance, "myspace" is considered convincing of claims that are as important as DNA claims, for instance.

I think we can fairly use the Flight 93 thread as a guide in being able to say that the level of proof it takes to convince Americans of the truth of 9/11 might, in reality, be lower than the level of proof required to convince that part of the population of planet earth that are not Americans of the truth of the common storyline of 9/11.

I am given to understand that there are a lot of Americans who have little knowledge of the people or places found on planet earth that are not a part of America. However, that said, I understand a lot of Americans can't find Iowa on a map of the central United States for that matter, but that is another story and another issue.

It might, in reality, be difficult to prove the common storyline of 9/11 with objective evidence. Consider the impact of the following on the ability to reasonably prove the common storyline of 9/11:


1--The FBI did a forensic examination of the crash sites that left out certain known ways of proving a jetliner crash, including, by way of example, the failure to take serial numbers of parts and pieces of claimed jetliner debris and that did not result in preserving any jetliner debris in some instances and that did not result in the location of black boxes in some instance.

2--The NTSB was called off the job of investigating the crash sites. (I am not unmindful of the reason given for doing that -- criminal versus accident -- but a reason for doing something does not change the fact the NTSB, with its crash investigation expertise, was called off).

3--The remanant steel from the WTC was said to have been disposed of without proper analysis and based on known objections from numerous sources, including the NYPD and NYFD that the ability to investigate the WTC site was being hampered.

4--The DNA claims are unproven with validated sourcing and validated evidence handling procedures being shown.

5--The 9/11 Commission report is based on Bush and Cheney giving testimony together, not separately, not under oath and not even recorded or reported, thus, what they said about 9/11 to the commssion is unknown and unknowable.

6--NIST did not go far enough in its report to determine "why and how the Twin Towers collapsed" and, instead, limited their report to the timeframe that ended with the "initiation of a probable collapse sequence" and nothing beyond that stage of "initiation."

7--NIST referred to what happened to the WTC complex as a "disproportionate collapse."

8--The only other WTC report, that done by FEMA, is inconclusive as to what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.

9--There is no known video of Flight 93 in the air or crashing.

10--There is no recognizable video of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

11--There is no recongizable video of Flight 11 crashing into WTC 1.

12--The videos of Flight 175 crashing into WTC 2 are questionable, have been questioned and have not never been asserted to be valid by any properly mandated authority.

It is one thing to ridicule and caricature President Ahmadinejad of Iran and that is fairly done. However, if that is to be done, then it might behoove posters to at least have some capacity for looking at the world from the perspective of what might be considered as reasonable and strong evidence of what happened on 9/11 and whether or not the US can prove what happened, not to fawning Americans, but rather, to more skeptical inhabitants of planet earth.

Granted, one way of dealing with this is to say "the hell with what others think." However, that merely brings us back to where we began: Xenophobia.

 

[bill smith]

So what was I supposed to see in that video? The fellow in the video is Tom Feeney and you must know there are - shall we say - irregularities in his accusations. From a source as simple as Wikipedia you can find,





Really? I never heard the term until I started posting here. But then I am a pseudo-intellectual wannabe, after all. So I Googled the term and what da' ya' know, almost all the top hits come from Truther sites. I suspect you think it's colloquial English because all your buddies are stuck in the same groove.

Scott as you know 9/11 is my one and only conspiracy. But talking about the NWO with you made me remember this clip I saw. Is there any truth in this stuff ?

http://www.youtube.com/user/phackqu

 

[jammonius]

In January, Mr. Ahmadinejad termed the attacks “suspicious” and accused the West of seeking to dominate the Middle East.

I wouldnt expect him to say anything different. I am surprised that he hasnt said it much sooner. The current Chilcott inquiry has probably stirred his recent comments knowing full well that Gorgon Brown (yes Gorgon) has been dithering.

Regardless, Ahmadinejad is a nutjob who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He supports terrorists beliefs. He aided maddaS Hussein spirit away his jets. Did he do the same with Iraq's WMD? His people hate him and want him removed. He is a dangerous man who, if permitted to continue on his path, will be in bed with UBL and his ilk. If you think Pakistan (with its nuclear capability) is unstable with its links to terrorists then Iran is another matter. Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to push that button or sell it on. Conventional warefare would be over. Nukes and dirty bombs gallore. The US would be the first to get it. What would the truthers be saying then? Crying for protection and pushing mums and kids under buses is what they would be doing.

