Worth Repeating: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Not Necessarily Batshit Crazy

Calculating Iranian President more dangerous than a crazy one

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drove the US delegation out of the UN General Assembly by alluding to 9/11 "truth" theories during a speech, the general media narrative was that he's batshit crazy.

This isn't without good cause. A quick perusal of 9/11 "truth" theories quickly reveals those who believe such theories to be demonstrably nuts -- Scott Stockdale's objections and all.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have seized upon a key strategic interest with his comments: keeping the international community divided.

As the University of Alberta Gateway's Ryan Bromsgrove points out, Ahmadinejad has managed to solidify his position at the head of an anti-Western, anti-capitalist global bloc (regardless of how genuine he could possibly as such, considering that he leads a mass oil-exporting country).

"The focus of the media has been on his suggestions about 9/11, and how the US delegation walked out on his speech. Relatively few news stories say much about what else he said -- he opened his diatribe with a religious criticism of capitalism, then moved on to the international response to 9/11. He described three potential viewpoints on the attacks -- that they were carried out by a terrorist organization, that they were the work of the American government, or that they were co-ordinated by a terrorist organization with the support of the US government -- and what groups he thinks holds each one. Critically, however, he didn’t reveal which he himself ascribed to. He then went on to remark that the wars spawned by 9/11 killed thousands more people. This was followed by a reasonable plea for nuclear disarmament and nuclear energy, and ending with a lengthy religion-infused call for peace, justice, love, and the end of capitalism."

Moreover, how "reasonable" a plea for nuclear disarmament from the leader of a country that is currently in the process of arming itself with nuclear weapons is also extremely questionable.

But aside form this detail, Bromsgrove seems to have seized upon a successful gambit to make himself look reasonable, and his global adversaries seem unreasonable:

"Regardless of what Iran’s actual motives may be when it comes to nuclear weapons, power, and world peace, what is key is that much of the speech had the appearance of being reasonable. But by provoking western countries to walk out with two minutes of conspiracy nonsense, Ahmadinejad cunningly allowed himself to appeal to his own country, allies, and those sitting on the fence, while also being able to claim that despite making some very reasonable calls for peace and nuclear disarmament, the West wouldn’t listen to him. Sure, the western media will predictably demonize him, but he has nothing to lose there. Where it counts for him, he’ll likely strengthen his own support -- indeed, Iranian MPs released a statement giving their full support to Ahmadinejad’s speech before the UN General Assembly -- while making it look like it’s the US who are unwilling to negotiate"

Of course we know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't interested in world peace by any means. He's more interested in keeping power in Iran, and he seems to know that repeatedly stirring up hostility against Iran will keep him entrenched among nationalistic elements within Iran, while continually feeding hostility against Israel will give Iranian nationalists something else to look at.

Underscoring Ryan Bomsgrove's article is a sobering reminder: while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may want the western world to believe him to be crazy, a calculating Ahmadinejad is much more effective -- and dangerous -- than he would be if he were merely crazy.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Iran?

US declines to show at UN for Harper speech, shows up for Ahmadinjad 9/11 fibs

If any evidence were needed to demonstrate precisely how warped US President Barack Obama's priorities really are, it was found today at the United Nations.

With three countries -- Canada, Germany, and Portugal -- vying for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council, one would imagine that someone with a direct stake in whomever occupies that seat would take enough interest to listen to the speeches delivered by each country before the General Assembly.

As a permanent member of the Security council, the United States had such a stake. But where was President Obama while Prime Minister Stephen Harper was delivering his speech?

At lunch, with much of the rest of the General Assembly.

Obama would return for, of all things, a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmaedinejad took his moment in the sun before the US President to peddle 9/11 "truth" theories, which prompted much of the General Assembly to walk out.

“Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime,” Ahmadinejad announced.

At which point the US delegation walked out.

One delegation that didn't walk out was the Canadian delegation. Canada had the decency to boycott Ahmadinejad's speech.

If anything underscores the warped priorities of Obama's diplomatic agenda, it's unquestionably this.

The US delegation fails to show up to hear Harper's speech, and instead takes a lunch break that they should have scheduled while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at the podium spewing his 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theories.

With friends like Barack Obama, who needs Iran?

