Discussion in '9/11' started by suede, Sep 28, 2011.
What source do you have indicating he did...the government?
That is some funny s***
It seems to have worked!
I'll bet that if we could imprison and torture you repeatedly in secret, that you'd confess to killing Lincoln, Kennedy, or any other person we wanted you to. Yeah...that ends it alright..
According to Al-Jazeera, he confessed before capture. Bragged about it, even.
I wonder if any 'truthers' are working to get him freed.
Yup, and so did several other hundred wannabe terrorists
Have a source?
Really, the burden of proof should be on anyone who wants to insist that the stories told by KSM when the CIA made him go psychotic and then tortured him are true.
And yet after however long I've been asking, the corroborating evidence for that story of 9/11 as told by the 9/11 commission report simply isn't there.
None of you can show the real world forensics evidence to verify the story true.
None of you can explain how you can be behind 9/11 "from A to Z" and yet no paper trails, fingerprints, videos etc. or anything else that links them to the crime.
So this guy says he was behind 9/11 from a to z but the biggest criminal investigation ever, PENTBOMM, couldn't link him to it? He covered his tracks THAT good!?! You really believe that?
In addition to plotting the entire 9/11 operation, the guy also confessed to a list of like thirty different terrorist plots... Including killing Jimmy Carter and blowing up the panama canal and big ben and whatever else..
So he's like superterrorist... And super credible...It seems like for you guys.
Nevertheless, KSM himself said he made up lies to get the torture to stop.. Maybe is KSM lying then? Why do you trust him so much for other occasions then?
So you can have a read, see things as said in these enhanced torture sessions are demonstrably false, if that's what you want to do, but you shouldn't need to...Not to mention that the idea that torture leads to false confessions and untrue statements should be common sense.. You should first ask yourself, why should I believe it's true in the first place....What evidence is there, for this conspiracy theory, in the first place.
You really do trust this reporter Fouda quite a lot... Why is it you believe his story even though he obvioiusly doesn't have the record of the interview?
Fouda said that KSM said that he was the military chief for Al Qaeda.
KSM disputed this and said that he was not the military leader for Al Qaeda, and that this was wrong.
So who is lying? The reporter guy Fouda or KSM?
Nope.. Let's get one thing clear... This "confession" is nothing more than paper or a computer voice as provided by Fouda.
BRAGGING about being behind a terrorist attack should actually look something more like this:
KSM, if he were behind 9/11, did the opposite of a proud confession... No video to claim responsibility or anything.. He just decided to tell this one guy about it, that's all.
I would first wonder if any truthers have ever even argued that KSM should be let out.
I wonder if any of you lot are working to get him convicted.
This thread has gone way off course.
Let's start over.
How much fuel, hydraulic fluid and other liquid contaminents found at the crash site?
All that was found was found at the crash site.
Al-Jazeera trusts him and supports his story. KSM explained his role in the attacks before he was captured.
Do you have a source for the claim that "KSM made proven false confessions."?
Do you believe that KSM is a terrorist?
How much had soaked into the ground? How much had burned up when the plane hit the ground?
How do you expect your question to be answered?
That's not even what I was asking. Let me try again... The journalist Fouda claimed KSM admitted to being the military chief of Al Qaeda at this meeting. KSM vehemently denies he ever said this, and denies he holds such a position.
So here's the question:
Who's wrong? Fouda or Muhhamed?
You have no evidence for this claim.. There's no video, no audio with his voice, nothing.. You are trying to pass off unsubstantiated heresay as fact.
Yes I've shown you already in the post where I replied to that exact request, a post you seemed to ignore...The giant elephant in the room i.e. NO outside corrobarating evidence to confirm KSM's narrative.
Maybe... Each day they fail to convict I grow more doubt though.
Why should we believe it now? Give us your best, hardest most bulletproof evidence against him.
The fact is, if he were such a prolific superterrorist as his massive list of confessions indicates, then there would be evidence of these plots existing and his involvement in them... You would have so much evidence, probable cause etc... He's behind 9/11 A to Z it is claimed... Plus 30 odd plots....Should be able to dig up something tangeable.
The fact that they keep him in jail without convicting him or proving he is a terrorist SHOULD be a red flag and a grain of salt for critical thinking people.
Maybe? You're unbelieveable.
This is why your movement has never gotten anywhere; hate America, love the terrorist. Save your retort; that is your stance...try to sugarcoat it any way you want.
Source this, please.
Off hand, you have a respected reporter with a story that remains consistent, and a known terrorist who changes aspects of his story except for the admission of guilt. Who do you trust?
In amounts consistent with amounts flight 93 was loaded with when it allegedly crashed?
Those jets carried 1000s of gallons of fuel, there would be remnants
But you already know this and know the amounts found were NOT consistent with the amounts on flight 93.
You, of course, have a source for this claim?
You already lost this discussion and yielded the floor to me. No need to try to dig yourself out of your grave just to troll me.
As soon as you want to show proof for your previous claims, and answer the questions, by all means.
Until then, spare me the trolling chinchilla remarks.. ESPECIALLY when you LOST the argument already.
Until you show me physical proof, all you'll get is a "maybe".
I'm not like you, who believes in things without evidence thanks to confirmation bias.
Your own AJ article will show you the claim that he confessed to being head of the AQ military committee during that interview.
The US prosecutors actually used this interview as "evidence" against KSM during his military tribunal (yes they scrape the bottom of the barrel for "evidence").
Only the prosecution didn't even MENTION him confessing to 9/11 at this interview. Wonder why, seeing as they are trying him for 9/11.
But they did use the head of AQ military committee claim.. At which point KSM denied it, and even asked to call witnesses who could verify that, and the judge declined.
LMAO. Fouda changed his story multiple times. First the interview was in June 2003.. Then it was in March.. He changed his story a few times actually.
Hell, he even ADMITTED he lied... I believe this "respected" reporter's exact words were: "I lied."
"Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something when wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax ... they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.
So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communique because it alluded to the interview taking place in May."
Now at the end of the day, you just figure he's a good, respected journalist, why exactly? Because you take your whole belief in claim SOLELY in his word without outside evidence and so must inflate his credibility?
What makes him so good out of all the however many journalists, many who are very dodgy and unproffessional, JUST because you want to believe his story?
How did you qualify his merit, exactly?
KSM's story only changed when they tortured him.. Wonder why? Maybe to get the torture to stop, perhaps?
As far as his story from before he was captured.. No video.. No audio.. No signed statement.. No proof he said any of it, except heresay.
You are trusting the "known terrorist".. YOU are taking him at his word for the entire narrative about 9/11 he told while being tortured.
YOU are the one trusting KSM exclusively and without outside corraboration.
You have no other outside evidence about that 9/11 "planes operation" as told by the 9/11 commission.. That is why you tout his "confession" as your ONLY evidence.
So good point.. Why again is a tortured KSM so trustworthy?
Now that is ironic as hell given the source.
PAs DEP reported very little fuel or other contaminents associated with a crashed commerical jet.
Separate names with a comma.