A standard of evidense

Discussion in '9/11' started by Wolverine, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I'm really not bothered about how much you might respect me; this case is just you not reading properly.. I simply said he didn't "admit" or "confess" until AFTER long term sleep deprivation and water pouring in his lungs 183 times. Before that it was just give me my lawyer.. That is a fact as much as you'd like to deny it. Also stop making up straw mans.. I didn't say one way or another if KSM's denial of the computer was accurate.. Unlike you I'm not using this guy's words as gospel holy truth.. Jesus works better for that.

    Great let's here the latest public statement (or does KSM just talk to you only and not make public statements).
     
  2. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course not. When he says something you like, it is gospel. When he says something you don't like, you make up all kinds of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuses for him. Is he too weak to speak for himself? And what of the others that are being accused with him that stand behind his confessions? Oh right. They ALL must have been tortured, right?

    Don't know if this is the latest, but here you go. From 2009.

    Here is a good excerpt:

    Yeah. Sounds like someone scared for his kids and cowering behind torture. When are you going to stop defending this monster? Did you find anything of him recanting his confessions?
     
  3. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As an IT guy, I can tell you if someone was in one of MY areas of responsibility running network cabling that I didn't order there would be hell to pay.

    Of course I'm guessing that here the IT department was probably in on the conspiracy too and wouldn't have raised a fuss. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean IT departmentS. As in every IT department for every company in WTC 1, 2 and 7. The conspiracy continues to grow! Of course next the truthers are going to try and pretend nobody from any IT department showed up on 9/11 because they knew what was going to happen. :lol:
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not news to me. However, conventional CAT-5 that is installed in a professional environment is generally Blue.

    White (or grey) is normally Plenum, and quite often Red or Yellow is used to connect between servers and routers/switches. But this all varies, depending on who is installing it and their pre-existing colour codes.

    That is the color system I generally use, and is the most common one I have seen.

    And I have seen that too. One project I had about 12 years ago was installing cameras in a series of medical offices in LA. The doctor was wondering why one of his offices was in a great location, had a lot of patients, but was loosing money. So I installed cameras in all offices, and set up a webpage so they could be monitored at any time from anywhere in the world.

    From day 1 in that location, the staff gave me issues. They would disconnect the camera (I calked the connections down), adjust it so it looked at the ceiling (superglues the mount in place), and did everything they could to stop the cameras from working.

    Finally the Doctor told them to leave it alone or be terminated, and the entire staff quit the next day. Of course, while training new staff and auditing the books, they also realized that they had been robbing the place blind. Taking cash payments from patients and pocketing the money, keeping the records of some patients in a seperate place with no billing records attached, and large bottles of pills missing without ant records of who they went to.

    6 months later, that branch was their most profitable one again.

    Mostly, it has been my experience that people just do not care to learn. Most people simply see computers and the associated technology as to complex to mess with. This does not mean they are stupid, they simply do not care to know. Start to explain how a standard phone outlet supports 2 seperate lines and that standard CAT-5 has 8 wires and supports 4 lines, and their eyes start to glaze over. Go into patch, straight, and cross-over cables, and they are really lost.

    As far as cameras, I never have an issue with them. If you don't do anything wrong, there is no need to be nervous of them. If you don't like them, get another job.

    And if you hate this type of thing, don't ever work for Disney. The most paranoid and camera-intensive company I ever worked for.

    And I don't get what you are trying to say at all.

    As 2 others said, who is going to be installing this without it ever being noticed?

    I have worked in the IT department of many Forbes 50 corporations. If I heard that somebody that was not known was installing CAT-5 cable in the building, I would immediately run over and find out who they are, who ordered this cable, and what it was for. Nobody puts in any computer cables or anything else in my area without my knowing what it is for.

    And yes, I have been an IT professional since 1990. And in another month I am going back to the IT industry again. I have worked at such companies as US Borax, Hughes Aerospace, Direc-TV, Boeing, Disney, Chevron, and many others.

