Truthers: The most important question from here on [Archive]

Undesired Walrus

8th June 2008, 04:46 AM

To theauthor, Russ Dalton, bio, and Profanz:

If KSM is some kind of patsy or dupe (something all of you seem to be implying), and is found guilty of the crimes of which he is accused, an innocent man will be executed.

What are any of you doing to prevent the death of another innocent man at the hands of the true perpetrators of 9/11?

Do you not care at all that several men you believe to be innocent are to be put to death?

The US government have -in your view- fabricated all of the following to convict Ramzi Bin-Al Shibh. When are you going to try and free him?

"Sayf al-Adl is a senior al Qaida military commander with a long-term relationship with Usama bin Laden, Sayf al-Adl's role in the organization has been as a trainer, military leader, and key member of Usama bin Laden's security detail.
"The diary of Sayf al-Adl was recovered during a raid in Saudi Arabia in 2004. The diary details the detainee's involvement in the 11 September 2001 terrorist plot and subsequent attack. The detainee is listed as a "highly professional jihadist" along with "9/11 hijackers", Mohammed Atta dn Ziad Jarrah. The diary states that the three were briefed on an operation involving aircraft by Abu Hafs, a senior al Qaida planner. The detainee, Mohammed Atta, and Ziad Jarrah subsequently met with Usama bin Laden about the plan. Following the meeting, al Qaida began arrangements for the detainee, Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah to receive pilot training. The detainee handled administrative details for the "9/11 hijackers" while they were in the United States and the detainee served as an al Qaida Europe based liaison.
"The detainee was identified in a video tape of potential suicide operatives.
"The detainee attempted to obtain a United States visa on four occasions from May 2000 to November 2000 for the purpose of attending flight school in the United States. Each application was rejected by [sic] United States Department of State.
"The detainee attempted to enroll in the Florida Flight Training School, where 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah was a student. The detainee put down a 2,350 United States dollars [sic] deposit for flight training.
"Ziad Jarrah repeatedly attempted to assist the detainee's travel to the United States and enrollment in the Florida flight training center.
"The detainee attempted to enroll at the [sic] Florida-based aviation language school.
"The detainee, while in Germany, wired 9/11 hijacker Marwan Al-Shehi, who was in the United States 2708.33 [sic] United States dollars [sic] on 13 June 2000 via moneygram.
"The detainee, while in Germany, wired 9/11 hijacker Marwan Al-Shehhi, who was in the United States) [sic] 1760.61 [sic] United States dollars on 26 July 2000 via Western Union.
"The detainee, while in Germany, wired 9/11 hijacker Marwan Al-Shehhi who was in the United States) [sic] 4,118.13 [sic] United States dollars on 25 September 2000 via Western Union.
"An unsigned letter found at the detainee's point of capture, and addressed to the detainee, asks follow on questions related to the detainee's Al-Jazeera interview detailing the 9/11 attacks.
"An article from the London Sunday Times published on 8 September 2002 listed excerpts from a 112 page document entitled "The Reality of the New Crusaders' War". The detainee passed the document to Al-Jazeera Yosri Fouda with a request for the document to be translated into English and entered into the Library of Congress. According to the London Sunday Times the document is al Qaida's written attempt to justify the 9/11 attacks through Islamic teaching.
"The London Sunday Times article published on 8 September 2002 listed excerpts from "The Realisty of the New Crusaders' War" which contained statements from Taliban leader Mullah Mohamed Omar and Usama bin Laden which encourages jihad in service of the ousted Taliban regime.
"The detainee was captured in a safe house. Items also recovered at the safe house at the time of the detainee's capture were high explosives, sheet explosives, a large quantity of improvised detonation devices, passports for Usama bin Laden's family members, a handwritten note to a senior al Qaida operative, identification cards for a senior al Qaida operative, identification cards for Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Haznawi, a 9/11 hijacker, and contact information for several known al Qaida operatives.
"Documents captured in a raid of a separate al Qaida safe house were identical to documents captured alnong with the detainee. The documents included training manuals, security information and combat related subjects.
"Letters and personal effect of a senior al Qaida operative were discovered in the safe house where the detainee was arrested.
"Letters found at the detainee's point of capture detailed a plan to egress Pakistan with forged identification. This plan was in conjunction with a senior al Qaida operative.
"A letter captured on an al Qaida courier detailed a senior al Qaida operative's instructions to the detainee to identify operatives to send to the United States or United Kingdom.
"The detainee wired approximately 15,000 United States dollars to Zacharias Moussaoui while Moussaoui was enrolled in pilot training."

deep

8th June 2008, 05:03 AM

TheRedWorm

8th June 2008, 05:21 AM

Just to be on the safe side, shouldn't you try to get these people's sentence commuted to life? (just until after the new investigation, anyway) I mean, honestly, if there is evidence that proves that they are not guilty (or at least, not as guilty) that is to be uncovered by a new investigation, then these men don't deserve death, right? They may even be declared innocent after a new investigation, and a posthumous pardon doesn't do a whole lot of good to them or anyone that cares about them, now does it.

Undesired Walrus

8th June 2008, 05:29 AM

Well, for one thing, they want to be put to death, don't they?

No. Only Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does. Another pleads innocence. Are you going to try and prevent them from being put to death? Do you believe a suicidal depressive should be left to commit suicide because they wish death?

These men are facing the death penalty on charges you regard as false. They are being tried on 3000 counts of murder. You believe two buildings were demolished killing a large percentage of that number, something you believe KSM and co had nothing to do with.

Why are you not trying to save their families these mens death?

SpitfireIX

8th June 2008, 05:32 AM

Well, for one thing, they want to be put to death, don't they?

Also, there's no telling if these guys are truly innocent - the observed characteristics of each collapse (WTC1/2/7) do not preclude the use of real hijackers. The only way to find out for sure is through a new investigation, and that's already the primary focus of the truth movement right now.

How do you know they want to be put to death? Because they said so? You've insinuated that their confessions were tortured out of them, and that KSM falsely claimed credit for the September 11 attacks in his Al Jazeera interview. Yet when it suits your purpose to do so, you accept their statements at face value.

zorro99

8th June 2008, 05:52 AM

Twoofers have been waiting for this opportunity for years - a chance to be heard while the nation's attention is once again focused on the events of 9/11, perhaps for the last time!

Now would be a good time to introduce claims like the fat bin laden video to the rest of America!

Don't forget - NIST's final report on WTC 7 is also due soon, along with an opportunity to respond.

And we're also only six months away from a change in Administrations.

Troofers better act fast. The final chapters of 9/11 are about to be written, and you all are going to be left behind!

scissorhands

8th June 2008, 06:12 AM

The fat bin laden tape is rock solid evidence that needs to heard, along with the not dead hijackers thing also.
These "innocent" guys lives are at stake here and there seems to be a deafening silence from troofers, when they hold key evidence that could save them.

Alt+F4

8th June 2008, 06:17 AM

The "truthers" like to say that their numbers keep growing, yet a visit to any anti-death penalty website would prove otherwise.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project
Center on Wrongful Convictions
Fair Trial Initiative
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

None of these groups are advocating for KSM and his buddies. No worry though, I'm sure Rosie O'Donnell will put up millions for their defense then maybe KSM can go over and babysit Rosie's kids. After all, as she likes to say, "Terrorists are moms and dads just like me and you!"

bio

8th June 2008, 07:31 AM

When are you going to try and free them?

We already work secretly on that and wanted to surprise you.
Congratulation.

zorro99

8th June 2008, 08:00 AM

When are you going to try and free them?

We already work secretly on that and wanted to surprise you.
Congratulation.

I'm sure you're joking, but be careful about what you write on public message boards.

Drudgewire

8th June 2008, 10:53 AM

No worry though, I'm sure Rosie O'Donnell will put up millions for their defense then maybe KSM can go over and babysit Rosie's kids. After all, as she likes to say, "Terrorists are moms and dads just like me and you!"

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/oie_rosie_terrorist.jpg

twinstead

8th June 2008, 01:40 PM

Oh that picture just FREAKS me out, drudge. Thanks.

SDC

8th June 2008, 01:54 PM

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/oie_rosie_terrorist.jpg

I was about to write a learned and philosophical posting opposed to the death penalty on general principles.

Then I saw this photo posted by Drudgewire.

To heck with it. Execute everybody involved with that photo!

Drudgewire

8th June 2008, 01:58 PM

To heck with it. Execute everybody involved with that photo!

It always creeped me out too, but seeing the subjects being mentioned together seemed to scream for it. :o

Russ_Dalton

8th June 2008, 05:01 PM

Do you not care at all that several men you believe to be innocent are to be put to death?

The US government have -in your view- fabricated all of the following to convict Ramzi Bin-Al Shibh. When are you going to try and free him?

I dont know if KSM is innocent or not, I havent seen enough proof except for his exaggerated and lax confession statement.
Also there is a strong history of international criminals/patsies working for governments.

And I never knew you could convict a person if he just said he did it.

stateofgrace

8th June 2008, 05:34 PM

TheRedWorm

8th June 2008, 05:40 PM

stateofgrace

8th June 2008, 05:54 PM

Maybe Mr Dalton could take his concerns to these guys.