Two Men, No Conscience

Is George Galloway really the real deal?

Based on this segment from his TV program of the same name, the answer must be, emphatically, "no".

In his interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Galloway shows himself to be not only an individual who is himself bereft of conscience, but more than willing to provide an open forum to an individual who is even more so.



In the first portiono of the interview, Galloway wavers back and forth between self-aggrandizing talk of "breaking the siege of Gaza", and of the prospects for "American aggression" against Iran over the nuclear issue.

If the first portion of this interview weren't bad enough, the second portion will make any proper-thinking individual want to punch Galloway as well:



In the second portion, Ahmadinejad dismisses the Green Revolution as foreign stooges, just before he declares them to be insignificant.

With a smile on his face he declares that his country will decline an invitation from the President of Brazil to allow an Iranian woman convicted of adultery to go into exile in Brazil rather than be viciously stoned to death.

Throughout it all, George Galloway repeatedly declares himself to be a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmaedinejad, his farce of a reelection, and his government.

Frankly, when two individuals as bereft of consciecne as Galloway and Ahmaedinejad meet, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they really do deserve one another -- and George Galloway certainly deserves his reputation as a ready boot-licker for all sorts of tyrants.

Hope For Iran

The desire for democracy is Iran's best-kept secret

If one were to believe the tone of some of the coverage of the protests against Iranian President Mahmould Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election, one may think that a second Iranian revolution is underway.

Today hundreds of thousands of Iranians protested against what they insist was a corrupted election, one fixed so that Ahmadinejad could win.

Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi promised to "pay any cost" today, even though he fully expects that his challenge to the results of the election will fail.

When compared to the number killed when Chinese troops crushed a student pro-democracy rally in Tiananmen Square, the single protester killed doesn't seem inconsequential. Many critics of the Iranian theocratic regime will still seize upon it as proof that the regime there is horribly repressive.

And it is.

But when critics of Ahmadinejad and his regime focus on events such as the killing of this protester, or on the censorship of music, or on beating of women's rights activists one can quickly overlook the true significance of these events.

It's incredibly significant that Iran has such a powerful pro-democracy movement that it can mobilize hundreds of thousands in opposition to what Mousavi rightly describes as the "selection" of Ahmadinejad as President. It's incredibly significant that there is a heavy metal scene in Iran for the government to ban. It's incredibly significant that Iran has a women's rights movement that is perceived as threatening enough that Iranian police would beat them.

In focusing on these images -- as deplorable as they are -- we overlook the signs of hope in Iran. And as dark as things may seem in Iran, those clouds have a democratic silver lining.

One way or the other, democracy is coming to Iran. The Iranian people's thirst for it may not be quenched by anything less.

Canadian Leaders Courting the Next Presidential Gold Medallion

Candidates square off over who best supports Canadian Judaism, Israel, and who can best handle Iran

As the 2008 federal election campaign grinds on, it's inevitable that various candidates will make their pitch to various ethnic and religious voting blocs.

In some cases, that could serve to backfire.

But for Liberal Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler, his recent efforts have been little more than going back to the well from which he has so often drank.

Cotler has recently been involved with a petition to have Iranian president Mahmould Ahmadinejad charged with "inciting genocide".

Speaking at the conference against state-sponsored genocide in Washington organized as a prelude to Ahmadinejad's recent address to the UN, Cotler insisted "The crime of incitement to genocide has already been committed. Iran has paved the way to genocide, and genocide has already begun in [the sense of] incitement."

Cotler insisted that the charges alone could go a long way toward legitimizing Ahmandinejad. “The very process of initiating these remedies will embolden the progressive forces in Iran," he announced.

Cotler also aptly pointed out that those who incite genocide are as bad as those who actually commit it. “[Ahmadinejad] should be treated with the opprobrium of a genocidaire,” he concluded.

Some may be eager to dismiss Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Judaism to be empty partisan pandering. But to suggest so they would have to know very little about Cotler's past.

The genocide petition against Ahmadinejad isn't merely a flavour of the week gambit for Cotler. He has proven his dedication to preventing genocide and prosecuting those who commit it throughout his entire legal career, both before and after entering his politics.

His book Justice Delayed remains the landmark work on Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada.

