9/11 mastermind/Guantanamo detainee trials to begin

[Gravy]

The New York Times:
Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.

The charges, to be filed in the military commission system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would involve as many as six detainees held at the detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=sloginIt's an interesting article that summarizes the contentious issues that will be raised in these trials.

[Brainache]

The New York Times:
It's an interesting article that summarizes the contentious issues that will be raised in these trials.

Are they going to ask them about why the hijackers are still alive, or just how much Mossad/CIA money they took to carry out George Bush's evil plan?

[OldTigerCub]

Why do I get the feeling that lots of real evidence will be presented? Why won't they present evidence of therm*te, space beams, controlled demolition, "pull it", faster than freefall, "fell in it's own footprint", dancing joooos, computer imagery....and, of course...clunkity clunk?
Just asking questions.....:rolleyes:

[LastChild]

The New York Times:
It's an interesting article that summarizes the contentious issues that will be raised in these trials.

Six whole detainees huh? That's some vast conspiracy involving years of planning and thousands of people in on it. I hope our military took notes while they were torturing them. It seems they could use some lessons on how to be so efficient when planning such a vast and complex mission.

Will the Military prosecutors have to present their interrogation techniques? Will the trials be touching on any other crimes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to besides 9/11? You know like the Lincoln assassination?

[MarkyX]

Six whole detainees huh? That's some vast conspiracy involving years of planning and thousands of people in on it. I hope our military took notes while they were torturing them. It seems they could use some lessons on how to be so efficient when planning such a vast and complex mission.

Will the Military prosecutors have to present their interrogation techniques? Will the trials be touching on any other crimes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to besides 9/11? You know like the Lincoln assassination?

Wow, already drawing conclusions before any evidence is presented? Sounds so...in-character of a 9/11 denier.

[cisco]

What's the term for Kangaroo Court when it takes a really long time?

[Alt+F4]

The other detainee whose treatment could become a focus of any trial is Mohammed al-Qahtani, who has been held at Guantánamo since 2002. Pentagon officials have said he may have been the so-called “20th hijacker.” A month before the attacks, he flew from Dubai to Orlando, Fla., but was denied entry into the United States by an immigration official.

Pentagon investigators concluded in 2005 that he had been subject to abusive treatment at Guantánamo, including sleep deprivation, being forced to wear a bra and being led around on a leash.

As a woman I can tell you, that is torture!

[Par]

Six whole detainees huh? That's some vast conspiracy involving years of planning and thousands of people in on it.


The number of detainees currently due to stand trial has no necessary bearing on the intricacy of the crime in question.

[bje]

What's the term for Kangaroo Court when it takes a really long time?


North Korea.

[Unsecured Coins]

Will the Military prosecutors have to present their interrogation techniques? Will the trials be touching on any other crimes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to besides 9/11? You know like the Lincoln assassination?

where'd that happen at?

[Undesired Walrus]

Where did KSM confess to the Lincoln assassination?

Just for reference before we have the inevitable 'People under torture will say anything', KSM did not give up the location of two spies in California and South Africa, even though both Dhiren Barot and Hambali say that KSM provided him with their information.

[LastChild]

Where did KSM confess to the Lincoln assassination?

Just for reference before we have the inevitable 'People under torture will say anything', KSM did not give up the location of two spies in California and South Africa, even though both Dhiren Barot and Hambali say that KSM provided him with their information.

So is anything he claims in his "confessions" reliable?

[Unsecured Coins]

So is anything he claims in his "confessions" reliable?


I wanna know where he said he killed Lincoln. prove your claim or retract it

[Gravy]

KSM Enemy Combatant Tribunal Summary of Evidence (PDF) (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/muhammad_sheikh_Khalid.pdf)


Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist Attack the World Has Ever Seen by Yosri Fouda (http://www.amazon.com/Masterminds-Terror-Behind-Devastating-Terrorist/dp/1559707178)
When star Al-Jazeera TV reporter Yosri Fouda received an anonymous call summoning him to a secret interview in Pakistan with al-Qaeda, he knew he could be walking into a deadly trap, as Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl had done only months before. But he took the risk and hit pay dirt. For 48 hours, Fouda listened as two of the world's most wanted men, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, head of al-Qaeda's military committee, and Ramzi Binalshibh, the link between Mohammed Atta and the senior al-Qaeda leadership, proudly claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon – the first time al-Qaeda took direct responsibility. During the course of the in-depth interview, they detailed exactly how, over a two-year period, the plot was conceived, planned, and executed. Based on that interview and hours of follow-up investigation, MASTERMINDS OF TERROR also contains dramatic accounts of the subsequent seizure of both Binalshibh and Mohammed and analyzes al-Qaeda's attempts to justify its actions on what it calls 'Holy Tuesday.'

[LastChild]

I wanna know where he said he killed Lincoln. prove your claim or retract it

I don't know it's just what I heard. Maybe we should review the tape. Got a copy?

[Unsecured Coins]

I don't know it's just what I heard. Maybe we should review the tape. Got a copy?

Unsupported claims... why am I not staring at the screen with my mouth agape in shock and disbelief?

[Gravy]

KSM Enemy Combatant Tribunal Transcript (PDF) (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/muhammad_transcript.pdf)

KSM Enemy Combatant Tribunal Recording (MP3) (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ksm.mp3)

Ramzi Binalshibh's confession (audio) (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3286456039719764674&hl=en-GB)

[Par]

I don't know it's just what I heard. Maybe we should review the tape. Got a copy?Unsupported claims... why am I not staring at the screen with my mouth agape in shock and disbelief?


While his unsupported claims were indeed shocking, it was his attempt to shift the burden of proof that really had me off my chair.

[Unsecured Coins]

KSM Enemy Combatant Tribunal Transcript (PDF) (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/muhammad_transcript.pdf)

KSM Enemy Combatant Tribunal Recording (MP3) (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ksm.mp3)

Ramzi Binalshibh's confession (audio) (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3286456039719764674&hl=en-GB)


no fair!! you like... did your homework and stuff

[Unsecured Coins]

While his unsupported claims were indeed shocking, it was his attempt to shift the burden of proof that really had me off my chair.

you literally came off the chair? Jeez... you might wanna switch to decaf. :D

[LastChild]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/16/news/CB-GEN-Mind-of-Mohammed.php?page=1

Mohammed's statements during a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, in which he freely confessed to planning 31 terrorist attacks, also raises questions about the effect that years of rough CIA interrogations may have had — and whether his confession is valid.

