How 9/11 was done

[9/11-investigator]

In other words, "the victims were in on it". How DARE you claim that?

WHAT??????

You don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Larry to the doctor and his son and daughter 'running late'. Quite a coincidence. Anybody who believes that?

This is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, or the a priori/a posteriori fallacy. Had Silverstein been killed in the attacks, you would not now be identifying him as a possible suspect, but someone else, whose survival you would then be claiming as a coincidence. Have you determined how many other people weren't in the Twin Towers that morning because of some minor unusual circumstance? Have you analysed the normal routines of everyone who was killed in the attacks to determine how many wouldn't normally have been at work at that time but happened to get in early due to unusual circumstances? How does that compare with the number of people who would be early or late on any other day? If you want to make an argument from probability, you need some statistics to back it up.

There's another point to consider. If Silverstein knew in advance of the attack, why attract suspicion by establishing a routine of being in the crash zone every day at the time of the attack, then depart from it on the day? Your theory now requires either that Silverstein was stupid enough to go out of his way to draw attention to himself, or that he only found out that the attacks were happening at all less than 24 hours in advance.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

As usual you provide a good find.

This alone demonstrates your bias. Any information that contradicts your theory is immediately attacked so that you can find a reason to ignore it. Any information that seems to support it is uncritically accepted. Where is your skepticism now?

Dave

 

[stateofgrace]

You're missing the point... nobody expects the passengers to converse with their relatives with an exalted voice; of course they would whisper. But what struck the relatives was the incredible calmness of the passenger on the phone, who were confronted with their own immanent death.

The real reason why the callers were calm was that they were having a good time somewhere on the ground leaning backwards with their feet on the table.

Evidence?

Got any?

Or is this another one of your lies? YES you do lie, you are a liar. You had hidden by the mod statuses of this thread to spread your lies and it is time you are called exactly what you are.

A LIAR and a disrespectful one at that.

 

[240-185]

WHAT??????

You don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about, do you?

Here are your words:

The real reason why the callers were calm was that they were having a good time somewhere on the ground leaning backwards with their feet on the table.

Although you explained later that it was in fact Isrealis agents who have quite divine powers, you don't have any evidence for what you claim. You haven't proved there was a link between 9/11 and an non-existant real-time voice morphing (Stop watching "Case Closed[/url"!). You have ignored the fact that some passengers boarded really late.

You haven't proved that Israel was involved in 9/11. "Saying it" doesn't mean "proving it". And other JREFers have already shown you why Israel couldn't do that, showing at the same time your lack of geopolitical knowledge. And all your claims involving Israel show your blatant anti-semitism.

Also, your statement is quite contradictory: you don't deny the death of the victims, but you say they weren't in the planes? Have you ever THOUGHT about this? If you don't see where the contradiction is, your case is very, very, serious. But that will be the Nth time you'll read this without understanding why other JREFers say that your investigation is so sleazy...

 

[9/11-investigator]

So when you said...............



You were just lying, right? He as not withdrawn his confession and it totally dishonest of you to say he had, right?

Basically you lied and refuse to acknowledge your lie, correct?

If CNN lied then I lied. But until CNN has retracted its story, headlined: "3 Guantanamo detainees withdraw offer to confess" I'll stick with it. Sorry.

And even if they would confess in the future, the fact that the US has applied torture on these people would make any confession worthless. Read the new article from Paul Craig Roberts, who is a right wing conservative and was member of the Reagan government:

In the United States, the country with the largest prison population in the world, the number of wrongly convicted is very large. Hardly any felony charges are resolved with trials. The vast majority of defendants, both innocent and guilty, are coerced into plea bargains. Not only are the innocent framed, but the guilty as well.

We have to ask ourselves why American service men and women and CIA operatives delight in torturing people about whom they know nothing? It has been well known since the Stalin era that torture never produces accurate information. Yet, US soldiers and CIA personnel jumped at the green light given to torture by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the US Department of Justice. Why weren’t our soldiers shocked instead at the immorality of their leaders?

Deborah Davies of the BBC’s Channel 4 undertook a four-month investigation of the torture of American prisoners inside American prisons. Videos taken by sadistic prison guards and videos recovered from surveillance cameras reveal horrible acts of torture and even of murder of prisoners by prison guards.

