Boards > Pirate's Cove

Amadinejad says he is "su**CENSORED**ious" of 9/11 events

(1/28) > >>

The Iranian president says he questions the US government's version of events leading to the Septemeber 11th terror attacks.

"Four or five years ago, a su**CENSORED**ious 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.

Has anyone ever seen Amadinejad and ufojoe in the same place at the same time.   Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.   ;D

All conspiracy theories aside, I'm sure the US government and this administration has not been completely honest in regards to 9/11.  To what extent, we'll never know.

Did anyone listen to Jesse Ventura on the Hannity and Colmes last week? He basically thinks it was a demolition project...

Talk about someone out in left field...


If you want to link to people with some sort of credibility who question 911, try here:

and here...

Mixed in those groups are some people who lay blame on the Bush administration. I ignore
any of that stuff and concentrate on the anomalies, which 95% of you feel don't exist due
to the Popular Mechanics article and other articles. Plus, it's just too unbelievable for many
people to even consider.

I'm glad Jesse spoke out about his feelings on 911. He damn well knew that he would get
flack for it and still wrote about it. I admire that. And I don't think he's out in left field at all.

Jesse feels there MIGHT have been additional explosives in the towers to help bring them down.
There was absolutely no resistance on the way down. 10 seconds of free fall. You think there
would be at least SOME resistance in one of the towers. He hasn't come out and said he believes
there were explosives in the buildings.

BTW, Jesse did have SOME demolition training while in the Seals so he's not totally clueless on
that stuff. But there are other more knowledgeable folks (on demolition) who have questions
about the the towers and WTC7 too.

To me, WTC7 is a clear demolition. On the towers, I have read studies that argued both sides.

If there was truely something unusual about the way the building fell....many many many engineers would have cried foul by now.

Yeah, OK. I can say the same thing about evolution.

If there were any problems with evolutionary theory, many, many, many scientists would have cried foul by now.

If there really was anything to the UFO phenomena, many, many, many scientists would have cried foul by now.

What about global warming? Are the scientists who think it's not caused by humans crazy since they are in the
minority and disparaged when they speak out?

I know 911 is different. But you get my point. Just because the majority believe something, doesn't make it
so. The mainstream engineers cannot just come out and question 911. It carries a stigma with it. Even if
a mainstream guy has questions, he/she has to think very hard before they come out and speak openly
about it because they risk being labeled a nut or an engineer who doesn't know his craft.

Like I said, no matter what scientist, former Bush administration official, former military officer or
civilian I point to, 99% of the people on this board will call them nuts or crazy and reject their
opinion out of hand. EVERY ONE. No matter who it is.

It all comes down to this: People would be OK if the government came out right off the bat and
said that the terrorists had planted bombs in the basement to help bring down the towers. In
fact, go watch the original media reports and reactions from the fire and police on the scene.
Many felt that bombs were going off and that the terrorists had planted them to help bring
down the building after the planes hit.

But as soon as you suggest that a non-terrorist might have aided in the bringing down of the towers,
with explosives, many people shut down and do not want to hear it. It's just not something people
want to consider.

So, what they do is name call the people who ARE asking questions. It's the same thing with the
subjects (evolution and UFOs) I mentioned above. Offer an opinion that is in the minority or that
goes against the accepted paradigm and rish being ostracized or called a conspiracy theorist or
nutty or whatever.

Lots of people don't care what others say about them. Include me in that group.

BTW, here's a group I didn't know about before I started responding to this thread...

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
316  architectural and engineering professionals and  1321 other supporters including A/E students.

Jan 1, 2007 

Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?
The 6 years since 9/11/01 has given us the time and space to emerge from the hypnotic trance of the shocks of these attacks and to rationally evaluate the existing and new evidence that has become available.

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"... and, quite willing to, "go along" with the collective myth that has unfolded: that "the buildings failed structurally due to the aircraft impacts and resulting fires". After all, we saw the aircraft slam into the building, the resulting huge fireball, and the ensuing "collapses".

There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST.

It lays out a solid convincing case which architects & engineers will readily see: that the 3 WTC high-rise buildings were destroyed by both classic and novel forms of controlled demolition. You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly.

After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power.

We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. Please join us in calling for a re-investigation.

You and Amadinejad should discuss this over lunch someday.

How about me and the former military guys and Bush administration folks and structural engineers and
on and on and on...


John Galt?:

--- Quote from: cyberdude557 on April 16, 2008, 04:39:08 PM ---..."Four or five years ago, a su**CENSORED**ious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," ...

--- End quote ---

I saw the names published.  They were published, engraved on memorial walls, projected on a screen during the SuperBowl. 

I am starting to question Amadinejad's intelligence.  Sure Bush mispronounces words and says stupid stuff,  but this guy says stuff so far out in left field.  Is there a translation issue or does he just not proof read his speeches before hand.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version