Later in the encounter, Mohammed said he and other prisoners had made false statements during interrogation, apparently under torture. He submitted a written statement about how he allegedly was tortured, but the military refused to divulge it. Human Rights Watch on Thursday urged its release.

"I see him as rather feisty and combative and nothing indicating a guy confessing things after being ... tortured," said Jerrold M. Post, director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University and a 21-year veteran of the CIA. "He's somewhat proudly stating, perhaps overstating, the extent of the operations he has been involved with."

Mohammed might be exaggerating the number of targets he intended to attack in order to spread "the message of fear," Post said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

[Par]

you literally came off the chair?


I was just stooling around.

[Unsecured Coins]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/16/news/CB-GEN-Mind-of-Mohammed.php?page=1

Mohammed's statements during a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, in which he freely confessed to planning 31 terrorist attacks, also raises questions about the effect that years of rough CIA interrogations may have had — and whether his confession is valid.

Later in the encounter, Mohammed said he and other prisoners had made false statements during interrogation, apparently under torture. He submitted a written statement about how he allegedly was tortured, but the military refused to divulge it. Human Rights Watch on Thursday urged its release.

"I see him as rather feisty and combative and nothing indicating a guy confessing things after being ... tortured," said Jerrold M. Post, director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University and a 21-year veteran of the CIA. "He's somewhat proudly stating, perhaps overstating, the extent of the operations he has been involved with."

Mohammed might be exaggerating the number of targets he intended to attack in order to spread "the message of fear," Post said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.


nothing about Lincoln then. I guess that means you're full of it, eh?

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't know it's just what I heard. Maybe we should review the tape. Got a copy?

Oh dear LastChild. New FAIL for you.

[Undesired Walrus]

[/SIZE]Ramzi Binalshibh's confession (audio) (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3286456039719764674&hl=en-GB)

I have to change the spelling mistake in his name there.

[LastChild]

nothing about Lincoln then. I guess that means you're full of it, eh?

What there is nothing of is any actual evidence he planned 9/11. So I guess the likes of you and some others have been full of it and failing all along. But that's nothing new for you is it?

[Undesired Walrus]

What there is nothing of is any actual evidence he planned 9/11.

Why don't you tell us what would satisfy you, and we will try to help you out.

[Par]

nothing about Lincoln then. I guess that means you're full of it, eh?What there is nothing of is any actual evidence he planned 9/11.


Firstly, you tried to illegitimately shift the burden of proof. Now, you are simply trying to change the subject. These are extremely weak and dishonest ways in which to behave. Perhaps you should do the right thing and acknowledge that your Lincoln claim is utterly without foundation.

[Pardalis]

no fair!! you like... did your homework and stuff

We keep telling him, but he's incorrigible. :rolleyes:

[LastChild]

Firstly, you tried to illegitimately shift the burden of proof. Now, you are simply trying to change the subject. These are extremely weak and dishonest ways in which to behave. Perhaps you should do the right thing and acknowledge that your Lincoln claim is utterly without foundation.

Did you really take the Lincoln reference seriously or is that just the best you got?

[LastChild]

Where did KSM confess to the Lincoln assassination?

Just for reference before we have the inevitable 'People under torture will say anything', KSM did not give up the location of two spies in California and South Africa, even though both Dhiren Barot and Hambali say that KSM provided him with their information.

Yes and it must be true because two stand-up well respected terrorist say so.

[Par]

Did you really take the Lincoln reference seriously or is that just the best you got?


You’re a real tough cookie with a long history...

Anyway, you were merely joking. I see. In light of that, it seems rather peculiar that you were trying to shift the burden of proof and change the subject. Oh well. At least the issue is settled. That’s something.

[Max Photon]

911 mastermind trial to begin.

It sounds like the trial already ended.


By the way, that someone confessed to masterminding 911 is but ambiguity-reducing deception.

Some of you may know this as the good old fashioned assumptive close.

Remember, the function of ambiguity-reducing deception is to make deception targets certain, decisive, and wrong.

Trust me, I'm right.

[Par]

By the way, that someone confessed to masterminding 911 is but ambiguity-reducing deception. Some of you may know this as the good old fashioned assumptive close. Remember, the function of ambiguity-reducing deception is to make deception targets certain, decisive, and wrong. Trust me, I'm right.


I notice that you’re indulging in more of your “Evidence is lies; I am truth; I am God” stuff. I’m not sure why you bother with it, to be honest. No one’s going to fall for it. It’s a waste of time – always a waste of time.

[Corsair 115]

What's the term for Kangaroo Court when it takes a really long time?Snail Court?

[D'rok]

911 mastermind trial to begin.

It sounds like the trial already ended.


By the way, that someone confessed to masterminding 911 is but ambiguity-reducing deception.

Some of you may know this as the good old fashioned assumptive close.

Remember, the function of ambiguity-reducing deception is to make deception targets certain, decisive, and wrong.

Trust me, I'm right.

I'm glad you reduced that ambiguity for us. Does this mean that your efforts are a deception?

I have to admit...you do have a way with irony.

[Unsecured Coins]

Yes and it must be true because two stand-up well respected terrorist say so.

see: every single truther site that believes OBL really didn't do it

[lennysun]

911 was an inside job.
The war on Afghanistan was an inside job.
The war on Iraq was an inside job.

Do we need aliens to to understand what is happening in the world?

I don´t think so.

Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Falluja are inside jobs...

So now you might ask me what is the "inside"?
Any insights?

[Brainache]

911 was an inside job.
The war on Afghanistan was an inside job.
The war on Iraq was an inside job.

Do we need aliens to to understand what is happening in the world?

I don´t think so.

Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Falluja are inside jobs...

So now you might ask me what is the "inside"?
Any insights?

Well, I want to know if there are any outside jobs... Or is every bad thing that happens done as part of a conspiracy to deceive the sheeple?

[lennysun]

I just want to rule out the "aliens" as being the agents of doing the bad things.

I guess you listen to your heart when your brain is aching.

And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender.

I have students and grandchildren. WWII and the concentration camps. When will we ever learn?

Brainache, I don´t think there are any outside jobs. We have to do it from the inside anyhow.



Truth,

[Brainache]

I just want to rule out the "aliens" as being the agents of doing the bad things.

I guess you listen to your heart when your brain is aching.

And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender.

I have students and grandchildren. WWII and the concentration camps. When will we ever learn?

