I agree with this post mostly and it has some good arguments against the US plotting 9/11 theory. I don't actually believe the US plotted the attack, but strongly suspect that certain people like Rumsfeld welcomed it, like the Pearl Harbor attack.. One argument I'd just like to correct though.. This doesn't prove a secret can't be kept.. By definition you don't possibly know about the rate of successful secret keeping or have any idea how many secrets were successfully kept, by virtue of the fact they are secrets. Just because one thing like Watergate was exposed, doesn't mean that other things haven't been kept secret and never got exposed. If anything your argument proves that a secret can't ALWAYS be kept.
Agreed.. That's why I wouldn't do that. What few scraps of "evidence" against KSM I've been fed in this thread, I dismissed for completely different reasons. The computer can be dismissed because nothing on it links to or incriminates KSM (although it does incriminate Atta and the hijackers), and nobody can prove the computer belongs to KSM, they did after all seize it from another guy's house. Like if you find the murder weapon, you can't just say it proves anyone you want guilty.. You need to tie the weapon to who you say it proves guilty, via gun registration, fingerprints on it, or you found it on their person, or whatever. The torture induced "confessions" can be dismissed for many reasons.. First they were psychotic from sleep deprivation.. Crazy people tend to say crazy things. They also can be very suggestable.. Hell if I sleep deprive you for ten days I can get you to believe and declare you are the lizard king man from Neptune. They were waterboarded.. Many of the enhanced torture techniques the CIA used were actually the same techniques they researched for the MKULTRA program, whose purpose was to mentally reprogram people and get them to do or say or believe things they otherwise never would have. The CIA destroyed the only tangible, verifiable records of the interrogations despite the 9/11 commissions insistence to see it and court orders requiring them to preserve it, so the CIA could FORCE the 9/11 commission et. al. to take their word for it. The narrative KSM told is not supported by independent outside evidence. How can you be behind the operation completely, from A to Z, and not leave a single trace of evidence that links you to it despite the fact that the biggest and most expensive criminal investigation in the history of the world looked for all the evidence they could. If you look at the mountain of 9/11 forensics evidence, you can literally find thousands upon thousands of links to, references to and evidence against Mohhammed Atta.. His name comes up loads and loads of times. To be fair, I think Atta is most likely to be the "principal architect" and the guy who plotted and orchestrated the whole thing. Unlike Atta, KSM's name or links to him while looking at this same evidence doesn't come up, AT ALL. And many stories told by tortured detainees are proven false. Agreed.. That's why I'm quick to point out if I don't like someone's argument, but I won't call them a shill or a government plant or anything. This also applies in the other direction.. When official conspiracy theory believers disagree with me, they call me a terrorist sympathizer, anti-American, mentally ill etc. This is the same thing right?
The satire article referenced does not draw conclusions specifically about 9/11 truthers, but I'm sure I can find scholarly work that draws conclusions about conspiracy theorists in general. I'll post when I have access.
You DO sympathize with the terrorists, HFD. I've never seen someone work so hard to clear the name of a terrorist as you have. KSM has freely admitted several times that he was the one who planned 9/11 along with numerous other crimes. Tell me one thing, HFD. Has KSM recanted his admission of guilt?
Herin lay the general problem with jurisprudence in a free and open society. There will always be transgressions against the society that are not caught by the filters we put in place to protect the innocent. Consider Al Capone. I fully believe that he was guilty of murder, extortion, bribery, prostitution, illegal gambling, assault, theft, and a host of other terrible things as well. Could the feds build a case on that with the evidence they possessed? Nope. He was bagged for tax evasion. Was justice done in the case of Al Capone? Do you even think he was guilty of these crimes, as I do, since a strong enough case could not be brought to court? What about his victims? Did they get their justice from the decision? They weren't compensated for their losses in any way. The families of the dead got no day in court. The government seized his assets and made off with it. Was that right? What that good?
How about what was found on KSM's computer including (but not limited to).... information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers. images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta. transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers. three letters from Osama bin Laden spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known al Qaeda members a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United States a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaeda cell a list of killed and wounded al Qaeda militants.
Come on patriot, that wasn't KSM's computer. Everyone knows he uses the handle bootyshakkir3314 when he's cruisin the tubes.
Such as his involvement with his own nephew, Ramzi Yousef, with the attack on the WTC in 1993. And the plot to destroy aircraft in the Philippines. And the murder of Daniel Pearl. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/qaeda-killers-veins-implicate-him-in-journos-murder/
It doesn't matter Mushroom. HFD is convinced of KSM's innocence and will accept no evidence of his guilt, including KSM's freely given confession to the crimes and not one member of Al Qaeda claiming he is innocent. Such blind devotion to a person is pretty rare, especially when said person is responsible for so many deaths and so much pain.
