It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judgment against Iran for 9/11. NOT news from Iranian ally RT.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I see that there is a thread about Iranian involvement in 9/11 here on ATS. It's sole source is RT, even though it's a story available on more reliable sites. Not surprisingly, the reactions of posters on that thread show how their opinions were shaped by the RT story.

Here's a piece on The Daily Caller that has quotes, sources, and solid information instead of the innuendo of the RT piece.

Iran shares blame for 9/11



“The extensive record submitted to this court, including fact witnesses and expert testimony, is satisfactory to this court,” Judge Daniels said. The court “accepts as true” the various allegations of the plaintiffs and their experts, he declared, and “will issue an order” in the coming days that Iran bears legal responsibility for providing “material support” to the 9/11 plotters and hijackers.




In presenting evidence gathered by the attorneys and their outside investigator, Timothy Fleming revealed tantalizing details of still-sealed videotaped depositions provided by three defectors from Iranian intelligence organizations.

One of those defectors was “physically present” when al-Qaida’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came to Iran in May 2001 for four days of intense closed-door meetings with the top leadership in Iran to discuss the impending attacks.


You'll notice that no one is suggesting that Iran was the only party involved. This doesn't end all 9/11 conspiracy theories, but it does affect some of them.

There's a lot more, let me suggest you look at the article.

What I expect to see in response, and forgive me for sounding bitter and cynical, is the following:
"It happened in an American courtroom, it can't be fair."
"The Iranians weren't present to defend themselves." I'll bet everybody from the NYFD to the CIA would have been glad to have the involved Iranians show up.
"The judge is a puppet. It's just an excuse for an American war." We need another excuse?

I just thought this story was very important, and the thread sourced to RT wasn't getting it out.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Well the timing of the article is odd.

10+ years after the fact, while Iran/US relations are at an even worse point than usual...
hmm



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

Dear Chamberf=6,

Please don't leave me with a "hmm." What are you thinking? That the lawsuit is a fake to drum up support for a war about to start?

C'mon Chamberf=6, I've seen you do some really good work. Please give me a little more analysis.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I DO NOT bloody believe how effin gullible the manics in authority think the people are!!!

This is absolutely BEYOND belief! Beyond belief that the authorities bent on aiding the terrorists in the Israeli government, and those installed in the US government would imagine the public would be monumental suckers enough to swallow such a steaming pile of amateurish twaddle.

A glue sniffing teenager could come up with better to rile the public than this utter rubbish.

Warmongering, profiteering, pathetic, bent, maniacal, SCUMSUCKING sacks of dog excrament, the lot of them!

And the same goes twice for the foot soldiers who do their fantasy land propaganda on sites like this.

Karma is real, and payback is going to be a bitch. I'm not talking about Iran either.

I'm truly flabbergasted.




edit on 16/12/2011 by spikey because: Added info



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


What more analysis you need? He made a clear point. The timing is suspicious as hell. I mean just look around. They have been propagandizing and demonizing Iran now for how long? YEARS! I guess they'll only stop like they did with North Korea after Iran tests a nuclear weapon, and becomes a serious threat.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Absolutely.

Can you believe this?!

The world is truly buggered with these scum in control.

I don't know what's worse, the fact they actually have the bare faced cheek to try this on, or that they imagine we'd actually fall for it!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
"The Iranians weren't present to defend themselves."

That's a fair point. It's supposed to be an adversarial system.

There's a web page with many interesting documents.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Dupe. How? An enduring mystery.
edit on 16-12-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: dupe



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Dear TrueAmerican,

Ok, fair enough, I guess I'm not being very clear. I understand that he thinks it's suspicious, but what is being suspected? I mean, when I watch a mystery show there are usually a couple of people I'm suspicious of even before a crime is committed.

Is the suspicion that we are making up a false lawsuit and filing it now because Iran shot down a drone, and we want to go to war? Are you suspicious that this is just a way to let Iran know that their terrorist leadership had been penetrated?

And are we agreed that it is a legitimate lawsuit, filed by real people, and not a complete act staged by the CIA?