The plentiful political capital that Cotler enjoys in Canada's Jewish community has been richly and rightly earned.

Yet not all of Canada's leaders have supported Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Israel. Liberal leader Stephane Dion recently accused former Foreign Affairs miniser (now Minister of Defense) Peter MacKay of obstructing Cotler's efforts.

"The [Liberal party] has supported Irwin’s initiative to hold President Ahmadinejad to account before the UN Security Council or a duly constituted international tribunal for the crime of genocidal incitement as required by the 1948 genocide convention," Dion told a Jewish audience in Winnipeg. “I do not understand why Conservative MPs have attempted to block Irwin’s motion in support of this initiative that he brought forward at Parliament’s human rights subcommittee,”

"Peter MacKay, then the foreign minister, rejected this initiative as a worthless gesture because [he said] it probably won’t work," Dion continued. "I don’t know how he came to that determination, but when it comes to international law, I think I’ll trust Irwin Cotler’s opinion over Peter MacKay’s."

Of course, MacKay actually has a point to this end. The UN has never been known for its sympathies toward Israel, and has often been hijacked by various Middle Eastern regimes for denouncing Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Ironically, they've historically often done this while these very regimes treat Palestinians -- and other minorities within their domain, including Jews -- no better, and often worse.

For his own part, Cotler credits Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- a fellow recipient recipient of B'Nai Brith's Presidential Gold Medal -- for his supportive words, but suggests he has yet to act on them. “The Prime Minister has done excellent work in his statements with regard to Israel, but words are not as important as deeds,” Cotler recently told an all-party discussion panel.

Which is fair enough. While Harper has made his support of Israel widely and well known, one could hardly mistake them for action.

Yet the same is the case with Cotler's most recent initiative. Without any means to ensure that Mahmoud Ahmaedinejad appears before the International Criminal Court to face charges, Cotler's petition is, itself, little more than empty words.

Andrea Paine, the Conservative candidate in Lac St Louis, defended the government's rejection of Cotler's petition as being in line with Israel's stance on the matter.

“We were not sure what the position of the Israeli government actually would be. We were also concerned that if the bill passed, the pro-Palestinians would spin that into a victory for themselves,” she insisted. “We were being cautious and waiting to follow Israel’s lead.”

Israel, however, for its own part, supports the push to file charges against Ahmadinejad.

Also on the discussion panel was NDP Outremont MP Thomas Mulcair, who insisted that his party doesn't harbour elements hostile to Israel.

“Some do have slightly different takes on issues, but what is important is the position we take at the end of the day as a party, and I am extremely comfortable defending them today,” Mulcair insisted.

Certainly, they clearly do. Perhaps it's better left up to individuals to judge whether or not those positions are anti-Israel or not.

One thing is for certain: while virtually any issue related to Israel is bound to be controversy, Canada cannot strive to be a leader on the global stage while shying away from sticky topics -- particularly one so central to international relations as that of Israel.

It's on that note that it's actually quite comforting to see Israel treated as an issue in the 2008 federal election. At the very least, it makes the proceedings of this federal election a little less insular than they otherwise would tend to be.

In the end, the prize will be not merely a shiny bauble from B'Nai Brith, but Canada's relevance, credibility and leadership on the world stage.

Iran, Rockets and Nuclear Technology... Oh, My!

Ahmadinejad apparently figures the west's just jealous of his toys

Oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When he isn't gathering the world's top Holocaust denial "experts" in Tehran or claiming "we don't have homosexuals in Iran", at least he can be counted on to wax ecstatic about freakin' amazing his new ray gun is going to be.

"They see the Iranian nation making progress -- just reaching the same scientific level -- and this is very difficult for them," Ahmadinejad announced in the course of a recent interview.

"The nuclear technology is ...the sort of technology that has been monopolized by a few countries," he added. "And they want to maintain such a monopoly, and they want to use it as an instrument of domination over the whole world."

This, of course, comes one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that, while Iran has clarified numerous areas of its nuclear program, it may be just a tad too soon to dismiss any idea of Iran using it to produce a weapon.

Ahmadinejad, or course, views all of this as politically motivated. "We realized that as we give them more concessions, they come up with more expectations," he complained. "We acted in an honest matter."

But, of course we should trust Ahmadinejad, right? Right?