Brainache, I don´t think there are any outside jobs. We have to do it from the inside anyhow.



Truth,

It's posts like this that make my poor brain ache.

"And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender."

Tender what? Resignation?

By "aliens" do you mean people from other countries, or little green men?

So every job starts on the inside, no matter who it's by or how they do it?

My achey breaky brain be boggled.

[Jonnyclueless]

I didn't have time to read the thread, but has anyone told Lastchild that KSM confessed before he was even caught?

[LastChild]

I didn't have time to read the thread, but has anyone told Lastchild that KSM confessed before he was even caught?

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

You know like when some people claim to be debunkers without actually bothering to take the time to read what it is they claim to be debunking.

[Alt+F4]

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

Now why would anyone want to do that?

[D'rok]

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

Let me see if I have this straight:

Coerced confession = false
Un-coerced confession = false

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if it was Bush confessing to having orchestrated 9/11, your position would be:

Coerced confession = true
Un-coerced confession = true

Two questions:

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

[LastChild]

Now why would anyone want to do that?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_pearl.html

Exclusive: Pearl Family Doubts KSM Confession
March 16, 2007 7:04 PM
The father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl says he doesn't believe al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the man who beheaded his son, despite Mohammed's confession to a U.S. military tribunal.

"He wants to take credit for doing it, and he wants to exonerate al Qaeda, blame Pakistan and whatever," said Judea Pearl, Danny's father. "When a person confesses and he has nothing to lose, you have to take it with a spice of doubt."

[LastChild]

Let me see if I have this straight:

Coerced confession = false
Un-coerced confession = false

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if it was Bush confessing to having orchestrated 9/11, your position would be:

Coerced confession = true
Un-coerced confession = true

Two questions:

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

Let me see if I have this straight:

Un-coerced confession = More then enough proof he did it

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?

[Alt+F4]

Perhaps KSM did make a false confession. Then again he compared OBL to George Washington and thinks 40 million people died in World War I....so who knows?

[D'rok]

Let me see if I have this straight:

Un-coerced confession = More then enough proof he did it

Nope. Un-coerced confession + mountains of corrobarating circumstantial evidence = more than enough proof that he did it.

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?

Revenge? Regardless, your treatment of him has no bearing on his guilt or innocence of the crime of orchestrating 9/11. You can decry torture without excusing terrorists.

There. I answered your questions. Your turn.

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?
2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

[Pardalis]

I keep imagining the Truther Court that would judge the 9/11 conspirators, how completely fascist, irrational and gratuitous it would be.

If a truther had his way, "due process" would go out the window in a second.

[Par]

So after the fact we tortured a coerced confession out of him ... why?
Revenge?


Heheh.

That shark is an endangered species. What would be the scientific purpose of killing it?
Revenge.

[D'rok]

Heheh.

Loved that movie!

[Viper Daimao]

KSM wasn't interrogated to get him to admit to being behind 9/11, he already said he was. He was interrogated and water boarded to get information about the al qaeda network and other possibly immanent attacks. Then the information he gave us turned out to be correct, and more al qaeda were caught. Interrogators are smart men, they know how unreliable confessions and information can be. That's why you verify it with hard evidence .

[stateofgrace]

Bump

US charges six suspects over 9/11 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7239099.stm)


The Pentagon has announced charges against six Guantanamo Bay prisoners over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.
Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the six, who include alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[dudalb]

I just want to rule out the "aliens" as being the agents of doing the bad things.

I guess you listen to your heart when your brain is aching.

And the "sheeple" inside needs a lot of tender.

I have students and grandchildren. WWII and the concentration camps. When will we ever learn?

Brainache, I don´t think there are any outside jobs. We have to do it from the inside anyhow.



Truth,

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?

[Sabrina]

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?

No, you aren't the only one.

[gumboot]

I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.

I can't see the waterboarding to be a major issue as there is almost certainly ample evidence to convict these people without requiring forced statements from other prisoners.

I find the list of charges laid quite telling - they're all war crime charges, and very different to the charges laid in civil courts against those involved in the attacks. I think it's good that the USA has finally adjusted its mindset. Terrorism is a civil criminal act, yes. But Al Qaeda are not just a terrorist organisation. They are a military enemy of the USA that employs terrorist tactics. As such they must be treated very differently.

[Viper Daimao]

I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.


I think the difference was (an correct me if I'm wrong) that the nuremberg trials were conducted after the war was over. This is a different kind of war, more akin to the cold war in time length. So they were kept until their intelligence value was used up with them being out of the loop for long enough. Then I imagine federal and legal bureaucracy took over. With disagreements over how to actually treat them and what could be admissible and what jurisdictions they would be under.

[Drudgewire]

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatever?
Good gracious no! :boggled:

[LastChild]

Nope. Un-coerced confession + mountains of corrobarating circumstantial evidence = more than enough proof that he did it.

You need a coerced confession when you already have an un-coerced confession and mountains of evidence? Are you sure it's not more of a mole hill? You're making more and more sense all the time. Keep talking.

Revenge?

They still need to rule on whether or not the coerced confessions will be admissible or not and it was all just for revenge?

Regardless, your treatment of him has no bearing on his guilt or innocence of the crime of orchestrating 9/11. You can decry torture without excusing terrorists.

It does if that treatment is what got most of the so-called evidence.

There. I answered your questions. Your turn.

Lame excuses do not equate an answer to my questions.

1. Is there a confession scenario from KSM or any other Islamic terrorist that you would consider legitimate?

Depends on the circumstances and right now the circumstances are torture.

2. If Bush confessed, would you be sceptical?

Not if he was tortured. I don't believe most of what he claims anyway regardless of what it is. And not so-much because he's a liar but because he's a dumbass and he's just generally wrong. That being said why the hell would a stooge have to fully be in on anything?

[D'rok]

You need a coerced confession when you already have an un-coerced confession and mountains of evidence? Are you sure it's not more of a mole hill? You're making more and more sense all the time. Keep talking.

I don't need anything at all; I have no stake in any of this. You have the need to make mole hills out of mountains; you are the one with the fantastical claims.



They still need to rule on whether or not the coerced confessions will be admissible or not and it was all just for revenge?Beats me. I guess you missed the shoulder shrug in my flippant answer. However, I don't doubt that KSM ended up in the hands of some very angry and very serious people. I would have preferred that he be treated humanely, but I have difficulty mustering up sympathy for him.



It does if that treatment is what got most of the so-called evidence.It isn't. But you already knew that.



