U.S. walks out on Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech after 9/11 allegation (Updated w/ AP quotes)

[JudyInTheHeartland]

Source: USA Today

In a display of diplomatic theatrics at the United Nations, the U.S. delegation walked out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech when he raised speculation that the Sept. 11 terror attacks were orchestrated by the United States to protect Israel.

He made the statement as he attacked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also spoke of threats by U.S. religious groups to burn the Quran, the Muslim holy book, calling that an act of "evil," the Associated Press writes. He held up a Quran, saying "the truth cannot be burned."

---

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

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

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly.

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

The U.S. delegation issued this statement in response: "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."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39331594/ns/world_news/

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/09/us-walks-out-on-ahmadinejads-un-speech-after-911-allegation/1

[Ian David]

1. Did he also say homosexuality is caused by juice boxes and kettle corn? n/t

[timo]

44. ?????????

what??!?!?!?!?!? kettle korn will make me gay??? shit I love that stuff!!!

[Ian David]

51. That's what 9/11 Troofer Alex Jones said the other day. n/t

[Evasporque]

89. Empty jucie boxes, kettle corn bags litter Ahmedinajhad's hotel room...nt

[Deep13]

2. "the truth cannot be burned."

He wouldn't know the truth if it marched in the streets protesting a rigged election.

[ORDagnabbit]

13. you talking about us or iran?

[Deep13]

16. I'm talking about Iran.

I already know about OH and FL. That doesn't change the fact that what's-his-name rigged the election there.

[ORDagnabbit]

17. btw a little off topic you know when the last time Iran attacked another country was?

[iamthebandfanman]

30. lmao

seriously, stop trying to defend someone whos crazy.

i feel for the iranian people, and would be against any action against iran..

but please, youre being silly.

the guys nuts, whether that plays into your politics or not.


just because someone doesnt like him, doesnt mean they are a warmonger.

[molly77]

33. Marginalization by name calling.

Children do that a lot.

[MrBig]

50. +1

I'm sick of people defending that guy as if he's a liberal or something. He's as right wing as W is, just a different culture and different religion.

[Phil The Cat]

32. With their own standing army

Or by proxy?

The Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel makes a good case for 2006, if not even more recently!

Quote from ORDagnabbit:

> "btw a little off topic you know when the last time Iran attacked another country was?"

[Abq_Sarah]

53. 1979.

[Uncle Joe]

105. I'm not defending this guy, but Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Iran in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War

After Khomeini gained power, skirmishes between Iraq and revolutionary Iran occurred for ten months over the sovereignty of the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides the two countries. During this period, Saddam Hussein publicly maintained that it was in Iraq's interest not to engage with Iran, and that it was in the interests of both nations to maintain peaceful relations. However, in a private meeting with Salah Omar Al-Ali, Iraq's permanent ambassador to the United Nations, he revealed that he intended to invade and occupy a large part of Iran within months. Later (probably to appeal for support from the United States and most Western nations), he would make toppling the Islamic government one of his intentions as well. Iraq invaded Iran, first attacking Mehrabad Airport of Tehran and then entering the oil-rich Iranian land of Khuzestan, which also has a sizable Arab minority, on 22 September 1980 and declared it a new province of Iraq. With the support of the Arab states, the United States, and Europe, and heavily financed by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein had become "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran. The only exception was The Soviet Union, who initially refused to supply Iraq on the basis of Neutrality in the conflict, although in his memoirs, Mikhail Gorbachev claimed that Leonid Brezhnev refused to aid Saddam over infuriation of Saddam's treatment of Iraqi Communists. Consequently, many viewed Iraq as "an agent of the civilized world".<36> The blatant disregard of international law and violations of international borders were ignored. Instead Iraq received economic and military support from its allies, who conveniently overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians and Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.<36>

In the first days of the war, there was heavy ground fighting around strategic ports as Iraq launched an attack on Khuzestan. After making some initial gains, Iraq's troops began to suffer losses from human wave attacks by Iran. By 1982, Iraq was on the defensive and looking for ways to end the war.

[hack89]

79. It is ongoing via proxy armies in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. nt

[YOY]

3. He is such a total Wanker.

Bush's Middle East counterpart.

Never met an educated Iranian who liked him. They all claim he's there for the uneducated villagers...and it appears very much just that.

He would love nothing more than to goad us into a War with them. One we could not win and that would destroy us because we are so strapped for cash right now on our current wastes of time, money, and lives. That same war would bolster his support back home as the great satan comes to do exactly as he said it would.

[chimpymustgo]

5. He may be, but he's speaking some truth too many just don't want to hear.

and not just about 9/11...but the US's warmongering ways.

[YOY]

6. It's not tough and many others, with far nobler intentions, have done it.

Just because the theocratic little dongspank is saying it to further his own warped agenda doesn't make it allright.

We may be doing bad in the world, but what he and his religious assmonkey pals invite is no better.

Actually, I envision much worse if they get what they want. MUCH WORSE. (And I'm not talking about the Iranian people...just this monster and his priestly pals.)