I have already said ridicule and caricature of Ahmadinejad is fair game. However, that said, ridicule and caricature of a person questioning the truth of the common storyline of 9/11 does not provide proof of that storyline.

Furthermore, ridicule and caricature on one side invites a like kind response. Posters might benefit by taking a look at how the official version of 9/11 events can be turned to ridicule and caricature against us.

It is afterall, "us" and not "them" who have put forward claims about 9/11 that are not based on rational evidence and, instead, are based solely on manipulated data.

For instance, to say that the Pentagon video of an explosion shows a Boeing 757 in it is nothing more than manipulation, pure and simple, by any reasonable standard.

Do posters think the rest of the world is incapable of biting ridicule and caricature of us when we rely on evidence like that?

 

[jammonius]

The second I got over my shock of realising that 9/11 was an inside job I searched out what America's enemies were saying. Surprisingly little, though I knew that Nations often know stuff about each other that their own populations do not know,

updated 7:49 a.m. ET April 16, 2008

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cast doubt Wednesday over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks, calling it a pretext used to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although Iran has condemned the 2001 al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington in the past, this was the third time in a week that Ahmadinejad questioned the death toll, who was behind the attacks and how it happened.

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in the holy city of Qom.

Under this pretext, the U.S. "attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and since then a million people have been killed only in Iraq," Ahmadinejad said in the speech broadcast live on state-run television.

On the last anniversary of the attacks, the names of 2,750 victims killed in New York were read aloud at a memorial ceremony.

'Inhumane managing of the world'
Last year, Ahmadinejad raised questions over the attacks, saying "what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved" needed to be examined.

Ahmadinejad has said the attack was a result of "mismanaging and inhumane managing of the world by the U.S." and the attack should not be turned into another Holocaust "used for slaughtering people."

Hey bill,

Thanks for the above. The only part that jumps out at me for comment is:

"I searched out what America's enemies were saying. Surprisingly little, though I knew that Nations often know stuff about each other that their own populations do not know..."

I, too, have wondered about that, but I have come to a different conclusion. I think there might actually be a great deal of filtering that takes place. Some of it based solely on language translation and some of it being based on pure censorship.

The clue to this is the outrage expressed against China for censoring the Internet. Usually, when the US accuses some other country of doing something, it is nothing more and nothing less than a reflection on what the US is, itself, doing.

Has anyone here ever tried to say, post up a comment on a website originating from say, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran or North Korea? Just that list of a handful of countries, because it includes China, references about 25% or more of the earth's entire population. Had any luck trying to post there?

 

[Thunder]

911 was a inside job orchestrated and organised by the george bush regime officials to allow the george bush regime officials to invade Irak and Afganistan

prove it

 

[jammonius]

prove it

cheap burden of proof trick

 

[Carll68]

Moe, Ron

Since you used the adjective "cheap" to describe the burden of proof "trick"..conversely, is there a moderate as well as an expensive burden of proof trick?

Requiring proof of unsubstantiated claims, thus making them substantiated, is not a trick champ - cheap or otherwise - rather it is required by any rational person in order to take a statement/claim as fact.

Please go back to high school.

 

[BigAl]

Has anyone here ever tried to say, post up a comment on a website originating from say, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran or North Korea? Just that list of a handful of countries, because it includes China, references about 25% or more of the earth's entire population. Had any luck trying to post there?

Make stuff up much?

What's stopping anyone other than those governments. Why would we block access to Russia, anyway? There are a zillion Chinese websites.

I can access a Cuban (.cu) website. If the U.S. was blocking Cuban internet access, blocking at the domain name level would be part of the firewall.

http://www.cuba.cu/​

A quick traceroute shows that access to the .CU domain is via Venezuela, which tells us that this really is hosted in Cuba or possibly Venezuela, which would also be banned if our government was banning countries we don't like. (Tinet is an international peering company which also indicates that Cuba.cu isn't hosted anywhere but outside the U.S.)