 

[9/11-investigator]

This is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, or the a priori/a posteriori fallacy. Had Silverstein been killed in the attacks, you would not now be identifying him as a possible suspect, but someone else, whose survival you would then be claiming as a coincidence.

I have discovered that the Silverstein family was absent (in the way described) on the day that I posted it and clearly AFTER I had identified Larry as being a central plotter

Have you determined how many other people weren't in the Twin Towers that morning because of some minor unusual circumstance? Have you analysed the normal routines of everyone who was killed in the attacks to determine how many wouldn't normally have been at work at that time but happened to get in early due to unusual circumstances? How does that compare with the number of people who would be early or late on any other day? If you want to make an argument from probability, you need some statistics to back it up.

Why should I. They are not suspect in a terror plot

There's another point to consider. If Silverstein knew in advance of the attack, why attract suspicion by establishing a routine of being in the crash zone every day at the time of the attack, then depart from it on the day? Your theory now requires either that Silverstein was stupid enough to go out of his way to draw attention to himself, or that he only found out that the attacks were happening at all less than 24 hours in advance.

Dave

It was his job to be at the WTC.

 

[twinstead]

These 'faked' phone calls that 9/11-investigator is trying desperately to handwave away will not go away. Not only does his claim of fake not have any evidence to support it, but now he's resorted to arguments from incredulity (he just CAN'T believe they would be so calm. It must be suspicious)

I'm sorry, I know this is a moderated thread, but I find that line of argument simply pathetic for somebody who calls himself an 'investigator'.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Could you inform what according to you the financial consequences were for Silverstein. With links please.

You see, this AGAIN is what I mean about checking your claims against the information organized at the sites I and others have linked earlier. If you would have done that, you would have seen the very links you're asking for.

But since you didn't, here you go. Dave Rodgers already linked a central aggregate source: 9/11 Myths.

As with just about any 9/11 topic, 9/11 Myths gives a wealth of links to sources on the financial impact of 9/11 on Silverstein. Start with http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html and follow the links given in the article (I wouldn't normally say that, but in the circumstances I think I should point out that I'm not suggesting you just read the 9/11 Myths page then come up with a rationalisation for ignoring it).

When you've done that, it really might be a good idea to read everything else on the 9/11 Myths site and follow all the other links before you come back here.

Dave

But, given that you seem to only want to follow links on truther sites, I'll go ahead and repeat the 9/11 Myths information here, and add to it with other sources from the net:

Insurance coverage paid/to be paid to Larry Silverstein: A court decision basically limits the insurance payout to the "fair market value" of the properties (Source: CNNMoney.com article). That figure is placed at roughly $4.6 billion (Silversteinproperties.com places that figure at "$4.55 billion; a 2006 Time Magazine article and Insurancejournal.com article both placed the payout at $4.6 billion, most other sites seem to center on that amount, so that's the figure 9/11 Myths chooses to cite).

Costs of rebuilding the WTC site have been high. Silversteinproperties.com puts the site total at $17 billion; a lawsuit they filed against the insurers and airlines claimed the replacement costs were $16.2 billion (source is the same CNNMoney.com article linked above). A NY Times article pegged it at $10 billion, although that was written back in 2003. A different, newer (2006) NYTimes article provides a more sober $6.3 billion, but it comes out and only references four of the six planned towers, so I don't know what that article is leaving out (Possibly WTC 7 is one of them, since that's already been rebuilt?). Regardless, the cost estimates range from a low $6-some billion to a high of $17 billion, depending on what you include. However, keep in mind that insurance is not the only thing that's going to pay for those properties. New York has around $8 billion in "Liberty Bonds" for general economic stimulation, a portion of which will be directed at the Ground Zero rebuilding projects. Time.com puts that figure at about $3.3 billion.

Add the $4.55 billion Silverstein's own site is claiming he's gotten from insurance to the $3.3 blillion disbursement from the Liberty bonds project, and you have a total of $7.85 billion directed at the rebuilding project. Now, turn around and look at the costs: The low end is $6.3 billion, which actually leaves a surplus, but again, that article only discusses 4 of the 6 planned towers. If we presumed a $6.3 billion dollar estimate for those 4, we would actually be looking an incomplete rebuilding project; it may be a valid figure for the 4 towers, but we'd need to know what the remaining two costs to truly analyze whether Silverstein makes a profit or a loss. Furthermore, the very source citing the figure predicts that cost will rise:

But one thing is certain: the cost of the buildings, now estimated at $6.3 billion, is going to jump. Jones Lang LaSalle, the real estate company advising the Port Authority, has built inflation into the numbers. Construction costs are continuing to escalate, at the rate of 1 percent a month.

