Did people catch 60 Mins. 911Truth moment!?

Ahmadinejad made mincemeat of Scott Pelley, and closed with 911 Truth!! Here are two links to the interview, not all of which, especially the 911 T part, made it on air. I would be surprised if it is still on the site!! Check out Pelley's highlighted remark below!! His leading questions sounded very Faux News-like!!


the last page of the interview transcript~~

(CBS) PELLEY: One last thing. So important for the American people to understand. When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, "Good. Somebody got 'em." They believe our countries are enemies.

Open Thread

We have had numerous submissions regarding Ron Paul, Iran, etc that aren't really on topic, feel free to post and discuss these topics in this thread...

Ahmadinejad: How Is WTC Visit Insulting?

Iranian President On Failed Request To Pay Tribute At Ground Zero speaking with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley in Tehran, on Sept. 20, 2007. (CBS)

Ahmadinejad, who has been accused of having links to al Qaeda, tells Scott Pelley that he would like to pay his respects to the American people by visiting ground zero.
(snip and snip)
"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.

"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.

"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley replies.

Scott Ritter (short video) on Bush's nuclear insanity

Scott Ritter on Bush’s nuclear insanity (must view) (short)

(tip of the cap to EarthFamilyAlpha)

Pentagon has plan for three-day 'blitz' against Iran: claim

The plan calls for "taking out the entire Iranian military”

Sarah Baxter, Washington
The Sunday Times
September 2, 2007

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

(more after the jump...)

Administration going toe-to-toe with Truth Movement on 9/11?'s a really weird one. The text following the url below is from a blog titled

Informed Comment Global Affairs: Group blog on Current Events

The blog entry's author is Barnett Rubin.
Barnett Rubin is a CFR member............cue the Twilight Zone music.

From a straight take on what he says it looks like the administration is going to try to drown out the 6th anniversary Truth events.
Maybe more and larger Truth actions and events need to take place on the 9th and 10th.
A big Truth roar on those 2 days will make it look obvious to more people that the
administration is scared of the Truth if/when cheney rolls out the new product on the 11th:
"Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:

Lewis Paul Bremer III on Washington DC NBC4 TV 09/11/01

This is a mind-boggling interview with Lewis Paul Bremer III (who ended up as the pro-council of Iraq.)

On 09/11/01 Bremer was the Chairman and CEO of Marsh Political Risk Practice which had offices in the WTC as did its parent company Marsh USA. They had a total of 1,700 employees assigned to the WTC. Bremer, himself, had an office in the South Tower. Nonetheless, this "counter-terrorism expert" makes no mention of any of this only three hours after the first plane flew directly into seven of the eight floors of WTC 1 occupied by Marsh USA. He is here on television prognosticating about who will turn out to be the culprits, with calm detachment. What is wrong with this picture?

48 Hours Until War With Iran

I am unsure what to make of this story, although it was carried by Reuters, which is an otherwise legitimate news agency. This story claims that helicopters in Northern Iraq are dropping leaflets warning people to evacuate. The leaflets claim an invasion by Iran will commence in 48 hours.

I am not sure what to make of this. It would seem strange that Iran would give forewarning of an invasion in this way – since they would essentially be warning their enemies as well. And how would Iran gain access to Northern Iraqi airspace to drop leaflets?

On the other hand, who would have the resources (helicopters) to execute an operation like this? I would not be as concerned if the leaflets surfaced in the streets of Iraq from sources unknown. Propaganda such as this, during times of war, are common place. But, the fact that they were dropped from helicopters implies that it is the work of an organized military intelligence force/state.

There have been stories over the last several days claiming Iran has been shelling Northern Iraq as well. This is concerning.

Why Portlanders are worried about being the nuclear 9-11.

The military is simulating a terrorist nuclear attack in Portland this week. Oregon corporate media won't report on it, the city of Portland hasn't been invited to participate, and friends of mine are leaving town. (the story has now changed - to volcano, and now, earthquake)

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."
Congressman Peter DeFazio, 7/20/07

Here's what has people in Portland concerned, in a nutshell:

Since September, 2001, some major "terrorist" events have been
occurring at the exact times that the drills for them were occurring.

(google: 9/11 Northern Vigilance, 9/11 Vigilant Guardian,
- there were at least two other drills ongoing at the time. These had
most active US fighters drawn North over Canada, and some drills
inserted false blips on radar screens while others were "live fly"
exercises that involved hijackings.

(google: 7/7 Visor Consulting) - This was a drill that had the exact
same targets as the actual bombings.

9/11 – Fool me once...

9/11 – Fool me once...

Ian Brockwell
July 22, 2007

As George Bush tried to say some time ago “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. With a great deal of evidence suggesting that the American people were fooled over the 9/11 attack in 2001, and indications that a new attack (equally horrific) might be on the way, these words should be imprinted on our minds.

Many leading figures in the government (and military) have been hinting at such an event, and if we are to believe the signs, this could happen in just a matter of weeks.

If it does take place, when and where will it occur? In April of this year Dick Cheney said a 9/11 with terrorists using “a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities” was the greatest threat. But could this be an attempt to distract us from the real location, a carrier in the Persian Gulf, or a chance for him to say “I told you so” later?

New 9/11 target “Boldly Going” to be in the Persian Gulf?

Thanks to CAMPAIGN for sending this in:

Ian Brockwell
July 19, 2007

It was suggested a year ago, that the USS Enterprise was a likely “false flag” target to provide the Bush administration with an excuse to attack Iran. The ship’s last spell in the Gulf passed without incident (let’s hope it will again), but it is now returning to apparently replace the USS Nimitz.

The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned in 2014-2015 and is the oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet (launched in 1960), so one could say it is “expendable” on the grounds of age. But what other reasons are there to believe that a carrier might be a possible target for a “new” 9/11?

Bush Directive For "Catastrophic Emergency" In America: Building A Justification For Waging War On Iran?


By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 24, 2007

"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA Today, 12 February 2006) The American Homeland is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.

America is under attack" by an illusive "outside enemy".

Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. "Offense" becomes a legitimate means of "self-defense". In the words of President Bush:

"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

Retired US Military Intelligence officer issues warning about false flag terror

In a recent interview published in "The Lone Star Iconoclast" a former military intelligence officer, Captain Eric May, explains why he thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation and why a nuclear false flag terror attack against a US target might be in preperation to justify waging nuclear war on Iran.

Below are a few snips from the interview posted at

Mission of Conscience Accomplished: Battle of Baghdad Cover-up Exposed
Monday, April 30, 2007
By W. Leon Smith, Editor-In-Chief


MAY: Iraq looks in two directions: it looks backward to 9/11, which is its prologue; and it looks forward to Iran, which is its epilogue. That’s the Bush presidency: two years to set up a war, four years of a war disaster, then two more years to escalate things into a bigger war. The crucial question is: Will Bush attack Iran, and thereby likely start World War III?

ICONOCLAST: Do you think he will attack Iran? Do you think he can?

Council on Foreign Relations: Beware an Al Qaeda false flag attack

An article in the recent Foreign Affairs, titled "Al Qaeda Strikes Back," posits a possible premise for war with Iran that only someone writing for Foreign Affairs could imagine: a false flag attack by AL QAEDA. The article is full of the usual nonsense about how powerful Al Qaeda is, but then there's this passage:

"The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have."

I'm not sure what to take from this. On the one hand, it recommends America not leap into action after the next terror attack because it could be a false flag attack. On the other hand, it contains this twisted logic that Al Qaeda, not the US government, would sponsor a false flag attack as a premise for an invasion of Iran.