The Interpol General Assembly, meeting in Budapest from 24 to 28 September 2001 at its 70th session:
RECALLING the murderous attacks perpetrated against the world’s citizens in the United States of America on 11 September 2001,
SHOCKED by the loss of and injury to thousands of innocent lives from over 80 countries, including scores of police officers, firefighters and other public servants called to the scene to aid those in need,
DETERMINED that this abhorrent violation of law and of the standards of human decency must be condemned by every civilized person,
CONSCIOUS of our special responsibility as upholders of the laws of almost every nation of the world,
BEARING IN MIND the consistent record of Interpol at past General Assembly sessions in opposing all acts of terrorism, most recently at the 67th session in Cairo (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp) (1998) and the 68th session in Seoul (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN68/Resolutions/AGN68RES2.asp) (1999),
CONDEMNS these attacks as cold-blooded mass murder;
CONSIDERS that they constitute a crime against humanity;
COMMENDS the General Secretariat for its swift and decisive response to the 11 September tragedy in establishing an immediate and permanent 24-hour capability to respond to all Interpol member countries’ needs;
HONOURS the memory of the law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency workers and private citizens who selflessly gave their lives to save others;
SHARES in the grief of all those who have been touched by this tragedy and other tragedies caused by terrorism;
REITERATES its unwavering commitment to the 'Cairo Declaration against Terrorism' (AGN/67/RES/12 (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp)) and calls for enhanced international police and judicial collaboration to tackle terrorism and organized crime more effectively, for example by exploring all opportunities to co-ordinate legal, judicial and operational approaches;
EMPHASIZES the importance of making full use of the services available through Interpol to secure the arrest of fugitive offenders, to improve information sharing between member countries, to develop analysis of the threat more effectively and to facilitate the timely sharing of good practice;
REQUESTS that the General Secretariat afford the highest priority to the issuance of Interpol Red Notices for terrorist offenders whose arrest is sought by member countries and to accelerate the creation of an international database of counterfeit, forged and stolen identity documents;
URGES member countries to develop robust systems for the monitoring of suspicious financial transactions linked to terrorist activities in order to improve the ability of competent authorities to freeze such assets and so disrupt the funding of terrorism;
SOLEMNLY PLEDGES that the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.

Adopted.

http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

The above,Mr Dalton,is a solemn pledge adopted by the 160 countries of Interpol to bring to justice all those who were responsible for this dreadful terrorist attack.

Or maybe Mr Dalton is simply content to............
a. Post on internet forums
b. Post on internet forums
c. Post on internet forums

Well Russ, it look to me as those responsible are being brought to justice, nobody from Interpol seems to be objecting. Maybe you should get in touch with them and tell them all about your concerns.

Oops I am sorry Russ I forgot option d.

Option D.

Pretend you are really clued in, considering all options and open minded, pretend that you see something that the entire planet missed and hope that some loon on prison planet comes up with the most absurd explanation as to why this guy is innocent and then keep posting conspiracy drivel on internet forums.

zorro99

9th June 2008, 02:05 AM

And I never knew you could convict a person if he just said he did it.

In a death penalty case, a person cannot plead guilt. The prosecution must prove the defendent guilty.

Russ_Dalton

11th June 2008, 01:29 AM

And you will do what,exactly,if he is found guilty?

a. Post on internet forums
b. Post on internet forums
c. Post on internet forums

Take your pick, what "direct" action will you take, if this "innocent" man is found guilty?

I take "action" if hes found guilty?
I`l support the conviction of the guilty.

Russ_Dalton

11th June 2008, 01:39 AM

Actually, the "proof" will most likely come fourth in the trial, so technically, it is possible that Mr. Dalton (welcome, by the way) is merely withholding judgement until the trial is over and a verdict is decided.

However, this statement: "Also there is a strong history of international criminals/patsies working for governments,"
leads me to believe that Mr. Dalton thinks that KSM is just a plant for the gov't and his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Do either of these cases describe your thoughts, Mr. Dalton ?

The strong history of international criminals/patsies working for governments leaves me with the possibility that KSM could be one, or atleast I cannot eliminate that possibility.

If so hes as much guilty as the 'elements of western governments' who funded him.

Unchained Spirit

11th June 2008, 02:39 AM

Twoofers have been waiting for this opportunity for years - a chance to be heard while the nation's attention is once again focused on the events of 9/11, perhaps for the last time!

Yeah, because 9-11 will just be forgotten with a new election, right? Since you like using denigrating terms, like "twoofers" and "troofers", for people with legitimate questions, which do you prefer for yourself, "untruther" or "liar"?

Now would be a good time to introduce claims like the fat bin laden video to the rest of America!

*ANY* bin Laden tape put out after 2001 is a fake:

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Death of bin Ladenism
By AMIR TAHERI
Published: July 11, 2002
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?

Even if he is still in the world, bin Ladenism has left for good. Mr. bin Laden was the public face of a brand of politics that committed suicide in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.

What were the key elements of that politics?

The first was a cynical misinterpretation of Islam that began decades ago with such anti-Western ideologues as Maulana Maudoodi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt. Although Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb were not serious thinkers, they could at least offer a coherent ideology based on a narrow reading of Islamic texts. Their ideas about Western barbarism and Muslim revival, distilled down to bin Ladenism, became mere slogans designed to incite zealots to murder.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDE1230F932A25754C0A9649C8B 63

Don't forget - NIST's final report on WTC 7 is also due soon, along with an opportunity to respond.

Don't forget, the NIST Report on WTC 7 is nothing but pure speculation. No steel from WTC 7 was examined or tested for *anything*

Analysis of WTC 7 Steel
from D D <xxxxxx@gmail.com> May 1
to michael.newman@nist.gov
date May 1, 2008 3:37 PM
subject Analysis of WTC 7 Steel
mailed-by gmail.com

Hello,

I was wondering if you could tell me how much steel from WTC 7 has actually been analysed during your investigations. I have seen a report stating that there has been NONE, but I find that hard to believe. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated as I am in a debate/discussion over this matter and would like to have an informed opinion with which to speak from.

Thanks in advance for your time,

Douglas Xxxxx
Niota, Tn

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
to D D <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
date May 2, 2008 4:06 PM
subject Re: Analysis of WTC 7 Steel
mailed-by nist.gov

Douglas,

NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7.

If NIST was not able to positively identify the origin of a sample of steel, then it was not used to draw conclusions or inferences. While NIST is aware of the steel sample described as "Sample 1" in Appendix C of the FEMA report on the WTC disaster, NIST found no evidence that the sample was from WTC 7. Since we have been unable to verify that this sample came from WTC 7, it was not used in the investigation.

NIST conducted tests of many specimens of steel identified from the WTC towers to obtain both physical and mechanical properties. The properties so obtained were found to fall within the expected variation. The measured properties were used in conjunction with historical values from the literature and, in some cases, recovered mill test results for the subsequent analyses. Using this same approach, even if "Sample 1" had been known to be from WTC 7, NIST would not use properties obtained from testing a single piece of steel as the basis of its calculations.

Furthermore, in its testing of recovered steel for the investigation, NIST has taken great care in preparing test specimens only from steel that did not show any evidence of damage. As indicated in the FEMA report, Sample 1 was severely eroded and, therefore, one would not expect to obtain reliable mechanical properties from a sample that was altered by high temperature corrosion.

Hope this answers your question.

Thank you,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs

************************************************** **************

And we're also only six months away from a change in Administrations.

And?

Troofers better act fast. The final chapters of 9/11 are about to be written, and you all are going to be left behind!

I think you're very wrong here... but you're entitled to your opinion

Dave Rogers

11th June 2008, 03:45 AM

*ANY* bin Laden tape put out after 2001 is a fake:

Because if Fox News said it, it must be true? Interesting attitute for a truther.

Dave

TheRedWorm

11th June 2008, 04:51 AM

I take "action" if hes found guilty?
I`l support the conviction of the guilty.

The strong history of international criminals/patsies working for governments leaves me with the possibility that KSM could be one, or atleast I cannot eliminate that possibility.

If so hes as much guilty as the 'elements of western governments' who funded him.

Wait, what? If he is just a patsy, that means by definition that the only thing that he has done was take blame for a crime that he didn't commit. How in the hell can you support the guilty verdict of an innocent man?

zorro99

11th June 2008, 05:49 AM

Yeah, because 9-11 will just be forgotten with a new election, right? Since you like using denigrating terms, like "twoofers" and "troofers", for people with legitimate questions, which do you prefer for yourself, "untruther" or "liar"?

*ANY* bin Laden tape put out after 2001 is a fake:

Don't forget, the NIST Report on WTC 7 is nothing but pure speculation. No steel from WTC 7 was examined or tested for *anything*

And?

I think you're very wrong here... but you're entitled to your opinion

I believe you're missing the point here. If all you claim here is true, what are you and the Truth Movement doing to ensure that KSM and his cohorts aren't wrongfully convicted?

And what will you do when the current Administration - upon whom most of you blame - leave office?

