Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2010 > Was President Ahmadinejad Wrong at the UN?

Mainstream, Vol XLVIII, No 41, October 2, 2010

Was President Ahmadinejad Wrong at the UN?

Wednesday 6 October 2010, by Shyam Chand


Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked the Americans when he said at the UN General Assembly that “some segments within the US Government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip 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.” His speech provoked the US delegation to walk out. Delegations from 27 EU nations, Australia, Canada and Costa Rica followed suit. American President Barack Obama described the speech as ‘hateful’ and ‘offensive’.

Perhaps President Ahmadinejad was openly speaking what many Americans think, write and say. To enter the Vietnam War sonar effects were invented showing North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacking US destroyers. 9/11 or the attack on the WTC, as evidence suggests, was an inside job. Prof David Ray Griffin in his book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, completely destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports. The NIST report was prepared by Phillip Zelikow, a factotum of the Bush Administration’s Department of Commerce. The report of Popular Mechanics is a journalist’s account based on official theory.

Polls show that 39 per cent in the US believe the official story that Bin Laden was responsible for the attack, 36 per cent do not believe the official story, and 25 per cent believe that Saddam Hussain was responsible for 9/11.

People who believe the official story have their belief on a ‘suspect’ video, declared to be bogus’ by Bruce Lawrence, the leading expert on Bin Laden. When the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if there was any proof of his involvement, the Bush Administration did not have any evidence.

The NIST report says that ‘only 3 columns had evidence that the steel reached 250 degree C’. Paul Craig Roberts says:

the self-cleaning ovens in our homes reach temperatures higher than this, and ovens don’t melt or deform.... Steel begins to melt at 1500 degree C or 2800 degree F. Temperatures of 250 degree C would’ve had no effect on the steel’s strength. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires don’t produce tempera-tures sufficient enough to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it’s impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition.

Prof Griffin interviewed fire-fighters, tenants and police who testified that they heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. This contradicts the official theory.

Weeks after the destruction of the WTC buildings, melted steel was found in underground levels. As everyone agrees that the fires didn’t approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5000 degree temperatures.

The official version suggests to have matched the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew of Flight 77 of Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. Contradiction arises in the absence of luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections. Indeed the absence of the 100,000 pound airliner is attributed to the vaporisation of the airplane due to high-speed crash and intense fires. Another contradiction is why so much damage in case of the WTC towers and so little in case of the Pentagon.

Space doesn’t allow writing in detail about the fake phone calls the relatives of the passengers had received. Prof Griffin, in the revised edition of his book, says:
However, as I reported, there are now devices, such as Fone Faker, that will produce the person’s caller ID as well as his or her voice. Deena Burnett and others, I believe, were not lying; they were duped!

A former senior official of the CIA, Bill Christison, described Prof Griffin’s book ‘a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies’.

John Whiteback, an international law specialist, says: ‘After reading David Ray Griffin’s previous books on the subject, I was over 90 per cent convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Now after reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I am, I regret to say, 100 per cent convinced.’

A French politician, Christine Boutin, now a Housing Minister in Sarkozy’s government, has suggested that US President George W Bush might have been behind the terrorist attack. ‘I think it is possible. I think it is possible,’ she said. Paul Craig Roberts, who was the Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan Administration, wrote: ‘Prof Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics.’ In Zionism—A Pernicious Virus and a World Problem, Les Visible writes: ‘When you look at who heads up a number of main departments at Homeland Security you find mostly Zionist Jews. When you look at who pushed the Iraq War and who is pushing for an attack on Iran you come up with a preponderance of Zionist Jews. Five Israelis were found celebrating the attack on the WTC. How did they know?’

The list is never-ending. ‘It is beyond strange at this point. How is that Zionist Americans and Israeli Jews are connected to so many things involving murders, single and plural? How is that the same Israeli security firm was in-charge of all 9/11 airports as well as the London Tube and Madrid train station attack?’ Informed research points the finger of accusation to the same group of people. ‘It turns out that the number of people murdered makes the Holocaust industry victims bigger killers bigger than victims.’

He concludes ‘So it appears that those who have told the truth are libelled and slandered and also correct in what they say.... It turns out that a large portion of those accused of being anti-Semitic were really guilty of telling the truth; not that anyone was listening.’

Allan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, in his book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventure In A New World, writes:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil. What the Bush Administration denies and Western media ignores is: ‘Blood for Oil’.

‘In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy,’ writes Paul Craig Roberts.

Iraq’s estimated oil reserve in 2002 was about 112.5 billion barrels. The US Department of Energy has estimated that Iraq’s reserve could be about 400 billion barrels if new explorations are undertaken. The Iraq Study Group has recommended for privatisation of oil production and inviting foreign oil and energy companies.

The war in Iraq was for oil. James A. Paul of the International Policy Monitoring Group has listed six Petroleum Wars, all fought in Iraq:

1. Colonial Conquest (1914-1918): When the British captured this area from the Ottoman Empire.

2. War of Pacification (1918-1930): The British crushed the rebellion using an occupation army drawn largely from the Indian Army. (The US were luring the NDA Government to send Indian troops to Iraq to fight the present war in Iraq.)

3. Re-occupation (1941): Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq in 1932 but re-occupied in 1941 apprehending its occupation by the Axis.

4. Iran (1980-1988): Conflict caused oil prices going high.

5. Gulf War (1991): Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US intervened.
Saddam Hussain was considered to pose an oil-centred threat. US President George Bush declared: ‘Our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussain.’

6. Intensity conflict during sanction period (1991-2003): After the Armistice, the UN pre-war embargo continued.

How Iraqis have suffered, especially the children, who in thousands died for want of medicine and food during economic sanctions, has been well documented.

The IAEA had found no proof that Iran was producing nuclear weapons, and then Iran is accused of abetting and encouraging terrorism in Iraq.

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is volatile. Pakistan is sitting on a heap of dynamite. Iran is likely to be turned into an inferno.

The author is a former Minister of Haryana.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.