''I don't know how long it'll continue,'' said Frank J. Sciame, the former chairman of the New York Building Congress, ''but that's the case for the next year or two.''

Regardless, taking the $6.3 billion figure leaves a $1.55 billion dollar surplus, but also leaves two towers unbuilt. And doesn't yet account for the rising costs. Let's take the cost of the already rebuilt 7 World Trade building as a guide: It cost $700 million to build that tower (Source). Presume another building cost that much. You'd have $1.4 billion dollars to spend to account for the two buildings left out, bringing your total expenditure to $7.7 billion. There's still a surplus - $150 million - but at that point, you need to start understanding that we've only been discussing the costs of rebuilding the site so far. I haven't yet looked up monetary losses from the loss of tenants or the remaining mortgage he had on the now destroyed buildings. Or ongoing costs just to keep himself associated with that site. Note that Silverstein needs to pay $120 million in rent to the Port Authority per year just to maintain his right to rebuild on that site (Source; another, different source for the same figure linked at 9/11 Myths). So for just one year, you've already taken that surplus down to $30 million.

But the towers have been down since late 2001. We're 7 years later; run that "rent" total up to $840 million for that time period. Yes, the PANYNJ has been charging him that; in fact, the Downtownexpress site linked above for the $120 million dollar figure mentioned a PANYNJ proposal to reduce that rent in return for Silverstein giving up some of his control over the rebuilding, so we know that, at least up till the point the article was written (Jan. 2006), the rent was being charged. So even if we discuss an incomplete rebuilding, even if we discuss a "rent" readjustment, we're still looking at a loss in the tens of millions (presume $120 million for 5 years - from '01 to '06. That's $600 million. Add that to the figures above:

• $6.3 billion rebuild for 4 towers.
• ~$1.4 billion for other 2 towers, presuming costs to build those are similar to 7 World Trade.
• $600 million "rent" to PANYNJ
• $8.3 billion in expenditures total by 2006 (reminder: It's 2008 now, and the reconstruction won't be finished for several years yet).
• $7.7 billion in insurance plus bonds payout.

That all means that there's a $600 million shortfall so far. And that's presuming a couple of recurring costs stopped in 2006.

What if we took the 2003 $10 billion estimate? He's falling $2.85 billion short.

What if we took him at his word in his insurance and airlines lawsuit and used the $16.2 billion dollar figure? He'd be $8.35 billion short at that point.

The best estimate so far - which once again, stops a recurring cost in 2006, the last year I have reasonably reliable information for regarding that cost - has him only (only!) losing $600 million. A worst case, presuming he's telling the entire truth and presuming estimates on the rebuild are correct, is $8.35 billion.

We haven't even accounted for his lost rent from his tenants not being there. We haven't even accounted for his losses due to mortgage obligations on the original towers (anyone know what that latter figure is, BTW?).

And you want to call him "Lucky"?

Well, anyway, there are your links.


-----


As an aside: It's funny that you ignore the more substantial posts to respond to what was essentially a sarcastic rejoinder. And it's even funnier that you look for substantiation when you yourself post things like the following:

They are dead of course. Crashed into the twin towers and near Shanksville.

I am saying that they were never on the phone. It were Israeli agents who faked that said passengers were on the phone.

Note that you yourself have provided zero substantiation of the involvement of Israeli agents (or Israeli anythings, for that matter) in any aspect of 9/11. You merely provided one link to an eavesdropping technology. So anyway, for that one former issue - the supposed interception of the 9/11 flight hijack victims calls - can you provide proof other than a link describing a technology used to compromise government secure lines? Or in other words, can you provide your own links or evidence showing that the technology you cited was actually applied to intercept mundane calls from the various passengers?

And then, can you provide any substantiation that the voice morphing technology can actually account for interactive calls, such as the Betty Ong one, for starters? So far you hav merely provide an unsupported opinion, not a truly supported argument with evidence for this specific point.