Maybe not. Even while Iran proclaimed a recent US intelligence report that denied any evidence of Iran having a secret nuclear weapons program as a victory, the report also noted that Iran had been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon just prior to 2003. Also, it was noted in 2006 that Iran had secretly assembled a team of nuclear specialists to infiltrate the Safeguards division of the IAEA.

So apparently, Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapon very badly. So what, right? I mean it isn't as if he could ever manage to deliver it to a target.

Aw, shit.

Not to mention the fact that Iran has researchers tinkering with rocket technology in a Kennedy-esque mission to conquer the moon -- the results of which could quite easily be weaponized (this becomes apparent when one considers how many NASA researchers were also instrumental in the development of ballistic missile technology.

So, despite the lingering doubts over whether or not Iran has really discontinued its weapons program, apparent efforts to contravene the very same organizations investigating Iran's alleged nuke program and efforts to develop weaponizable rocket technology (not hat they weren't already on their way to developing such technology well before their recent test launch), one has to wonder: what's to worry about Iran developing nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them to targets abroad?

Considering that this is an individual who has announced that Israel should be "wiped off the map", one would think it's obvious to a rational individual.

Just don't ask Ahmadinejad himself -- he's still mad that the west won't let him play with their toys.

The Truth Hurts, Get a Helmet

Blunt? Perhaps. But also "true".


If one were to take statements issued by Iranian state radio as the holy gospel, a person would be pretty convinced that the Iranian people were deeply offended by the comments of Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, who yesterday told Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in no uncertain terms, what he thinks of him.

While the "petty" and "cruel" remarks have seemingly found the most traction in the media, Bollinger's attack was fierce, and pulled no punches.


"Over the past two weeks, your government has released Haleh Esfandi ari and Parnaz Azima and just two days ago, Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia," Bollinger noted. "Tajbakhsh remains in Tehran under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country."

"The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian-Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow you to even appear on this campus," he added.

"But at least they are alive," Bollinger conceded. "According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of Sept 5 alone."

"This annual total includes at least two children - further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors."

"There is more," Bollinger continued. "Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a suppression of efforts to establish a more democratic society. These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called 'soft revolution.'"

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger asserted.

"Why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?" he asked. "Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?"

Bollinger after went after Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust. "In a December 2005 state TV broadcast, you described the Holocaust as 'a fabricated legend,'" Bollinger noted. "One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers."

"For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda."

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," insisted Bollinger. "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

"Frankly, and in all candour, Mr President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions," Bollinger said, "but your avoiding them will itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterises so much of what you say and do."

"I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," Bollinger concluded. "I only wish I could do better."

Iran's state radio station had its own response for Bollinger. "The surprising point of the last night meeting is the behavior of the university president," the station reported. It described Bollinger's comments as "full of insult, which was mostly Zionists' propaganda against Iran."

Seven chancellors of Iranian universities also responded to Bollinger.

"Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful," the chancellors collectively insisted. "Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech."

For his part, Ahmadinejad (as Bollinger predicted) had no answers to this confrontation.

"I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all," Ahmadinejad replied.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he claimed. "We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

In regards to the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad had some rather predictable responses. "Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" he asked. "My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it. My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?"

One has to question Ahmadinejad's definition of an academic environment. In an academic environment (as one finds at a university), one is not expected to disregard the truth in order to allow a polite reception for anyone, even if they are an invited guest.

The very purpose of these insitutions is to disseminate information. Lee Bollinger did a masterful job of this by not only providing people with important information about the activities of Iran's oppressive regime, but by doing so in Ahmadinejad's presence he effectively did so to Ahmadinejad's face, in the public eye. Ahmadinejad's inability to effectively refute or deny the accusations against his state becomes in effect a masterfully-extracted mea culpa wherein Ahmadinejad practically admitted his state's guilt in these affairs by failing to deny them.

Ahmadinejad was also provided with something he otherwise would not have had: an opportunity to defend himself. He effectively declined, at least on the basis of the grievances raised.

Ahmadinejad (and, conveniently, Iranian state radio, its state FARS news network, and the aforementioned university chancellors) have instead chosen the response most offered by those who know they've been defeated.