I would think that these matters would be somewhat urgent, but that's just my opinion. Do whatever you want to do.

Pardalis

11th June 2008, 05:53 AM

I would think that these matters would be somewhat urgent, but that's just my opinion. Do whatever you want to do.

Precisely.

Very interesting thread, UW, and also very interesting the fact that no Truther has really answered the OP.

Undesired Walrus

11th June 2008, 07:32 AM

Truthers are now backpeddling on the issue, trying to keep the submission of their inactivity, and are suggesting KSM is 'sort of' guilty, or perhaps 'kinda' complicit in the attacks.

But yet, KSM and co are being tried on the deaths of 3000 people. Truthers believe at least 50% of the dead were killed by the destruction of the twin towers. Thus, KSM is being -in their opinion- tried on crimes he did not commit. He is innocent on at least half of the charges, in their opinion.

This fact alone shows their cowardly values.

nicepants

11th June 2008, 09:52 AM

The only way to find out for sure is through a new investigation, and that's already the primary focus of the truth movement right now.

Really? When are you guys starting your new investigation? It's been almost 7 years now.

funk de fino

11th June 2008, 03:01 PM

dudalb

11th June 2008, 03:46 PM

Your lot have the nerve to call us sheeple and then you post this garbage

And Garbage we have heard a Million time before at that.

Unchained Spirit

11th June 2008, 04:23 PM

I believe you're missing the point here. If all you claim here is true, what are you and the Truth Movement doing to ensure that KSM and his cohorts aren't wrongfully convicted?

And what will you do when the current Administration - upon whom most of you blame - leave office?

I would think that these matters would be somewhat urgent, but that's just my opinion. Do whatever you want to do.

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have never claimed that there were no hijackers or that they weren't involved. They *had* to be involved to pull it off, right? It's just a question of "who else" was involved. Take a look at the "Miami Seven", for example. They were pumped up and pushed along by an undercover FBI informant, weren't they?

What will I do when they leave office? I'll party like it's 1999!.... then hope that the I.C.C. holds them accountable for the various other crimes, including war crimes, that they've perpetrated.

Unchained Spirit

11th June 2008, 04:25 PM

Your lot have the nerve to call us sheeple and then you post this garbage

I see... anything you can't refute is "garbage".... got it. Loud and clear.

Pardalis

11th June 2008, 05:04 PM

Still no twoofer to addess the OP, very telling.

SDC

11th June 2008, 05:07 PM

They are either afraid of acting on their apparent convictions; or they don't really believe in their own statements; or they are too dense to understand the implications of their statements. That is the tale of the Truther.

Pardalis

11th June 2008, 05:50 PM

Come on, Red Ibis, The Author, The Whole Soul, Swing Dangler, Dictator Cheney, Sizzler, Tanabear... Anyone?

They are so quick to talk about the minute details of WTC7, micro dust particles, cell phones, but for the real issues they're nowhere to be found...

zorro99

12th June 2008, 01:44 AM

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have never claimed that there were no hijackers or that they weren't involved. They *had* to be involved to pull it off, right?

Why are you asking me? This is your theory!

Just what was the extent of their involvement? How did the "Inside Job" gummint agents coordinate with the Al Q hijackers? Were the Al Q folks participating wittingly or unwittingly? How does this trial reconcile with some of the Truther claims such as the fat bin laden video, the hijackers' still being alive, or bin laden's denial of involvement?

These questions must be addressed if you're going to prove your case. If KSM and cohorts are executed, you will never have the answers!

What will I do when they leave office? I'll party like it's 1999!.... then hope that the I.C.C. holds them accountable for the various other crimes, including war crimes, that they've perpetrated.

And when will the I.C.C. open its investigation?

Sparky

12th June 2008, 02:27 AM

which do you prefer for yourself, "untruther" or "liar"?

I prefer "realist".

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

12th June 2008, 03:01 AM

The only way to find out for sure is through a new investigation, and that's already the primary focus of the truth movement right now.
I find this hard to believe!

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

12th June 2008, 03:10 AM

And Garbage we have heard a Million time before at that.
When posted here, that garbage gets observed, washed,disect and forced-feed back into their throats with a showel.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

12th June 2008, 03:31 AM

And I never knew you could convict a person if he just said he did it.
huh....what? (http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Karr%20-%20Newsweek%20Online.pdf)

funk de fino

12th June 2008, 10:11 AM

I see... anything you can't refute is "garbage".... got it. Loud and clear.

ANY* bin Laden tape put out after 2001 is a fake:

Lets see shall we. Mass media stories from unamed sources confirm he is dead do they? Is this all the proof you have for fake videos?

The minute a truther has to cry fake video he is a lost case and showing irrational behaviour. Show me proof he is dead and that the videos are fake.

No steel from WTC 7 was examined or tested for *anything*

Are you sure you want to claim this? It is untrue so I am giving you the chance to clarify the statement. Even your quote does not state this.

zorro99

12th June 2008, 04:33 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have never claimed that there were no hijackers or that they weren't involved. They *had* to be involved to pull it off, right?.

Many Truthers claim that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive.

Many Truthers also claim that the planes wee flown by remote control, involving no hijackers.

Many Truthers claim that the hikackers were not on the flight manifests:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.htm

Many Truthers point to bin laden's denial of involvement as proof of his innocence.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010929010503/http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html

Many Truthers claim that the bin laden video is fake:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/faked_video_inin.htm

Many Truthers claim that Al Q does not exist.

Many Truthers claim that the phone calls made from the planes were fake:
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6

The implication in each of these claims is that that either there were no hijackers, or the ones who were fingered were innocent dupes which would include KSM and his cohorts.

I would expect that any Truther who agrees with any of the above claims should be demanding KSM's immediate release.

Undesired Walrus

13th June 2008, 01:31 AM

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have never claimed that there were no hijackers or that they weren't involved. They *had* to be involved to pull it off, right? It's just a question of "who else" was involved. Take a look at the "Miami Seven", for example. They were pumped up and pushed along by an undercover FBI informant, weren't they?

Why are you fine with this man being charged on 3000 seperate counts of murder? To you, he is innocent on at least half of that number. Do you have no heart?

It's a tragedy you let your desire to surrender yourself in inactivity to be so apparent.

Profanz

13th June 2008, 07:17 AM

Do you not care at all that several men you believe to be innocent are to be put to death?

The US government have -in your view- fabricated all of the following to convict Ramzi Bin-Al Shibh. When are you going to try and free him?

Well just because they may be innocent of 9/11 doesn't mean they are innocent of wanting to hurt America or past crimes in doing so. In fact didn't KSM confess to just about every terrorist act ever commited? Well I say there is only one way to tell. You should volunteer to being waterboarded and see just what it is you would confess to. After you break KSM's world record that is. Who knows there could be terrorists everywhere! I say waterboarding for everyone. After all we have tradition to keep up you know. It worked great in Salem. Ah the good ole days.

Drudgewire

13th June 2008, 08:27 AM

Well just because they may be innocent of 9/11 doesn't mean they are innocent of wanting to hurt America or past crimes in doing so. In fact didn't KSM confess to just about every terrorist act ever commited? Well I say there is only one way to tell. You should volunteer to being waterboarded and see just what it is you would confess to. After you break KSM's world record that is. Who knows there could be terrorists everywhere! I say waterboarding for everyone. After all we have tradition to keep up you know. It worked great in Salem. Ah the good ole days.

Geez, hyberbolize much? :rolleyes:

Undesired Walrus

13th June 2008, 10:58 AM

Well just because they may be innocent of 9/11 doesn't mean they are innocent of wanting to hurt America or past crimes in doing so.

So you would be willing to send to death a man on wrongful charges just to be on the safe side? Whilst KSM is most likely guilty of past crimes, why are you sending Ramzi Bin-Al Shibh, a young man (Who's participation in 9/11 was his only confessed crime) to death?

The truth movement is seemingly devoted to saving the United States from falling off its constitutional foundings, but whenever this means you will have to get off your arse and do something, transparent excuses are invented.

Is your vision of America a man getting twenty years for a bank robbery, yet only being guilty of stealing a handbag?

In fact didn't KSM confess to just about every terrorist act ever commited?

No. An absurd question.

Pardalis

14th June 2008, 11:45 AM

Maybe "the author" might want to address the OP?

Elizabeth I

14th June 2008, 01:23 PM

I dont know if KSM is innocent or not, I havent seen enough proof except for his exaggerated and lax confession statement.
Also there is a strong history of international criminals/patsies working for governments.

And I never knew you could convict a person if he just said he did it.

I take "action" if hes found guilty?
I`l support the conviction of the guilty.

You are confused, aren't you?

According to you, the U.S. government, or the Bush administration, or the New World Order, or the Illuminati, or my Aunt Minnie, or someone, masterminded the destruction of the World Trade Center and the deaths of 3,000 unsuspecting, innocent people, and manipulated the evidence to make it look like 19 fundamentalist Muslims did it; and did this so well that millions of people (or "sheeple" in your lexicon) believe that story despite the desperate attempts of the truth movement to awaken them to their danger.