I figure this request is fair, since you have asked me to support my own contention of Silverstein's monetary losses. Can you please provide your own substantiation on those two points? I've made them very specific, so it shouldn't be too hard to fill that request.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Really? No kink? No broken glass? Are you seriously going with that?

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc7kinkbrokenglass.jpg[/qimg]

Could you tell when this picture is taken: during or before the fall?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oops, personally offended? You're probably not of Arabic descent either. I wonder if I'm the only (Dutch) Saxon here.

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you accusing us all of being Jewish?

I honestly don't get it. I mean, had you just said the secnd part, about suspecting you were the lone Saxon (by the way, hi, I'm British, and therefore a big ol' mix of Celt, Norman, Saxon, Roman, and all kinds of other weird and wonderful things) then I would have wondered why you came to that conclusion. However when you add the first part it makes it sound like you're accusing the whole of the JREF forum of being Jewish.

 

[doobiedoright]

I hate to tell you this but your link about larry's kids proves he had no clue what was coming!
No man would put his own children in harms way!
You have debunked yourself!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Ok, I'm a little confused. Are you accusing us all of being Jewish?

I honestly don't get it. I mean, had you just said the secnd part, about suspecting you were the lone Saxon (by the way, hi, I'm British, and therefore a big ol' mix of Celt, Norman, Saxon, Roman, and all kinds of other weird and wonderful things) then I would have wondered why you came to that conclusion. However when you add the first part it makes it sound like you're accusing the whole of the JREF forum of being Jewish.

It's fine to be a Jew, German, English, Muslim or hey, even Dutch. The word 'accusing' has no meaning in the context of identifying someone's ethnicity/religion. I was exaggerating when I was 'wondering' (not 'accusing') if I was the only Saxon around here, because I know very well that that's not the case. Having said that it's obvious that there are a lot of Jews here (that's fine) who obviously do not like my theory (that's understandable) but try to link it to 'anti-semitism'. That's not fine. I believed the Muslim-OCT a long time myself, then gradually shifted to a vague American-inside-job notion. The Israeli CT is of recent date... why? Because I cannot explain 9/11 in another way. And the fact that we're now in page 30 with 75% debunker posts and 25% ICT posts shows that it was not possible to blast my theory away at least as a possibility. I admit I cannot prove it, but at least my theory is more satisfying than yours (in my eyes at least).

 

[stateofgrace]

If CNN lied then I lied. But until CNN has retracted its story, headlined: "3 Guantanamo detainees withdraw offer to confess" I'll stick with it. Sorry.

.

NO,CNN did not lie, you LIED and you know it. You did not read further than the headlines, liar.

2nd paragraph

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- the confessed architect of the attacks who was captured two years later in Pakistan -- and four other alleged co-conspirators asked a military judge Monday whether they could withdraw all pending motions and plead guilty to conspiracy and murder charges, Maj. Gail Crawford said in an e-mail.

You lied, you knowingly lied and you have not got common manners to acknowledge your lies.

You call yourself 911 Investigator and you cannot be bothered to read beyond the headlines on CNN. Your entire theory is based on poor research more poor research and outright lies.

I cannot stand liars off the net and see no reason to tolerate them while on a debating forum. Your pathetic posts deserve no more of my time

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility - moderated thread.

 

[X]

the fact that we're now in page 30 with 75% debunker posts and 25% ICT posts shows that it was not possible to blast my theory away at least as a possibility.

Yes it is.


Your "theory" requires the use of technology not in existence now, nevermind in 2001. You keep ignoring and hand-waving away this point, but the fact remains that the demolition charges, the remote control system, and the real-time voice morphing technologies do not exist.

At best, you can link to similar products, that do not fulfill the requirements of your "theory". Of course, you conveniently overlook that last bit.

Take the voice morphing technology you've been harping on about. It requires a sample of the intended voice saying the exact phrases to be uttered. Useful, if you are really bad at karaoke. Useless for the phone calls. Unless you are claiming that the masterminds of this had all this stuff pre-recorded ahead of time, even the personal information from last-minute fliers. In which case, why not just use the recordings?

You have not one single shred of proof of any of your allegations. You claim Mossad is listening in on phone calls. For proof, you link to eavesdropping technology. But this does not prove it was in use!

You're "theory" is a collection of unrelated bit of incredulity, ignorance and deceit, held together with treacle and wallpaper glue.

