The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[JonnyFive]

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant in logical, scientific discourse. Using your own logic, defendants in murder trials should have to prove their innocence. I mean, someone is accusing them of murder. There's even sometimes evidence that makes them a likely suspect for the murder. Surely that's enough to convict them, right? No need for any of that "evidence" crap, right?

I've simply asked you to provide verifiable primary evidence, and all you can give me are unsourced third-party news stories and childish insults.

 

[mjd1982]

Too late, Junior!! Actually, it's around 10,000. It's actually been referred to as an "obscure" Indian newspaper (really newsletter).

You can redeem yourself, however! How large is the India Globe editorial staff?

Good. I will ask you again. Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference.

Plus, I'm still waiting for your response on Cockburn's article, as reported by pomeroo.

 

[JonnyFive]

Mjd, if you can't provide any evidence other than the India Globe story and sources that repeat the India Globe story, does that tell you anything?

 

[HyJinX]

Do you think I give two cents whether you "take my view seriously"?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"



You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!

Had to be done!...

 

[Augustine]

Good. I will ask you again. Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference.

Plus, I'm still waiting for your response on Cockburn's article, as reported by pomeroo.

Don't know how large their editorial staff is? Don't worry, I do...it is one.

Not regurgitated by MSNBC, not regurgitated by a WH press conference. Let's try to speak precisely, shall we, Junior?

A question was asked at a WH Press Briefing about the report in the India Globe. The WH Press Sec, Ari Fleischer, clearly had never heard of any such report. Keith Olbermann replayed the clip (and omitted the beginning) as part of his partisan show that was largely a reaction to the Bill Clinton meltdown to a simple Chris Wallace question. MSNBC has NEVER corroborated the reports of an offer. NO major news organization has. The Taliban government issued ZERO public statements of this offer.

P.S. Provide a link to Cockburn's article. Although he is equally a partisan hack, possibly worse than Olbermann.

 

[Augustine]

Had to be done!...

Excellent!!

 

[mjd1982]

A news story is only as good as its sources, regardless of how good a news gathering organization prints it. Or perhaps you think all that stuff Jason Blair wrote should be considered true because the New York Times is a really good news gathering organization.

His articles can and have been contradicted by many people, and shown to be mendacious. Until you can do the same for a mass market indian paper, then the report remains as valid.

Since there don't seem to be any, why should anyone treat this story as true for any purposes without independent verification?

The same way one would for any article in any newspaper.

You really are being very silly. You've managed to pack an appeal to authority ("accept it because the India Globe is a good news-gathering organization") with asking everyone to prove a negative ("Prove the handover deal was never offered and/or wasn't legitimate").

No, no, no!

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.

How about, instead, you actually provide evidence of this claim? Until then, I think everyone here except you is going to assume that claim is a load of garbage.

Such evidence being what... a newspaper report?!

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd, if you can't provide any evidence other than the India Globe story and sources that repeat the India Globe story, does that tell you anything?

as above!

 

[Augustine]

His articles can and have been contradicted by many people, and shown to be mendacious. Until you can do the same for a mass market indian paper, then the report remains as valid.

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.

Do try to keep up. Haven't you read the circulation numbers I posted? The "Penny Saver" in my area has wider circulation.

 

[Billdave2]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.

So if a mass distributed newspaper prints something false about me I can't demand they prove it? You are saying the burden is on me to prove something is false? Do you understand that I can't prove a negative but if it was true the newspaper is the one that has to present proof?

 

[mjd1982]

Don't know how large their editorial staff is? Don't worry, I do...it is one.

I'll repeat my question- Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference, are inferior to yours. Until they can be, we will retain the validity of the report.

Not regurgitated by MSNBC, not regurgitated by a WH press conference. Let's try to speak precisely, shall we, Junior?

You know the point, and you have decided to evade it. Not a surprise. But do tell me why?

A question was asked at a WH Press Briefing about the report in the India Globe. The WH Press Sec, Ari Fleischer, clearly had never heard of any such report.

Because he said no comment? How is that basis for such?