As for the 9/11 "truths"...yeah...let's leave that alone here at DU. Not with a 10 foot pole.

[RZM]

7. I think people don't want to hear his stuff about 9/11

precisely because it's NOT true.

[ixion]

10. Well, that's the problem. The 'official' story is most obviously not true

and is riddled with logical issues, and requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief.

Perhaps if they had been more honest during the white-wash, er, 'investigation', maybe then this wouldn't be an issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. LOL

Do you buy ahmadinejad's holocaust denial too?

[polly7]

52. About as much as Bush's yellow-cake, floating mushroom clouds.

Every nation seems to have it's nut-cases. Some just have more oil.

[Nihil]

86. Ouch.

> Every nation seems to have its nut-cases. Some just have more oil.

The truth hurts at times doesn't it?

[polly7]

88. It must. But it doesn't hurt me.

??? Sorry you're just feeling it now. The rest of the world knew all that years ago.

[Nihil]

99. That particular truth doesn't hurt me either

I was just wincing on behalf of those who were smacked.

(Sorry for the confusion :hi: )

[ixion]

94. I believe ahmadinejad's holocaust rot as much as I believe the 'official' narrative on 911

Which is to say, not in the slightest.

[rayofreason]

102. So you are batting 500...

...on the moron index.

What is your take on the moon landings? Real or fake?

[ixion]

110. And you're batting 1000 on snark and BS

so I see no reason to discuss anything with you.

[rayofreason]

31. The only thing I need to suspend...

...is the belief that "truthers" have a ounce of brains between the ears.

[boppers]

76. 'that "truthers" have a ounce of brains between the ears'

:rofl:

[ixion]

92. Indeed. Why should you trouble your 'beautiful mind' with silly things like physics and chemistry

when you can live in fantasy land. :eyes:

[rayofreason]

100. Physics?

Want to talk physics? You really have no clue. The so-called "physics" evidence that truthers provide is laughable. No need to go through them all here since they have been dealt with effectively.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

And back to the question of physics, here is a challenge - bring up your favorite 9-11 physics topic and we will see who knows physics or not.

[ixion]

109. Let's start with Chemistry

You go and get some airplane fuel and all the wood you want, and then put insulated, commercial grade steel right on top of the fire, and you tell me when it melts.

[rayofreason]

112. ROFLMAO!

Oh, the "fire doesn't melt steel" bit. What a laugh! Way to go embarrassing yourself!!! In public too! What is more you don't even know the difference between physics and chemistry! (see below the bold)

Yours is a foolish echo of the claim discussed by Popular Mechanics.

Popular Mechanics became involved in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories in the fall of 2004, after an advertisement ran in the New York Times for the book Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, demanding that the 9/11 investigation be reopened. Hufschmid's book includes a number of tangible claims regarding 9/11. It states, for example, that because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the fires in the World Trade Center towers could not have caused their collapse. And it claims ample evidence exists to show that demolition-style explosives were prepositioned in the buildings.

n every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified.

Also from the article

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat

What is more, the loss of steel strength discussed here is not due to chemistry because the steel does not undergo a chemical reaction. The change in steel strength as a function of temperature is properly viewed as being in the domain of physics, not chemistry.

Talk about coming unarmed to an intellectual gunfight. But how could it be otherwise for a truther?

[ixion]

113. Hey, you buy into that rubbish all you want.

And stay snarky and ignorant.

Oh, and try and get out of your parent's basement once in a while. The sunlight will do you good.

Thus far, you've quoted a (*snicker*) Popular Mechanics magazine article... twice. My, my, look at you go. :eyes:

FYI: I read that article when it came out, so you don't need to keep parroting it. If you can't tell the difference between a natural collapse (which is not tidy), and a controlled demolition (which the collapse of the towers obviously was) then I really can't help you.

Weakened steel near the top of a building does not cause it to collapse -- twice -- into it's own footprint.

[Pavulon]

125. So what does. Linear Shaped Charge, the fucking invisible airplane proof kind that leave no copper

trace no explosive residue. Ever seen metal cut with plasma or a copper jet. I have. Pretty fucking obvious, even to retard troofer types. You have to rip walls out to clamp charges onto support structure. I guess the same guys who ripped the building apart called all the Jews and told them to stay home that day too.

It is GLARING when you blast liquid metal at 15,000 FPS and god knows how many PSI into an I beam. Jumps right out.

[rayofreason]

131. I got a 1000 in snark you know.

But your snark has a long way to go. *snicker* ???? Is that the best you can do?

The fact that you read the Popular Mechanics article, and after reading it you still want to trot out the canard that "the steel didn't melt", not accepting the fact that at the temperature of burning jet fuel steel loses much of its structural integrity, just goes to show what we all know. For truthers, facts and reality don't matter. It is a religious question and faith heeds no contradiction. Actually, it is good to air this publicly so that all can see the face of fundamentalism, naked and clinging to a pile of discredited rubbish.