    If I heard of an installation crew in my area, I would immediately go and find out what they were doing. And check it with my bosses. And constantly watch them and double check on their progress. Especially when they are passing close to any of my equipment like hubs, switches, and routers. Also to make sure it does not get tangled in any of my pre-existing wiring.

    And yes, I know what Detcord looks like. It looks quite a bit different then CAT-5.

    Det Cord

    [​IMG]

    CAT-5

    [​IMG]

    So yes, you are right. Generally the people are oblivious. That is what they have me for. So they can do their jobs, and not have to worry about why they can't print.

    And trust me, companies in such an environment are very cautious, even paranoid. "Corporate Espionage" (and sabotage) is not just a news item in such environments. They seriously check such things, to make sure that some competitor is not tapping into their systems, or possibly interrupting their networks.

    And if I suddenly saw a new cable in my area, I would immediately start to trace it. Where did this come from, where is it going? And if I could not tell, I would get a Fluke to test if it was live. If it was not, and could not identify where it went, snip.

    And there is no way anybody could confuse CAT-5 and DETCORD the moment it was cut.
     
    Patriot911 and (deleted member) like this.
  8. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    200 foreigners murdered vs. 3000 of your own countreymen?

    So I assume my point is proved and you can NOT find ANY precedent to such a confession to treason having otherwise gotten away with it?

    Even if you could dredge up a SINGLE case of one person out of the however many tens of billions to have ever lived, it wouldn't prove such much NECESSARILY happen out of such a small sample as Patriot911's silly argument conludes.
     
  9. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patriot911 could have posted an honest answer in all of a few measly clicks & keystrokes.

    Instead we get this 70 words in a post where he does everything else instead of answer the question... You're wasting lots more dead skin cells off your fingertips avoiding answering the question, why's that so important?

    Not to say I don't make longer posts... Just pointing out that answering the question would have been so much easier for Patriot911.

    Patriot911 knows that the answer must be either yes or no.. He knows that whichever one he chooses will knock down his whole house of cards.

    So instead he sits here and LIES claiming the question is immaterial in order to justify not answering it.

    Here's another question for you Patriot911.. I know you get a little timid when questions are around but I'll try again anyway.. Like SETI looking for aliens.. Maybe one day I'll get an answer so I'll keep trying.

    Q:

    If the answer to the question doesn't matter, then why don't you just answer it?

    I would think you'd want to PROVE it doesn't matter and put some balls into the words you say, and be like, "the answer is this, now go ahead and do your worst".. Instead of putting your money where your mouth is which would require minimal effort, you just run away. How come?

    Let me rephrase things for you if you didn't follow this.. Your post is clear evidence that you, like the rest, could do with reading, or rereading this whole thread.

    You said it doesn't matter you get one or the other... Hello?!??! That's what I said AGES ago! I CONCEDED that ages ago for sake of argument!

    I said take your pick.. You can have either the computer OR the "confession".. I'm giving it to you!!! I'm granting you that piece of evidence! Take it! It's yours! I said you can't have both at the same time, because they are mutually exclusive.. But you can have one or the other piece of circumstantial evidence.

    We weren't in disagreement about that, the point of contention really is you treating circumstantial evidence as though it's conclusive hard evidence. Your claim that whether you get the computer or the "confession" either way you've got real proof.. But you don't.

    I asked if you think KSM was lying because I want to know which evidence you want to go with, so we can carry on further discussion about that evidence. No sense discussing two things when both can't apply at the same time.

    So you get one or the other, I said this in the thread, and here's you thinking you're being clever, saying either way you're going to wind up with one or the other! Give this guy a prize! Parrot of the year award!

    So.. Will you answer the question finally? Which do you want to go with? The "confession" or the computer? Was KSM lying about the computer? Yes or no? Quit making it about how it doesn't matter what I pick, what do YOU pick for your answer, Patriot? I am asking YOU what YOU think. Do YOU think in YOUR opinion KSM was lying when he denied the computer?

