U.S. Federal Judge Rules Iran, Hezbollah Also Responsible for 9/11

9/11 verdict is 'US propaganda for waging war on Iran'

A US court has won a default judgement that Iranian officials, including its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, provided help to the 9/11 hijackers behind the worst terror attack on American soil. The lawsuit was filed by the families of the atrocity's victims. There was no Iranian representation in court. RT talks to Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.


Director of the Center for Research on Globalization Michel Chossudovsky has told RT that calling Iran’s officials - including the supreme leader - guilty of helping the 9/11 attackers is nothing but “a ploy.”

On Thursday, families of victims of the September 11th 2001 attacks won a default judgment against Iran, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Lebanon-based Hezbollah. According to the lawsuit, people in Iran – including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei- provided support to the terrorists who went on to attack civilians on US soil.But Mr. Chossudovsky told RT he believes it’s nothing but a cover-up, with Iran as a convenient fall guy.

“There is absolutely no evidence that Iran aided the 9/11 attacks. There is ample evidence after collection that there was conspiracy and the complicity of the US government…There is absolutely no evidence that Al Qaeda or the Taliban were involved in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, if there is anyone behind Al Qaeda, it was the Central Intelligence Agency, going back to the Soviet Afghan war”, Chossudovsky said.

And this latest court ruling is part of the plan, according to Chossudovsky. “We are dealing with fabrications whereby a war agenda, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for many years, is now seeking justification to go live – and we’ve seen the drone attacks, we’ve seen the sanctions.”

But why would the United States get involved in such a long-running, costly, dangerous ploy? The answer, according to the Canadian analyst, is simple.

“Because Iran has 10 per cent of the world’s oil reserves – four or five times the amount of the United States; it’s in a crucial region, it doesn’t accept US hegemony and it’s an ally of Russia and China.”

However, Chossudovsky told RT, the consequences of such a move could be disastrous. “It could unleash a war which extends from the eastern Mediterranean right through to Central Asia to the Chinese border – and then we are in a World War III scenario.”

Iran, Hezbollah Also Responsible for 9/11, Rules Federal Judge

I view the ‘withdrawl’ from

I view the ‘withdrawl’ from Iraq as a precursor to an invasion of Iran. They’re creating their cover story. They’ve had designs & been intent upon invading Iran for decades. The chess board moves of surrounding it (Iran is between Iraq & Afghanistan) is enough for any thinking person to realize this. Here’s how I predict it will work. They’ll pull some troops out of Iraq (leaving enough to insure we control the flow of it’s oil & that it’s ‘Government exists only at our pleasure). Then they’ll stage another 911 like false flag attack using WMD (likely a dirty bomb) & pin it on Iran. Then using Iraqi & Afghanistan as bases for the operation,they’ll invade from both. Once there,they’ll plant WMD’s. No one will ever believe the WMD’s were planted bacause they didn’t plant them in Iraq (now we know why) and no one will believe we were intending to invade Iran all along because we were in the process of withdrawing from Iraq! Get it? Pretty clever. It’s gives them plausible deniability .

Remember the Human Wave?

Remember the Human Wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war? If I remember correctly it worked like this: waves of Iranian "martyrs" as big as 50,000 in each formation launched head long frontal attacks on the Iraqis. The outcome was so bloody that the Iraqis sued for peace even though they were winning. If the U.S. got evolved in a situation like this there would be a very strong backlash in military families like the Four Mothers Movement in Israel.

"Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran"

From the 2009 strategy paper "WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy
toward Iran":

"For purposes of this analytic exercise, we assume that a U.S. invasion of
Iran is not triggered by an overt, incontrovertible, and unforgivable act of
aggression-something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the
planes bore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.
First, this seems exceptionally unlikely given Iran's history of avoiding
such acts, at least since the end of the Iran-Iraq War. second, were that
ever to happen, the circumstances of an invasion would become almost easy -
the United states would suddenly have enormous domestic and (perhaps grudging)
international support for undertaking an invasion. indeed, the entire
question of "options" would become irrelevant at that point: what American
president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed
several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?

Beyond such a blatant act of inexcusable aggression, the question of
provocation gets murky. Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are
dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the
current differences between Iran and the international community - let alone
Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard
to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some
fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this
public antipathy is likely to prove decisive."

(p. 66)

This has eery similarities to Project for a New American Century. Cf. "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" and "Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11". To me, it looks like a tacit order or at least wish for a new 9/11 while allowing them to say after the fact that "we didn't believe Iran would actually do something like it".

I agree

'Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.'

I agree--that is eery and ominous-sounding, with echoes of PNAC in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses.'

Does not name the Judge

sounds like Hellerstein.


Federal Judge George Daniels




There is a caveat among writers not to use literary conventions like a alliteration unless you know what you are doing because used wrong they tend to ring hollow and sound amateurish. I think Don Henley had complete command of the language when he penned the phrase "bubble headed bleach blonde." ( "Dirty Laundry" from the album I Can't Stand Still, 1982)

dirty laundry

We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry