U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons' Role in 9/11

U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons' Role in 9/11
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 10, 2008

WASHINGTON — A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. While Mr. Falk's specialty is human rights and international law, since the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he calls the "9-11 official version."

On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

Mr. Barrett, who is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, said in an interview yesterday of Mr. Falk, "I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement."

He added, "Unlike most public intellectuals today, he is both honest and very, very knowledgeable in that he understands the probable reality of 9/11. He understands that the evidence that it was a false flag operation is very strong."

The narrative that the attacks from 2001 were a "false flag" operation is a recurring theme in the literature challenging the consensus that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers flew commercial jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. False flag refers to espionage or covert actions taken by one government made to seem like the work of another. The false flag thesis has it that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for the September 11 attacks as a pretext for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Falk yesterday did not return e-mails and phone calls asking for a comment. But in 2004 he wrote the foreword to the book "The New Pearl Harbor," by David Ray Griffin. Mr. Griffin has posited that such an inside job is the likely explanation for the attacks.

www2.nysun.com...

the preface, Mr. Falk writes, "There have been questions raised here and there and allegations of official complicity made almost from the day of the attacks, especially in Europe, but no one until Griffin has had the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence to put the pieces together in a single coherent account."

When asked for a comment about the appointment of Mr. Falk, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said, "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council." A spokesman for the American embassy at the United Nations offered no comment yesterday when asked.

A spokeswoman at the United Nations, Nancy Groves, yesterday also declined to comment. "I would not make a comment on how the member states vote on appointments. It is their council, they make their decisions," she said.

Mr. Falk's selection to the post as rapporteur has already prompted the government of Israel formally to request that Mr. Falk not be sent to their country. The Israeli press has reported that he may even be barred from entering the country.

The deputy permanent representative of Israel to the United Nations in New York, Daniel Carmon said, "We are asking the U.N. not to send him. We cannot agree to Mr. Falk's entrance into Israel in his capacity as the rapporteur."

One reason the Israelis are concerned about his appointment is that Mr. Falk has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust. In an April 8 BBC interview, Mr. Falk said he stood by the Israel-Nazi comparison.

The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, issued a statement yesterday saying, "This was clearly a singularly inappropriate choice for this position. Falk's startling record of anti-Israel prejudice should have been enough to preclude him from a position where an unbiased observer is needed to report on the status of human rights in the territories."

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, "The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."Nearly nine months later, student followers of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for the following 444 days.

www2.nysun.com...

[edit on 10-4-2008 by IvanZana]

Personally, I wish that monstrosity of a building that is the UN headquarters would have been the target that day. To be honest, who the hell cares what the UN thinks? They name dictators who murder their opponents, to chair human rights panels, they bungle nearly every aid mission that comes up, I could go on and on... Face it, the UN is a waste of money and real estate.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Personally, I wish that monstrosity of a building that is the UN headquarters would have been the target that day. To be honest, who the hell cares what the UN thinks? They name dictators who murder their opponents, to chair human rights panels, they bungle nearly every aid mission that comes up, I could go on and on... Face it, the UN is a waste of money and real estate.

A new investigation is what is needed.

Then you will see.

A bunch of no names saying the same crap.
I want the truth of things as much as anyone but unless you have it "told" through credible people it will fall on deaf ears at best or more likely just get added to the debunker's list of crackpot testimonys

The U.N. is important........it is of course corrupted and that is just the nature of humanity....but reform is needed, not the destruction of the ideal.

What all the CTs need to do is gather up all their evidence and meet. They then need to find a credible famous person and convince them of the evidence. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, The Pope, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, etc....or .....better yet.... a group of 10 Republican and 10 Democrat Senators and convince them.

Do that, and your truth will come out. (oh, if you could convince Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch then you are in like Flynn)

Yep, dreaming I am. Just like this U.N. article from a nothing source from nothing people.

.......by the way Ivan, that "behind you" location creeps me out, with that ugly famous dude avatar of yours.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Personally, I wish that monstrosity of a building that is the UN headquarters would have been the target that day. To be honest, who the hell cares what the UN thinks? They name dictators who murder their opponents, to chair human rights panels, they bungle nearly every aid mission that comes up, I could go on and on... Face it, the UN is a waste of money and real estate.

A new investigation is what is needed.

Then you will see.

And when the second investigation confirms the first, then what? A third investigation? A fourth? Face it, you will NEVER accept any investigation's conclusions.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And when the second investigation confirms the first, then what? A third investigation? A fourth? Face it, you will NEVER accept any investigation's conclusions.