By the way, gravity points straight down and produces no torque since the cross product between g and r is zero (know any physics?) When a building starts to collapse it does fall straight down since there is no tangential component of the force to produce acceleration perpendicular to the vertical direction. Buildings are designed to resist static forces, but when a floor falls and hits the floor below, the impulse produces a much larger force than the weight of the floor. In free fall a floor will fall from rest a distance of 3 meters in about .78 seconds. It will be stopped by the floor below it in, say, 1/10 that time. So the upward force that the bottom floor exerts on the top floor to stop it (and all the floors above falling with it) will be 10 times the weight of the upper floors. The bottom floor will feel the a downward force of the same magnitude from the top floors - a force well outside of design limits. So the building collapses. And a tall building collapses straight down.

And you still have not answered my question: Moon landings - real or faked? Inquiring minds want to know.

[krispos42]

139. The information is consistant with what I learned in college

...when I was going for a mechanical engineering degree. Pre-9/11.


And large structures don't have the structural integrity to fall over like a tree trunk, so when they collapse they aren't going to fall too far from the footprint anyway, regardless of the means of destruction. The buildings were mostly empty space and composed of segments of steel beams welded or riveted together, and concrete sections that were inflexable and brittle. Welds and rivets are stress-concentration points AND points of mechanical weakness. Once it starts to break apart, it is going to disintigrate into the individual pieces that make up the whole.

In the case of the towers, the impact points physically damaged the structure, creating stress concentration points as the load-bearing matrix was rerouted. Steel strain-hardens as it is bent, so the high-stess points would have actually gotten somewhat stronger as the structure flexed to support the static load at a new equilibrium point. But the widespread fires caused annealing and softening of the steel, constantly making the equilibrium point re-establish itself further and further from "normal". Thermal expansion and the constantly changing equilibrium stressed the concrete, which is brittle and does not strain-harden, until something major finally gives. The shock of the breakage causes an immediate redistribution of the load, which breaks something else, and the whole thing chain-reacts. Everything above the impact point starts moving downward, and when enough of it slams into the impact point, the rest of the structure collapses from the top down as momentum and kinetic energy add to the static load and overwhelm it.


If the planes had hit but there had been no fire, or there had been a fire but no impacts, the buildings would not have collapsed.


MY questions about 9/11 have to do with the administrations ineptitude beforehand and rapid power consolidation afterwards. The Patriot Act had an awful lot of interesting and useful things in it for being cobbled together so quickly, for example. I wonder how long it was REALLY being worked on, and how those people merged it with the Cheney/Rumsfeld theory of executive-branch unilateralism.

ETA: It's also why the tower hit 2nd collapsed first. The impact point had far more weight on it because the hit was at a lower elevation and was also more severe due to the plane moving significantly faster.

[merqz]

120. lol. It's the "melted steel" canard

Seriously?

[Pavulon]

123. Be sure you get a 2000 ton hydraulic press

to add a little pressure. Hey what happens to metal when it gets warm and is under load? It gets stronger right? Ignorant bullshit.

I have never meet one of these assholes in real life but it would be fun to get a bunch of drunk ex military guys who currently work on airframes and reactor pressure vessels to stick a foot up the ass of someone proffering this trash in public.

[procopia]

95. It's what GWB would have you believe

Why question it, right?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[procopia]

108. Just understand that you don't know what happened on 9/11

unless you were one of the perpetrators. You don't know, because no conclusive or even believable proof was ever presented for the official story. Furthermore, known motive, means, foreknowledge, and destruction of evidence are ample reasons to question it.

Your Hearst-published Popular Mechanics link does not debunk; it only knocks down hand picked straw men, and has been easily debunked many times itself.

Those who believe there are no conspiracy theories are just as deluded as those who believe everything is.

[rayofreason]

111. LOL!!!!!

Your wrote Those who believe there are no conspiracy theories are just as deluded as those who believe everything is.

Oh, I certainly believe that there ARE conspiracy theories, especially about 9-11, and that said theories are nonsense.

You also wrote Popular Mechanics...has been easily debunked many times itself.

Really? Got a link? Maybe to some nutcases who claim steel doesn't melt or lose structural integrity under high temperature? PULEEEZZZ! The Popular Mechanics article is spot on, so if you want to dispute one the points, any of them, bring it on. To quote the Popular Mechanics article -

In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified.

Only morons believe otherwise, just like the morons who think the moon landings were faked. What you think about the moon landings? We wouldn't happen to have a two-fer with a troofer, would we?

[procopia]

118. You've got nothing

Baseless assertion: "Oh, I certainly believe that there ARE conspiracy theories, especially about 9-11, and that said theories are nonsense."

Baseless assertion: "The Popular Mechanics article is spot on,"

Appeal to ridicule logical fallacy: "Really? Got a link? Maybe to some nutcases who claim steel doesn't melt or lose structural integrity under high temperature? PULEEEZZZ!"

That claim and others are addressed here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Appeal to ridicule logical fallacy: "Only morons believe otherwise, just like the morons who think the moon landings were faked."