    I can't possibly think of an easier question to ask you.

    No matter what you pick, the end result is the same.. That is, after you do the maths, you will have, in your possession, ONE, that is a SINGLE piece of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. Nevertheless I want to know what you're going with so please answer.

    Anyone who knows the first thing about logic, debate, law or even science knows the fundamental basic principle, that a single piece of circumstantial evidence can NEVER prove anything conclusively.. NEVER EVER, IT CANNOT BE DONE, PERIOD. This is by virtue of alternate explanations for the evidence..

    A single piece of unequivocal evidence, or "hard" evidence, can prove something conclusively, or, alternatively, MANY pieces of circumstantial evidence, if its enough to sway the jury or judge to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt.

    But never a single piece of circumstantial evidence.

    Like I pointed out for BOTH of these, it's possible KSM's confessions are caused by psychological manipulation, or torture, rather than genuinely being the truth, like OTHER confessions of tortured detainees that were PROVEN to be false (another elephant in the room you ran from before). This would explain the CIA's destruction of the interrogation tapes, the 9/11 commision's inability to corraborate the narrative with outside evidence and more.

    It is also that ANYONE affiliated with or with a vested interest in the AL Qaeada orginazation should WANT to take credit for such a well executed and

    It's also possible that the computer belonged to the other guy and not KSM. This would explain why KSM's prosecutors chose to call it the computer they seized in the same raid as KSM was seized in, instead of just KSM's computer.

    You yourself just got done boasting how badass evil AQ this OTHER guy was.. So why CAN'T he be the mastermind? Can the same level of evidence not also convict this guy?

    Unless you can disprove either alternate possibility for the evidence, either piece of the evidence remains circumstantial.

    This is a monumental thread.. I've proven that even you skeptics buy into a conspiracy theory with VERY little to back it up.. Only a single piece of circumstantial evidence.. Hell I've even seen truther theories with more circumstantial evidence than that, which you skeptics have been fevereshly working towards showing the alternate explanations for the evidence besides what the truther insists. Some theories you've had to explain alternate possibilities for circumstantial evidence multiple different times for different things.. And yet you sit here with a single piece of circumstantial evidence, I provide the alternate possibility for it, NOBODY proves that alternate possibility couldn't be the case, but insist they are right because they have one piece of circumstantial evidence.

    Per your standards I could prove the use of thermite on WTC right now if I wanted.. That molten orange stuff oozing out the side of the tower. That's evidence of thermite.. There ya go.. Thermite was used.. Case closed. Now you would naturally intervene, and say it was something else, like melted plane or aluminium or whatever.. If I were honest I would say you're right, it could be other things than thermite, other things would produce similar effects and color too, so that alone doesn't prove the use of thermite.. Or I could be dishonest, and do what you guys are doing on this thread, and NOT refute the possibility that it's melted plane aluminium yet INSIST that this is "conclusive" evidence for thermite when it's obviously not. And only MY interpretation of what the evidence represents matters, This is what you people bang your heads on the wall for every day you're here.. Truther pops in and shows you grainy pictures of orbs or whatever, then you're all like that's just a shadow effect from the camera or whatever it is I don't know and they ignore you and say no it proves orbs piloted by martians etc... To be honest I don't think you guys realize how much you have in common with truthers.

    See the problem with using a single piece of circumstantial evidence to base your case?

    You skeptics handle this approach EVERY DAY when you speak to truthers. They say so and so proves such and such, you provide alternate explanation for so and so and then such and such is not proven. And that same such and such has multiple different so and sos that you have to specify another explanation for. Every day you do this.. Yet I do this and it's complete 180 flip flop.. YOU guys are somehow able to prove things with one piece of circumstantial evidence..Success where KSM's prosecutors failed. But you whine about not getting "hard" evidence off the truthers and summarily dismiss entire theories that have multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence to support them. Maybe not enough pieces to overcome reasonable doubt and prove it true, but certainly more than you got for KSM here, which is one.