They changed the subject, responding not with facts or even denials, but instead with a myriad of questions regarding media pressure, Israel, and Iraq. Some of them may be fair enough questions in their own regard, but they don't serve to explain away the many offences of Ahmadinejad's regime in Tehran.

Unsurprisingly, a statement of solidarity has been released by another authoritarian leader who cannot explain away his transgressions. "I congratulate him, in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the US empire," said Venezualan president Hugo Chavez.

Bollinger should accept the invitations of these individuals to meet them in an open debate, although one simply must expect that an Iranian university simply will not be a conducive site for a discussion of the Iranian regime and its various human rights abuses.

If these seven university chancellors want to confront Lee Bollinger (hopefully, along with a team of similarly informed academics), they should be more than prepared to do so at a site on neutral territory.

And the end of the day, however, the most important thing is this: if the Iranian regime is truly so offended by Bollinger's remarks (all of which happen to share the virtue of being true), they know what they need to do -- change their practices.

If they aren't willing to do so, then one hopes that there are plenty more inviduals like Lee Bollinger who are prepared to hold Iran accountable for its misdeeds. No one should feel obligated to help them hide from the truth.

Worst Idea Ever

Ahmadinejad’s offer completely untenable

Any Democrats campaigning on an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq may have just been given the best reason in the world to change their tune.

Iran has volunteered to “fill the power vacuum” an American withdrawal would be leaving behind in Iraq.

"The political power of the occupiers (of Iraq) is being destroyed rapidly and very soon we will be witnessing a great power vacuum in the region," Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced. "We, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, are ready to fill this void."

The “regional friends” Ahmadinajed has in mind? Syria and Saudi Arabia.

"They are trapped in the swamp of their own crimes," Ahmadinejad insisted. "If you stay in Iraq for another 50 years nothing will improve, it will just worsen."

Of course, nothing is guaranteed to improve under a new occupying power, either. In fact, if it’s guaranteed that the Iraqi quagmire will worsen under continuing American occupation, it’s just as guaranteed that it will worsen under Iranian occupation.

Iranians, Syrians and Saudis in Iraq would, with near-absolute certainty, fall prey to the same forces that the Americans have – that of Iraqi nationalism.

It was Iraqi nationalism that American observers underestimated when they insisted they would be "greeted as liberators". Ahmadinejad isn't underestimating it any less.

Some may find themselves prone to endorse Ahmadinejad’s proposal on the basis that Muslims – more importantly, Shi’ites (like Iraq’s majority) – would have better luck pacifying the country than the Americans. These people underestimate the power of Iraqi nationalism.

They’re also forgetting their history. Between 1980 and 1988, Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest conflicts of post-WWII history – one of the most recent conflicts in which more than one million people were killed.

Many Iraqis are still old enough to remember this war. Even those who aren’t old enough to have lived through it have been indoctrinated to view Iran as their enemy through Baathist propaganda.

Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are unlikely to find support amongst their neighbours. Ahmadinejad’s attempts to establish a regional security pact have been rebuked by Gulf Arab states, who have their suspicions regarding Ahmadinejad’s intentions.

As well they should.

Taking Ahmadinejad up on his offer also has implications for Iraq’s Kurdish population. The region that historically comprises Kurdistan is currently split four ways, between geographical Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.

Under Ahmadinejad, the Kurdish population could be due for the same oppression that Kurds in Iran and Kurds in Syria currently face.

There is a reason for this. Historical Kurdistan accounts for a significant portion of Iran’s territory.

Ahmadinejad’s offer is far from an altruistic gesture in favour of regional peace: it’s a ploy to undercut the emergence of a new nation state that could prove territorially threatening to both Iran and Syria (as well as Turkey, Kurdistan accounts for up to one-fifth of its territory).

Establishing an Iran-esque Muslim theocracy in Iraq would also spare Ahmadinejad the uncomfortable position of eventually being sandwiched between two stable democracies cast in the western mould – in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad honestly believes his proposal represents some sort of "miracle cure" for the Iraqi quagmire, he desperately needs to re-think it. Iraq will prove no more receptive to Iranians -- with whom Iraqis fought the region's bloodiest war of the 20th century -- than it has been for the Americans.

Ahmadinejad's offer must be rejected out of hand. It's either entirely ill-conceived (though no more ill-conceived than the Iraq war itself), or just plan disengenuous.