Lame excuses do not equate an answer to my questions.You want me to justify torture? Sorry, not going to do it. In fact, as you pointed out, it may hurt the govt's case. It's still not evidence that he didn't do it.



Depends on the circumstances and right now the circumstances are torture.And my question was under what circumstances would you accept a confession? We already know that you don't accept both KSM's coerced and un-coerced confessions.



Not if he was tortured. I don't believe most of what he claims anyway regardless of what it is. And not so-much because he's a liar but because he's a dumbass and he's just generally wrong. That being said why the hell would a stooge have to fully be in on anything?OK. So if Bush was tortured and confessed, you would be sceptical. You imply that you would also be sceptical of an un-coerced confession based on your perception of Bush's general idiocy. In that case, how about [insert nefarious Bush administration individual(s) who are, in your opinion, likely suspects]? Same question.

[stilicho]

I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.

I can't see the waterboarding to be a major issue as there is almost certainly ample evidence to convict these people without requiring forced statements from other prisoners.

I find the list of charges laid quite telling - they're all war crime charges, and very different to the charges laid in civil courts against those involved in the attacks. I think it's good that the USA has finally adjusted its mindset. Terrorism is a civil criminal act, yes. But Al Qaeda are not just a terrorist organisation. They are a military enemy of the USA that employs terrorist tactics. As such they must be treated very differently.
Gumboot, the objects of LC and Mr Photon are also indicators of "moving the goalposts". One of the biggest objections to the "official story" was that there were no charges laid. I think you can still go to oilempire and similar sites and find that one in black and white.

Now there are charges--so, move the goalposts a little bit--it's the "illegal" way of gathering some of the information that's the issue. Can you imagine how long we'd be waiting for the charges to be laid against the right people after the "truth movement" legal team had finished grilling Dick Cheney, Dr Frank Gayle, General Richard Myers, and Scooter Libby?

[Undesired Walrus]

Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.


In the exact same room as a man who lived with, and wired money to people whos remains were found in destroyed airplanes on September 11th and present in matyrdom videos from tarnac farm released a few years later?

I think the chances are quite low don't you?

[Undesired Walrus]

Infact, LastChild, here is a challange for you. An ABC journalist releases a tape of Bush in the Oval Office, with the very clear sounds of him going 'Yes, we made sure the buildings were wired two weeks prior.. It was... gave us mandate to attack.. Cheney stood down.. '

Would you be skeptical about that? I would bet a substantial amount of money you would not.

[PhantomWolf]

It seems they could use some lessons on how to be so efficient when planning such a vast and complex mission.

Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.
- Get a US Student Visa
- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in
- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence
- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane
- Buy ticket on plane
- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives
- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight
- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter
- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats
- Remove bodies and take controls
- Turn transponder switch to off position
- Log new airport location into Autopilot
- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight
- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.


So what part was vast and complex again?

[LastChild]

I don't need anything at all; I have no stake in any of this. You have the need to make mole hills out of mountains; you are the one with the fantastical claims.

What fantastical claims have I made?

Beats me. I guess you missed the shoulder shrug in my flippant answer. However, I don't doubt that KSM ended up in the hands of some very angry and very serious people. I would have preferred that he be treated humanely, but I have difficulty mustering up sympathy for him.

Still that doesn't explain why they need revenge torture admissible. Especially since according to you they have mountains of other evidence.

It isn't. But you already knew that.

I have yet to see you point out this mountain of evidence. Is it the same hard evidence they don't have on UBL?

You want me to justify torture? Sorry, not going to do it. In fact, as you pointed out, it may hurt the govt's case. It's still not evidence that he didn't do it.

More importantly it's not evidence that he did.

And my question was under what circumstances would you accept a confession? We already know that you don't accept both KSM's coerced and un-coerced confessions.

A signed un-coerced confession that cooberates his story with other evidence would be a start.

OK. So if Bush was tortured and confessed, you would be sceptical. You imply that you would also be sceptical of an un-coerced confession based on your perception of Bush's general idiocy. In that case, how about [insert nefarious Bush administration individual(s) who are, in your opinion, likely suspects]? Same question.

We would need a real investigation to determine that. For all anyone knows the most they are guilty of is covering-up negligence and accountability for failing to protect the US on 9/11. But as it stands we haven't even got that far in any investigation to date. Just whitewash where no one is held accountable for failing to do their job in protecting America and it's citizens. If you disagree then name someone and how they were held accountable.

[LastChild]

Infact, LastChild, here is a challange for you. An ABC journalist releases a tape of Bush in the Oval Office, with the very clear sounds of him going 'Yes, we made sure the buildings were wired two weeks prior.. It was... gave us mandate to attack.. Cheney stood down.. '

Would you be skeptical about that? I would bet a substantial amount of money you would not.

Yes I would. I would want to know where this guy was at the time the tape was made for a start...

X63_sRVjxtU

Now where's my money? And what do you consider substantial amount of money? I hope it's not the same amount as what you consider a substantial amount of evidence.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh the absurdity has me rolling on the floor here!

[beachnut]

Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.
- Get a US Student Visa
- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in
- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence
- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane
- Buy ticket on plane
- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives
- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight
- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter
- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats
- Remove bodies and take controls
- Turn transponder switch to off position
- Log new airport location into Autopilot
- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight
- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.
So what part was vast and complex again?
Much too difficult tasks for 9/11 truth to grasp. Makes you wonder how dumb you have to be to join such an elite group of morons. Is there a test for 9/11 truth membership? If so what are the questions?

[D'rok]

What fantastical claims have I made?

Sorry. I was under the impressions that you were a promoter of 9/11 "Truth" conspiracies. Is this incorrect?



Still that doesn't explain why they need revenge torture admissible. Especially since according to you they have mountains of other evidence.

I have yet to see you point out this mountain of evidence. Is it the same hard evidence they don't have on UBL?

I've lurked quite a bit on this sub-forum and I've seen the evidence pointed out time and time again to truthers by knowledgeable folks to no avail. If those people, who are much smarter than me on this subject, can't succeed, I'm not interested in trying.


More importantly it's not evidence that he did.Agreed. If a confession was tortured out of him, it is useless. But that's not really the point. The circumstantial evidence points to his guilt and he admitted his guilt without coercion. Why do you doubt his guilt? Simply because it is likely he was mistreated during his captivity? That is not a good reason.



A signed un-coerced confession that cooberates his story with other evidence would be a start.