>traceroute cuba.cu

1 FE0-0-12.nav1.nyc.access.net (166.84.1.28) 0.847 ms 0.518 ms 0.610 ms
2 l3v1.nyc.access.net (166.84.66.14) 1.243 ms 1.200 ms 2.361 ms
3 GE2-0-128.sw-a-router.nyc.access.net (166.84.66.9) 2.371 ms 2.897 ms 2.235 ms
4 ge-6-5.car2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.78.189.17) 1.370 ms 1.756 ms 4.394 ms
5 ae-43-99.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.197) 1.437 ms 2.279 ms 1.992 ms
6 tiscali-level3-ge.newyork1.level3.net (4.68.110.78) 1.359 ms 3.052 ms 1.490 ms
7 so-1-0-0.mia11.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.186.237) 31.473 ms 31.273 ms 33.593 ms
8 cenit-gw.ip4.tinet.net (213.200.84.10) 85.489 ms 86.178 ms 86.207 ms
9 core1.net.reacciun.ve (150.188.254.1) 86.664 ms 85.169 ms 85.337 ms
10 172.18.0.9 (172.18.0.9) 85.670 ms 85.363 ms 86.047 ms
11 150.188.8.225 (150.188.8.225) 86.585 ms 86.433 ms 85.942 ms

I suspect you know as much about how the Internet works as you do about jet engines and hubcaps.

 

[bill smith]

Hey bill,

Thanks for the above. The only part that jumps out at me for comment is:

"I searched out what America's enemies were saying. Surprisingly little, though I knew that Nations often know stuff about each other that their own populations do not know..."

I, too, have wondered about that, but I have come to a different conclusion. I think there might actually be a great deal of filtering that takes place. Some of it based solely on language translation and some of it being based on pure censorship.

The clue to this is the outrage expressed against China for censoring the Internet. Usually, when the US accuses some other country of doing something, it is nothing more and nothing less than a reflection on what the US is, itself, doing.

Has anyone here ever tried to say, post up a comment on a website originating from say, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran or North Korea? Just that list of a handful of countries, because it includes China, references about 25% or more of the earth's entire population. Had any luck trying to post there?

I'm sure that a vast amount of filtering takes place but Nations are always vigilent for the shenanigans of other Nations. That's what their intelligence services are for. So they often know stuff that is going on in each others countries that the public there does not. Even tdetails of things like 9/11. So when those guys speak, I always listen.

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

 

[BigAl]

cheap burden of proof trick

Your specialty. You reject citations from primary sources for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I'm sure that a vast amount of filtering takes place but Nations are always vigilent for the shenanigans of other Nations. That's what their intelligence services are for. So they often know stuff that is going on in each others countries that the public there does not. Even tdetails of things like 9/11. So when those guys speak, I always listen.

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

That's what I've been telling people for years about Area 51 and the reptoids. Anti-gravity was going nowhere until the aliens showed us how. And psychic weapon research had to be dropped by the Soviets. Good thing the reptoids and the grays don't have to rely on it.

 

[bill smith]

That's what I've been telling people for years about Area 51 and the reptoids. Anti-gravity was going nowhere until the aliens showed us how. And psychic weapon research had to be dropped by the Soviets. Good thing the reptoids and the grays don't have to rely on it.

Jeez Scott surely you're not going to get into the inside jobby-job and superdupernanothermite stuff again are you ?

 

[Jackanory]

cheap burden of proof trick

Your ignorance is transparent. I wonder what is on the cards tomorrow? The nutjob head of Iran in a meeting with the dithering leaders of Afghanistan. Do you think he is going to try and convice the Afghans that 911 was an inside jobby job? Hey Mr Karzi look at this. Look at all this 'evidence' on the internet.

What would you expect the Afghans to do and say? He will be asked to point to his sources of evidence. LOL. I should imagine that after the fits of giggles he will be asked to show why he believes that ray beams hit the WTC. That ninjas planted therm*te into WTC? That 77 did a fly by? That 93 was shot down or landed in a secret location, off loaded its passengers and crew? What do you think the Afghans are going to say? What do you think the Taliban are going to say?

Cheap burden of proof trick! lol.

 

[jammonius]

Since you used the adjective "cheap" to describe the burden of proof "trick"..conversely, is there a moderate as well as an expensive burden of proof trick?

Requiring proof of unsubstantiated claims, thus making them substantiated, is not a trick champ - cheap or otherwise - rather it is required by any rational person in order to take a statement/claim as fact.

Please go back to high school.

carll68,

I detect a little background might be in order. parky and I have a well-established, ongoing posting relationship involving various proof related items. This is not the first time I have referred to a post of parky's as a "burden of proof" trick, cheap or otherwise. It is cheap, in my view, because parky uses the trick on what I would call a "frequent" basis, it being understood, in advance, that I am not here proposing a count of the times parky has done so and whether or not that count can be said to be frequent in fact.