You see what I mean? I understand being suspicious, but I don't know what people are being suspicious of.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I see that there is a thread about Iranian involvement in 9/11 here on ATS. It's sole source is RT, even though it's a story available on more reliable sites. Not surprisingly, the reactions of posters on that thread show how their opinions were shaped by the RT story.

Here's a piece on The Daily Caller that has quotes, sources, and solid information instead of the innuendo of the RT piece.

Iran shares blame for 9/11



“The extensive record submitted to this court, including fact witnesses and expert testimony, is satisfactory to this court,” Judge Daniels said. The court “accepts as true” the various allegations of the plaintiffs and their experts, he declared, and “will issue an order” in the coming days that Iran bears legal responsibility for providing “material support” to the 9/11 plotters and hijackers.




In presenting evidence gathered by the attorneys and their outside investigator, Timothy Fleming revealed tantalizing details of still-sealed videotaped depositions provided by three defectors from Iranian intelligence organizations.

One of those defectors was “physically present” when al-Qaida’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came to Iran in May 2001 for four days of intense closed-door meetings with the top leadership in Iran to discuss the impending attacks.


You'll notice that no one is suggesting that Iran was the only party involved. This doesn't end all 9/11 conspiracy theories, but it does affect some of them.

There's a lot more, let me suggest you look at the article.

What I expect to see in response, and forgive me for sounding bitter and cynical, is the following:
"It happened in an American courtroom, it can't be fair."
"The Iranians weren't present to defend themselves." I'll bet everybody from the NYFD to the CIA would have been glad to have the involved Iranians show up.
"The judge is a puppet. It's just an excuse for an American war." We need another excuse?

I just thought this story was very important, and the thread sourced to RT wasn't getting it out.





Everyone that doesnt agree with US politics is involved in 9/11! "Evidence" is easy to forge! Like the passport of one of terrorists found under WTC building.....after plane crached into, burned in over 1000 degrees,and got pressed by 100 000 000 tons of concrete and metal....Apsolutely!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 

Dear FurvusRexCaeli,

Thanks for taking the time to read this stuff.

A "fair" point? Well, maybe, IF the Iranian representatives had not been allowed to be there. But I'm assuming you know enough law to do they had to be notified of the proceedings or the case wouldn't have gone forward for "failure of service."

I don't believe for one second that an Iranian official would have been kept out if he had wanted to be there. Besides that approach would mean that no one could have a judgement entered against them in absentia and I don't know of any country that would accept that.

Besides all that, what do you expect the Plaintiff's attorneys will do to collect money from Iran? Knock on their embassy door and hand them a piece of paper?

With respect,
Charles1952.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
As i sated in the other topic, 'Facts' are not needed, for the mass population all that is needed is the words '9-11 *insert Middle Eastern Country* Guilty'


of course it's suspicious, of course it's propaganda and conditioning,



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
And are we agreed that it is a legitimate lawsuit, filed by real people, and not a complete act staged by the CIA?


You know, this is like the evidence of the "stolen" Iranian laptop: Total CIA BS imo.


In presenting evidence gathered by the attorneys and their outside investigator, Timothy Fleming revealed tantalizing details of still-sealed videotaped depositions provided by three defectors from Iranian intelligence organizations.


Yeah right. Three defectors like this guy here?



Uh huh.

The world ought to require more evidence than hearsay to destroy countries.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by John0Doe
 


I don't know how you forge people. The judge found there were witnesses to the planning that gave their testimony as well as other experts and an extensive record.

Besides, this isn't the United States v. Iran, it's families of victims v. Iran. Please explain why Obama might think it's necessary to intervene with massive forgery and extensive witness tampering into a civil lawsuit? To make Iran look bad to Americans? That is silly, in my opinion. Americans aren't in love with Iran anyway.

The best argument I can see, and which no one has used, is that since this is a civil lawsuit only a preponderance of the evidence is necessary, not "beyond a reasonable doubt."