You have that minus the signed part. (I think...I'm not sure about the mechanical details of his un-coerced confession. Maybe someone can step in and clear that up). What makes a signature more compelling than an oral confession that corroborates the circumstantial evidence?


We would need a real investigation to determine that. For all anyone knows the most they are guilty of is covering-up negligence and accountability for failing to protect the US on 9/11. But as it stands we haven't even got that far in any investigation to date. Just whitewash where no one is held accountable for failing to do their job in protecting America and it's citizens. If you disagree then name someone and how they were held accountable.

Well...I don't strongly disagree with this in general. But you are implying that an investigation is only legitimate or "real" unless it comes to a pre-ordained conclusion - namely that someone in the govt be held accountable for negligence. That isn't a "real" investigation.

Nonetheless, even if there was negligence beforehand and ass-covering afterwards, it doesn't alter the fact that KSM confessed and evidence supports his confession.

[LastChild]

Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Get a US Student Visa

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?


- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Buy ticket on plane

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives

Is that all they had? How do you know?

- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight

They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter

Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats

Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

- Remove bodies and take controls

Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

- Turn transponder switch to off position

What does this do and how did they know to turn it off? Does it matter or not? And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking? If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

- Log new airport location into Autopilot

Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight

They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.

Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

So what part was vast and complex again?

Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.

[Gravy]

Wow, I wonder of LastChild is ever going to read the 9/11 Commission report and its associated staff monographs. I guess not. That's truly sad.

[LastChild]

Wow, I wonder of LastChild is ever going to read the 9/11 Commission report and its associated staff monographs. I guess not. That's truly sad.

I wonder if Gravy is ever going to fully commit to keeping some people on ignore like he claims to have?

[RedIbis]

I wonder if Gravy is ever going to fully commit to keeping some people on ignore like he claims to have?

In another thread he did say that everyone was off ignore. I asked him directly but he ignored me.

[gumboot]

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

So six of your arguments for the operation's complexity are that it cost money?

1) What was the yearly operating budget of Al Qaeda?
2) What was the overall cost of the Planes Operation?
3) How many years did the Planes Operation last?


Is that all they had? How do you know?

It's not necessarily all they had. It's all they needed.


They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

Who said anything about them having a bomb? PhantomWolf merely said they "said" they had a bomb. How many bombs, fake or otherwise, are required in order for an individual to state in English "I have a bomb"?


Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

In September 2001 it would have worked on a thousand planes. One of them was warned 10 minutes beforehand? Which one was this?


Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

They were trained in Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. I imagine some of the pilots were indeed ex-military. What secret do military personnel have that makes them invulnerable to knife cuts?


Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

You already asked that. See above. Although Beachnut claims no real training was necessary.


What does this do and how did they know to turn it off?

Because they went to flight school and read a book about how air traffic works?


Does it matter or not?

Yes. Although not as much as they might think it does.


And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking?

Because the FAA also have primary radars.


If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

Because it makes it harder.


Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

Don't project your ignorance onto others. You can learn how to do all of this using Microsoft Flight Simulator.


They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

Autopilot. Did you miss the bit above about punching a beacon code into the autopilot?


Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

Parallel parking is significantly harder than flying into a building.


Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.

Finally, you get it.

[PhantomWolf]

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

For the phone call to the US? I imagine they paid that themselves. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Again, getting a Visa would have been paid for by themselves, it's not that much, I just got my B2 it was NZ$170 and had just gone up from NZ$130. Pre-2001 it would have been much less. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Tickets to the US again appear to have been paid for by themselves, as was setting up their flats. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?[/quote]

Money for the flight training was wired to them via Ramzi Binalshibh in Germany (and is one of the people listed as to be charged) and through a second intermediatary in UAE. They got wired around a total of $140k. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

How much does it cost to walk around a building? As to the plane rentals, mostly they seem to have used planes they had access to as students and the money would have come from the same place as the training money. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

asked and answered, twice. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Is that all they had? How do you know?

Passangers and crew reported knives and in one case possible pepper spray. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

Do you need a bomb to claim you have one? We had our first ever hijacking here the other day. A loopy woman attacked the piloits with a knife, injuring them both, and claimed to have a bomb. She didn't have one, but it didn't stop her claiming it. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

All airline crews pre-9/11 were trained and told to follow the instructions of a hijacker. These hijackers showed they were willing to kill people to get their way. Would you refused to have opened the door after seeing them kill someone for not doing so? So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

They attended Al Qaeda training camps. As to the pilots being military, I don't care if they were John Rambo. No one, and that means no one, has a chance against a person standing behind them with a knife if they are strapped into a airline cockpit seat, the restrains prevent them from doing so and any pilot will tell you that you can't just instantly release those restraints and stand up, you have to push the seat back and undo them then swing around and get up. By then you're dead. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

Asked and answered. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

What does this do and how did they know to turn it off? Does it matter or not? And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking? If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

Go and look it up on the threads it was gone over, all 150 of them. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

Wow, you can learn to do that with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that's how expenisive the training had to be. As to knowing it, the Flight Data Recorder's show that neither 93 or 77 had their autopilots switched off, why should we assume different for 11 and 175? So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

Again, the FDR for 77 and 93 say they used the Autopilot until shortly before the crashes, why should 11 and 175 be any different?

Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

Wow, you must be wetting yourself to be old enough to get a driver's licence.

Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.

Anyone could have done it, it wasn't that hard to do.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to hear Lastchilds claim of where the money came from. His question has already been answered, he just doesn't think it has been. But I would like his take.

[PhantomWolf]

Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.

[gumboot]

Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.


ETA. Pull off all of the above without a single honest person with a conscience finding out.

[LastChild]

Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.

That's some vast conspiracy you have there. Somehow in your AQ theory though they didn't need any of that. How come? Your not playing favorites are you?

[LastChild]

ETA. Pull off all of the above without a single honest person with a conscience finding out.

How did AQ pull it off without anyone slipping up, spilling the beans, or anyone in our intelligence agencies or the intelligence agencies of our allies finding out?

AQ isn't magic are they?

[PhantomWolf]

That's some vast conspiracy you have there. Somehow in your AQ theory though they didn't need any of that. How come? Your not playing favorites are you?

LastChild this is a serious question. Are you a moron or are you pretending? It has to be one or the other because quite frankly you have been on this board long enough to have to ask such downright stupid questions. That leaves just two choices. You are genuinely in the Moron IQ range and can't understand what you have read on this board, or you are a troll. If it's the first then I have to say you have my pity, if the second, go and get a life.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How did AQ pull it off without anyone slipping up, spilling the beans, or anyone in our intelligence agencies or the intelligence agencies of our allies finding out?