So yes, we can blast away the possibility of it being implemented. Because, as presented, it requires impossibilities and makes no sense.

Please re-read the thread, as it appears you have been ignoring the posts showing this to you.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Your "theory" requires the use of technology not in existence now, nevermind in 2001....and the real-time voice morphing technologies do not exist.

Take the voice morphing technology you've been harping on about. It requires a sample of the intended voice saying the exact phrases to be uttered. Useful, if you are really bad at karaoke. Useless for the phone calls.

Unless you are claiming that the masterminds of this had all this stuff pre-recorded ahead of time, even the personal information from last-minute fliers. In which case, why not just use the recordings?

I'm glad that you can learn something because you can have real time voice morphing TONIGHT on you own computer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5Byi15Tfw
1:22-1:28 for real voices, the rest is robotic/alien nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLw0hx1sFqs
Voice morphing applied to singing ('karaoke'). How to upgrade a horrible voice into something much better.

You have not one single shred of proof of any of your allegations. You claim Mossad is listening in on phone calls. For proof, you link to eavesdropping technology. But this does not prove it was in use!

Never said anything different. But now you acknowledge it apparently as a distinct possibility after all.

So yes, we can blast away the possibility of it being implemented. Because, as presented, it requires impossibilities and makes no sense.

Now be a good sports and admit that you just have been proven wrong on real-time voice morphing (at least anno 2008 on a home computer).

Again, this link talks about near real-time high quality voice morphing. Between that demo and 9/11 was two-and-a-half year. Computer technology around 2000 made huge increases in processing power, so it is not unreasonable to assume that we can drop the 'near' anno 9/11.

 

[Alt+F4]

Take the voice morphing technology you've been harping on about. It requires a sample of the intended voice saying the exact phrases to be uttered. Useful, if you are really bad at karaoke. Useless for the phone calls. Unless you are claiming that the masterminds of this had all this stuff pre-recorded ahead of time, even the personal information from last-minute fliers. In which case, why not just use the recordings?

It's beyond ridiculous. So these super-smart Mossad agents not only had voice samples of ever single person on the planes they also had everyone's family members home, work, and cell phone numbers. In addition they knew exactly number to call which means they knew which family members were at work, which were at home, who works nights, etc.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You see, this AGAIN is what I mean about checking your claims against the information organized at the sites I and others have linked earlier. If you would have done that, you would have seen the very links you're asking for.

But since you didn't, here you go.

- First of all thank you for the extensive answer.
- Second: I never claimed that the essence of 9/11 was an attempt at making Larry even richer than he already was. The real combined geo-strategic aim was PNAC/Clean Break. But, Larry probably would not have gone along with the plot if he had to suffer damage because of it.
- Third: in order to judge if financial gain could have played a role in Larry's going along with Zakheim's master plan one should look at the financial perspective of 2001, not what materialized of these expectations anno 2008.
- Fourth: what is missing in your review is any consideration regarding the asbestos issues. Architect Richard Gage (somewhat mildly disrespected around here) claims that at least 1 billion was needed to solve this problem; further he claims that the twin towers were big money losers.

What did Silverstein have in july 2001?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein
In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center...Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001... The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space.

What does this mean? This is a sincere question. He had a 99 year 'lease'. I interpret this as 'rent'.
1. Does this mean that he paid 3.2 billion just to be allowed to pay an additional rent? (these 10 million/month)
2. Or was this 3.2 billion smeared out over 99 years?
3. Was it assumed that the buildings would be written off after a century?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And the fact that we're now in page 30 with 75% debunker posts and 25% ICT posts shows that it was not possible to blast my theory away at least as a possibility.

What?? Your theory is contradicted by the evidence, and you have been shown this. Adam Smith in post 20 directly refuted your opening statements, and much of the rest of this thread has been you ignoring the refutations and continuing to make arguments based on incorrect information. For example, regardless of the small number of calls that were made from cell phones, you still haven't conceded that the 9/11 calls could indeed have been made.