    The whole reason I went into this thread in the first place.. I want the real, HARD evidence. If a torture induced "confession" from somebody in a psychotic state or a computer you know nothing about and can't prove anyone's possession of is the BEST "evidence" that exists or that the prosecutors have, then it's no wonder why they aren't starting back up the trial.. Because they've basically got f- all.

    In fact, I find it interesting that after however many MILLIONS of dollars and MILLIONS of hours of labor, in the biggest criminal investigation ever in the history of the world, nobody found a single piece of unequivocal "hard" forensics evidence against KSM. Even though he's supposed to be behind the plot from a to z. Only two contradictory mutually exclusive pieces of circumstantial evidence. The conundrum you people keep avoiding... How is it the FBI didn't turn up any conclusive forensics evidence against KSM, if he was behind the plot from a to z? Why does the proverbial treasure trove of information on that computer all about the 9/11 operation have a total of ZERO reference to KSM? It's all about 9/11 stuff, so why are none of the exhibits off the computer implicating KSM?

    The thread is called "A standard of evidense".. I was hoping I could see as much.. Give me something quality please. Or at least admit you base your beliefs on a single piece of circumstantial evidence, much like many a truther.

    So to summarize:

    Q: KSM denies it's his computer.. Was he lying?

    Yes/No

    Answer the question.. That is if you have the balls.
     
  10. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not making ANY definitive claims based on the words the guy allegedly says.. YOU are the one using KSM's words as SOLE proof positive for your arguments, and then disingeniously trying to force me to do likewise. I don't trust this terrorist superman behind 31 different plots like you do.

    LMAO... You INSIST that he STILL hasn't recanted, and the LATEST canned statement your authorities delivered to you from while the trial was STILL on in 2009..

    LMAO.. So we can now know for SURE you have NO evidence about your argument that KSM STILL doesn't recant as you have NO idea what his CURRENT standing is.

    By the way it's scary sounding words indeed.. What you'd EXPECT someone coreced into playing the role of terrorist supervillian to come out with! YOu trying to use how evil the words actually are as your argument he must have meant them as rich indeed!

    I never made any arguments based on KSM's testimony, and what it currently must be.. YOU have done that.

    So instead of swopping the burden of proof, per usual, found any RECENT declarations of KSM about his masterminding the plot?
     
  11. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even more disenginiuous than plagiarism is silly excuses for it.. It doesn't matter what it is, a list or paragraph or short story or billboard or poem or song or what, it's not your words and you neglected an attribution.

    I don't claim to know any of that stuff. You must have forgotten, YOU are the one who is presenting this computer as evidence.

    I find pointing out your complete knowledge about it a bit amusing.

    No doubt you have no idea about..

    Fingerprints tests
    Registration/serial number
    Place of purchase
    Any other handlers
    Chain of custody

    etc.

    But you somehow KNOW it's damming evidence and expect me to believe likewise even though you have ZERO practical knowledge about it at all.

    Yes I'll grant you that.. Prove possession and you've got slam dunk victory.

    Of course KSM's own prosecutors didn't even attempt to allege let alone prove KSM's ownership of the computer, but if you know better than them then get it done!

    Only an idiot would believe that fairy tale.. You really believe the full confession is true 100%? Are you a believer in the super terrorist theory? Your false dichotomy attempt nonwithstanding, NEITHER of KSM's statements MUST be true. It's possible for him to be wrong about both, or neigher, just as easily as one or the other.

    I love how you always resort to swopping the burden of proof.. No seriously, point out the KSM references on the computer.

    I don't know at all, nor do I claim to know or make any claims about the computer.

    Just pointing out that you don't know..

    For all I know it's a mainframe wired into the walls of the house, or an old punch card machine from the 30's or perhaps it was a new IPAD 2 given to KSM by time traveling jihadists from the year 2011.