Keith Olbermann replayed the clip (and omitted the beginning) as part of his partisan show that was largely a reaction to the Bill Clinton meltdown to a simple Chris Wallace question. MSNBC has NEVER corroborated the reports of an offer.

In repeating the offer, they are lending it credence. They would not do the same for a report put out by, say, you. This is because IG is a more reputable news gathering org than you, a very simple notion that you have problems understanding apparently.

NO major news organization has. The Taliban government issued ZERO public statements of this offer.

As above. It has been endorsed at least by MSNBC, and Counterpunch potentially too. You cannot find any public statements on such by the Taliban, unsurprising for a medieval style islamic theocratic regime in a 3rd world country from 6 1/2 years ago. However, the IG clearly did locate such a statement, since they have based their report on it. You have to prove that the IG is a disreputable news source in this respect, as I have told you before. I will wait.

P.S. Provide a link to Cockburn's article. Although he is equally a partisan hack, possibly worse than Olbermann.

You stating someone is partisan is worthless; if they are such then their content should be easy to debunk. You should focus on doing this.

Re the article, this was repeated by pomeroo. I have not been able to find it; if he is on this thread, he can maybe post the article.

 

[JonnyFive]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.

Actually, I have not said it was false. This is what I have consistently said to you since you brought this up (I'll put it in bold, since you seem to not like reading what I actually write):

One story in one paper is not sufficient for me to accept as fact such an extraordinary claim that does not fit in with the Taliban's history or general attitude towards the US. I would kindly appreciate if you would please provide additional sources for your claim!

Whew... sorry about that. Now, evidence please?

Such evidence being what... a newspaper report?!

Actually, an unsourced newspaper report is really, really crappy evidence. Any writer can submit a report, and any paper can print it. If the Guardian ran a piece without sources claiming something similar, I would be asking you to provide me with additional evidence.

The evidence could be pretty broad, but for something like this, we're talking:
1)Official or verified US government statements or documents supporting the claim.
2)Official or verified Taliban statements or documents supporting the claim.
3)Testimony of some sort from people who would be in a position to have direct access to that information.

In history, these things are called "primary sources." They are orders of magnitude better than an unsourced and apparently uncorroborated article in any paper.

And let's be clear about something, this is not a minor claim. What you're talking about is something that, if true, would seriously implicate that the US had grossly mishandled foreign policy. That is why I posed the issue as two-pronged: That the offer existed, and that it was legitimate.

The other issue is the inconsistency with Taliban policy and other Taliban statements. If the Taliban was so keen to help us out, why did they shelter and aide Bin Laden?

Finally, we seem to be missing the critical level of corroboration for news sources. Generally, major stories run in several competing papers, who all, hopefully, dig up their own information. This allows some level of verification, hopefully backed up by primary sources. In this case, such a check is completely or totally absent.

Now, you could actually read what I write when I bring up my issues with your sources, and you could try to address those issues in a mature, adult way. Alternatively, you can continue to be petulant and pretend you've addressed my concerns, which you haven't, and I'm simply too ignorant to understand how you've addressed my concerns, which I'm not.

Whatever.

 

[mjd1982]

Do try to keep up. Haven't you read the circulation numbers I posted? The "Penny Saver" in my area has wider circulation.

Ok good. Now answer my question.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

your question is irrelevant.

 

[Augustine]

You cannot find any public statements on such by the Taliban, unsurprising for a medieval style islamic theocratic regime in a 3rd world country from 6 1/2 years ago.

Oh, please. NOTHING in the Afghan Islamic Press, NOTHING from Abdul Hakim Mujahid, Taliban envoy to the United Nations; NOTHING from Qudratullah Jamal, the Taliban's information minister; NOTHING from Mullah Abdur Rahman Zahid, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister. NOTHING....


RESEARCH

From 2001:

 

[mjd1982]

So if a mass distributed newspaper prints something false about me I can't demand they prove it? You are saying the burden is on me to prove something is false? Do you understand that I can't prove a negative but if it was true the newspaper is the one that has to present proof?