Much better then to just shut up and accept the amazing crock that over 1/3 of the American public thinks is a sham, if I follow your reasoning, on the idea that an objective investigation is impossible? I don't like smileys but I'll give that prop a little barfguy:

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Personally, I wish that monstrosity of a building that is the UN headquarters would have been the target that day. To be honest, who the hell cares what the UN thinks? They name dictators who murder their opponents, to chair human rights panels, they bungle nearly every aid mission that comes up, I could go on and on... Face it, the UN is a waste of money and real estate.

A new investigation is what is needed.

Then you will see.

And when the second investigation confirms the first, then what? A third investigation? A fourth? Face it, you will NEVER accept any investigation's conclusions.

We CT Whackos simply want a good honest INDEPENDANT investigation. Spend more than the 50 million that was spent on Clinton and his under the table shenanigans, by the right wing whackos. If an indy investigation proves beyond the shadow of a doubt proof that 9/11 was pulled off, by 19 hijackers, then so be it, I'll eat a good share of crow, as would, I'd guess a great percentage of CT-ers.

If it were proved that the current official theory was not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, would you be willing to eat your share of crow? Or would you just stick your head further in the sand so as not to hear or believe the truth? I'd be willing to bet, you would then call for another investigation. Face it, you will never accept any conclusion to the 9/11 theory that, you disagree with, or that your government, would do harm to their own citizens, to advance their own agenda.

The fires in the wtc were burning hot enough that it melted steel, yet we saw people hanging out the damaged parts waving towels, letting rescuers know they were there. Not only that but, a firefighter said he could knock down the fires with 2 lines, I'd guess, being a former volunteer firefighter, that he was referring to inch and a half hand lines, not six inch supply lines. to me that in it's self screams not much fire, but if you believe there was enough fire to melt steel, and still be molten weeks later, that's your business.

Have a great day.

Ivan, are you saying this is proof that 9/11 was an inside job? I agree that if you believe it was an inside job, believe in the NWO and who is involved, then how can you then use the U.N. as proof of anything?

It completely contradicts everything else you may believe. That is like believing everything the Bush family is saying.

I will agree with you 100% that there needs to be a new investigation, NO question about it at all. It is an insult to the American people that there has not been a new, independent, and thorough re-examination.

I do feel our government handled the entire situation terribly and that if there was a new investigation, there would be a lot of government officials losing their job. However, I feel that is where the "conspiracy" would end. I have not seen any reliable proof that is not either one sided, spun a certain way, or 100% proof that 9/11 was not carried out by radical Islamic terrorists, it was. Osama has admitted it...Al Qaeda is real...terrorists threats are real.

I just want to state again that my goal here is not to debunk anyone, or even claim that I am 100% right like so many people seem to do here. I may be wrong, and am open to other views if I was to see actual evidence.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

We CT Whackos simply want a good honest INDEPENDANT investigation.

By who? We had an investigation, bolstered by dozens of professionals (non-government individuals) in their fields. Yet that wasn't good enough.

If an indy investigation proves beyond the shadow of a doubt proof that 9/11 was pulled off, by 19 hijackers, then so be it, I'll eat a good share of crow, as would, I'd guess a great percentage of CT-ers.

I doubt it. They would claim that "the government got to them"

If it were proved that the current official theory was not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, would you be willing to eat your share of crow? Or would you just stick your head further in the sand so as not to hear or believe the truth? I'd be willing to bet, you would then call for another investigation. Face it, you will never accept any conclusion to the 9/11 theory that, you disagree with, or that your government, would do harm to their own citizens, to advance their own agenda.

If anything, the people with their heads in the sand are the CT'ers. Would I call for another investigation if the "CT'er" investigation came up with a different conclusion? No, I just spend the rest of my life poking holes in it, using logic and the evidence. (which is what I already do).

The fires in the wtc were burning hot enough that it melted steel, yet we saw people hanging out the damaged parts waving towels, letting rescuers know they were there. Not only that but, a firefighter said he could knock down the fires with 2 lines, I'd guess, being a former volunteer firefighter, that he was referring to inch and a half hand lines, not six inch supply lines. to me that in it's self screams not much fire, but if you believe there was enough fire to melt steel, and still be molten weeks later, that's your business.