    Of course you couldn't.. You know nothing about the evidence you put forward at all.

    You can't tell me a SINGLE THING about it other than that list your trusty authorities provide you with.

    Either you LOVE straw man arguments or you can't read... I didn't make ANY claims about KSM's involvement on any level.. There are multiple possibilities..

    YOU are the one making the definitive argument about KSM's guilt in masterminding 9/11.

    I could get into theories about why it's possible to need a scapegoat, but there's really not much point as YOU are the one putting forth a theory as fact and failing utterly to support it, NOT me.

    Really? Who? Who claims Moussaoui was never convicted?

    Or did you mean to say, didn't believe the conviction was right... Again who said it?

    I for one am well convinced about Moussaiu's attempted involvement on an operative level.. He was convicted for it in court.

    Of course certain people with severe problems with confirmation bias would like me to believe the same for people they completely FAIL to get any convictions against.

    Let me repeat since you don't bother to read.. I didn't say your theory was wrong I said it was:

    -unsubstantiated
    -speculative

    Just like many truther theories you complain about and demand the strongest standards of evidence for.

    It could be true.. I'm not saying one way or another.

    More of the usual filler but I did notice one funny bit here.. He was busted with other members of AQ you say.. So how do you know it wasn't any of THEIR computer?

    Apparently, the prosecution could only go so far as to say the computer seized in the same raid as KSM, instead of opting for the so much better "KSM's computer".

    Yes more government storytelling..

    Zero plus Zero equals Zero last I checked....

    Actually it is by virtue.. Confessions can be falsified if to take credit for an accomplishment (like to boost PR and recruiting for AQ now more successful in jihad than ever) or otherwise due to coercsion (like the proven FALSE confessions of other tortured detainees you fail to account for).

    Confession indeed are circumstantial, you can't refut alternate possiblities for them; you're wrong.

    Go back and refute then... Rather than feign victory after the fact thinking people can't see you obviously fleeing in fear when you were actually confronted with it.
     
  12. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Looks like HFD went on a bender yesterday! :lol: All the whining in the world isn't changing the FACT KSM and the rest of his Muslim terrorist buddies are going to trial based on the EVIDENCE of their guilt. You can pretend all you want that they are innocent because you want so desperately to let terrorists off the hook. It isn't going to work. Nobody is listening to your excuses and pathetic prose that proves nothing.
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You totally missed the point of my post I guess.

    The piece of filth is Jessie MacBeth. And he is no Ranger.

    In fact, he is a convicted liar and fraud, who did not even finish boot camp. He was kicked out of the Army, and almost immediately went on a giant PR blitch, becomming the darling of the Anti-War crowd.

    They ate his story up, showing how he was proof of atrocities and murders by members of the armed forces.

    To bad it was all a great big lie.

    This is why I encourage people to research. To not just take the word of somebody posting something on the Internet. Check the claims, and ensure that they are being accurate and telling the truth.
     
  14. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Back in my past life when I was a youngster installing Nortel Switches, I think I would have called that 4 pair. Although I realize it's not the same thing, but the color coding is very similar.

    /end reminiscence
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is generally all the same thing. What most people think of as "Phone Cable" is what is known as CAT-3 cable. This is the original 10 megabit cable that we used for networking 15+ years ago. No longer used for computers, it is used fairly often for phone wiring.

    Basically it is all the same, the only real difference is the impedence of the wires. And while the color codes are different, as ong as you use the same placement inside of the jack, it all works out in the end.

    And for those that think they found a loophole, CAT-3 comes in all the colors that CAT-5 does (and CAT-6, and every other form of Unshielded Twisted Pair wiring).

    [​IMG]
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, he's a scumbag and you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

    I understand your point, it's simply not relevant.

    I was clearly asking for an example of someone admitting to TREASON, to their OWN countrymen, involving murder of their own countrymen.

    This guy, as much of a scumbag as he is, is not an example.