By keeping the plot limited to 19 people.

ETA: I just remembered (duh) one of the hijacking teams did slip up.

The hijackers on United 93 got jumped by angry passengers and had to abort thier mission far short of thier assigned target.

[PhantomWolf]

By keeping the plot limited to 19 people.

And by knowing that Intelligence agencies aren't run by all powerful, all knowing, entities, but LastChild already knew this, he's simply acting like a Troll, unless he really is mentally deficient which I seriously doubt. He'd really done nothing here but be a troll, it seems to be the only thing he's good at.

[LastChild]

By keeping the plot limited to 19 people.

So who are the six they're going to put on trial? Are Middle Eastern terrorist the only possible people in the world with the capability to knock down the towers with a limited amount of people in on it?

[LastChild]

LastChild this is a serious question. Are you a moron or are you pretending? It has to be one or the other because quite frankly you have been on this board long enough to have to ask such downright stupid questions. That leaves just two choices. You are genuinely in the Moron IQ range and can't understand what you have read on this board, or you are a troll. If it's the first then I have to say you have my pity, if the second, go and get a life.

Frustrated with your story? Maybe you should seek some professional help. You are starting to sound bitter and angry. You know like someone who is just starting to find out they might have been lied to by someone they trusted. Don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to help you.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So who are the six they're going to put on trial?


Fine, 25 then. I stand corrected.

That's still a metric crap-ton less than the 10,000+ you'd need to wire up the WTC in your fantasy version.

[LastChild]

And by knowing that Intelligence agencies aren't run by all powerful, all knowing, entities, but LastChild already knew this, he's simply acting like a Troll, unless he really is mentally deficient which I seriously doubt. He'd really done nothing here but be a troll, it seems to be the only thing he's good at.

How about AQ? Are they all powerful, all knowing, entities? Or are they just magic?

[Redtail]

Frustrated with your story? Maybe you should seek some professional help. You are starting to sound bitter and angry. You know like someone who is just starting to find out they might have been lied to by someone they trusted. Don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to help you.


What does pretending to know what didn't happen on 9/11 have to do with the truth about what did happen on 9/11? Is this a process of elimination and nothing more?

Ok I'll join in.

The Goodyear blip most likely did not crash into the WTC on 9/11 causing it to collapse into a heap of smoldering rubble like no building has ever fallen before.

That wasn't even fun.

What's the point of this debunking crap again? :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How about AQ? Are they all powerful, all knowing, entities? Or are they just magic?

Nope, just cunning, determined, have little regard for self-preservation and are just a tad crazy.

You'd be amazed the kind of damage they can do.

[Redtail]

How about AQ? Are they all powerful, all knowing, entities? Or are they just magic?

No they exploited a weakness in our defenses.
Next?

[PhantomWolf]

Frustrated with your story? Maybe you should seek some professional help. You are starting to sound bitter and angry. You know like someone who is just starting to find out they might have been lied to by someone they trusted. Don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to help you.

No, I'd just sick of you trolling by asking moronic question after moronic question.

[Corsair 115]

Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it?Since when does anyone need special training to kill someone with a knife, or any kind of sharp blade for that matter? Just cut the person's throat, or cut where the artery is in the neck. The victim will be deceased in short order.

Just the other night there was an NHL game in Buffalo where a player was accidentally slashed in the throat by a skate blade. The player was lucky to survive; an awful lot of blood was spilled from the wound very quickly.

[LastChild]

Fine, 25 then. I stand corrected.

That's still a metric crap-ton less than the 10,000+ you'd need to wire up the WTC in your fantasy version.


I never claimed that. You claimed that's not what happened. Even if you could prove that didn't happen it wouldn't prove 9/11 wasn't an inside job. If 19 or 25 or whatever you believe could pull it off then why does it take 10,000 of anybody else? You don't even know who put your 25 in a position to pull it off. Or who might have got out of their way and let them pull it off.

[PhantomWolf]

How about AQ? Are they all powerful, all knowing, entities? Or are they just magic?

Since you only want to ask stupid questions, two can play at that. What did they do that needed magic to be invoked?

[LastChild]

No they exploited a weakness in our defenses.
Next?

Is that all? Ok. So why are they the only ones who could do that? Would that be harder to do by someone already on the inside?

[LastChild]

Since you only want to ask stupid questions, two can play at that. What did they do that needed magic to be invoked?

You brought up "all powerful, all knowing". Our intelligence agencies could only have stopped them if they were "all powerful, all knowing"?

[Redtail]

Is that all? Ok. So why are they the only ones who could do that?

Who said they were?

Would that be harder to do by someone already on the inside?Yes. Do you think all people who work for the governments are either idiots, traitors or cowards?

[Jonnyclueless]

OK, I cleared my ignore list and this thread was a reminder as to why LC was on it. Back he goes. Such stupidity uttered in quick succession is a waste of time. The forum needs a clown that says "you must be this smart to ride'.

[PhantomWolf]

You brought up "all powerfull all knowing". Our intelligence agencies could only have stopped them if they were "all powerfull all knowing"?

So why did AQ have to be magical? Why should the Intelligence agencies been able to find them? Why should they have knbow to be looking for them? Who would have told them to look? Why would they have found them even if they did look? Can the Police in the US even find a Murder Fugitive on the run in the US from NZ within 6 months? Why do you have episodes of AMW every week if your law enforcement is so good at finding people? Again, what magical powers do you think AQ needed to do 9/11?

[LastChild]

Who said they were?

Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.

Yes. Do you think all people who work for the governments are either idiots, traitors or cowards?

No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.

[LastChild]

So why did AQ have to be magical?

You if you believe they can accomplish what they did from the outside with only 19 guys but for it to happen from the inside it would take 10,000. Hell if they are that capable and the US Govt is that incompetent we should all be dead by now or praying to Allah.

Why should the Intelligence agencies been able to find them? Why should they have knbow to be looking for them? Who would have told them to look? Why would they have found them even if they did look? Can the Police in the US even find a Murder Fugitive on the run in the US from NZ within 6 months? Why do you have episodes of AMW every week if your law enforcement is so good at finding people? Again, what magical powers do you think AQ needed to do 9/11?

Evidently you believe they can do things with a small amount of people that would take anyone else vast numbers of people. How did they get so smart and so what they believe persecuted by someone evidently so inferior to them? They should have taken over they world years ago to listen to you.

