Senior Iranian Commander Says 9/11 Done By U.S.

This is pretty interesting.

The Iranians now also believe 9/11 inside job.

Commander of Iran's Ground Forces Brig. Gen. Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan:

He noted that the US has carried out terrorist attacks in order to use them as pretexts to launch wars in the Middle East to control the world economy. “The US planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks with support from Zionists," Fars news agency quoted Pourdastan as saying on Wednesday.

The title of the article was: 'US gave up war plans because of Iran's might'

It's becoming pretty obvious now that the U.S. DID in fact do 9/11 on itself so that it could attack the Middle East and take over the region.

The Iranian general noted that the US invasion on Iran was planned to take place after the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm

It's becoming pretty obvious now that the U.S. DID in fact do 9/11 on itself so that it could attack the Middle East and take over the region.

And you don't think this Iranian general would benefit from this stating this viewpoint even if untrue? What "new evidence" does he actually have?

We know they believe agents of the west cause every single problem in the world, so to me it seems they are simply restating in a different way what they've always believed, except today it's CIA, tomorrow it's MOSSAD and next week it's the Italian's or Saudi's to blame.

Farce news may call itself a news station, but that doesn't mean it actually reports real news.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by john124]

Let's have a look at presstv's newest piece of comedy.

US gave up war plans because of Iran's might

A senior Iranian commander says the country's military might forced the US into giving up its plans to launch an attack against Iran.

“When the US realized the capabilities of Iran's armed forces and the military maneuvers they can hold, it changed its mind and gave up plans to attack Iran," the Commander of Iran's Ground Forces Brig. Gen. Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan said.

Almost as funny as last week where Iran's aerospace industry was more successful than NASA.

Source?

Interesting if true.



edit to add: Ok, presstv. Well, that means the government there thinks that... Which should be good enough for most people.

RT also has a lot of good info on 911.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by beebs]

reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm

The Iranians now also believe 9/11 inside job.

You mean one person that represents one of the worst of the worst out the biggest bunch of psychopaths ever to reside in this once proud nation. I highly doubt that the average Iranian has the same belief, and any truther movement is seriously lacking credibility if they take this general's "opinions" too seriously.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by john124]

reply to post by john124


You don't see any significance in this?

How is a top general 'just one person'? I mean literally yes, but is what Obama believes just the view of 'one person'?

9/11 Done By U.S.

I don't doubt it

reply to post by john124


The OP never said that the Iranian general has "new evidence", it said that the general "now believes" etc. Just because you believe the official story, that doesn't mean there are people more informed than you who hold opposing opinions.

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by john124

 

The OP never said that the Iranian general has "new evidence",

That's why I asked if he had because the OP didn't contain a source.

it said that the general "now believes" etc.

He also believes Iran's military might frightnened the US into not attacking.

Just because you believe the official story, that doesn't mean there are people more informed than you who hold opposing opinions.

More informed or less informed???

Coming from a revolutionary guards general is not very well informed. Apparently they believe every opposition protestor to be western spies. Doesn't sound like they have very good intelligence even in their own country.

Whether I believe the official story or not doesn't improve this source's credibility, nor anyone else's who believes the same as Gen. Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan.

If he has solid proof (which of course he hasn't), then why not show it to the world and embarass the CIA??? Otherwise what he says matters very little, along with the rest of his gibberish.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by john124]

reply to post by john124


The question is this:

Do YOU believe the "official story"?

It is just becoming REALLY obvious that 9/11 was not fully done by "terrorists".

There are many flaws in the "official story".

Such as:

1)Why would building 7 be pulled down? (It had nothing to do with planes hitting it)

2)Why were all the metals and evidences removed for reasons of national security?

3)Why was the plane that hit the Pentagon look like a missile? (Experts say a plane could have NOT done that damage)

4)Why was Afghanistan attacked if the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

5)Why did Bush get on TV and say he saw the second plane when it wasn't even broadcast yet?

6)Why was Iraq invaded? (Weapons of Mass Destruction? How was that related to 9/11?)

7)How was there randomly "terrorist" passport found in all that rubble when everything was destroyed?

8)Why are peoples' freedoms being taken away daily and the constitution thrown out the window? (For peoples' safety? Please...)

And on and on...

I'm certain the government knew what was going on. They wanted another Pearl Harbour to get the wheels turning.

I don't know about the US giving up war plans because if Iran's might.

But............

War game simulations at the Pentagon repeatedly show that the whole thing would rapidly escalate way out of control.

They have played this over and over, and there is always a no win situation for either the US or Israel.

Bush knew it.
Obama knows it,
And the Pentagon hawks all know it too.

Otherwise Iran would have been hit long ago.

The problem is not the actual attack, that part is easy.
What bothers the military planners, are what happens afterwards.
Other countries in the region will quickly take sides.
All of them against Israel and the US.



[edit on 17/2/2010 by Silver Shadow]

welcome to the new game of dodgeball.

Iran throws the ball and misses, the US throws it back and misses etc.........

both sides are now throwing around allegations, Hilary saying Iran in a military dictatorship, Iran saying 9/11 was an inside job.

just like children in the playground throwing names at each other before someone says something even worse that gets the first punch thrown.

