Because you use it as a pathetic excuse. Anything to not trust the government, right? And what about Moussaoui? He was tried and convicted years ago. There has been years of legal wrangling with KSM and the rest over where to try them and what charges to bring etc. Sorry it isn't moving fast enough for you. More proof you care more about the terrorists than you do about justice.
You want to find it? Go right ahead. I know what we've debated and you trying to pretend I've never shown you evidence is just you being dishonest. I know it. You know it. Everyone else reading this knows it even if they won't admit it. Wrong yet again, HFD. Try to do some research before making such silly and childish claims. In order to convict someone of a crime, you first have to prove they were part of the crime, right? The crime was 9/11. Without proving Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, they have NO CASE against Moussaoui since all they had was him being a member of Al Qaeda and some incriminating circumstantial evidence. If Al Qaeda wasn't guilty, they had no chance of proving Moussaoui, as a part of Al Qaeda, was part of the crime. Wrong yet again and the evidence proves you are lying. Why else would they spend weeks laying out all the evidence of Al Qaeda being behind 9/11? Why else would they spend days with witnesses up on the stand explaining how they trained members of Al Qaeda how to fly planes? If your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is true, WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? It has nothing to do with Moussaoui, right? Wrong yet again. ALL of it was vetted because you can't submit evidence and have it admitted as evidence without it being vetted. Also, Moussaoui changed his plea several times. Do you have evidence that all the evidence submitted to the court, shown to the jury and used to convict Moussaoui was never vetted? Of course not. You've been proven wrong, yet I fully expect you to keep on denying that fact and pretending no evidence exists. Can you refute the evidence? Pretending it hasn't been vetted isn't going to cut it. Never said he was a plotter or orchestrator. All I said was they had to prove Al Qaeda was involved. They proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. So why is it you refuse to believe Moussaoui when he said Al Qaeda was responsible? KSM has already admitted to masterminding them. What more proof do you need? A signed letter from Allah? All of it. Osama, KSM, and the rest are the known leaders of Al Qaeda. The evidence points to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda admits to the attacks. How much more evidence do you need? The ONLY ones claiming Al Qaeda is innocent are the people like you who are so enamored with them that you can't believe they are guilty. Wrong yet again. Obviously you never even LOOKED at the evidence, did you. Why would they be dealing with Hanjour and his flight school experiences? What does that have to do with Moussaoui? Moussaoui wasn't there and had no clear ties to Hanjour. That is just one example out of many. If you insist on being embarassed more, please let me know and I can point out plenty more. OR you could go look at the evidence and realize just how little of it has anything to do with Moussaoui other than to prove Al Qaeda was responsible. Seriously? Wow. You would think you would do a couple seconds worth of research before exposing your ignorance like that. How about November 15th, 2011? Source The leaders of Al Qaeda call you a liar. And they all did it as part of Al Qaeda. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. OBL and KSM are two. They've both admitted it repeatedly. Other members of Al Qaeda have verified this. OBL put out videos of the hijackers who made video statements of their pending suicide attacks. Why do you find this so hard to believe? Their own words and admissions aren't good enough for you? Wow. Really? Yet they have admitted guilt and await trial. This is not abnormal.
actually the only 9/11 conspiracy theory thats been debunked is this one in this video below. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...-11-official-conspiracy-theory-5-minutes.html also, you obviously have never read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Just curious about your word choice here . . . what country to YOU live in? A side issue I'll admit but I am curious given your signature line.
