Free video/pdf destroys all "official"

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seems you can't read properly.. I asked you what the evidence is against KSM and the other plotters of the attack. I didn't ask for a page about Moussaiu, who wasn't accused of plotting the attack.

    Do you KNOW the evidence against KSM or not?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You keep hiding from your own OP - what are you afraid of?

    'Fraud: why did you link to a 'death beams from space' site in your first post? Do you endorse Dr. Wood and her theories?

    The author has posted here that he's very proud of your standing up for 'space death beams'. Are you happy with this endorsement?
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hannity...why are you afraid of supporting the burying of Flight 93?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's right, dodge the thread topic. I've shown you where you can find the evidence for UA93.

    So, let's all see you run away from your own thread topic once again:

    'Fraud: why did you link to a 'death beams from space' site in your first post? Do you endorse Dr. Wood and her theories?
     
  5. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dodge noted. Hypocrisy obvious.
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed, 'truthers' dodging questions is becoming predictable.

    'Fraud: why did you link to a 'death beams from space' site in your first post? Do you endorse Dr. Wood and her theories?
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess it's the "death beams" phrase that you find so entertaining. Got anything else, or would you rather focus on ridicule?
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just explain why you linked to them, and whether you support Dr. Judy.

    Or continue to dodge.
     
  9. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part of convicting Z.M. was proving that Al-Queda and KSM were behind the attacks, beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't have a "conspiracy" of one under NY or federal law. Z.M. was convicted of, among other things, a conspiracy.

    Read the transcripts and other information in the trial. Clearly, you haven't.
     
  10. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pure legal sophistry.. Although a conspiracy by definition is multiple people plotting, there is NOTHING in N.Y. or federal law which states that multiple people must be convicted.. It is possible to have one or some people proved involved while others not, as happens all the time with lots of precedent. The ONLY thing the jury decides is whether or not the defendent, and ONLY the defendent, is guilty of a crime.. He was found guilty not because they proved a case against KSM, but because he admitted it. Even if evidence is vetted, it only gets vetted as to how it relates to the defendent ONLY.. You can't be proven guilty by proxy in another person's trial.. Such notions as that is completely opposed to the most fundamental principles and parameters of the western democratic common law system your country is based on.

    Alright.. Show me where in the transcript or which exhibit(s) from this trial prove the guilt of KSM for being the principal architect of the attacks.
     
  11. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correct. But part of having a conviction for conspiracy means proving - beyond a reasonable doubt - that you acted in concert with others.
    The evidence that proved his guilt showed he conspired with KSM and others.
    LOL... So his admission is worth less than if he denies his guilt and the government merely proves it to the satisfaction of a jury?

    Typical 9/11 denier "logic", that.
    Except that, in a case of conspiracy, an element of the crime is proving that he conspired with another person. Therefore, you must prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that said other person is involved.
    But in this case, KSM and Al-Queda were proven involved. It was proven ZM worked with others, that's absolutely necessary for a conspiracy conviction, and the others he worked with under the evidence presented by the government were KSM and Al-Queda. They didn't present any alternate theories. If the jury was not satisfied KSM and Al-Queda were involved beyond a reasonable doubt, he would not have been convicted.
    What good would that do? You're not interested in believing that, because it would prevent you from maintaining your delusion.

    I mean, you're already in the weeds as far as the whole thing goes, since KSM admitted his involvement as the "mastermind" of 9/11.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2007-03-14/..._transcript-detainees-three-hearings?_s=PM:US

    Let me guess... That's all part of the conspiracy, right? A man confesses to 3,000 murder charges because that's his role in the secret conspiracy, right?
     
  12. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes.. Others? Which others? I want proof for acting in concert with one particular individual, not just any old others.

    I could just as easily claim BullsLawDan was the principle architect of 9/11 attacks.. The evidence is in the Moussaiu trial. He was convicted of conspiracy, so he couldn't have been working alone, therefore he was proven to be working with BullsLawDan.

    What evidence? This is like the fourth or fifth time I'm asking you. Each time I ask, rather than tell me the evidence you just reiterate your assurance that there is evidence there.