But if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is "found guilty" - by a court that could easily be a willing tool of those who perpetrated the original crime, and would almost have to be, under your theory - you would trust that verdict and "support the conviction of the guilty."

Do you ever consider the implications of what you say?

Well just because they may be innocent of 9/11 doesn't mean they are innocent of wanting to hurt America or past crimes in doing so. In fact didn't KSM confess to just about every terrorist act ever commited? Well I say there is only one way to tell. You should volunteer to being waterboarded and see just what it is you would confess to. After you break KSM's world record that is. Who knows there could be terrorists everywhere! I say waterboarding for everyone. After all we have tradition to keep up you know. It worked great in Salem. Ah the good ole days.

In this country, we don't convict people of one crime because they have supposedly committed others. It doesn't matter if you murdered my said Aunt Minnie, that can't be used to convict you of murdering my Uncle Barney.

And you miss the point. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were tortured into confession, that means someone is about to execute an innocent man, and one who has been tormented until he professed his guilt, at that. What are you doing to stop this miscarriage of justice?

That's the question the OP asks, and which none of you have answered.

Unchained Spirit

14th June 2008, 04:27 PM

Lets see shall we. Mass media stories from unamed sources confirm he is dead do they? Is this all the proof you have for fake videos?

The minute a truther has to cry fake video he is a lost case and showing irrational behaviour. Show me proof he is dead and that the videos are fake.

Maybe a little reading comprehension is in order on your part? Is Pervez Musharraf an un-named source? You *do* understand what "echoed the information" means, don't you? Furthermore, you *do* realize that "un-named" does not equal "unknown", don't you?

The Death of bin Ladenism
By AMIR TAHERI
Published: July 11, 2002
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.
http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=44&mesg_id=44&page=
### Attention Mods: I *own* the site I'm linking to ###

Maybe you can further tell us why the propaganda arm of the Bush/Cheney misadministration would report their "boogeyman" dead. Furthermore, why don't *YOU* find *ME* proof that this story is false, or provide a link to where it has been refuted or retracted. You see, that's how this works: I made a claim, then backed it up with links to proof. *You* refuted that proof, so it's up to *YOU* to provide the proof that I'm wrong. I'm not here to do your research for you, that's all up to you to do, if you honestly want to debate a subject. Anything else is just nuisance/distraction on your part.

Are you sure you want to claim this? It is untrue so I am giving you the chance to clarify the statement. Even your quote does not state this.

Yes, I'm quite sure I want to claim this. Once again, a little reading comprehension is in order on your part. I notice you left out the email exchange I had with Michael Newman, Senior Communications Officer, Public Affairs Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, in which he stated:
"NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7."

You *do* understand what "it was not possible to unambiguously distinguish" means, don't you? It means that for other than WTCs 1 & 2, they didn't know if they were looking at steel from WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, *or* 7. Period. All they knew was that they were looking at steel. Mr. Newman further stated that: "If NIST was not able to positively identify the origin of a sample of steel, then it was not used to draw conclusions or inferences."

Please tell me, and everyone else reading this, EXACTLY what you think that means, since you like to try to act like you're so freakin' smart. I'll be waiting. I personally think it would serve you well to learn how to comprehend what you read before you comment to me any more, unless you just find a certain kinky pleasure in making yourself look ignorant. Know what I mean, Vern?

DGM

14th June 2008, 04:59 PM

Pardalis

15th June 2008, 09:29 AM

Do you not care at all that several men you believe to be innocent are to be put to death?

The US government have -in your view- fabricated all of the following to convict Ramzi Bin-Al Shibh. When are you going to try and free him?

So truthers, any takers?

Forget about dust particles at Ground Zero or WTC 7 for just a minute, think about these "innocent" men that are going to get the death penalty.

Are you going to be serious about this for once?

Elizabeth I

15th June 2008, 02:20 PM

Undesired Walrus

15th June 2008, 04:40 PM

Remember truthers, you believe that WTC 1 & 2 were demolished, accounting for at least 20% of the people killed on September 11th. If you include the Pentagon missile in your theory, that is another 5-10%. You then have KSM responsible for those in the planes and their initial impact. But not a man guilty of 3000 deaths, which is what he is being put on trial for. On your watch, he is being tried for deaths he did not commit. He is taking the wrap for part of Bush/Cheney's crimes. If true, this is what they call a major miscarriage of justice.

You wish to defend the US, you wish to defend the truth and what is just, and here is a chance to do so.

Yet you choose not to, speaking volumes about your cowardly movement.

zorro99

16th June 2008, 01:24 AM

You know what?

I think this thread is too important to sink slowly to the bottom of the page, and then off into Page-Two-and-beyond oblivion, so I'm bumping it.

What about it, 9-11 Truth Movement adherents? What are you doing to stop this monstrous miscarriage (if the facts are as you say they are) of justice?

I would also like to ask - what is the 9/11 Truth Movement doing to prevent KSM and his associates from being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit?

zorro99

16th June 2008, 01:26 AM

Maybe a little reading comprehension is in order on your part? Is Pervez Musharraf an un-named source? You *do* understand what "echoed the information" means, don't you? Furthermore, you *do* realize that "un-named" does not equal "unknown", don't you?

Maybe you can further tell us why the propaganda arm of the Bush/Cheney misadministration would report their "boogeyman" dead. Furthermore, why don't *YOU* find *ME* proof that this story is false, or provide a link to where it has been refuted or retracted. You see, that's how this works: I made a claim, then backed it up with links to proof. *You* refuted that proof, so it's up to *YOU* to provide the proof that I'm wrong. I'm not here to do your research for you, that's all up to you to do, if you honestly want to debate a subject. Anything else is just nuisance/distraction on your part.

Yes, I'm quite sure I want to claim this. Once again, a little reading comprehension is in order on your part. I notice you left out the email exchange I had with Michael Newman, Senior Communications Officer, Public Affairs Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, in which he stated:
"NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7."

You *do* understand what "it was not possible to unambiguously distinguish" means, don't you? It means that for other than WTCs 1 & 2, they didn't know if they were looking at steel from WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, *or* 7. Period. All they knew was that they were looking at steel. Mr. Newman further stated that: "If NIST was not able to positively identify the origin of a sample of steel, then it was not used to draw conclusions or inferences."

Please tell me, and everyone else reading this, EXACTLY what you think that means, since you like to try to act like you're so freakin' smart. I'll be waiting. I personally think it would serve you well to learn how to comprehend what you read before you comment to me any more, unless you just find a certain kinky pleasure in making yourself look ignorant. Know what I mean, Vern?

Unchained Spirit - if you are so sure about your conclusions, then what are you doing to prevent KSM and his associates from being convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit?

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 05:34 AM

Unchained Spirit - if you are so sure about your conclusions, then what are you doing to prevent KSM and his associates from being convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit?

zorro99, please explain what part of showing reports that Osama bin Laden is dead means I think that KSM & company are innocent. Also, please explain how showing that NIST didn't test any steel from WTC7 shows that I think they are innocent.

Think about this, zorro99: If I, as a business owner, conspire with a group of people to rob my business and burn it down and they do it, would they be innocent just because I was involved in the plan? Furthermore, would *I* be innocent just because I didn't participate in the actual robbery & arson?

Seriously, some of you guys need to learn how to think a little deeper.. or at least a little more clearly. I've never claimed that there were no planes, nor have I claimed that there were no hijackers. If you think I have, please point out exactly where you think I did.

Thanks....

funk de fino

16th June 2008, 05:50 AM

Maybe a little reading comprehension is in order on your part? Is Pervez Musharraf an un-named source? You *do* understand what "echoed the information" means, don't you? Furthermore, you *do* realize that "un-named" does not equal "unknown", don't you?

I've seen stories that Elvis is still alive and 10,00 died in the towers, does this make it true? You have one unamed source and a flakey news story. I have loads if videos and many other news stories. I guess you trump me eh?

Maybe you can further tell us why the propaganda arm of the Bush/Cheney misadministration would report their "boogeyman" dead. Furthermore, why don't *YOU* find *ME* proof that this story is false, or provide a link to where it has been refuted or retracted. You see, that's how this works: I made a claim, then backed it up with links to proof. *You* refuted that proof, so it's up to *YOU* to provide the proof that I'm wrong. I'm not here to do your research for you, that's all up to you to do, if you honestly want to debate a subject. Anything else is just nuisance/distraction on your part

Show me proof he is dead that does not involve a unamed source or a news story from 2002.

I have video and audio evidence he is alive you cannot prove is fake, you can only cry wolf sonny

Yes, I'm quite sure I want to claim this. Once again, a little reading comprehension is in order on your part. I notice you left out the email exchange I had with Michael Newman, Senior Communications Officer, Public Affairs Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, in which he stated:
"NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7."

You *do* understand what "it was not possible to unambiguously distinguish" means, don't you? It means that for other than WTCs 1 & 2, they didn't know if they were looking at steel from WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, *or* 7. Period. All they knew was that they were looking at steel. Mr. Newman further stated that: "If NIST was not able to positively identify the origin of a sample of steel, then it was not used to draw conclusions or inferences."