Indeed. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/al-qaeda-slams-iran-peddling-9-11-conspiracy-183407514.html
LMAO you have no link and no proof.. And now you want to swop the burden of proof and go on a wild goose chase to find what is obviously nonexistent? You accused me of being intentionally ignorant to "evidence" you've previously presented, so by all means, prove this baseless crap and show the link. Not if they plead guilty. You're wrong.. In the case of Moussaiu they DID have real world forensics evidence, including but not limited to his receipt of finances, attendance at flight schools, emails to flight instructors etc. THAT is the difference between him and KSM, the latter whom they don't actually have tangible, verifiable real world forensics evidence. This is why it's easy to convict Moussaiu, and had he staunchly plead not guilty the whole time and even kept his defense intact w/o sabatoging his own case, they probably could have convicted him anyway. Again you're wrong, many exhibits have PLENTY to do with Moussaiu. But to answer your silly question, they did it NOT to prove AQ behind the attacks. They were doing it to convice the jury that Moussaiu should get the death penalty. Moussaiu's guilt had already been established BEFORE they even selected a jury, let alone had evidence heard. By the way, I asked you before which exhibit(s) on that Moussaiu trial list best and most convincingly link to/incriminate KSM specifically. I notice you're avoiding that.. Is it because you've gone through the list and found no mention of KSM or anything relating to him specifically? You are under the delusion that evidence was vetted in court about whether or not he was involved, AQ was behind it, and prosecutors argued against defense about whether or not he was guilty in order to convince a jury.. Is that the image you've got in your head, or something like that? Am I off the mark or no on that's what you think? There was indeed legal quibbling.. This was for multiple reasons.. One was arguing about whether or not he should be eligible for the death penalty or not.. Another point of contention was whether or not he should be able to represent himself.. He was allowed but the judge rescinded it when he botched his representation significantly damaging his case. The most heated contention was, and almost going to the supreme court, whether he should be able to use other terrorist suspect detainees as witnesses for his defense.. This was declined. Ultimatily he plead guilty to four of the charges. The judge checked out his mental competency, accepted the plea and that's it.. Found guilty done deal. THEN a jury was selected. THEN witnesses and such came out.. THIS was to determine NOT whether or not he was guilty, but whether or not he should get the death penalty. End result was life in prison. But I asked you for evidence against the plotters/orchestrators.. You gave me a list with no exhibits against THEM. Just the hijackers. So unless there's something incriminating to KSM on that list of exhibits, stop sitting on it and tell me what it is, your list is off topic and irrelevant. Give me the date the court made THIS final determination, that "Al Qaeda" was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When did he say "Al Qaeda" was responsible? You got a quote for that? Why should I believe him? Better question, why do YOU trust the words of a convicted terrorist as gospel truth in and of themselves? You don't trust Steven Jones I'm sure.. You don't trust Griffin I'm sure.. But Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists open their lips and it's holy gospel, even without outside corraborating evidence to prove their stories true. Why's that? Why do the terrorists get all the credibility? Oh yeah.. Osama Bin Laden said that Moussaiu was NOT guilty for 9/11. Do you believe him? Is OBL telling the truth and Moussaiu is not guilty for 9/11? Or is OBL only to be trusted when he says things that you agree with? KSM was subjected to CIA MKULTRA program techniques calculated to mentally reprogram people and get them to do and say things they otherwise wouldn't. These techniques included solitary confinement for prolonged periods, mock execution, torture, and most importantly, sleep deprivation for long periods. The sleep deprivation alone will completely change one's personality, and make them delusional, psychotic, out of touch with reality and even hallucinate, at least on the short term. The jury's still out on long term psychological changes. So KSM said these things after they deprived him of sleep for over a week and then waterboarded him 183 times, in addition to making him fear for his family's safety. ANYONE would confess to ANYTHING the torturer wanted to hear in such circumstances. If I keep you awake ten days under the blaring sound and light, then pull you in a room and ask you if you are the purple dragon king from Neptune, you will be SO gone that you will sit there and nod and say yes I am the purple dragon king from Neptune. Whether he's guilty or not, he will confess either way under these conditions. THAT is why the confession, ON ITS OWN, isn't conclusive evidence. Because the obvious, more logical, occam's razor explanation is the confession was torture induced. This is why, and an important fact you skeptics overlook tortured detainees were PROVED to have LIED when they were tortured. Ibn Sheikh al-Libi blabbed about a nonexistent Saddam-AQ link and WMD's in Iraq, and Abu Zubaydah saying the same and also about a nonexistent "dirty bomb" radiological attack against DC. when he went through the CIA enhanced torture program. The CIA later admitted these were false. So here's the big question.. If someone saying something after being tortured is automatically true, how do you explain these proven torture induced lies and confessions?