[Pardalis]

Since when does anyone need special training to kill someone with a knife, or any kind of sharp blade for that matter? Just cut the person's throat, or cut where the artery is in the neck. The victim will be deceased in short order.

Just the other night there was an NHL game in Buffalo where a player was accidentally slashed in the throat by a skate blade. The player was lucky to survive; an awful lot of blood was spilled from the wound very quickly.

Actually, some of the hijhjackers (the muscle ones) had physical training and commando training in the Afghani camps.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm


The footage shows scenes of training at the camp. Masked militants perform martial arts kicks or learn how to break the hold of someone who grabs them from behind. Several militants are shown practicing hiding and pulling out fold-out knives.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060909/NEWS/60909004/-1/MULTIMEDIA0201http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2936761.ece

And some of them may even had started martial arts classes in the US.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml


Jarrah was about 5' 11" and weighed about 175. He was strong, muscular and well coordinated, according to Bert Rodriguez, the owner and martial arts instructor at "1 US Fitness" in Dania Beach.

Jarrah had a membership and was learning street-fighting techniques from Rodriguez. "He wanted to learn about fighting and control, about being in control and how to control somebody," Rodriguez said.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/thepilot/story.html

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I never claimed that.

Of course not. :rolleyes:

If 19 or 25 or whatever you believe could pull it off then why does it take 10,000 of anybody else?

If you don't know anything about what it takes to bring about a controlled demolition of a building, simply say so.

I honestly didn't know either before I started reading these forums.

Or who might have got out of their way and let them pull it off.

That would be the airline ticket takers. Once they paid thier money and it was established the passengers weren't in posession of banned weapons or contraband, they let them on the planes.

[gumboot]

How did AQ pull it off without anyone slipping up, spilling the beans, or anyone in our intelligence agencies or the intelligence agencies of our allies finding out?

AQ isn't magic are they?


They didn't.

[Jonnyclueless]

They didn't.

I think his question should be nominated for a stundie there. The stundie should also mention that he asked this question in a thread about AQ members going to jail for their roles in the plot.

Pricesless!!!

[beachnut]

Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.

No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.
You have no story (so how can you make such a stupid post; did you read the story gleaned from 9/11 truth ideas? Please pay attention and avoid the dumb post; ); so your ideas are void? What is your inside job that you almost talk about but fail to make clear? What is the inside job you keep trying to talk about but fail to flesh out to a coherent story? Why are you unable to say what happen on 9/11? Are you void of knowledge on 9/11? Why are you never saying anything of substance on 9/11? What is your story of what happen on 9/11? You appear to have no clue. Will you ever have a clue? And if so, what is your theory and what evidence makes you come to that conclusion you have never made known yet? Or will you present: Nothing. Zip.
Did I miss where you have taken a position that is backed with facts, evidence and some rational/logical thinking?

[LastChild]

Of course not. :rolleyes:

That's right. I wouldn't claim to know for sure what happened without an investigation.

If you don't know anything about what it takes to bring about a controlled demolition of a building, simply say so.

I honestly didn't know either before I started reading these forums.

I didn't know you believed AQ controlled demolition the WTC. Or are there other ways the towers could have come down?

That would be the airline ticket takers. Once they paid thier money and it was established the passengers weren't in posession of banned weapons or contraband, they let them on the planes.

Really? That's all they had to get by? And they are the only ones who could do that why?

[JamesB]

As I posted over at SLC, I think we should challenge Dylan Avery et al to actively support the defense at this trial. If they think that Al Qaeda did not carry out this attack and they have proof, then they have a moral obligation to help ensure 6 people are not executed for something they did not do. I am tired of them being able to play this whole "just asking questions" thing. It is time that they either put up, or shut up. I demand that Kevin Barrett serve as an expert witness at this trial to testify that there is no such thing as Islamic extremist violence, and that Steven Jones and Richard Gage serve as expert witnesses to explain how the buildings could not have collapsed from the plane crashes.

[Redtail]

Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.
Wrong. See, AQ wouldn't have to contact every architect, engineer, or anyone else who has experience in high rise construction in the world and tell them to A.) keep quiet or B.) support our version. (Well except for those at AE9/11 who for some reason ignored the threats but decided not to mention the "calls" they got {or keep record of them for that matter})

Also AQ wouldn't have to contact every FDNY (or any fire dept. who has to work with steel framed high rises.) and tell them to keep quiet even though they know those buildings shouldn't have collapsed like they did (oh AND they heard the count downs and CD explosions.)

Also AQ wouldn't have to contact military people and tell them to keep quiet about the "real defenses" America has.

Also AQ wouldn't have to contact airline pilots and tell them to keep quiet... Ah hell that's enough.



No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.
Well they did have clues, what they didn't have is hind site. I bet the Germans feel kinda stupid about Operation Neptune and the French feel stupid about Agincourt. Now that is.

[Corsair 115]

Actually, some of the hijhjackers (the muscle ones) had physical training and commando training in the Afghani camps.Yes, of course.

But LastChild's contention was that special training was required in order for one person to kill another. That most certainly is not correct; if it were, then there ought to be almost no cases of murder. All that is really required for one person to kill another is the willingness to commit the act.

Training makes committing the act easier by removing possible psychological inhibitions and illustrating the most effective techniques.

[PhantomWolf]

You if you believe they can accomplish what they did from the outside with only 19 guys but for it to happen from the inside it would take 10,000. Hell if they are that capable and the US Govt is that incompetent we should all be dead by now or praying to Allah.

So are you claiming here that AQ would have had to have 10,000 people to train to fly planes and then hijack them and fly them into a building, or are you claiming that the US Govt only needed 19 to wire the buildings with explosives and thermate, paint the decoy planes, remote control the decoys and the real ones in an exchange, kill the passangers, plant the body and plane parts and blow up the buildings?

Evidently you believe they can do things with a small amount of people that would take anyone else vast numbers of people. How did they get so smart and so what they believe persecuted by someone evidently so inferior to them?

Why do you think it would have taken anyone else very large numbers of people to have trained and hjijacked the planes and fly them into buildings?

They should have taken over they world years ago to listen to you.

Do you really believe that taking over a country can be done with a handful of people? Or do you think that it takes an army to hijack a plane?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That's right. I wouldn't claim to know for sure what happened without an investigation.

There was an investigation, we know who did it and the Air Force and Marine Corps are working on tracking them down.