Please tell me, and everyone else reading this, EXACTLY what you think that means, since you like to try to act like you're so freakin' smart. I'll be waiting. I personally think it would serve you well to learn how to comprehend what you read before you comment to me any more, unless you just find a certain kinky pleasure in making yourself look ignorant. Know what I mean, Vern?

1. Read Brent Blanchards papoer about what tests were done to all the steel that went through the holdoing areas. Not just steel from WTC1 and 2 but all of it.

2. The statement doe not say it was not tested. It says this was not used to make conclusions or inferences. That does not say it was not tested.

Come back an apologise for your insults after readinf brents paper.

zorro99

16th June 2008, 06:34 AM

zorro99, please explain what part of showing reports that Osama bin Laden is dead means I think that KSM & company are innocent.

Well, then, if you believe KSM and crew are guilty - or at least should be tried for the crimes for which they are accused - what of this prior claim of yours?

*ANY* bin Laden tape put out after 2001 is a fake:

If you believe that this tape is a fake, and it is used as evidence against KSM and his associates - then you should be rallying in the streets demanding justice!

However, if you believe KSM is guilty - or at least deserves to be put on trial - then does it really matter whether the tape is phony or not? I take it something must have convinced you he should be tried.

Can you please clarify these seemingly conflicting claims for us?

zorro99

16th June 2008, 06:46 AM

*You* have fake videos provided to you by the government that *you* worship. ...

What are you going to do if these fake videos are used against KSM and his associates during his trial?

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 06:47 AM

Well, then, if you believe KSM and crew are guilty - or at least should be tried for the crimes for which they are accused - what of this prior claim of yours?

If you believe that this tape is a fake, and it is used as evidence against KSM and his associates - then you should be rallying in the streets demanding justice!

However, if you believe KSM is guilty - or at least deserves to be put on trial - then does it really matter whether the tape is phony or not? I take it something must have convinced you he should be tried.

Can you please clarify these seemingly conflicting claims for us?

I'm sorry, but what do you find conflicting? Do you think OBL & KSM are the same person? What does OBL being dead have to do with KSM being in on the plot?

Can *you* please clarify this for me?

Thanks

zorro99

16th June 2008, 07:00 AM

I'm sorry, but what do you find conflicting? Do you think OBL & KSM are the same person? What does OBL being dead have to do with KSM being in on the plot?

Can *you* please clarify this for me?

Thanks

I am asking you about the video tape which you claim is a fake. That tape may be used against KSM in his trial. He may receive the death penalty as a result of this fake video.

Shouldn't we do something about this? Wouldn't this be a grave miscarriage of justice if this man were to be convicted on the basis of a phony video?

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 08:47 AM

I am asking you about the video tape which you claim is a fake. That tape may be used against KSM in his trial. He may receive the death penalty as a result of this fake video.

Shouldn't we do something about this? Wouldn't this be a grave miscarriage of justice if this man were to be convicted on the basis of a phony video?

You'll still have to be more clear. In which tape, specifically, did Osama bin Laden implicate KSM? Can you provide an excerpt with a quote? From what I've seen, OBL didn't implicate anyone else:

On May 23rd 2006 Al Jazeera broadcasted a 5 minute audiotape from bin Laden where he claims he alone assigned the hijackers to perform the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bin Laden comments on the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the imprisoned journalists Sami al-Hajj and Tayssir Alouni, denying any of them (apart from a few Guantanamo Bay prisoners) were connected with Al-Qaeda.[20]

Bin Laden tells viewers Zacarias Moussaoui "had no connection at all with Sept. 11. I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission. I am certain of what I say because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with the raids." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_tapes#May_23rd.2C_2006

One thing you may want to take note of is the fact that all these tapes where OBL confesses to being the mastermind came out after his reported death in December 2001. Osama bin Laden denied involvement on Sept 13, 2001:
On September 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden issued the following statement via al Jazeera in reference to the 9/11 attacks: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_tapes#September_16.2C_2001

You don't find it odd that all his "confessions" came out AFTER his reported death? I know I do....

If you think KSM is guilty, why aren't YOU out screaming in the streets, using the info above as your evidence? Shouldn't *you* be screaming that the tapes are fake because bin Laden said he was the one who planned everything?

Shouldn't you also be screaming that the tapes are fake since bin Laden claimed that he alone "was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with the raids", yet we have this story, that seems to have fallen off the radar?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into whether a United Airlines flight scheduled to leave Kennedy International Airport for San Francisco was a target of hijackers on Sept. 11, aviation and law enforcement officials said.

The United plane, Flight 23, was late pushing back from the gate and was seventh in line for takeoff when Kennedy was closed because of the terrorist attacks.

When the captain announced that the plane was returning to the gate, four male passengers described as Middle Eastern in appearance, stood up and began urgently consulting with each other, two aviation officials said. The men refused orders from flight attendants to return to their seats, the officials said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E2D6103EF933A15753C1A9679C8B 63&scp=1&sq=united+flight+23&st=nyt

Would you agree that this would put the number of hijackers involved above 19 if this story is true? Why would the men "bolt as soon as the door was opened" if they weren't involved?

WildCat

16th June 2008, 09:06 AM

One thing you may want to take note of is the fact that all these tapes where OBL confesses to being the mastermind came out after his reported death in December 2001. Osama bin Laden denied involvement on Sept 13, 2001:
He denies he carried it out, not that he knew about it, funded it, and provided other support for it. Obviously, everyone who actually carried it out is dead.

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 09:34 AM

He denies he carried it out, not that he knew about it, funded it, and provided other support for it. Obviously, everyone who actually carried it out is dead.

Heh! Ok, as a someone who is pretty much a literalist I'll have to give you a point for that one... ;)

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 09:45 AM

He denies he carried it out, not that he knew about it, funded it, and provided other support for it. Obviously, everyone who actually carried it out is dead.

Is this better??

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

???

Undesired Walrus

16th June 2008, 10:11 AM

It's highly unlikely for a major terrorist group to admit to their crimes on the day of their attacks.

Besides, you should be smart enough to notice the outright lie in Bin Laden's statement (If it was even him who put it out there):

nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.

Five years earlier in 1996, Bin Laden's fatwa made the infamous statement that:

We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this Fatwa."

It's quite some difference isn't it?

This is such an old chesnut, and it was on its last legs some time ago. Can you at least stick to topic and answer the OP?

funk de fino

16th June 2008, 10:12 AM

Yes, I trump you every time, son. *You* have fake videos provided to you by the government that *you* worship.

They are not my govt as I am not American, you lose again this is not about politics it is about evidence and facts and you have zero. If he was dead in 2002 why did Bushy and co not use this to say they killed him and try to save their sorry neocon asses?

I hate Bush and his policies. try again.

Hey, guess what? We have a hundred million people who believe in a magical, mythical sky fairy who is going to come back and take them home to a big mansion in the sky. Does that mean it's true? I liken your belief in this government to religious fervor.

Its true if you are stupid enough to believe it sonny. I do not, however, believe everything that supports my fantasies that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary unlike you.

I do not believe in the govt but I believe experts and engineers. Prove to me the videos are fake. If you cannot then you are acting like a crank who beleives in flying saucers or magical, mythical sky fairyies.

I've posted the entire email before. Maybe if you had some inkling of interest you could have looked back and found it. Here it is again:

Still does not say what you said it did.

Furthermore, I have no intention of apologizing to anyone because Brent Blanchard is a condescending blowhard who debunked his own debunking using seismographic data. CD cannot be ruled out by using seismographic data. Several small charges placed on key trusses/supports cannot be ruled out, as they would only show up on the seismograph as one of the 8,000 readings per day that are in the 1.0 range or below.

Attempt at an Ad hom and an attempt to change the subject. he clearly states in his paper all the steel was forensically tested. Do you disagree with him?

In other words, the blasts would be nothing more than an insignificant blip on the radar, one that causes NO CONCERN to the people reading the results.

Get back to the steel testing, you cannot wriggle away by changing the subject sonny

Please educate yourself some before you respond to me again.

Too funny and too ironic. Please provide proof the videos are fake. please prpovide proof the steel from WTC was not tested. Not just that it was not used for conclusions or inferences. you categorically stated that steel from WTC7 was not tested. You are wrong.

Thanks...

You do not need to thank me for showing you to be wrong. You need to stop being so arrogant and insulting and try and bring some facts.

funk de fino

16th June 2008, 10:14 AM

Is this better??
???

You are years off the pace sunshine. This is old stuff.

Undesired Walrus

16th June 2008, 10:25 AM

You'll still have to be more clear. In which tape, specifically, did Osama bin Laden implicate KSM? Can you provide an excerpt with a quote? From what I've seen, OBL didn't implicate anyone else:

You are clearly not very well versed in this. Whilst OBL has never mentioned KSM, he was giving lengthy biographies for around six of the 9/11 hijackers in the preface to their suicide videos, men who were funded and co-ordinated by Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, proven in physical evidence. Ramzi took orders from KSM, sitting in the same room as the latter man when they both confessed to their crimes in 2002 to Yosri Fouda. The formers is on tape. Or you could watch one of the hundreds of As-Sahab videos, most of which focus on the 9/11 raids.