I need CORRABORATING evidence. If somebody tells me x is the case, I won't just automatically believe them and go around claiming x is a true fact.. I would want OUTSIDE corrobaring evidence to VERIFY the veracity of the claim. Simple. I don't take an alleged terrorist's words as gospel truth. I want the narrative to be verified. Now here's KSM.. Not only was he behind a whopping THIRTY ONE different plots, but also 9/11 "from a to z" according to his "confession". I'm supposed to believe that he did ALL THAT, 31 different plots, AND the ENTIRE 9/11 operation from A to Z, and yet somehow managed to not leave his fingerprints on ANY of the 9/11 operation? He did the lot for 9/11, among 30 other plots, all while managing to NOT leave a SINGLE fingerprint.. NO documents, intercepted communications, videos, or ANYTHING that could serve as forensic evidence to verify his narrative. Stuff that, if the narrative were true, should NECESSARILY be there. WOW! Not only 31 plots plus 9/11 A to Z with EVERY footprint covered, but also is to be believed in every word he says as gospel truth even if you don't find a shred of outside independent verification of it in your multi million dollar/man hour biggest ever in the history of mankind criminal investigation. KSM must be like a god to you! A little tip so you don't misinterpret such passages in the future. When these Muslims refer to their "brothers" they are referring to other fellow Muslims. There is no doubt that these terrorists, Al Zawahiri and OBL et. al. give firm praise and accolades for those who carried out the attacks. This point I don't dispute. NOWHERE in that communication does AZ say WE did it or even AQ did it. Care to try again? A better question is why do you take the words of terrorists as gospel truth in and of themselves. I would think you would distance yourself from having to use the words of tortured terrorists as your evidence by instead presenting HARD evidence. You know your smoking gun, your murder weapon, your fingerprints that sort of thing.. The stuff that's CONCLUSIVE and proves ONLY one possiblity.. Not a single piece of circumstantial evidence of a torture induced "confession" coupled with a bunch of evidence against OTHER people like the hijackers. You see THAT is what I'm looking for. That's why I chose the thread "standard of evidense" to do so.. I was wondering if anyone had something more tangible and real world and unequivocal against these accused, as opposed to just torture induced "confessions" and stupid extrapolations of being proven guilty for a crime in somebody ELSE'S trial in which they had no representation. Yes it is highly abnormal.. Tim McVeigh was not only sentenced, but got the three needles only a couple years after his capture. Ramsi al Yousef, again, sentenced to life in prison for the '93 WTC attack just a few years after capture.. Even Mugrabe, the "Lockerbie" plane bomber, in a very complicated international case in which jurisdiction was disputed between countries, was sentenced in less time after capture. I think you'll find securing conviction for ANYONE, for ANY crime for as long as nearly nine years after capture, is HIGHLY unprecedented. I'll bet you can't think of a time this has EVER happened.
The US government has been PROVEN to have LIED about 9/11, among so many other topics. I won't believe ANYTHING they tell me until I find OUTSIDE validation of it. What about him? Wasn't hard to convict him now? So if you have "overwhelming" evidence against KSM, why is THAT so much harder? All systems are in place, and have been, since LONG before 9/11 to try people, both domestic and foreigners, for crimes against the United States. The military tribunals stuff might have been preferable to preserve national security in a less than public venue, but not necessary. Nevertheless, I'll give them long enough to get that venue up and running, which was 2006 when that legislature was ready. They have every right under international law to do so. Yet, they had that trial long underway and were making great progress. There was NO NEED, NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT, and no legal rambling that prevented them from FINISHING that trial. KSM tried to plead guilty, but the judge was skeptical of his mental competence and so ordered him mentally checked out.. SUDDENLY, and I mean it shocked EVERYONE, they terminated this trial.. Maybe they didn't want the judge to see the MKULTRA phsycological reprogramming work that happened on KSM and invalidate their ONLY evidence of the confession and risk him found not guilty, so had to stop the trial. Now their reasoning was (have to have a reason) they want to do things in a civilian venue (nevermind the fact that starting from scratch in a new venue to have a mulligan or do-over for a trial you didn't like the way was going is a BLATANT abuse of double jeopardy prohibitions) they argued that they wanted it in civvy court. Ok.. Congress SOON put their foot on top of that little pipe dream. I mean soon as in the same year.. Eric Holder announced the plan in early 2009, and the U.S. HOR soon outlawed the transfer of Gitmo detainees to CONUS (the senate expected to follow suit) and so benched that plan. That's right.. Civilian trial for KSM has been off the table since 2009. The ONLY other possible venue now is to reinstate the trial back in military court. Which is of course easily possible, as the dismissal at the MC was without prejudice. And yet here we are..2012.. STILL no reinstatement of a trial at the MC. Sorry, it's not moving AT ALL. There is NO legal wrangling currently occurring about his trial, nor has there been since 2009. There is NO legal impediment to doing a trial in military court. And yet, they are NOT doing it. Don't sit here and pretend the wheels are in motion. They are not.. The case file is sat there and collecting dust.. Witnesses are dying.. It's 2012 now. What's the hold up? My theory is they are just trying to buy time.. The whole "civilian court" thing and all that just lip service meant to stall. The "announcement" that they are going to go back to military court, like from a year ago and all that. Why are they stalling? Well in my theory, they simply don't have the evidence against them.. The "confessions" don't fly... Having a trial risks a "not guilty" and therefore unjustified further detention (but they can't let them go free after they said what they did either).. So the only reason to avoid that is keep him locked up and avoid the trial. Stall as long as you can until KSM dies. Then it's done. Sorted now.. No trial, and you get to write the history books as KSM big bad 9/11 mastermind having NEVER had to prove it. The same reason the SEALS shot up OBL while he was unarmed. Shoot to kill no matter what orders, despite the treasure trove of intel he must be if captured and interrogated, saves you the dilemna of proving anything about his involvement in 9/11 for which the FBI spokesman said there was no hard evidence, dump him in the sea and write about him in the history books however you want. Now you probably don't like my theory.. Great.. Let's here yours.. What's taking so long? Don't say legal wrangling again because none is occurring and hasn't been since 2009. Sorry but I want to see people accused of heinous crimes to go to trial.. THAT is justice. Labelling people terrorists without proving it in court, torturing confessions out of people, and even the president saying KSM is guilty in violation of presumption of innocence and therefore automatically biasing any potential jurors, these are all perversions of justice. Your government I'm afraid are the ones who don't believe in justice.. And you, if you support these actions that is.