The stakes in Iraq are too high to turn the country over to a wolf in, well... wolf's clothing.

This Weekend in Farce: Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

"Truth" likely to be in short supply at 9/11 conference

Somewhere in East Vancouver, Kevin Potvin is surely knee-deep in his own glee.

Starting yesterday, and continuing until tomorrow, the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society is hosting a 9/11 Truth Conference.

Dr. Steven Jones -- pushing the envelope of credulity

Among the speakers at the conference is Doctor Steven Jones, a retired professor from Brigham Young University (an institution owned by the Church of Jesus Christ for Latter-Day Saints -- also known as the Mormons), who will claim that the official 9/11 report cannot explain that collapse of the World Trade Center. Dr Jones, whose specialties include "metal-catalyzed fuision, archaeometry and solar energy", claims the only way to explain how a pair of 110-story skyscrapers could collapse as they did is that they were demolished by pre-set explosive charges, as used by demolitions experts.

According to Dr Jones, the 650 degree celsius temperature generated by the fires from burning jet fuel from the two airliners would have not been enough to melt the steel girders of the two buildings. He also argues that, historically, when such buildings have collapsed (most often as a result of earthquakes) they have always toppled over sideways.

Dr. Jones even claims he can identify microexplosions, where thermite demolition devices are being detonated sequentially as the building collapses.

However, Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" quickly falls into credibility pitfalls. For example, his work is consistently touted as peer-reviewed -- but it was never peer-reviewed by a civil engineer. He is noted to have no experience in building collapse forensics. Even his own university rejected his paper. Dr. Woodruff Miller, BYU's chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering said, "the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Dr. Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" was not even peer reviewed by the engineers at his own university. Perhaps there's some sort of "consipracy" at work here, too.

Dr. Jones' claims rely on skepticism regarding the alleged "pancake effect" where the floors fall neatly into each other at freefall speed, as in a professional demolition. For evidence of this, he relies on video footage. Yet, when the video footage is more closely examined, it becomes ovbious that this "pancake effect" never truly occurred. Much of the debris fell faster than the debris cloud, which fell faster still than the building itself. Dr. Jones' primary argument holds no credibility.

Not only are Dr. Jones claims refuted by examining the video footage which he, himself, uses to try to refute the official story, but they are also refuted by virtually every legitimately peer-reviewed study on the subject.

Even then, Dr. Jones' claims suffer from one fatal flaw: demolitions charges need to be set up before they can be used to demolish a building. Yet, no one working in the World Trade Center reported seeing anyone setting up such charges. Not one.

So much for Dr. Jones.

Robin Hordon and the politics of the 9/11 truth movement

Another speaker at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, Robin Hordon, describes himself as a commendated air traffic controller, certified air, ground and facility instructor and designer of the Boston Center Descent and Metering Program. He has worked on numerous in-air emergencies, and two hijackings.

Hordon insists that he knew 9/11 was a "false flag" operation (an attack carried out under the guise of another country or group) hours after. He insists that "there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

Despite the fact that no hijacked plane in the history of the United States has ever been shot down, Hordon does begin to make a persuasive case. He notes that a sophisticated system was in place, prior to June of 2001, that would enable fighter jets to intercept any suspicious airliner within 10-15 minutes of a potential problem.

Yet Hordon's claims over look two very serious issues: firstly, a number of war game exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001, diverting figher jets that otherwise would have been available to intercept the jetliners. Secondly, the FAA was not dealing with one hijacking on 9/11. They were dealing with four largely simultaneous hijackings.

Hordon is actually much more revealling as to his true motivations for his claims when he begins to discuss his political views. "I see September 11th as being a symptom of a far bigger problem. A problem that Dwight David Eisenhower had brought to our attention as he left office in the 1950s when he he warned [the United States] about two significant elements of our economy looming above us: the Military Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Congress. 9/11 served the goals of both those elements."

"That I can show how Rumsfeld's Military reshaped interceptor protocols so that 9/11 could happen without the airliners being shot from the sky, is but a small bit of evidence that is flooding past the Bush regime," Hordon insists.