    Patriot911's silly argument was that if 9/11 were an inside job, the people who participated in it on purpose but got away with it scott clear, should practically be queing up to announce their murder and treason to their own countrymen.

    I was asking for ANY historical precedent for that kind of thing. This guy, as much of a scumbag as he is, did not and is no such example.
     
  17. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you've not drudged up that reference to KSM on the computer you insist is there I see.

    Anyway, in case your latest post of mere personal attack and feigning victory was just a rude way of saying tl;dr, then no problem, I will itemize clearly just some of the many elephants in the room you're trying to escape from and all the trump cards you ignore that have you defeated this debate.

    1) You claimed that KSM was captured with another evil big bad Al Qaeda terrorist.. In that raid they seized this hard drive. So, if this other guy is ALSO a big bad AQ terrorist, why can't HE be the owner of the computer? You are insisting KSM is the owner, so how have you ruled out this other guy as the possible owner, in order to be so sure it's KSM's?

    2) Neither the United States, nor its representitives who prosecuted KSM in his original trial on behalf of the United States, have claimed KSM is the owner of the computer. Simply the hard drive seized in the same raid, and yet establishing him as owner would be SO MUCH better for their case, yet they don't even assert as much let alone try to prove it. Why? You don't know the SLIGHTEST thing about this hard drive.. Nothing about it whatsoever other than the alleged list of contents your government provided you. So how are YOU so sure KSM is the owner, what do YOU know that the United States and those prosecuters do not? Why have they not tried to establish KSM as the owner, why are YOU the only one trying to do that?

    3) You vehemently INSISTED there is incriminating evidence to KSM specifically on that computer and references to him on it.. And yet you have failed to provide even ONE example of reference to KSM on the computer. The computer which has a treasure trove of all things related to the 9/11 attack should have something on it about the guy who you think planned it, from a to z. You say it does.. Show me. Your previous attempt to swop the onus and demand I prove it doesn't isn't going to fly.. The computer is YOUR evidence remember, it is up to YOU to prove its relevance.

    4) KSM denied its his computer, yet his words alone according to you are definitive and unequivocal proof of something being true even if you can't independently corraborate it, as you claimed his sleep deprived and torture induced confessions are NOT circumstantial evidence. So he MUST be lying, according to you, about the computer. So which is it, is KSM a trustworthy source whose words alone are gospel truth, or not? Simple yes/no you never answered.

    5) In saying his confession alone is proof positive of his masterminding the attack you are saying his tortured narrative must automatically be accepted as true. And yet, torture induced confessions turned out proven FALSE statements and confessions made. Including stuff about WMD's in Iraq etc. If tortured confessions are automatically true, how do you explain the PROVEN FALSE statements made by tortured detainees?

    6) KSM makes no public statements and almost nobody has heard from him since his trial in 2009.. Yet you INSIST he still, to this day, maintains his guilt and hasn't retracted it. You could not find ANY statements from him since 2009, so how are YOU so sure what his CURRENT point of view is? How can you POSSIBLY know what he's currently thinking?

    7) In this latest post you are insisting he will be tried in the future, even though nobody in your government is bothering to try him and NEVER has it taken this long. Yet you can't explain what's the holdup.. Why are we STILL waiting for the trial? You claim the case is airtight.. So what are they waiting for? And how do you know what's going to happen in future, your crystal ball?

    I'd like to see you attempt to stand up for your stance and actually address the issues with your case, and you should do this without personal attacks please.
     
  18. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't. You constantly mischaracterize what I wrote. Could it be KSMs? Yes. Could it be the other terrorists? Yes. Do we know for sure? No. Does it implicate KSM? Yes. Does whether or not the hard drive belongs to KSM alter the fact KSM and the rest of the terrorists have admitted to the deed? No.

    Again, lying your ass off about what I've said doesn't change the truth, does it. :lol: Pretty pathetic there, HFD.

    Wow. Listen to you whine! It's like an entire nursery of colicy babies!