You said those accused are guilty.. Your country's democratic principles and founding ideals clearly state people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. By you saying they are guilty without it being proven in court means you are spitting on your country's democratic ideals, whether or not you care to admit it. And? I wasn't talking about Moussaoui. Really? When? Can you check your crystal ball and tell me the lotto numbers please while you're at it? Your constitution calls for "speedy" trial. Keeping them a decade or more first doesn't cut it. Depriving someone of liberty awaiting a SPEEDY trial is certainly due process of law. Really when? AQ never went on trial. ZM plead guilty and was convicted.. A court never had a hearing about whether or not "Al Qaeda" is guilty. Organizations don't go on trial.. People do.. Even when the Enron scandal emerged, "Enron" didn't go on trial. Although some crooked execs might have.
I clearly said they need to be TRIED. PLACED ON TRIAL.. THAT is what I want. Will it be more clear if I put it in bold for you? I want the accused terrorists placed on trial. If a truther thinks they are innocent, and therefore wants them released, then they are advocating the release of INNOCENT people. I never said a court proves nothing... Stop misrepresenting me. A court of law proves one thing and one thing only.. That is the guilt, or innocence of the defendent. Only in fantasy world can OTHER people be proven guilty in someone else's trial. For that you need YOUR OWN trial.. It's something called "representation".. A chance to introduce your own evidence and witnesses. A chance to dispute their evidence, cross examine their witnesses, and have your own legal council.. Law 101 here. A jury never sat around deliberating about "whether or not Al Qaeda was guilty".. The ONLY jury there EVER was IRT 9/11 deliberated about what should be the sentence for a guy ALREADY found guilty by his successful plea being entered. Of course it is.. The thread is standard of evidense. I used it to call attention to the fact that even the skeptics believe an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory without real evidence.. If you want to disprove THAT claim then you need to show you DO have good solid evidence and I'm wrong in saying you don't.. So it is your job.. Simple thread.. Not even ten pages long.. Why haven't you followed along? I never made that claim. Stop lying. Never said that, but, you've got things backwards. It's called innocent until proven guilty, NOT the other way around. I seem to recall you back in the day whining about being asked to prove a negative claim (even when you used such a negative claim as the premise for your argument) and now look at you.. How do you prove someone innocent? George Bush personally wired up the WTC for controlled demolition.. He scaled the building like spider man with a blasting cap in his teeth. Go ahead and prove he's innocent.
Just an FYI.. The Soviets liberated the first camps to be liberated, and the vast majority of the camps. Most of the camps were freed long before any American boots set foot in Germany or any American or British soldiers saw any of the camps for themselves.
It happens all day every day. Just because our standard of jurisprudence is innocent until proven guilty, that doesn't mean the defense cannot win a case by proving innocence. People are proven innocent with evidence that shows they cannot be responsible for the crime. People are proven innocent with evidence that someone else committed the crime. People are proven innocent with evidence that shows the crime wasn't committed at all.
You quoted my entire post, a very lengthy one, so I don't know which part you are responding to, and then simply said this guy comes to mind. And? What prompted him to come to your mind, and what does your thought about this guy have to do with anything I said? If it's a really good point you'll explain it, or rephrase it.. If not, you'll just continue to play games. It's up to you.