You want some more examples? Gumboot directly addressed one of your claims regarding airport security in post #67, and Hokulele did the same in post #204, and you've just outright ignored it. Funk de fino and defaultdotxbe pointed out the existence of falsifying evidence to the power-down claim in post #74 and #92. Multiple people from post #125 on negated your PNAC claim, especially Hokulele in post #126 and #160, the latter being exceptionally detailed. Dave Rodgers addressed a WTC 7 and a Pentagon claim in post #134. And I'm not even past the 5th page of the thread yet! In all of those cases, you've either a. Ignored/Not responded, b. Gave a flippant response, or 3. failed to support your contention with your response. And you think your arguments are worth something??

More examples:

Gumboot directly refuted your claim that "(t)here is nothing to be found about Bingham and 'flight 95'" in post #173.

Gumboot also pointed out the weakness of your claim regarding Mohammed Atta's father's statement in post #222.

ktesibios, ellindsey, and X produced multiple posts explaining why remote control of Boeing jets was not possible, and while you answered those, ellindsey's in detail, your response relied on much unproven, unsupported allegations of how technology works, and no actual proof that such technology even existed at the time, let alone were used on the jets. And you've yet to produce any substantive response to X's post #343 and #457.

You tried to rebut one of Dave Rodgers' posts refuting the notion of Israelis being involved in in post #398, and you responded with the tired old "Dancing Israelis" fantasy. Which in turn was refuted yet again in post #405 and #415. GStan also chimed in with additional information regarding those Israelis in #417.

Dr. Adequate firmly refuted a laundry list of your mistakes in post #436.

There have been multiple substantive rebuttals to your claims. Problem is, when you aren't ignoring them, you're posting weak defenses of them. I can understand missing posts in a very active thread, but when you do respond, the responses don't well support the argument. They certainly haven't had the same level of supporting information as our arguments have. And you think that somehow, arguments that are unsupported or poorly supported are at the same level of validity as ones where supporting information is supplied? You think that disproven arguments are still somehow valid?

Why don't you acknowledge your errors about PNAC?

Why don't you acknowledge your thesis about airport security being handled by Huntleigh is wrong?

Why do you keep trying to defend the notion of remote controlled planes when you have been shown what the state of aircraft technology is at in these times?

Why do you continue to believe Silverstein profited from 9/11, when you were given a link all the way back on the first page of posts that demonstrates your contentions are wrong? And do you think you can continue thinking this in the face of the information I have collected for you, just above here?

Your theory has been blasted away. Into pieces. All you do is leap from one issue to another, without acknowledging the refutation of earlier points. And for the ones that are still being addressed, your defenses of them lack substance. The fact that we're now at page 30 demonstrates that it takes a lot of text to disprove such egregious and fundamental errors. It does not establish that there's any validity to your "theories". Quite the opposite, in fact. It demonstrates that the further you go with them, the deeper the refutations get, and the more obvious the contradictions and outright errors in your arguments become. It demonstrates the weight of inconsistencies and the absence of foundation.

I admit I cannot prove it, but at least my theory is more satisfying than yours (in my eyes at least).

Satisfaction is not a reasonable measure of truthfulness. Supporting evidence is. Logical consistency is. Adherence to fact is. A theory's ability to satisfy a person is irrelevant. A theory's ability to properly reflect an event, properly acknowledge, explain and embrace factual points, and provide a way to validate or falsify future arguments consistently is what matters. Your "theory" - in reality, a spun fantasy - does not do any of that.

 

[9/11-investigator]

NO,CNN did not lie, you LIED and you know it. You did not read further than the headlines, liar.

2nd paragraph

You lied, you knowingly lied and you have not got common manners to acknowledge your lies.

Strong language again. Ehhh, maybe it's my English but how about you reading on until the fourth paragraph: "After the judge made that ruling, Mohammed, Ali and Attash rescinded their offer to plead guilty."

It is my understanding that in the end KSM did NOT offer to plead guilty.

And I repeat: I reject any 'justice' system that operates on the basis of torture and plea bargain as barbaric and unworthy of any civil society.

You call yourself 911 Investigator and you cannot be bothered to read beyond the headlines on CNN. Your entire theory is based on poor research more poor research and outright lies.

I cannot stand liars off the net and see no reason to tolerate them while on a debating forum. Your pathetic posts deserve no more of my time

Pray Lord that stateofgrace keeps his promise this time (in my heart I know better).

But stateofgrace, I really want to congratulate you that you found the 'mastermind of 9/11'. Chapeau!

P.S. ABC (MSM): "According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

Is anybody defending these practices, apart from stateofgrace?