You have no facts, only LOLs, baseless assertions and appeal to ridicule logical fallacies. I'm an adult; your juvenile tactics won't work with me.

[rayofreason]

132. Flatearthers...

...like to talk about baseless assertions as well.

In any case, you really are a sloppy polemicist. I quote:

Baseless assertion: "Oh, I certainly believe that there ARE conspiracy theories, especially about 9-11, and that said theories are nonsense."

My statement of MY belief is an incontrovertible assertion since only I can state with any certainty what I believe. So your labeling it as a Baseless assertion: is 100% wrong. Moreover, my statement was in response to your original statement

Those who believe there are no conspiracy theories are just as deluded as those who believe everything is.

Note that you do not say Those who believe there are no conspiracies..., rather you say Those who believe there are no conspiracy theories..., which is a rather different thing. And again, I DO believe that there are conspiracy theories. I might excuse you once for a foolishly worded post, easily refuted on its face value, but that you continue with such ludicrous statement that would refer to my ability to make an unimpeachable statement about my own belief as a "baseless assertion" only highlights the poor quality of your intellect as displayed in this discussion.

Back to the issue of conspiracy theories, in fact, you are proof positive that conspiracy theories exist. And only a fool would continue to deny the evidence of same. Which is the perfect segue to your "911research" link. Fools indeed. But no amount of evidence or argument will convince the faithful, because it is an issue of faith, not reason. The moon landing deniers are cut from the same cloth.

And I note that you did not answer my question about your views on the moon landings - real or faked?

[procopia]

136. Flat earthers were also dead certain of their theory...

and also ridiculed those who disagreed with them.

Another baseless assertion: "Fools indeed"

I repeat, you do not know what happened on 9/11 unless you were a perpetrator. The fools are not those who question; the fools are the ones who think they know.

[rayofreason]

138. "I'm only asking questions"

Channeling Glen Beck, are you? There are things I know. Like the charge of an electron (1.6E-19 C). And that truther myths will never die for the faithful.

Regarding ridicule, some targets make it so easy. Sorry, but on a few subjects, particularly those dealing with science, I have no patience.

[procopia]

140. Is it wrong to ask questions?

"Regarding ridicule, some targets make it so easy."

Right, because you are dead certain about what happened on 9/11...

[ProgressiveMajority]

155. +1

It's nice to see that there are people here on DU who are willing to look critically at all this stuff. A damn site better than Freepers who pillory anyone who takes a critical approach to the official 9/11 story.

[merqz]

121. They aren't strawmen. For example, just a few posts ago

we yet again heard the "melted steel" claim. That is not a strawman, for example. Google "melted steel" and 9/11 and tell me it's a strawman. And the others aren't either.

[procopia]

129. Melted steel was claimed in two different contexts, but--

it is easily debunked in one of them, making it a strawman:

Popular Mechanics: CLAIM: ... The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. ...

Jim Hoffman: The article implies that skeptics' criticism of the official account that fires weakened the towers' structures is based on the erroneous assumption that the official story requires that the fires melted the steel.

In fact, the fire-melts-steel claim was first introduced by apologists for the official story within days of the attack. On September 13, the BBC quoted "structural engineer" Chris Wise as saying:
It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other. <23>

Even in attacking this straw-man claim, PM misrepresents the physics of fires, claiming Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[procopia]

135. You're a structural engineer?

The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’ “totality and uniformity” and the fact that the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down. The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” writes
Howard Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ...small, short-duration fires.”

The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heatweakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric and
local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A
Swedish naval architect working in France, Björkman maintains that
failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the
direction of the local collapse.”

William Rice, P.E., a Vermont structural engineer, expects fire-induced failures to be “tilting, erratic and twisting.” while Ronald Brookman, S.E., a licensed structural engineer from Novato, California, figures on “a partial collapse to the side.” Symmetrical collapse requires
simultaneous failure of all supporting columns, notes Charles Pegelow. “How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant?” Pegelow has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings. His opinion: “Fires could not do that.”

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

[krispos42]

141. Things fail nearly-simultaniously all the time

It is how, for example, a piece of rope breaks under a steadily-increasing load. As the strain on a rope increases, individual strands start breaking. Every time one breaks, all of the others have to take up more slack, which will cause another strand or two to break until, in fairly short order, the rope snaps.

The structure held together to the absolute physical maximum. Then the individual components in the structure broke, causing others that were already at maximum to break as well and in a very short time span.

After the impacts, the core columns were no longer carrying an equally-distributed load. The load was shifted and concentrated by physical damage, and then made worse by fire and annealing of the steel. The core columns didn't collapse in the same instant; there was a short period of time where they collapsed in sequence.

[procopia]

144. No, they don't.

No other fire damaged skyscraper has ever completely and symmetrically collapsed. The only time large building supports have ever failed simultaneously were in controlled demolitions. And yet it happened 3 times on 9/11!

"Then the individual components in the structure broke, causing others that were already at maximum to break as well and in a very short time span."