Yet, Hordon is exaggerating the Pentagon's eagerness to shoot down hijacked airliners, particularly when full of civilians. Despite the 75-150 high-speed scrambles he notes were performed by military aircraft each year in the United States for ten years, not a single plane was ever shot down. Surely, at least one of these 1,500 scrambles would have been related to a plane off course for at least 30-60 minutes.

Finally, there is the matter of shooting down civilian airliners over populated areas, such as New York City. When examined on merely the basis of the procedures in place to deal with hijacked aircraft, Hordon's claims are very persuasive. When compared to the actual situation on 9/11, they don't hold water.

Furthermore, it isn't as if events such as those surrounding Hurricane Katrina don't demonstrate that the proper procedures can fail when human error causes them to be disregarded.

Like any good 9/11 conspiracy theorist, however, Hordon doesn't seem to let facts or even proper analysis get in the way of politics. While shooting down flights 11 and 175 could have prevented the World Trade Center disaster, it still would have resulted in thousands of casualties. The decision to shoot down the planes would have also had to have been made at a time when the applicable authorities couldn't have known the true goal of the hijackers.

Certainly, there is a degree of negligence in the FAA's handling of 9/11. But negligence doesn't demonstrate complicity, and certainly not in the conspiracy that Hordon and his cohorts allege.

In short, Hordon has traded his air traffic controller's hat for that of a base conspiracy theorist, and surrendered his credibility for activist cred. It isn't as good a fit as he'd like to think.

Rowland Morgan - Contradicting the conspiracy

Among one of the most amusing claims about 9/11 is made by British author Rowland Morgan, who will be speaking at the conference as well. Morgan actually claims that a drone Boeing 747, painted with American Airlines colours, was flown into the Pentagon.

This is an especially amusing claim considering that it contradicts one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories, one that insists a missile, not a jetliner, hit the Pentagon.

He, along with his co-author Ian Henshall (who together wrote 9/11 Revealled) make this claim despite the positive identification of all 64 passengers & crew of the downed aircraft.

Rowland will also speak to his claims that United Airlines flight 93 (crashed in Pennsylvania) was actually shot down, as opposed to being accidentally crashed in the process of re-taking the plane from the hijackers. This, despite the number of family members of UA 93 victims who reported that their loved ones had told them of their intention to re-take the plane, and the lack of any confirmation of orders to shoot down the plane.

Remember also that one of Robin Hordon's complaints is the lack of any such order (an absense he feels lends credence to conspiracy theories).

This demonstrates the greatest weakness shared by the entire "9/11 truth movement" -- a myriad of competing, contradictory, and usually far-fetched claims about an event that unfortunately lends itself to shameless sensationalism.


The conference will also feature a collection of social and political commentators, whose area of expertise is related to the consequences of 9/11. This is a much fairer point. There is a litany of concerns shared by citizens of many countries the world over, ranging from US President George W Bush and his War on Terror to the errosion of civil liberties in many countries around the world -- particularly western democracies that are under threat of further attack.

Consider also that an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner is much more likely to be issued today, in the post-9/11 era, than six years ago.

These speakers, such as Ken Fernandez and Connie Fogal, have much more solid ground to stand on. At least they don't need to resort to trying to contradict facts, hide contradictory evidence, or (often) engage in often-vicious anti-semitic rhetoric or counter-factual arguments in order to make their case.

There is a great deal of room to debate the consequences of 9/11. The actual events? Not so much.

The fact is that all too many 9/11 consipracy theorists make it immediately apparent that they don't exactly represent the best and brightest our civilization has to offer. Take, for example, Youtube denizen Dadabase 2006, who posted a video in which he makes the suggestion that people should vote for the embattled Potvin based on his beliefs regarding 9/11 -- essentially turning a Canadian federal election into a referendum on 9/11.

"Dadabase", as well as his bestest-buddy Kevin Potvin, will most certainly be sitting front-and-center throughout this (mostly) perverse conference in Vancouver.

Fortunately, the public at large is more than able to identify these individuals for what they are: politically deranged kooks, looking to distort one of history's greatest tragedies into fodder for their own extreme political views.

In that sense, they really aren't that much different from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his guests at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Whomever may actually show up to attend their conference, one thing is certain: their minds are made up, and any conclusions drawn from the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference will reflect their predecided conclusions.