Your post presupposes falsehood in the article.

If a paper of sufficient credence to have its content regurgitated at a WH press conference, an MSNBC editorial, and the editor of Counterpunch (possibly a regurgitation), has its content disputed by people on a debate forum, then such people must provide a coherent basis for such dispute, This is pretty elementary.

If the NY Times prints a story saying Tony Blair is shaggin Gordon Brown, I may not believe it, but if I am to have such disbelief given credence by sensible people, I will have to support it sufficiently for it to be a counterweight to the credence given by a NY Times article.

So I will wait for you to do similar

 

[Augustine]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/eastham.html

Sigh, I get tired of doing Junior's research for him....

 

[Augustine]

Document 24 - State 028054

More for Junior....

 

[mjd1982]

Actually, I have not said it was false. This is what I have consistently said to you since you brought this up (I'll put it in bold, since you seem to not like reading what I actually write):

One story in one paper is not sufficient for me to accept as fact such an extraordinary claim that does not fit in with the Taliban's history or general attitude towards the US.

Why not? They were presumably getting into great difficulties due to the sanctions, so why would they not want to turn over 1 man in return for the dropping of these sanctions?

I would kindly appreciate if you would please provide additional sources for your claim!

Whew... sorry about that. Now, evidence please?

I have given you one source. This source was of sufficient credence to be regurgitated by many major outlets. This should be sufficient. If you, or anyone else can illustrate how it wasnt, I will wait.

Actually, an unsourced newspaper report is really, really crappy evidence. Any writer can submit a report, and any paper can print it. If the Guardian ran a piece without sources claiming something similar, I would be asking you to provide me with additional evidence.

Why do you assume it was unsourced? You are claiming that they just made it up? Given what I have said about credence, you have to do some work if yo want to show that this just came off someone's head.

The evidence could be pretty broad, but for something like this, we're talking:
1)Official or verified US government statements or documents supporting the claim.
2)Official or verified Taliban statements or documents supporting the claim.
3)Testimony of some sort from people who would be in a position to have direct access to that information.

In history, these things are called "primary sources." They are orders of magnitude better than an unsourced and apparently uncorroborated article in any paper.

Ok. But nonetheless, given that this is from a long time ago, and a medieval style government in a 3rd world country, the absence of such should not be surprising. In which case, you will have to go about discrediting the report. Go on!

And let's be clear about something, this is not a minor claim. What you're talking about is something that, if true, would seriously implicate that the US had grossly mishandled foreign policy. That is why I posed the issue as two-pronged: That the offer existed, and that it was legitimate.

Excellent. Its good to see you can view this with a degree of sense. But as I have stated, your latter point is irrelevant in light of the zero action taken subsequently. Moreover, let's not forget that there was no comeback from Fleischer on this; he did not state "The offer was bs", which should be born in mind.

The other issue is the inconsistency with Taliban policy and other Taliban statements. If the Taliban was so keen to help us out, why did they shelter and aide Bin Laden?

as above

Finally, we seem to be missing the critical level of corroboration for news sources. Generally, major stories run in several competing papers, who all, hopefully, dig up their own information. This allows some level of verification, hopefully backed up by primary sources. In this case, such a check is completely or totally absent.

Not true. This was reported 2/3 weeks prior, at an apparently earlier level of discussion:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252

Now, you could actually read what I write when I bring up my issues with your sources, and you could try to address those issues in a mature, adult way. Alternatively, you can continue to be petulant and pretend you've addressed my concerns, which you haven't, and I'm simply too ignorant to understand how you've addressed my concerns, which I'm not.

???

I reply to all of your posts, and all of your points, as best as I can. If not, please show me where so.
Whatever.[/QUOTE]

 

[WildCat]

So you dont have the clip, its something we should just believe since you say it.

As such, it is worthless, and for the purposes of this argument, since you cannot present it, it doesnt exist. India Globe out of the window, you may start again.

The transcript of the press briefing is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Q Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

The sole source of your statement is the India Globe. Deal with it.