In that case, the collapse would have been asymmetrical. That's the point structural engineers have made. The damaged columns wouldn't cause the undamaged ones to break unless they were being dragged down in an asymmetrical collapse.

[krispos42]

152. It was fire plus impact.

I stated in another post in this thread that if had just been fire, the building would not have collapsed because any softening of the structural steel would have been well within the safety margins built into the structure. The amount of stress each individual beam, joint, weld seam, and rivet was under would have remained unchanged during a fire.

And the collapse wasn't perfectly symmetrical. However, the buildings were large and the collapses well-screened in smoke. A difference of 10 feet vertically in a building over 200 feet on a side is huge in terms of structural stresses, but not that impressive visually.


Everybody must remember that we have lots of practical experience with the end results of buildings on fires but virtually none of building sustaining airliner impacts. The WTC attacks were more analagous to a barrage of heavy artillery slamming into the buildings than a simple fire. If a battleship had fired a couple of broadsides into the same spot of the towers, the collapse would have looked similar. Probably not as much fire, but the same vertical collapse at the level of impact.

[procopia]

153. WTC building 7 had no impact

NIST finally and reluctantly admitted that in the building 7 collapse there was a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." That can only be explained by controlled demolition.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/49

The WTC building collapses were not perfectly symmetrical, but neither are controlled demolitions.

[krispos42]

154. That is true.

I don't know what happened at WTC 7 and can't rule anything out.

[sendero]

116. Anyone that believes..

.. the official story about 911 is a drooling fool. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[rayofreason]

133. Another one crawls out.

Sendero....hmmm...

The wouldn't refer to Sendero Luminoso by chance, would it? Because anyone bat-shit crazy enough to be a troofer would certainly be a big enough idiot to believe the Maoist daydreams of murderous thug, Inca wannabes.

[sendero]

143. No ...

... rocket scientist, it does not. It refers to where I will soon live.

But I reiterate, if you believe the official 911 story, you are a buffoon.

[MikeW]

42. obviously LOL

[hack89]

80. Can you believe that Obama is covering up 911?

makes you wonder what his involvement was.

[rayofreason]

103. ROFLMAO! n/t

[molly77]

34. Maybe if we had had a real investigation

there would not have been so many questions left unanswered. bill clinton's sex life got huge investigations...huge money spent. There were no questions after it was all over.No stone left unturned.

[KDLarsen]

49. A real investigation?

What was wrong with PETTBOM?

[hack89]

81. By who? nt

[hack89]

78. And the Holocaust - don't forget the Holocaust.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: (just in case)

[leftynyc]

4. He's looking to goad either

the US or Israel into an attack so he can play martyr. I'm sick to death of that man.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Blame the victim? Now that's a far-out a theory.

[RZM]

20. Victim of what?

The US and Israeli attack that hasn't happened?

[chimpymustgo]

27. The attack leftnyc says he's GOADING the US and Israel into..so he can be a martyr.

I'm calling bullshit.

[Freetradesucks]

55. If Obama decides we need to take military action

to deal with this anti-semitic religious lunatic, I will stand behind him 100%

The man is a bigot, and hateful. He has called for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, and continues to disparage the United States. Our United States.

As far as I'm concerned he is trying to pick a fight, and he just might get punched in the nose.

[chimpymustgo]

107. HE's trying to pick a fight? WTF?? And if Obama strikes Iran, I will actively campaign against him

This guy is NO THREAT TO US WHATSOEVER.

[Freetradesucks]

119. Yes, he is trying to pick a fight!

You honestly don't think the things that he has said are antagonizing?

And to say he is no threat "WHATSOEVER" is childlike. True, he may not have a missile that can strike us now, but who is to say he won't in 5 years, or even 3?

Not to mention that we have allies in the region that he could hit on day one. Do you not understand the importance of alliances??

[Devil_Fish]

150. Sudam could have been a threat it 5 years too. atleast thats what we were told.

[Devil_Fish]

149. would you feel the same if Bush were Pres?NT

[RZM]

56. I don't know whether he is encouraging an attack or not

What I do know is that he is an ass who peddles bullshit conspiracy theories and holocaust denying. Good for the US and European delegations for refusing to countenance such antics.

[leftynyc]

75. Victim?

The prick stole the election and put the people who demonstrated against the theft in prison where they got beaten and killed. Yeah, he's a real prince.

[NeoConsSuck]

58. You attack a country

for what their leader says at the UN?

[leftynyc]

74. Where did I attack Iran?

I'm attacking their leader who stole the election. What is it with you people? Stop putting words in my mouth.

[hack89]

82. Was I attacking America when I criticized Bush's speeches? nt

[louis-t]

9. Everything with him is about how it relates to the whole world

siding with Israel. Constantly playing the victim. He reminds me of George Costanza when he is stuck portraying a neo-nazi in a limousine: "YOU KNOW WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, DON'T YOU? DA JEWS!" Or Michael Constantine in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding": "You tell me a word, I will tell you how it come from de Greek."