Both sides are daring each other to throw the first punch.

and yes, both are paying off their own little friends in the playground to fight with each other to keep the teachers distracted

[edit on 17-2-2010 by munkey66]

Originally posted by munkey66


just like children in the playground

All out thermonuclear war is a bit more serious than that.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow

Originally posted by munkey66


just like children in the playground

All out thermonuclear war is a bit more serious than that.

It was ananalogy if you bothered to read the rest.

Thermonuclear war is a bit early to call that I think.
seeing as one side doesnt have any

I am not saying that they do, but we don't know what they have. They seem to think they have something by the way they act. I wouldn't dare anyone to hit me if I didn't think I would come out on top.

Even the most hardcore debunker admit they let it happen


www.foxnews.com...

April 11, 2004: President Bush Claims Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US Memo Said Nothing about an Attack on America

President Bush talks about the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) he was given on August 6, 2001, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US. He claims, ?here was nothing in this report to me that said, Oh, by the way, weve got intelligence that says something is about to happen in America. There was nothing in there that said, you know, There is an imminent attack. That wasnt what the report said. The report was kind of a history of Osamas intentions.

The complete text of the PDB was released the day before Bushs comments and in fact the PDB does very clearly discuss an imminent attack on the US. For instance, it says that FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. And it discusses a call to a US embassy in the UAE in May [2001] saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives

www.historycommons.org...

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice later testifies to the 9/11 Commission that in the first eight months of Bush’s presidency before 9/11, “the president receive[s] at these [Presidential Daily Briefings] more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaeda, and 13 of those [are] in response to questions he or his top advisers posed.” [Washington Post, 4/8/2004] The content of the warnings in these briefings are unknown. However, CIA Director George Tenet claims that none of the warnings specifically indicates terrorists plan to fly hijacked commercial aircraft into buildings in the US. [New York Times, 4/4/2004] Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later emphasize, “Tenet on 40 occasions in… morning meetings mentioned al-Qaeda to the president. Forty times, many of them in a very alarmed way, about a pending attack.” [Vanity Fair, 11/2004] These briefings are normally given in person by CIA Director George Tenet, and are usually attended by Vice President Cheney and National Security Adviser Rice. In the Clinton administration, up to 25 officials recieved the PDB. But in the Bush adminisration before 9/11, this was sharply reduced to only six people (see After January 20, 2001). Other top officials have to make due with an Senior Executive Intelligence Brief generally released one day later, which is similar to the PDB but often contains less information

web.archive.org...://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clarke_interview_transcript_040408-1.html

Rice said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al-Qaeda attack was going to take place and that the president did not have a meeting on the subject. She admitted that she didnt convene the Cabinet.

And as some of the 9/11 Commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by conar]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm

 

It's becoming pretty obvious now that the U.S. DID in fact do 9/11 on itself so that it could attack the Middle East and take over the region.

And you don't think this Iranian general would benefit from this stating this viewpoint even if untrue? What "new evidence" does he actually have?

We know they believe agents of the west cause every single problem in the world, so to me it seems they are simply restating in a different way what they've always believed, except today it's CIA, tomorrow it's MOSSAD and next week it's the Italian's or Saudis to blame.

Farce news may call itself a news station, but that doesn't mean it actually reports real news.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by john124]

Do you belive in the official story put out about 911?

reply to post by john124


Why is that funny? I don't get it.

Just because Iran is not better equipped than the US, doesn't mean that they can't keep up with a good fight. The US has been smacked in the face too many times to fail to realize that.

And even if the US is certain that they will win the war, that doesn't mean that they will take their chances. Casualties (money related, obviously the human life is not at stake in the US equation) and loss of equipment are all factors to be considered before starting a war.

Provably the US realized that Iran was not weak enough to make a swift war around their country. If Iraq is a stone in the US shoe, and they weren't organized, imagine an army bigger and better than what Iraq had.

Iran has effective Anti-Aircraft systems in place, they have GOOD aircraft (most of them even come from the US them-selfs) and an attack initiated by the US side, would provably pull a lot of people in favor of Iran. It would be the last drop.

The Iran armed forces aren't a joke. They have over 1000 tanks, among those are tanks like the T-72's, which is considered one of the best tanks of all time (and very good for their type of battlefield).

They have an airforce of around 350 fighters, in which you can name models like the F-15 (which is still considered to be one (if not the) best air superiority fighters), and also throw in there some AH-1 Cobras and whatnot.

Plus a army of around 700,000 active soldiers, it gives a pretty good idea of what the US might face.

They can be beaten, but is it worth it? What this General states is that the US realized that the US figured out that the cost and "punishment" for invading and conquering Iran wasn't worth the loss. Which is true.

They aren't Iraq's twin brothers. They have some serious teeth.

The problem with Iraq was that they were demoralized, they had no organization whatsoever, and lost most of their communications in the first few days, losing the coordinated attack capability.

Plus, Iraq didn't have an airforce that could even stand against a strong wind.

US troops found empty tanks and empty bunkers, because the Iraq soldiers were long gone when they got there.

That wont be the case with Iran. They are motivated, they are following orders, and it seems more likely everday that they are waiting for a good excuse to fight the US.

[edit on 18/2/10 by Tifozi]