Did you miss the memo?

I didn't know you believed AQ controlled demolition the WTC.

Re-read my post. You are responding to something that I did not say.

Really? That's all they had to get by?

Ticket takers and airport security, yep. The terrorists successfully evaded them by paying thier money and not doing anything illegal before boarding the plane.

They were cunning bastards, that way.

[PhantomWolf]

No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.

Please explain why they should have had a clue? Please explain why five quiet living arab guys should have attracted the notice of the US Intelligence services. Why should the Government Agencies known about three guys among hundreds that were students studying to be pilots? Why should the FBI have been interested in people that had broken no laws nor looked likely too to anyone around them, until they were ready to attack. Do you think that the FBI and CIA should have magical systems like out of Minority Report that can detect and point out criminals before the crime is commited?

[portlandatheist]

Hey LastChild,
Don't you see what a golden opportunity this is for the truth movement? It's likely that KSM's defense will try to make his confessions inadmissible due to the circumstances. Now is the time to investigate 9/11! The truth movement can start a legal defense fund, hire structural engineers, demolition experts etc. and provide that evidence to the court in KSM's defense! You guys could have a real Parry Mason moment. Now is the time to rally the truthers together for this grand endeavor. Now is the time for a real investigation. Seize the day! Save KSM!
Good Luck!

[Dave Rogers]

That's some vast conspiracy you have there. Somehow in your AQ theory though they didn't need any of that. How come? Your not playing favorites are you?

This is the 9-11 equivalent of the infamous Apollo hoax argument that, because there wasn't enough computing power in 1969 to run a simulator of the Apollo landings, therefore the Apollo landings couldn't have happened in real life. Congratulations, LastChild, you've demonstrated a truly awesome level of disconnection from reality.

Dave

[chillzero]

How did AQ pull it off without anyone slipping up,
They did slip up - well... not entirely their fault when one plane was delayed enough for the passengers to learn what was happening.

spilling the beans,

Didn't they confess? Martyr tapes?

or anyone in our intelligence agencies or the intelligence agencies of our allies finding out?

AQ isn't magic are they?
No need for magic, as far as I can see.

[Par]

How did AQ pull it off without anyone slipping up, spilling the beans, or anyone in our intelligence agencies or the intelligence agencies of our allies finding out? AQ isn't magic are they?


Perhaps they used incredulity, or false dichotomy fallacies.

[aggle-rithm]

Six whole detainees huh? That's some vast conspiracy involving years of planning and thousands of people in on it. I hope our military took notes while they were torturing them. It seems they could use some lessons on how to be so efficient when planning such a vast and complex mission.


"We take flying lessons."
"We take over airplane."
"We point airplane at big building."

Pretty complex, all right. They would have had to look at some flight schedules.

ETA:
"By 'we', I mean 'you', Mohamed."
"Let us know how it turns out."

[Sabrina]

LC, there is a distinction here I'm not sure you're grasping.

Basically, it is far easier to find a weakness from the outside to exploit (i.e. our self-assurance that no one would attack using such low-tech methods as the hijackers employed, or our assumption at least that no one would; much of our defense was against more high-tech methods such as cruise missiles or fighter jets, to name just a couple of examples) than it is to plot to do something from the inside, simply because the outside version allows for less people knowing about the plot to begin with. In order for this plot to be carried out from the inside in such a way that it makes it seem as though it occurred from the outside, it would require tens of thousands of people with at least SOME knowledge of the plot (i.e. they may not know about the whole thing, but they knew about part of it) to carry out, whereas an attack from the outside carries much less risk of being found out and halted ahead of time and requires much less people; the materials are already there and waiting for them to use (the planes are legitimate planes and don't need to be painted or altered to look like AA or UA planes, short knives were allowed on board at the time, airport security was much less stringent, so it could have been possible to smuggle something on board that resembled a bomb (enough to fool the passengers if they didn't get a close look, assuming they were even looking and not too scared to do so), flying lessons were easily obtained, and most importantly, we weren't looking for such a low-tech approach to an attack). That's not to say every outside attack would be successful or even be carried out; sometimes we do get lucky and stop things ahead of time, but it carries a greater chance of success than an inside attack of the magnitude required to carry out this job at least would.

Do you see now why the vast majority of us perceive an inside attack to be ludicrous? Even if the tens of thousands each only had one piece of the puzzle to carry out the attack, all it takes is for one or more to put the pieces together after the attack is complete and be brave enough to risk their lives (hyperbolically speaking) to get the information out. In nearly seven years, there has been NO ONE. Deep Throat came forward even before Watergate was complete, and that was a vastly smaller conspiracy; I find it hard to believe that not one person in tens of thousands would have a similar reaction.

[stilicho]

Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.
I'd suggest you take a look at this story: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/s_487117.html

The report and the reporter were featured in a PBS documentary.

Your argument from personal incredulity doesn't carry any weight. Real investigators like that one have risked their personal safety to disprove all kinds of fallacies about the potential of another terrorist attack. In the cases he cites they might not even take 19 people to carry out.

Again, if the Pittsburgh newspaper's scenario was played out, you'd immediately suspect...hmmm, let me guess....Dick Cheney?

[stilicho]

Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.
I'd suggest you take a look at this story: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/s_487117.html

The report and the reporter were featured in a PBS documentary.

Your argument from personal incredulity doesn't carry any weight. Real investigators like that one have risked their personal safety to disprove all kinds of fallacies about the potential of another terrorist attack. In the cases he cites they might not even take 19 people to carry out.

Again, if the Pittsburgh newspaper's scenario was played out, you'd immediately suspect...hmmm, let me guess....Dick Cheney?

[MaGZ]

I think the difference was (an correct me if I'm wrong) that the nuremberg trials were conducted after the war was over. This is a different kind of war, more akin to the cold war in time length. So they were kept until their intelligence value was used up with them being out of the loop for long enough. Then I imagine federal and legal bureaucracy took over. With disagreements over how to actually treat them and what could be admissible and what jurisdictions they would be under.

Who will bring Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld up on charges for starting wars?

[Par]

Who will bring Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld up on charges for starting wars?


That someone has started a war is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for their indictment.

[gumboot]

Who will bring Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld up on charges for starting wars?


The leaders of Nazi Germany were indicted for conspiring to start a war, but that crime was one created by the tribunal itself. The allies won WW2. I daresay if the enemy of this particular set of wars wins, they'll have something a bit more drastic in mind than a trial for our leaders.