[earcandle]

19. Last time we raided the country of someone we victimized, we hanged him.

[onehandle]

11. Tiny dickless thug. nt

[madinmaryland]

12. In before the burial in the Dungeon.

:popcorn:

[SpeechlessDem]

14. come on man

Everytime, especially Faux News, gets all angry at the very mention of 9.11.
That alone should raise so many flags.

They are against completely due process.

Did you know that hundreds of engineers, structural architects and even ones that worked on the twin towers say that the official story makes zero sense?

Come on man... there's definately something that they don't want us to know about here.
There is no doubt about that whatsoever.

[KDLarsen]

18. Rubbish

AE911Truth is nothing but a money-spinner for Richard Gage. He even had to rename it to Architectural and Engineering Professionals for 9/11 Truth, since he was struggling so hard to get over a thousand people to join his little club.

[earcandle]

22. hard to believe some people think that 911 was not an inside job

it makes perfect sense, the whole drama.
the only thing missing is the ability to be critical thinkers
on the
part of the press, who basically encouraged the dupe.

[Riftaxe]

37. Even harder toi believe that some people

believe it was an inside job.

[fascisthunter]

90. why should it be.. the US has done heinous shit before

and to its own by giving the wealthy class free reign on Americans and millions of citizens from other countries around the World due to the desire for resources and other business interests.

Hell, our government used 9-11 to justify invading and occupying Iraq and now Afghanistan. What's unbelievable is how sure some are that it wasn't an inside job. I think it was both inside and outside.

[Riftaxe]

114. Truthers, Birthers, Flat Earthers

all birds of a feather, with some desperate need to believe in vast conspiracies that defy reality. One would normally expect to find them babbling on a street corner and not on a political discussion forum.

[merqz]

122. Look at it this way...

The same GENIUSES who could pull off this great 9/11 conspiracy couldn't even plant a few WMD's in Iraq to justify the actual invasion? Seriously? How much easier would it be (in terms of personnel, logistics, pesky witnesses) to plant some WMD's in Iraq for us to "find" versus setup a controlled demolition in one of the busiest office buildings in the world without ANYBODY squealing, noticing, etc. Seriously?

[Pavulon]

128. NO shit, the us Intelligence community leakes like a sieve

ghost armies, 20 year old buck ass privates leaking to wikileaks for lulz, replacements for KH satellite systems, NSA's BOM in a telco's office. The whole fucking BOM leaked because a guy was pissed with his job and people really think they could keep the fact that they ran a controlled demo a secret.

Really, the word retard just sums these people up.

[MikeW]

43. go back to the 911 forum thread your more at home there than in here with the adults

[chimpymustgo]

28. Dick Cheney overseeing war games with NORAD that VERY morning?? Building 7? PNAC??

Sigh. How anyone can POSSIBLY believe the official story...

[Phil The Cat]

36. For stumbling bumbling idiots

They sure were competent!

Which is it? Bush and Co were masterful geniuses at subterfuge, or complete asshat morons?

I've tried to figure out how fools like them could keep such an operation secret! I can't!

FOUR aircraft! So many people would have been involved on so many levels that SOMEONE would have spilled the beans by now!

But the only thing out there is Alex Jones' paranoid crap!

[RZM]

57. LOL; you point out the fatal flaw of most conspiracy theories . . .

The belief that the dastardly actors are simultaneously brilliant and properly-connected enough to pull off such complicated operations but also stupid and careless enough to leave so many trails that lead back to them.

You also raise another good point -- that of mouths staying shut. That's not something a whole lot of people are terribly good at. And the larger the conspiracy, the more people required to carry it out and thus the higher chance that beans will be spilled. But all of this just goes in one ear and out the out the other of your average tin-foil wearer, why wears blinders in their pursuit of the 'troof.'

[KDLarsen]

54. What about it?

For starters, Cheney wasn't overseeing anything, that's another myth invented by the "truth" seekers: http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_norad.html

As for PNAC: http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

And regarding WTC7, you're going to have to specify exactly what's wrong with it? And no, "it looked like a controlled demolition" doesn't count, given that it lacked something commonly found at controlled demolitions: VERY loud explosions.

[hack89]

83. Cheney was not overseeing NORAD wargames.

that is a Truther myth.

WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the towers - take it up with the FDNY eyewitnesses if you disagree.

[CJvR]

25. LOL!

So you are a WTC conspirationalist?
So what do you think happened? Something like this?

[Qutzupalotl]

38. No

I know you weren't talking to me, but the cartoon you posted is just one big red herring after another.

There are lots of complicated theories to explain the anomalies surrounding 9/11. The simplest, though, is that Cheney got wind of an upcoming terrorist attack during his many visits to CIA headquarters during the summer of 2001. He scheduled NORAD training exercises for the second week of September, which left our eastern seaboard vulnerable. That's why you hear "Is this real-world or exercise?" on the 9/11 tapes. Suddenly there's a war footing and a justification to invade Afghanistan, which his administration eventually twists into their ultimate goal, Iraq.