Rather than snide sarcasm, have you got proof of ownership that I just got done telling you is lacking?
What does that have to do with what was found? Is it less pertinent if found on a desktop than on a laptop? Is it fake if on a portable drive? What excuse are you going to dream up this time for dismissing the evidence?
Simple question.. The correct response would be "I don't know".. So am I safe in assuming you don't know whether it was a laptop or desktop?
Well, take your pick. If he is telling the truth, then he was behind 9/11 since he said it was Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi's hard drive (they were arrested at the same time) but also admitted to being behind 9/11 and a number of other terrorist activities. So is he just telling the truth about the hard drive and lying about everything else? How convenient for you.
I'm not using KSM's statements as evidence for ANYTHING. I am simply pointing out that YOU are doing that when you cite his testimony as proof positive in and of itself.. In other words, as I CLEARLY EXPLAINED MANY TIMES ALREADY TO YOU, you can NOT have BOTH his testimony AND his computer as evidence.. They are mutually exclusive.. If it's really his computer, then he is lying about denying it and has no credibility, so his testimony goes out the window.. If his testimony is true because KSM can be trusted, then he must be telling the truth that it's not his computer. So "how convenient for you" is exactly what I'm saying to you.. You can't just say he's telling the truth when he says something that supports your case, but is lying when he doesn't. So which is it.. Is KSM trustworthy and credible, or isn't he? Which piece of circumstantial evidence would you like to use? The computer or the "confession".. Also answer the question.. The hard drive was from: A) A laptop B) A desktop C) Portable hard drive D) I don't know. Just pick a letter.. Can't get any easier then that... If you refuse then it shows you don't have balls enough for honest debate. Once you answer I'll explain where I'm going with this, if you don't answer then forget discussion with me because you can't play a game of baseball when the batter doesn't step up to the plate.
Take MY pick?!?!?!?! I wasn't asking myself. I was asking YOU. What's YOUR pick? Why is it SO hard for you to answer the simplest of questions? All it is with you is red herrings and misdirection. If you don't answer the questions then we are finished here. Q: KSM denies it's his computer.. Was he lying when he said that? A) Yes B) No SIMPLE yes or no question here.
He may have been guilty of some of those other things but I'm not so sure about murder. I'm fairly convinced about bribery at the least. What makes you think he's a murderer, and who do you think he murdered? Yes I think justice was served, and served properly.. Al Capone had a trial, and was convicted. He was subject to full due process of law.. He had legal council, and the chance to challenge evidence, cross examine witnesses and otherwise defend himself against the allegations. A bit different than in KSM's case.
I'm sorry, are you laboring under the delusion that the case can be tried here? The exact data storage media is immaterial to a discussion on an internet forum. Patriot is obviously not in possession of the evidence and could not present it to you even if he was. After all, what is it that would satisfy your demand? A picture of a drive? A laptop with a flower print monogram KSM dust cover? And what is this liars always lie false dichotomy you're trying to set up? It's pretty transparent
Nonsense I never said anything like that. Please people READ THE THREAD. I'm just repeating myself again and again. I clearly stated that the ONLY possible venue now is a reinstatement of a military tribunal, as a civilian trial in CONUS has been ruled out by congress and off the table since 2009. It's not immaterial...And as I explained once the question is answered, I'll explain the relevance and where I'm going with this, but I need to establish what you think about the evidence in this regard first. Is it safe to assume that you don't know the answer either? What is it with people continuously misrepresenting me.. I never said liars always lie.. The closest thing to that which I said is liars can't be trusted. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.. And Pinnocio I'm sure might have said at least something, at some point, that was indeed true.. Doesn't mean I'm going to trust Pinnocio at face value.. I'll have to independently verify things that he says before I believe them.
The irony is you don't understand the simple reality that the answer doesn't matter. Either way he is guilty. If he was telling the truth that day, then the hard drive was not his but he admitted to all the crimes and thus is guilty. If he was lying about the hard drive being his then the hard drive was his and the evidence there is enough to convict him.
Both. It is immaterial who's hard drive it was. KSM was trying to say it was Hawsawi's so he could bring Hawsawi up as a witness. KSM never denied the hard drive was found when he and Hawsawi were arrested. D. It was never specified in the transcripts where the hard drive came from; just that the hard drive was found when KSM and Hawsawi were arrested. Again, it doesn't matter if the hard drive belonged to KSM or Hawsawi. The evidence on the hard drive backs up KSM's confession.
KSMs children were in custody. They should be young men by now and who knows their secret? Maybe they're under watch or worse. Any KSM testimony cannot be considered credible under those circumstances. Aafia Siddiqui had a little American girl who only speaks English. She was released back to her relatives after 3 or 4 years of being missing. The family says she was returned under the condition she not talk to anyone about her ordeal. Where ever she was is still a secret because no one in their right mind would want to get a little girl in trouble.