    Again, the list of evidence is public record. You also mentioned the transcript. Which exhibit(s) is the most conclusive evidence against KSM?

    No I'm saying that entering a guilty plea can arrest the evidence being vetted. They are still proven guilty, but the evidence may not be vetted in court. So, saying that a certain conclusion is made about this evidence by the court isn't really true, the decision is unecessary because they plead guilty so that's it for the trial.

    Okay so they must have proved this.. Run me by the proof.

    That's not at all what happened in this case. The only thing the Jury decided on was what the sentence was, because ZM entered a guilty plea. So that's false about the jury must be convinced about KSM.. He would have been convicted no matter what, he did after all plead guilty!

    Try me..

    Clever copout.. I'm not going to show the proof because you wouldn't accept the proof.

    The guy "confessed" after they sleep deprived him to make him go crazy and then tortured him until he said it.

    Nobody with half a brain would consider a "confession" as genuine when they only made it having been through the CIA enhanced torture program and had his family threatened.

    Hell even his own military tribunal, which they weren't convinced this confession was of sound mind him having been through this, which is why they wouldn't even accept his guilty plea until they had mental competency hearings, which were, of course, called off when they cancelled the trial.
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    KSM confessed before capture, as has been shown to you.

    Ignoring the evidence won't make it go away, neither will semantic arguments.

    Why can't 'truthers' tell the truth?
     
  14. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you showed me heresay from a journalist with no proof. Hell the guy wasn't cross examined, they didn't even call him as a witness! No sworn statement, no affidavit, just heresay he told his editors. No doubt you will buy into unsubstantiated claims made by one person with no outside corrobarating evidence whatsoever so long as it's words YOU want to hear. That's how "critical minds" such as yours work.

    Crimes leave forensic evidence.. Real verifiable evidence.. Which you don't have. Simple as that.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your complaint last time was that al-Jazeera didn't cover it. Now it's 'he wasn't cross examined'.

    What will be your next excuse?
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you got any OTHER evidence than the unproven words of a journalist?
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Al-Jazeera (your touted 'real journalists) believed it.

    Not proof enough for you? Of course not.
     
  18. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I said they were real journalists because they told us the SOURCE of the information. So we can decide how valid that information is.

    The issue is the source.

    You keep dodging the issue.. If KSM orchestrated the whole thing, wouldn't there be forensic evidence for this? To validate the confession?
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now it's 'forensic evidence'.

    What's next?

    He admitted it. All but bragged about it. Ignoring his testimony wont change that.

    Do you have evidence that he didn't do it, or evidence that someone else did?

    Maybe Judy Wood (from the OP) can help you.
     
  20. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really?

    "all but bragged about it"?

    THAT is false.. THAT would have been him saying, at trial.. Of course I said this in the interview with Al Jazeera.. I am indeed top military commander in Al Qaeda.. I also admitted to 9/11.

    HE DIDN'T..

    HE DISPUTED the ONLY claims from this interview that were used against him.

    That is NOT proudly accepting responsibility.

    When AQ does THAT, they MAKE a video THEMSELF, they put up a banner in the backround, run the webcam and post it to the www admitting it..THAT would have been.. Not blindfold some guy and tell him some stuff undocumented and then later DISPUTE that stuff.

    Why are you shifting the burden of proof?

    If I were to claim who plotted such a HEINOUS crime, I would provide good solid evidence of that, otherwise I wouldn't make the allegation and try to pass it off as fact.
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps you can save that argument until after the trial? You are arguing about events that have not happened yet.

    He admitted it. He confirmed it. You have no evidence to dispute it.
     
  22. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What trial? The ONLY trial has been terminated..

    KSM along with the rest of the accused crew, are being held without trial or conviction for close to a decade.

    No.. There was an enemy combatant status review at the military tribunal. This is where he denied the statement from this video made against him.

    This has indeed happened.

    The trial was of course terminated.

    Now there's no trial.

    You have no evidence that he admitted it. Heresay from a journalist, that's it. He "never" confirmed ANYTHING from this interview since he was captured.
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your obsession over me is still quite flattering.
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Your obsession with me is cute.
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    They are? More so than "official" supporters? You're a (insert insult here).
     

Share This Page