    So now I am suppose to have detailed knowledge of what was on the hard drive in relation to KSM? :lol: That's funny!

    On a side note, did you notice KSM claimed the computer was his buddy's, but didn't deny the evidence or the fact he was responsible for the planning of 9/11? Does he deny telling a reporter he was the head of the Al Qaeda military committee? Yes. Does he deny receiving funding from Kuwait? Yes. Does he deny any of the evidence linking him to 9/11? No.

    So in your shallow little world, a person is either completely 100% honest or he is completely 100% dishonest, right? So if KSM was lying about the computer not belonging to him in order to get his buddy on the stand as it implies in his testimony, in your little world that would completely invalidate anything else he says, right? Well, here in the real world it doesn't.

    And there you go again BLATANTLY lying your ass off again for everyone to see. KSM did not give his confession to the tribunal under torture. Did he say he was tortured? Yes. And he gave the details of that torture. Was any confession he made under torture submitted to the court as evidence? No. Did he say he was tortured right before giving his confession? No. When asked "The information you are telling us today, so we are clear, you do not believe you are under any pressure or threat or duress to speak to us today, is that correct?", his reply was "Yes, that's correct".

    Because unlike some people who have a very unrealistic view of the world, I know that if he were to recant his confession it would make the news. :lol:

    :lol: I don't think I've read a post containing so much whining! The trial is coming! Relax. Take a couple pills. Chill out. As for what is taking so long, I can answer that in one question: politics.

    I've defended my stance. Lets see how many times you'll lie about what I write in your next post. I've already pointed out quite a few whoppers you've told already.
     
  19. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They wouldn't need to involve hundreds at all. Certainly LIHOP explanation most certainly wouldn't require it. Perhaps a few dozen.

    Tasks are compartmentalized, and an underling far down the chain may have no idea what the greater agenda is, and carries out his duty unwittingly.

    When it comes to the case about simple foreknowledge, absolutely nothing has been debunked. Not one iota.

    In fact, the government's response has been silence and avoidance.
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The whole compartmentalized bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is just that. It may have fooled them into doing something to aid the attack that day, but they would have known about their role in the affair and it would have been found out. Did such a thing happen? No.

    Here's the problem with foreknowledge. Do you honestly think Cheney et al. are down in the bowels of the CIA and FBI looking for clues before anyone else finds them? No. Once again you end up with the fact other people would have to be involved and kept quiet staring you in the face.

    Can we absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they didn't have foreknowledge? No. Absolute proofs are almost impossible. Yet there is ZERO evidence of foreknowledge. Without evidence, you have no case. Paranoid delusions and people's opinions are NOT evidence. Unlike truthers, I demand EVIDENCE of a crime before I go off pretending people are guilty of a crime. You should try it sometime.
     
  21. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  22. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow. Seriously? You were too lazy to even click the link? :lol:

    From the link.

    So let's see. Lots of people = most of the world if they were paying attention and they knew before WWII even started. This completely decimates your silly claim that the holocaust was some big secret.

    Any other stupid questions that seriously degrade the credibility of the TBM especially considering they've already been answered?
     
  23. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The notion that an event like 9/11 could have beencarried out by only a 'few' people is laughable...

    Plainly the government has been forthcoming
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is nice, but the Holocaust did not start before WWII. Thise were little more then pogroms, such as happened all across Europe for centuries.

    The Holocaust itself did not start until 1942, after the Wannsee Conference. That is when the "Final Solution" was drafted, and the systematic slaughter actually began.

    So that may sound nice talking about things that happened in the 1930's and 1941, but that was not the Holocaust.
     
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only is it laughable, it also conflicts with his post in his very own thread that claims hundreds if not thousands of people were deputized by the sec to prevent them from disclosing details of advanced knowledge of the attack.

    Which is it? Do those people know something or are you now conceding that your insider trading post is a load of garbage?
     

Share This Page