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Iran???
We all know it was Israel.
Well, it has been before, and there is evidence that points towards israel again.
If it quacks like a duck...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Dear TrueAmerican,

I'm not sure I understood you completely. When you said "Total CIA BS imo." Did you mean that the entire lawsuit is fake, or that legitimate victims and attorneys were fed false information that would let the law suit proceed?

And do I understand that you believe the three video taped depositions were not made by Iranian agents?

Do you think it is hearsay for a person to testify, "I was there, this is what I saw, this is what I heard?"

Why do you think that this civil lawsuit will lead to the US blowing Iran up?

I told you I didn't understand.

With respect,
Charles1952


The world ought to require more evidence than hearsay to destroy countries



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
A "fair" point? Well, maybe, IF the Iranian representatives had not been allowed to be there. But I'm assuming you know enough law to do they had to be notified of the proceedings or the case wouldn't have gone forward for "failure of service."

Absolutely they were notified, and chose not to represent themselves. Legally, the judge's decision is correct, and perhaps the only one he could have made. He looked at the evidence that was presented and made his decision based on that evidence. But factually, we still only have one side of the story. We don't have the benefit of the Iranian perspective, or even a US "red team" analysis of the data. There was no one in the process whose job it was to offer alternative theories or discredit the evidence. The judge's sound legal reasoning may rely on the plaintiff's unsound factual reasoning, or even things that aren't facts.


Besides all that, what do you expect the Plaintiff's attorneys will do to collect money from Iran? Knock on their embassy door and hand them a piece of paper?

Could the US seize Iranian assets and hand them over to the plaintiffs? There probably aren't any assets in reach. Maybe they think there will be a new, friendlier government in place sooner or later. I think the Libyans eventually paid a little for the plane(s?) they blew up.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Dear FurvusRexCaeli,

Thank you, thank you. One star isn't enough, but It's all I've got. Thank you for providing a voice of reason.

You are quite correct in saying that Iran's absence lends an air of incompleteness to the entire affair. I wish it had been otherwise. I wonder if they were offered safe passage in and out of the country to testify? Probably not, that would have been impossible to explain to the victims' families or to the country.

May I ask your opinion one one or two other points? I was hoping for a discussion on this earlier, but judging by the responses, it is not to be.

Does Obama pay any public attention to this case at all? If he says there's no real reason to be critical of Iran, he won't help his reelection chances. I can hear the opponent's commercials now with the judge's opinion on one side, and Obama saying "it's OK," on the other. Besdies, Obama has a reputation, deserved or not, of being soft on Islamic countries. It wouldn't help him to reinforce that.

If he goes hard on Iran using this case as a basis, I would think any possibility for diplomacy in the region will be set back at least six months. Further, the countries and factions wanting war, could possibly use this as another arrow in the quiver. There is no reason to believe Obama wants a major Middle East war while he's trying to get re-elected. (Besides, I hear the Nobel committee is starting to rethink their award to him.)

My guess? He says it's a private civil lawsuit which he can not be appropriately involved in.

Second point. I'm having trouble seeing this as a government operation because 1) it's too elaborate, 2) the payoff, if any, is too remote, and 3) they don't gain anything that they don't already have.

The world will not pay much attention to a US court judgment against Iran, so any gain would have to be domestic. Americans already dislike Iran, so what's his reward?

Anyway, I value and would appreciate your opinions.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican



Not that it matters to many here at ATS but here is the real video where that horribly photoshopped image comes from.

Zoomed in Grey scale Osama



(click to open player in new window)


Zoomed in color Osama



(click to open player in new window)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I think there are many factors in this story that make even the least critical among us doubt the facts surrounding the case.

You may want to hear a better reason than "the judge is corrupt", "expert and witness testimony" and "the timing is bad", but those are all valid reasons to question the truth surrounding this case.

I have first hand exprerience with corrupt judges and eye-witness testimony 10 years later is easily construed and manipulated.

Other nations, such as Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel, are much more liable in the case of 9/11 but no one in the government will look their way.

So considering the environment in which this is occuring, I think it is a valid response to be very critical of any action taken against Iran when it has become very clear that tptb wish to enter Iran at any moment.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join