I am speaking conversationally, as one might say for perspective purposes.

This is a thread about Ahmadinejad and the effect of his having uttered support statements for what is called 9/11 truth.

The burden of proving what happened on 9/11, in that context, is not on one side any moreso than it is upon the other and it is, therefore, cheap to try to make it as such.

Furthermore, it is also cheap in that proof is ordinarily understood as being a postive burden, not a negative one. Thus, for those who want to ridicule Ahmadinejad for supporting 9/11 truth, there exists a reasonable burden to show that the official storyline of 9/11 is valid.

I, personally, have listed 12 unanswered reasons why the official storyline is invalid, including, by way of example, the rather strong declaration that claimed, in substance, that evidence was either not collected, tampered with or destroyed and that the investigations that were done were slipshod.

That means that those who question 9/11 have a valid basis to do so; i.e., the lack of confirmation of the official storyline.

So, indeed, parky seeks to shift the burden so that the discussion then bottoms out on claims that those who oppose the official storyline cannot prove a negative assertion.

Do you think for one minute, even, that from an international perspective (rather than an American one) those who shift the burden to truthers are not ridiculed for doing so?

 

[Jackanory]

carll68,

I detect a little background might be in order. parky and I have a well-established, ongoing posting relationship involving various proof related items. This is not the first time I have referred to a post of his as a "burden of proof" trick, cheap or otherwise. It is cheap, in my view, because parky uses the trick on what I would call a "frequent" basis, it being understood, in advance, that I am not here proposing a count of the times he has done so and whether or not that count can be said to be frequent in fact.

I am speaking conversationally, as one might say for perspective purposes.

this is a thread about Ahmadinejad and the effect of his having uttered support statements for what is called 9/11 truth.

The burden of proving what happened on 9/11, in that context, is not on one side any moreso than it is upon the other and it is, therefore, cheap to try to make it as such.

Furthermore, it is also cheap in that proof is ordinarily understood as being a postive burden, not a negative one. Thus, for those who want to ridicule Ahmadinejad for supporting 9/11 truth, there exists a reasonable burden to show that the official storyline of 9/11 is valid.

I, personally, have listed 12 unanswered reasons why the official storyline is invalid, including, by way of example, the rather strong declarations that claimed, in substance, that evidence was either not collected, tampered with or destroyed and that the investigations were slipshod.

That means that those who question 9/11 have a valid basis to do so; i.e., the lack of confirmation of the official storyline.

So, indeed, parky seeks to shift the burden so that the discussion then bottoms out on claims that those who oppose the official storyline cannot prove a negative assertion.

Do you think for one minute, even, that from an international perspective (rather than an American one) those who shift the burden to truthers are not ridiculed for doing so?

Sex up your responses as much as you like. Talk as much nonesense as you like. It all come from ignorance and lies. Any conclusion you come too is therefore mute and irrelevent. The basis of your arguements are founded on lies and dumb ideas. Any discussion about your conclusions thereafter is purely entertainment.

 

[Seymour Butz]

They cannot completely stop critical thinkers like me .

Please, somebody needs to Stundie this......

 

[jammonius]

Sex up your responses as much as you like. Talk as much nonesense as you like. It all come from ignorance and lies. Any conclusion you come too is therefore mute and irrelevent. The basis of your arguements are founded on lies and dumb ideas. Any discussion about your conclusions thereafter is purely entertainment.

I wonder what impact diatribes like the above have upon opinion forming amongst those who are neutral and who do not favor one side or the other?

Do you think that your emotional rant constitutes proof of something; if so, what?

 

[bill smith]

Please, somebody needs to Stundie this......

I would wonder why I cannot have the banana Seymour. You and your colleagues here would not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...www.911blogger.com/&hl=en&v=KZeiSKnhOBc&gl=US

 

[angrysoba]

Has anyone here ever tried to say, post up a comment on a website originating from say, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran or North Korea? Just that list of a handful of countries, because it includes China, references about 25% or more of the earth's entire population. Had any luck trying to post there?

You absolutely won't be able to post a comment on a North Korean chat forum because they don't exist and no one in North Korea has access to the Internet.

Believe it or not, North Korean state media says that it was terrorist attack against the US and condemned it as such without even a sly "chickens coming home to roost" dig.

But, it's a great idea for Steven Jones and Richard Gage to get on a plane to Pyongyang and see what the university there has to make of their research. Do you think they'll do it?