It's called research.

You could start learning about the attacks of September 11th by reading up on the team of Japanese reporters who independently tracked down the chain of custody of the As-Sahab videos -videos that feature Bin Laden's video tapes- to their original producer. Starting with a shop in Birmingham, UK, where As-Sahab videos are dropped off and translated into English, they followed the chain of cutody. Not too surprisingly, they did not find it led to the CIA, but instead led to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where Bin Laden is reported to be hiding. They secured an interview with the producer of the videos, Mohammed Hadi Armati, who talked about his love for God and the terrorist mission. It is featured in a documentary called "Media Jihad".

So thus, no evidence implicates the government in these 'fake' videos and all the evidence points to them being produced by hardlined Islamists in Western Pakistan.

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 10:40 AM

They are not my govt as I am not American, you lose again this is not about politics it is about evidence and facts and you have zero. If he was dead in 2002 why did Bushy and co not use this to say they killed him and try to save their sorry neocon asses?

I hate Bush and his policies. try again.

If they said they killed him in 2002, they wouldn't have their boogeyman to use to try to put fear into the American public, nor would they have their boogeyman to use to beat their drums of war, would they?

I do not believe in the govt but I believe experts and engineers. Prove to me the videos are fake. If you cannot then you are acting like a crank who beleives in flying saucers or magical, mythical sky fairyies.

How about this: *YOU* prove that the videos are *real*. Can you do so with saying "because the Government said so"?

Still does not say what you said it did.

It does too... try some reading comprehension...

Attempt at an Ad hom and an attempt to change the subject. he clearly states in his paper all the steel was forensically tested. Do you disagree with him?

Statements of fact aren't ad hominen attacks. Have you read Blanchards little screed? He sounds like he's talking down to 3rd graders. He said "all" the steel was forensically tested?? Yes, I disagree with that. Please point to anyone else who backs this up. NIST says that NONE of it was tested for explosives. Period.

Get back to the steel testing, you cannot wriggle away by changing the subject sonny

The subject was Blanchard and his screed. Why do *you* want to push the subject of seisnic readings away from it? Could it be because you can't refute or deny what I said?

Too funny and too ironic. Please provide proof the videos are fake. please prpovide proof the steel from WTC was not tested. Not just that it was not used for conclusions or inferences. you categorically stated that steel from WTC7 was not tested. You are wrong.

Please provide proof that the videos are real. Please provide proof that the steel was tested. Steel *may* have been tested, but they don't know *which* building it came from, do they? Therefore they cannot say with 100% cerainty that WTC7 steel *was* tested.

You do not need to thank me for showing you to be wrong. You need to stop being so arrogant and insulting and try and bring some facts.

You haven't shown me to be wrong, except maybe in your own mind. Why don't *you* bring some facts to the discussion? All I've seen is inane blithering on your part. Not one fact, not one link, nothing... just blather...

Pardalis

16th June 2008, 10:46 AM

Can we have another twoofer please? This one is broken.

twinstead

16th June 2008, 10:55 AM

Wow. What a textbook example of an attempt to shift the burden of proof to keep from having to support ones position with evidence.

Unchained Spirit you da man!

Drudgewire

16th June 2008, 10:56 AM

Wake me when we figure out whose sock US stuck his hand in. Meanwhile, off to ignoreville he goes.

Undesired Walrus

16th June 2008, 11:11 AM

Why did s/he ignore my rather detailed post that answered his/her questions?

abenja1

16th June 2008, 11:34 AM

I've got an important question for truthers: You claim that the media is scripted and cannot be trusted, yet why do your ilk continually cite mainstream media sources as evidence when you want to back something up?

zorro99

16th June 2008, 11:53 AM

Well, I don't understand how the Truthers here can claim the video is a phony, yet still maintain that KSM and company may still be culpable for the attacks. He is either guilty or not guilty - there is no in-between.

In any event, this trial will be headline news shortly, once it gets underway, and the nation's attention will again briefly focus on the events of 9/11. If Truthers were serious about their belief in obtaining a new investigation, this trial would be a great opportunity to make their collective voices heard.

I don't think Truthers are as serious as they claim to be, or they lack the courage of their convictions to act.

funk de fino

16th June 2008, 12:12 PM

If they said they killed him in 2002, they wouldn't have their boogeyman to use to try to put fear into the American public, nor would they have their boogeyman to use to beat their drums of war, would they?

Plenty more boogeymen. In fact they went after another after this did they not? You have no answer to the question? Why did they not use him to save their sorry asses in the debacle that followed?

How about this: *YOU* prove that the videos are *real*. Can you do so with saying "because the Government said so"?

It was not the govt who told me they were real. Other independant experts attest to it also. How about you stop abusing the debating technique, grow a set of balls and prove they were fake. You claimed they were fake, you prove it.

It does too... try some reading comprehension...

Either english is not your first language or your reading comprehension insults are hypocritical to say the least. You made the bold claim that none of the WTC7 steel was tested. That statements does not say that. Blanchards paper and company disprove it. So do the demolition companies who sorted the steel. The steel was forensically tested. What for, I do not know. If they could not identify what came from where it matters not one jot as he clearly says all the steel was tested. You claimed it was not.

Statements of fact aren't ad hominen attacks. Have you read Blanchards little screed? He sounds like he's talking down to 3rd graders. He said "all" the steel was forensically tested?? Yes, I disagree with that. Please point to anyone else who backs this up. NIST says that NONE of it was tested for explosives. Period.

Are you claiming that becuase he is a blowhard his claims are false or bogus?

Alaso now you try to shift your claim to explosive testing? This is not what you claimed. Also who said the testing at the holding/sorting site was anything to do with NIST. There were other agencies investigating also. Like the FBI? You are trying to shift again.

The subject was Blanchard and his screed. Why do *you* want to push the subject of seisnic readings away from it? Could it be because you can't refute or deny what I said?

You are changing the subject to shift from his claims. Get back to either his claims or the OP. Do not run away.

Please provide proof that the videos are real.

Your claim was they are fake. You prove it. If they are used in court then I am sure the crack defence lawyer team will prove them fake?

Please provide proof that the steel was tested. Steel *may* have been tested, but they don't know *which* building it came from, do they? Therefore they cannot say with 100% cerainty that WTC7 steel *was* tested.

I did, read Blanchards paper, he categorically states he and his men witnessed the chain of command and the testing of all the steel sent through the holding areas. If you disagree then take it up with him or the demolition crews who sorted the steel. I know you will not.

You haven't shown me to be wrong, except maybe in your own mind. Why don't *you* bring some facts to the discussion? All I've seen is inane blithering on your part. Not one fact, not one link, nothing... just blather...

I think I just did again. Attitude like that turns away the lurkers you know. then again you do not care do you?

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 03:18 PM

Why did s/he ignore my rather detailed post that answered his/her questions?

Do you have a link to this "rather detailed post" of yours? Did you mean this one??

You are clearly not very well versed in this. Whilst OBL has never mentioned KSM, he was giving lengthy biographies for around six of the 9/11 hijackers in the preface to their suicide videos, men who were funded and co-ordinated by Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, proven in physical evidence. Ramzi took orders from KSM, sitting in the same room as the latter man when they both confessed to their crimes in 2002 to Yosri Fouda. The formers is on tape. Or you could watch one of the hundreds of As-Sahab videos, most of which focus on the 9/11 raids.

It's called research.

You could start learning about the attacks of September 11th by reading up on the team of Japanese reporters who independently tracked down the chain of custody of the As-Sahab videos -videos that feature Bin Laden's video tapes- to their original producer. Starting with a shop in Birmingham, UK, where As-Sahab videos are dropped off and translated into English, they followed the chain of cutody. Not too surprisingly, they did not find it led to the CIA, but instead led to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where Bin Laden is reported to be hiding. They secured an interview with the producer of the videos, Mohammed Hadi Armati, who talked about his love for God and the terrorist mission. It is featured in a documentary called "Media Jihad".

So thus, no evidence implicates the government in these 'fake' videos and all the evidence points to them being produced by hardlined Islamists in Western Pakistan.

Well, let's see these details, ok? Hmmm... "Not too surprisingly, they did not find it led to the CIA, but instead led to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where Bin Laden is reported to be hiding" ... so let's see here... they were tracked to an imaginary line on a map, not a real person?? *WHO* were they tracked to at the "border"? BTW, do you think the CIA only operates in the United States? Where's the evidence that they weren't tracked to a CIA front operation?

Just for future reference, *detailed posts* have these little things in them caled "links" that point to the information you want someone to become aware of. You know... like my posts do. If you're so sure of your information, why *don't* you link to it for others to see? Could it be because you don't think it would pass the smell test?

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 03:24 PM

Wow. What a textbook example of an attempt to shift the burden of proof to keep from having to support ones position with evidence.

Unchained Spirit you da man!

I've supported my position with quotes and links. What have you got? More blathering rhetoric with no links to back up your claims, that's what...

Provide some links and proof yourself. Until you do so, your posts will be treated as nothing but nuisance/distraction BS....