Have you seen this? What little we know about Cheney's energy task force meetings of early 2001 is quite appalling:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

[merqz]

124. lol. That's awesome

And remember, the same GENIUSES that could pull off (among other things) planting all these explosives in the busiest office building in the world, etc. without anybody noticing or ratting them out, COULDN'T PLANT A FEW WMD'S IN IRAQ?

Dastardly enough to murder thousands of American citizens and orchestrate the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind, but couldn't even dump some WMD's into some location in Iraq to be 'discovered'? It's IN-SANE

[NutmegYankee]

39. Hundreds eh?

There are 1.6 million engineers in the USA. 517,000 of them are Civil or Mechanical Engineers, who are very well trained in the physics, science, and mathematics behind the collapse. Even assuming there were 1000 engineers and architects (there isn't) who believed the troofer line, that's only 0.19% of all Civil and Mechanical Engineers. That's what is classically called the "Lunatic Fringe".

Proud 99.8%'er

[CrawlingChaos]

45. wrong

You cannot make this claim. The vast majority of professionals in relevant fields have not examined the evidence and have not weighed in one way or another. Most probably aren't even aware of Building 7. Since taking a skeptical view of 9/11 can be very damaging to a career, it is all the more remarkable that 1200+ architects and engineers have jeopardized their livelihood to support the need for a new investigation.

[NutmegYankee]

47. LOL.

Damaging to a career? In my years as an engineer, I have yet to see a blacklist or McCarthy-like purge because of political views. Engineers have to be able to show, via math, why something is or isn't ok. Personal views do not come into play. I suspect however that the "1200+*" cannot demonstrate their argument mathematically to their peers with sufficient technical rationale for them to believe it.

*whatever...

[boppers]

77. Hundreds? You don't say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[laconicsax]

21. So Ahmadinejad is a truther too?

Wow. If a sane and rational person like that thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, that can only add credibility to the truther movement.

[MikeW]

48. the truthers should make Ahmadinejad their spokesman

[still_one]

23. ahmadineajackass, is an embarassment to his country, and the U.S. delegations response was right on

"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."

[valerief]

24. Well, PNAC DID want military escalation and another "Pearl Harbor". That was in 1997, so

it's easy to see a connection between the PNACers who gained more power after the Contract On America Congress and the Sept 11 attack.

[merqz]

126. And everybody who wanted to invade Iraq because of 9/11

also wanted to find WMD's *in* Iraq to justify the very invasion they orchestrated pursuant to (supposedly) demolishing the two trade towers and WTC7.

They could accomplish ALL of that without any leaks or witnesses, but couldn't plant any WMD's in Iraq? Seriously?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

29. Agreed. Philip Zelikow sure appears everywhere in the story doesn't he?

What a series of coinkydinks! Like an evil Forrest Gump.

[CrawlingChaos]

46. Thanks for the link Flagrante

bookmarked for future listening

[No Elephants]

35. "In a display of diplomatic theatrics" I don't recall MSM snarking like that at Bushco.

So, 911 is so sacred, no one can build an Islamic center near a strip joint two blocks away, but walking out on Ahmadinejad's driveling about 911 is not warranted?

I'm so confused!

[Dj13Francis]

40. Jack Nicholson

Brings to mind a quote from a famous movie... "You can't handle the truth!"

[rug]

41. Dupe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[Dover]

59. UN walkout over Ahmadinejad speech - suggests U.S. behind 9/11 attacks

Source: Aljazeera

US diplomats and other Western delegations have walked out of a United Nations summit as the Iranian president said some believe the 9/11 attacks on the US was the work of Americans to save Israel.

Two US officials led the walkout as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the General Assemly in New York on Thursday. They were quickly followed by the British and other Western delegations.

Ahmadinejad said there was a theory that "some segments within the US 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," he said.

cont'd


Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010923184345332707.html

[Ozymanithrax]

60. I did not know that Ahmadinejad meant tin foil hat wearing dude in Farsi. n/t

[UndertheOcean]

61. MAN , I WANT whatever he is SMOKING ! that must be very good shit

[wtmusic]

62. And other nations followed the US like little lapdogs

as if listening to him implied support. I bet it was a Who's Who of the so-called "broad coalition".

None of these petulant puppets are intelligent enough to perform the duties they're called upon to do.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleo]

65. People should have walked out on Colin Powell's rant before the Iraq invasion

That pack of lies actually led to something awful. A walkout then might have saved lives.

[Pavulon]

66. Probably not, but they are free to.

again I side with stan on this one. Trooferisim in any form is a form of mental retardation.

[No Elephants]

106. First to walk out should have been POS Powell.

He knew he was bsing. And he knew he was there bc most Americans thought him highly credible.

[snappyturtle]

64. In light of the misery the country sufferred under the bush administration

and the deceipt, deception, lying, et. al., I can believe just about anything. I honestly believe there are many unanswered questions about 9/11 although the 9/11 commission set that all straight. :sarcasm:

[Dover]

68. Bushco was our Ahmadinejad. But neither Dems nor Repubs are anxious to

get to the bottom of all those unanswered questions.