Ah yes, the "melted" steel argument. Plus you toss in the "people hanging out the damaged parts" statement. First, what melted steel? There is NO proof of melted steel. Softened steel and melted aluminum maybe, but no proof of melted steel. Then you bring up a firefighter who was at the LOWEST part of the impact with your "I can knock it down with two lines" statement. I guess you havent seen all the pictures taken that day, especially the ones showing the widespread fires opposite the impact sides. Then again, that also helps explain how people were in the impact area. You do remember that the wind was blowing that day....the wind was blowing in a direction that it was keeping the fire away from the people.

As for the aluminum being molten a couple weeks later....aluminum, buried under a rubble pile, in the presence of fires being fed by air blowing through the subway tunnels into the base of the pile (crude blast furnace)..........

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


And when the second investigation confirms the first, then what? A third investigation? A fourth? Face it, you will NEVER accept any investigation's conclusions.

If there was another investigation I would make sure that Bloggers and Debunkers who purposly spread lies get public execution

because we all know the perps would be caught. As they are now.

reply to post by IvanZana


Seig Heil, Seig Heil, Seig Heil.....how very Nazi of you.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


And when the second investigation confirms the first, then what? A third investigation? A fourth? Face it, you will NEVER accept any investigation's conclusions.

If there was another investigation I would make sure that Bloggers and Debunkers who purposly spread lies get public execution

because we all know the perps would be caught. As they are now.

Then again, I guess its a good thing for you. Because if we applied your wishes to you....well, I guess you would be up against the wall in short order for the misinformation you post.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Just what proof do you have about that amazing aluminum blast furnace claim?

Sounds like an amazing fairy tale.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
You must have missed, those pictures of red hot steel in the jaws of the excavator, approximately 5 weeks after the "collapse" huh?

What independent investigation? the one hand picked by GW? who along with Cheney didn't want an investigation into the largest "terrorist" attack on American soil, yet that fact escapes you too, astounding in it's self. Finally 411 days later, an investigation starts, with a 3 million dollar budget. Wow, compare that to the 50 million spent investigating, Clinton, again, astounding.

You make the claim of an indy investigation backed up by hundreds of others, how about the engineers and physicists that disagree with your hypothesis? you completely discount them. There were no explosions, those NYC firefighters were lying too then huh? Hundreds of people heard explosions, cameras even picked up the sound of those explosions, but they never happened. The black billowing smoke is proof enough of an oxygen starved fire, yet you ignore that too, Have you ever been in a burning building? I have. The disinfo about this topic is completely mind boggling.

You keep spewing nonsense, but the ignore button is a handy thing.

Have a great day, there swampy.

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

You must have missed, those pictures of red hot steel in the jaws of the excavator, approximately 5 weeks after the "collapse" huh?

What independent investigation? the one hand picked by GW? who along with Cheney didn't want an investigation into the largest "terrorist" attack on American soil, yet that fact escapes you too, astounding in it's self. Finally 411 days later, an investigation starts, with a 3 million dollar budget. Wow, compare that to the 50 million spent investigating, Clinton, again, astounding.

You make the claim of an indy investigation backed up by hundreds of others, how about the engineers and physicists that disagree with your hypothesis? you completely discount them. There were no explosions, those NYC firefighters were lying too then huh? Hundreds of people heard explosions, cameras even picked up the sound of those explosions, but they never happened. The black billowing smoke is proof enough of an oxygen starved fire, yet you ignore that too, Have you ever been in a burning building? I have. The disinfo about this topic is completely mind boggling.

You keep spewing nonsense, but the ignore button is a handy thing.

Have a great day, there swampy.

The ignorance in the above post is staggering. Im not even going to bother with the comparison to Clinton. Why are some people on here still fascinated with Slick Willy?

You mention engineers and physicists that disagree...which ones were actually involved in the investigation? Oh wait...NONE of them.

You mention people hearing explosions....have you ever heard steel giving way under stress? Sounds a lot like explosives going off...and yes, I have heard both. Of course, CT'ers also forget we are talking about an office building.....janitor supplies on just about every floor (including chemicals that go boom when exposed to fire/extreme heat), gas lines, oxygen tanks in first aid supplies etc....there were plenty of things that would have exploded in the towers that day that were NOT explosives.

THEN there is the ever popular "black billowing smoke is proof enough of an oxygen starved fire" malarky...

Billowing black smoke is indicative of a petroleum fire (or plastic) hmmm thousands of gallons of jet fuel, carpet, office furniture......... What color did you expect to see white?

BTW, Ive attended several fire fighting schools through the military...hell, ask ANYONE who lived around Norfolk, Mayport, San Diego, Roosevelt Roads (when they could still actually set fuel oil on fire for us to put out)..what color smoke they used to see billowing when the fire fighting schools were in session. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt white..........