Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 10:13 PM - Edit history (2)
Argentina has Clarín - and they are none too pleased with the 2009 anti-trust laws that dashed their hopes for monopolies on internet, phone, and media services in Argentina.
Moreover, they and their army of "investigative journalists" and talking heads have always been the most reluctant to discuss any hypotheses that did not place blame for the AMIA or Embassy bombings squarely on Iran; other publications - even the right-wing Noticias news magazine - haven't been nearly so doctrinaire. I should add that only the DAIA (the governing body that oversees AMIA) endorsed Nisman's work; victims' rights groups had been calling for his impeachment and prosecution for years for callous disregard of the investigation of the sake of parroting the discredited official line.
The fact remains that not only no evidence has been found of such a plot in 20 years, but that what little "evidence" had been proffered had to be withdrawn for having been fabricated. The few articles of faith both Clarín and the Nisman office have insisted on, such as the white van and the crater, have also been proven imaginary - the first by forensics (who took purported pieces of said van to a lab 20 years ago, only to be told they were from 2 or 3 different cars), and the second by sheer photographic evidence.
People lie, but photos do not - and thousands of photos were taken at the time by scores of different news media and individuals. They clearly show no crater, and that the blast each time was centered in the building. Moreover, both the AMIA and Embassy were located in narrow, heavily built-up streets. None of the many surrounding buildings were destroyed, as would have to happen in a car bomb in a narrow street that takes out a 10-story building. This is true even of those with elaborate façades, such as the ornate Bencich Building facing the Embassy to the north. In fact only two suffered more than cosmetic damage: the small, century-old parochial school in front of the Embassy, whose roof collapsed but whose walls stood (would have been obliterated by a car bomb); and the AMIA's twin (reinforced concrete) building to the right, which exhibited a gaping hole inside the retaining wall shared with its ill-fated neighbor - a sure sign of an interior blast.
Witnesses lie, but scars do not. Even then Nisman's version only contained the few affidavits that squared with the car bomb theory - including one of a lady who claimed to see a "suspicious Middle Easterner", but only after being coached to that effect (there are several million people of Middle-Eastern heritage in Argentina, mostly Sepharadi Jews and Lebanese Christians).
He rejected testimony, however, from a repairman who was working under the motor of his old work truck when the blast took place. The elusive "van" would have necessarily been parked within a few feet of this poor man, and yet he survived with only the scarring on the side of his body facing the blast. This would have had to be a miracle straight out of the Old Testament, had the blast taken place on the street.
And the bomb forensics? Engineers who were commissioned to perform the very first forensic tests in both cases affirmed the obvious: that the blasts took place inside the buildings (their testimony was - you guessed it - excluded from any reports).
Truth is easy to understand once it's discovered, Galileo wrote.
The point is to discover it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