[boppers]

67. It gets better. He's going to hold a twoofer conference.

... not unlike his "Holocaust" conference.

[Proletariatprincess]

69. Ahmakinejad is absolutely right!

.....some DO believe that it was an inside job. Certainly not a majority of the American people hold this view, but it is not an unreasonable statement. I think that most thinking people know there was a coverup...that the 911 Commission was a farce. We may never know for sure what happened, but we can be pretty sure that there are secrets that the Administrations, past and present, don't want the people to know.

[rayofreason]

134. Most thinking people...

...don't think that there was a coverup and that the 9/11 Commission was a farce (though I would not be surprised to learn that some things that would be embarrassing for Jaime Gorelick and others were quietly swept under the rug).

Yes, some small number of people in the US think 9/11 was an inside job. And some small number people think that the moon landings were faked. And too many people think that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. But those folks, in all three categories, simply refuse to step away from faith in a myth, no matter what the evidence.

[Zorra]

70. 'Bush team wanted Iraq war from start'

That's a headline in LBN right now.

Yeah, Ahmadinejad is a wack job, but I have absolutely no illusions about the morality of the Bu*h administration. It's not at all unreasonable to consider the possibility that there was some type of nefarious activity conducted by someone connected to the Bu*h administration that aided in the destruction of 9/11.

Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attack?

[DFLforever]

71. I'm willing to believe 9/11 was'pre-planned' but

he loses me with the Israel angle.

[ibegurpard]

72. yeah

[golfguru]

For all you fans of history....Ahmedinejad was.....

amongst those thugs who invaded American Embassy during Carter Admin
and took Americans hostage. I have seen a video of this with my own eyes.

This man is a religious fanatic and bat shit crazy.

[Catherina]

91. That's an outright lie. n/t

[golfguru]

115. I trust my eyes more than you n/t

[golfguru]

142. Links

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38860
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis
http://www.danielpipes.org/4115/ahmadinejad-hostage-taker

[Prometheus Bound]

97. Rubbish.

[golfguru]

117. I trust my eyes more than your opinion n/t

[golfguru]

73. Dupl..

[Codeine]

84. Creepy little douchenozzle. nt

[Imajika]

85. Hey, lots of DUers think the same thing!

Time to put Ahmadinejad in the 9-11 dungeon with the rest of the "truthers".

[Codeine]

87. Good to know the 9/11 Troofers have made this vile little anti-Semitic

piece of filth their newest hero and spokesman. Truth to power, kiddies! (Oh, and the Holocaust was exaggerated :eyes: )

[Zorra]

93. Here's the "troof": Nobody here is making Ahmadenijad into a hero.

It is possible that some of what he said may have some validity.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.

Do you doubt that the Bu*h administration had the potential to kill innocent people, Americans included, to further their agenda?

(If so, I have 100 acres due west of San Francisco that you might be interested in)

They had more than the potential.

Iraq stands as indisputable proof of this. Just because they killed innocent people under the pretense of a "war" does not make the senseless killing and destruction any less morally despicable than if they shot them in the head in cold blood.

In fact, it was way more heinous to send honorable people to do their killing for them, people that they lied to, people that trusted in them.

'To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.' Robert Jackson, Nuremberg Prosecutor

[Imajika]

96. They are always sneaking out of the dungeon...

Every 9-11 anniversary is especially bad.

A thread like this is one they know will sit where people can actually see it, so the "truthers" are drawn to it like flies.

[Prometheus Bound]

98. Well that's got to be the most childish association I've seen on DU.

Like saying all 911 official conspiracy theory proponents love and admire Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Sad.

[slackmaster]

104. Phone-pole sodomize Ahmadinejad

I wonder if he's a Birfer too.

[704wipes]

127. A stopped clock is right twice in a day

nt

[yurbud]

137. every polling company in America should do polls to prove him wrong about what we think about 9/11

[procopia]

146. 41% of Americans believed it was Saddam Hussein...

as recently as 2007. I don't see any reason for it to have changed much since then. Embarrassing.

[ShamelessHussy]

148. there was a poll in 04 that showed around 50% of new yorkers the gov was lying about 911

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

more...
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

just a cursory glance of the evidence collected about the collapse of the skyscrapers (especially WTC7) makes it pretty apparent that explosives were also used on that horrid day, and i have a hard time believing that terrorist could have that kinda access, not to mention the technology to produce Nano-thermite.

clearly we need a new investigation, as trying to ridicule folks who have legit questions, wont make those questions go away.

[yurbud]

151. thank you

that was more or less the point I was making.

[Bo]

145. Bush destroyed the Wrong Country.... Iran with nukes OMG

No one will be safe

[roamer65]

147. While it is entirely possible, having Mahmoud bring it up is not good.

I think he should just stay out of the issue and pay attention to keeping Iran from being bombed by the Israelis.