Unchained Spirit

16th June 2008, 03:28 PM

Elizabeth I

16th June 2008, 07:21 PM

Even if KSM, Mohammed Atta & Co. were the "triggermen," convicting KSM still will not bring to justice the true guilty parties - those who planned the attacks and recruited the foot soldiers.

Will you be satisfied with convicting KSM, et. al., and letting the masterminds get away?

If not, what are you doing about it?

beachnut

17th June 2008, 03:33 AM

There seems to be a LOT you don't understand...
Are you making a autobiographical statement?

So far there is only one group of people who display as many dirt dumb ideas as you do, neoNAZIs. You keep posting stuff from the dumbest web sites, and you own them! Wowzer. I think you want to spam all your failed ideas and can't get the courage to do it. So far your veiled spam has exposed your false information on a broad spectrum of political tripe besides your false ideas on 9/11 issues.

Pardalis

17th June 2008, 08:20 AM

Still no truthers want to address the OP?

BTW, can the mods please move Unchained Spirits derails?

zorro99

17th June 2008, 11:32 AM

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have never claimed that there were no hijackers or that they weren't involved. They *had* to be involved to pull it off, right?

Here y'a go:

No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008 (revised 8 February 2008)

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Note, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes.
Absent such evidence for over six years, the official account of 9/11 must finally be exposed as a lie.

http://911blogger.com/node/16159#comment

ronpaulisright

18th June 2008, 01:55 PM

You people act like the govenment never put an innocent man to death before. I'll bet any amount of money that the United States executed an innocent man. Why do you think england stopped doing the death penalty racket?

Many men have been released from death row for crimes they did not commit. The odds that they murdered an innocent man are good.

DGM

18th June 2008, 02:06 PM

twoofer

18th June 2008, 02:33 PM

Undesired Walrus,
Your original post really has no bearing or relevance to the truth movement. You say it is "The most important question from here on", but for whom? It surely is not for the 9/11 truth movement. You may think and attempt to frame this as an important question for the truth movement, but it really is not. Maybe or maybe not KSM has anything to do with 9/11, who really knows. Am I to believe everything that my government presents as evidence to be truthful? uhmm, No. Am I to believe that everything that KSM presents as evidence to be truthful? Nope. So, as far as one Truther is concerned, I really look at this as a losing battle. I can't be judge, jury, and executioner (and lawyer at that). Do I believe KSM "masterminded" the whole 9/11 thing? Nope. Do I have any evidence to prove his innocence? Nope. Do I believe that there is evidence to prove that the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is very wrong? Yup. Do I believe that the government gets false confessions from prisoners through torture? Yup. Do I believe the government has such public pressure to successfully convict a terrorist, that they would "bend" the law to make it happen? Yup. I've got to tell ya, not all Truther's are created equal, but some of us have the resources to go public and protest, and others don't have that luxury. We all have to pick our battles. Right now, most truthers (and others) understand this. Some donate money, some donate time, and some blood, sweat, and tears. The important thing is to focus on the bigger issues, and focus on battles that can be won! Using a corporate parlance, its all about ROI (Return On Investment). KSM trial is a mock freak show, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights Watch as well as KSM's defense lawyers have criticized the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial. Lets see if KSM gets what he wants anyway, martyrdom! Maybe 72 80-year-old virgins are waiting for him :-)

Par

18th June 2008, 02:55 PM

You people act like the govenment never put an innocent man to death before. I'll bet any amount of money that the United States executed an innocent man... Many men have been released from death row for crimes they did not commit. The odds that they murdered an innocent man are good.

Truthers seem to commit this fallacy a lot.

There are a large number of women in the world.
Therefore, the odds of Winston Churchill having been a woman are high.

Thankfully, we don’t need to look solely at global population figures in order to guess at Winston Churchill’s gender. We can simply acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Winston Churchill was indeed a man. Similarly, we don’t need to look at death penalty statistics in order to determine whether a given person was actually guilty.

ronpaulisright

18th June 2008, 03:39 PM

Truthers seem to commit this fallacy a lot.

There are a large number of women in the world.
Therefore, the odds of Winston Churchill having been a woman are high.

Thankfully, we don’t need to look solely at global population figures in order to guess at Winston Churchill’s gender. We can simply acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Winston Churchill was indeed a man. Similarly, we don’t need to look at death penalty statistics in order to determine whether a given person was actually guilty.

maybe you would prefer history. Other countries killed innocent people.

I'm calling it right here. The federal government has convicted innocent men of capital murder. Fact. The federal government has executed innocent men.

DGM

18th June 2008, 04:16 PM

Twoofer:
By Twoofer
Some donate money, some donate time, and some blood, sweat, and tears. The important thing is to focus on the bigger issues, and focus on battles that can be won!

Such as? You guy's can't even agree on what the "issues" are.

Pardalis

18th June 2008, 04:35 PM

Maybe or maybe not KSM has anything to do with 9/11, who really knows.

The TM seems to know. Aren't you making the claim that AQ isn't responsible for 9/11?

If they are not responsible then they are being unjustly prosecuted. then where is your indignation? Where are the thousands of twoofers on the street asking for their release?

Do I believe KSM "masterminded" the whole 9/11 thing? Nope. Do I have any evidence to prove his innocence? Nope. Do I believe that there is evidence to prove that the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is very wrong? Yup.

Ah, the usual twoofer routine: "I know but I don't have any evidence" :rolleyes:

KSM trial is a mock freak show, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights Watch as well as KSM's defense lawyers have criticized the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial.

No that's not about that, your movement is practically* saying that these men are innocent.

*I say "practically" because it is very difficult to have an exact idea of what their actual claims are.

And yet you do nothing.

Here you are talking about Amnesty International. Like the new investigation thing, again, you're waiting for someone else to do the job for you.

Lets see if KSM gets what he wants anyway, martyrdom! Maybe 72 80-year-old virgins are waiting for him :-)

So you're perfectly OK with just sitting there and waiting for him to be murdered, knowing he's innocent?

remember:

Do I believe KSM "masterminded" the whole 9/11 thing? Nope.

johnny karate

18th June 2008, 07:35 PM

Unchained Spirit, the OP asks a very specific question, and your position has been noted. Please stop derailing this thread with side issues that can be handled in another thread.

Back on topic: By my count, we have two votes of "I can't muster the enthusiasm to be even a little bit upset over the pending death of an innocent man" and thunderous silence from the rest of our resident Truthers.

I guess that's what happens when you populate your movement with easily distracted teenage boys.

Unchained Spirit

18th June 2008, 07:37 PM

So you're perfectly OK with just sitting there and waiting for him to be murdered, knowing he's innocent?

remember: Originally Posted by twoofer
Do I believe KSM "masterminded" the whole 9/11 thing? Nope.

You *do* realize that someone doesn't have to *mastermind* something to *participate* in it.... right?? Twoofer never said kSM was *innocent*, did he??

twoofer

18th June 2008, 08:41 PM

You guy's can't even agree on what the "issues" are.

Truthers are never going to agree on everything, but we are OK with that, its natural for groups of people not to agree on all issues. It seems to me that you think like a child to believe a group of hundreds of thousands of people are going to agree of everything. Truthers are from every background and demographic possible and in every country.
It almost seems like you are afraid of finding the truth. It seems your goal in your rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution! Let go of your fears, after all we are only a bunch of peaceful truth seekers. Start your own research and question the truth. Don't be lead by the blind. I'm actually amazed of how much time you have put into these forums (3,483 posts!), same for Pardalis (12,692 posts!). Get out of the house and spend time with your family. You will realize what is important, your children and their future.

abenja1

18th June 2008, 08:53 PM

twoofer

18th June 2008, 08:58 PM

I have a question a very important question. Why do truthers espouse not using mainstream media sources, yet they themselves use it to back up their claims and when skeptics use MSM sources, we are called gov't tools or other pejorative names?

I hear your important question, but this is not the place for it. I'm not ignoring you, it's just that you should start another thread on this important question of yours.

Elizabeth I

18th June 2008, 09:08 PM

We all have to pick our battles. Right now, most truthers (and others) understand this. Some donate money, some donate time, and some blood, sweat, and tears. The important thing is to focus on the bigger issues, and focus on battles that can be won! Using a corporate parlance, its all about ROI (Return On Investment). KSM trial is a mock freak show, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights Watch as well as KSM's defense lawyers have criticized the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial. Lets see if KSM gets what he wants anyway, martyrdom! Maybe 72 80-year-old virgins are waiting for him :-)

Why do you believe him when he says he wants martyrdom but not when he says he masterminded 9-11? Couldn't he have been tortured into saying he wants to be executed?

Furthermore, why should we execute an innocent man even if he says that's what he wants?

If he's not innocent, he's also not the guy at the top. You going to let the government get away with "convicting" him and executing him and never insist that someone find out who "really" is responsible?

And is it really okay with you for the government to execute someone who, by the theories of many in your movement, is innocent as a baby, at least as far as 9-11 is concerned?

I'm actually amazed of how much time you have put into these forums (3,483 posts!), same for Pardalis (12,692 posts!). Get out of the house and spend time with your family. You will realize what is important, your children and their future.

Oh, the irony! Going online to lecture someone about spending too much time online.

twoofer

18th June 2008, 09:44 PM

Why do you believe him when he says he wants martyrdom but not when he says he masterminded 9-11?
Because his belief of martyrdom requires no proof and really has no significant effect on the trial one way or the other. However, the belief that he is the mastermind behind 9/11 requires the burden of proof. Which, given the complexities of what evidence has been surfaced by Truthers and others (too be discussed in a different topic), looks as though it is very unlikely he has been the mastermind. But that is what the trial (fair or unfair) is for, to weigh the evidence and try to determine what the truth is.

Furthermore, why should we execute an innocent man even if he says that's what he wants?
This question belongs in another general topic.

If he's not innocent, he's also not the guy at the top. You going to let the government get away with "convicting" him and executing him and never insist that someone find out who "really" is responsible?
I personally don't think he should ever be executed (guilty or not). He could still be useful for all parties involved. But, you try to convince the government not to destroy evidence (or witnesses) and you'll be labeled as anti-government. Go figure?

Are you okay with the government destroying evidence and witnesses?

beachnut

18th June 2008, 10:50 PM

Truthers are never going to agree on everything, but we are OK with that, its natural for groups of people not to agree on all issues. It seems to me that you think like a child to believe a group of hundreds of thousands of people are going to agree of everything. Truthers are from every background and demographic possible and in every country.
It almost seems like you are afraid of finding the truth. It seems your goal in your rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution! Let go of your fears, after all we are only a bunch of peaceful truth seekers. Start your own research and question the truth. Don't be lead by the blind. I'm actually amazed of how much time you have put into these forums (3,483 posts!), same for Pardalis (12,692 posts!). Get out of the house and spend time with your family. You will realize what is important, your children and their future.
Correct, how do you choose between the different fantasy entrées? Will it be beam weapons, thermite or nukes at noon? 9/11 truth next must decide how to spread the false information! Lies, veiled lies, or just hearsay and talk.

A better name would be Dolts 4 lies about 9/11, than 9/11 truth.

Are truthers similar in, as people who lack knowledge and do no strive to make rational conclusions?

Wasting time? You have false information and no evidence just like 9/11 truth. If you and 9/11 truth had something on 9/11, you and 9/11 truth would have a Pulitzer Prize! But you lack evidence and knowledge on 9/11. So you have wasted your time by FAILING to understand 9/11.

Rational people, understand 9/11 and thus have not wasted their time.

It helps if you can type fast. 9/11 truth should take typing lessons to help conserve the time they are wasting by failing to understand 9/11.

5 minutes typing and composing. Oops, that leaves 55 minutes to feed the cats, do the dishes, change GS diaper, start the wash, vacuum the front rooms. Set up tools for the 914 and 66 stang. Check the water system, clean the bathroom. Set up for speaker design. Plan the garage clean up and dump run. What a movie. Treat the hot tub. Relax in hot tub, after 15 minutes. Read some posts and find out 9/11 truth still has zero evidence, and 100 percent hearsay and false information/conclusions.
---------

I hate to know how much others do and post without interfering with their lives. Guess it is like school, I had to take 22 to 24 credit semester hours to graduate due to my AES classes not counting. The more you do, the more you can do.

It is depressing to find out how great others are at not wasting time, while you find it a waste of your time. If you would gain some knowledge you would stop posting 9/11 truth false information. Thus gaining knowledge will save you time, and could cure your posting of false information.

Are you the one wasting time, Flight 93 passengers figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have not got close in 6 years. Cure yourself first before casting stones at others.

Got evidence? Can you save the terrorists?

Pardalis

19th June 2008, 06:46 AM

You *do* realize that someone doesn't have to *mastermind* something to *participate* in it.... right?? Twoofer never said kSM was *innocent*, did he??

You do realize that you're not impressing anyone with your lack or reasoning?

It almost seems like you are afraid of finding the truth.

No, you are. Why is it so difficult to get an answer from you people? Why is it so long for you to get that new investigation started?

You don't want the answers to your questions, because as long as you keep asking them, you feel you can keep the illusion going that there's somthing wrong with these attacks.

It seems your goal in your rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution! I'm still waiting for the TM to actually do something constructive.

Let go of your fears, after all we are only a bunch of peaceful truth seekers. From what I've seen and read, you're just a bunch of pathetic liars and propagandists.

Start your own research and question the truth. I don't need to, these events have been explained fairly thoroughly, and to my satisfaction.

It's you who has "questions" remember? Aren't you interested in the answers?

You're the ones who seem to think that KSM and his companions are innocent. Aren't you the least bit worried that they are going to die for nothing?

Don't be lead by the blind. I'm actually amazed of how much time you have put into these forums (3,483 posts!), same for Pardalis (12,692 posts!). It's none of your business how many posts I have made and how I choose to spend my time.

You will realize what is important, your children and their future.Then you better get on with it, and stop JAQing off.

Unchained Spirit

19th June 2008, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Unchained Spirit
You *do* realize that someone doesn't have to *mastermind* something to *participate* in it.... right?? Twoofer never said kSM was *innocent*, did he?? You do realize that you're not impressing anyone with your lack or reasoning?

Please display for us your superb reasoning skills. They didn't show up in this post. How, exactly, do you reason that just because someone didn't *mastermind* something that they are innocent?

Look at it this way: If I were to plan out a bank robbery.. you know, *mastermind* it, then got you and someone else to help me carry it out, you're just as guilty of bank robbery as I am. Now, if *I* shoot the guard and the teller... guess what? In the eyes of the courts, you're just as guilty of murder as I am..

So once again I ask: How do you reason that someone is innocent just because they didn't *mastermind* a crime?

Pardalis

19th June 2008, 12:01 PM

Speak to me once you'll get your theories about 9/11 straight.

Elizabeth I

19th June 2008, 07:20 PM

Because his belief of martyrdom requires no proof and really has no significant effect on the trial one way or the other.

That's not the point. The point is that KSM's confession and his statement that he wants to be a martyr are both just things he has said. Yet you choose to believe the latter and disbelieve the former. Why? What is the difference between the two?

Furthermore, why should we execute an innocent man even if he says that's what he wants?

This question belongs in another general topic.

No, it doesn't, because you used KSM's expressed desire to be a martyr as one of your excuses for not protesting the kangaroo court trial of a man who is, at best, a cat's-paw.

I personally don't think he should ever be executed (guilty or not). He could still be useful for all parties involved. But, you try to convince the government not to destroy evidence (or witnesses) and you'll be labeled as anti-government. Go figure?

Ah, a definite statement at last. You don't think he should be executed, guilty or not. What are you, as someone who thinks the U.S. government planned and carried out a shocking crime against its citizens and hundreds of innocent citizens of other countries, going to do to prevent his execution?

Or are you worried that "you'll be labeled as anti-government"? If you truly have the courage of your convictions, that won't bother you. In fact, you will wear your persecution as a badge of honor. The more they attempt to repress you, the more you will shout the truth.

Truthers will flock to your banner. (You will be the first of them to have any "repression" more substantial than ticket for disorderly conduct happen to him, and to accomplish more than beating up someone in a wheelchair.) Dylan Avery will immediately stop shipment on all copies of Loose Change: Final Cut to begin filming Looser Change: the Twoofer Story.

Dude, someone might totally video your arrest on their phone and put it up on YouTube!

Dave Rogers

23rd June 2008, 03:01 AM

So once again I ask: How do you reason that someone is innocent just because they didn't *mastermind* a crime?

In this case, it's fairly simple. The generally stated truther position is that KSM's confession is the only thing linking him to the 9-11 attacks, and in that confession he claims to have masterminded the attacks and taken charge of the planning process. If that confession is to be discarded, then in the truther mindset there is no valid evidence connecting KSM to the 9-11 attacks. In the absence of evidence he is therefore to be presumed innocent.

If you want to contest that point, please present the evidence that KSM was involved in the 9-11 attacks in some role other than lead planner. If you don't have any, why aren't you campaigning for his release?

Dave

zorro99

23rd June 2008, 11:15 AM

Here is one of the best articles yet detailing exactly how and why KSM confessed:

Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 22, 2008

WASHINGTON — In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland, Al Qaeda’s engineer of mass murder faced off against his Central Intelligence Agency interrogator. It was 18 months after the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq was giving Muslim extremists new motives for havoc. If anyone knew about the next plot, it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The story of Mr. Martinez’s role in the C.I.A.’s interrogation program, including his contribution to the first capture of a major figure in Al Qaeda, provides the closest look to date beneath the blanket of secrecy that hides the program from terrorists and from critics who accuse the agency of torture.

Beyond the interrogator’s successes, this account includes new details on the campaign against Al Qaeda, including the text message that led to Mr. Mohammed’s capture, the reason the C.I.A. believed his claim that he was the murderer of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and the separate teams at the C.I.A.’s secret prisons of those who meted out the agony and those who asked the questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

The CIA interrogator got KSM to confess without torturing him.