Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[JihadJane]

What do you consider to be "authenticated"?

Using your same logic, it can't be authenticated that the CIA tortured KSM. Just because they said so? Can you authenticate that they really said so? As far as your logic is concerned it is unsubstantiated.

The KSM admission started off as a video tape and, after being confiscated by the "terrorists", eventually resurfaced as a distorted, edited audio tape. There is no record of what happened to it in between.

Good evidence?

But let's face it, this is just your way of picking and choosing the evidence you want. But when faced with having to present evidence of what you want to believe happened, you aren't able to present a single bit of it. The hypocrisy being that your beliefs are based on 100% conjecture and hearsay, but in order to do so, you must hand wave evidence.

Is this based on anything I have written or is it just a shot in the dark? Please describe how I have hand waved evidence.

The KSM tape is hearsay.


- - - - - - -

You do understand that the vast majority of evidence from the 911 Commission Report is testimony before KSM was captured? You have read the report, correct? His confession isn't necessary, all the evidence that was gathered points to his involvement. The fact that he has confessed, although unnecessary, just corroborates the evidence that was gathered. Anybody can make a confession, but without corroboration, it's meaningless. So, using torture as an excuse, is not a valid argument.

What I understand is that a large amount of the information in the Commisssion Report about al Qaeda is sourced to KSM. I haven’t disputed whether or not KSM was involved in 911 but have argued that the Commission's generous use of his torture-derived "evidence" does not suggest that the the Report was, as you assert, "thoroughly researched". Was that the best evidence they had about al Qaeda? Extracted by torture?


- - - - - - - - -

How do you admit responsibility for something that hasn't happened? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interview was conducted after September 11, 2001. Not before it. If you cannot even get facts as simple as that correct, why on earth do you think anyone is going to care what you have to say?

You assume that I believe that "anyone is going to care" what I have to say on this forum. That is not one of my ambitions! I am a realist. I take very few people on this forum seriously and expect the same in return.

Thanks for your correction. I knew once... even the interviewer got a bit confused about dates. Blush. My embarrassing slip-up does not, however, have any bearing on my point. Even if KSM's "confession" , evidenced by a distorted, edited audio tape of a video tape, with no chain of possession, could be authenticated, it would not alter the fact that evidence extracted with torture is considered very unreliable, if not worthless. That KSM had already "confessed" does not make this evidence stronger in any way. (Edited transcripts of KSM interrogations were all Commissioners saw.)

For the 911 Commission to use such material as a major source suggests that their Report, at least in this very important area, was not as thoroughly researched as TexasJack asserts, above.

Likewise, only a tiny fraction of the 9/11 Commission Report references back to CIA interviews which may have utilised torture. None of these interviews whatsoever have any bearing on the Commission's account of what happened on 9/11 itself.

I understand that the Report used KSM as a major source of information about al Qaeda's operation. Am I wrong? All of the references to KSM's words were very likely from interviews that utilised torture. Only one torturing is necessary for fear of its repetition to be utilised as often as the interrogators please.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The KSM admission started off as a video tape and, after being confiscated by the "terrorists", eventually resurfaced as a distorted, edited audio tape. There is no record of what happened to it in between.

Good evidence?

When added with the rest of the evidence? yes. Completely coherent and consistent. Not to mention your convenient use of speculation to imply something was altered in the process. Good evidence? Oh wait, NO evidence of that huh?

Is this based on anything I have written or is it just a shot in the dark? Please describe how I have hand waved evidence.

The KSM tape is hearsay.

It's based on many things you have said. And it's not hearsay. It's backed up by the rest of the evidence and keep in mind you are dismissing TWO confessions. And you are using this to dismiss the rest of the evidence which far outweighs the two confessions.

 

[dtugg]

I guess KSM just admitted to the whole thing, more than once, just for the hell of it. I am sure that he loves being held prisoner at Gitmo, it sounds like a lot of fun. I bet he cannot wait to be executed at the hands of his sworn enemies for something that he did not do.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I guess KSM just admitted to the whole thing, more than once, just for the hell of it. I am sure that he loves being held prisoner at Gitmo, it sounds like a lot of fun. I bet he cannot wait to be executed at the hands of his sworn enemies for something that he did not do.

Heh. The John Mark Karr of Al-Qaeda...?

 

[TexasJack]

What I understand is that a large amount of the information in the Commisssion Report about al Qaeda is sourced to KSM. I haven’t disputed whether or not KSM was involved in 911 but have argued that the Commission's generous use of his torture-derived "evidence" does not suggest that the the Report was, as you assert, "thoroughly researched". Was that the best evidence they had about al Qaeda? Extracted by torture?

I'm glad you admit to KSM's involvement, but he is not the only detainee they derived information from. There were in fact 10 detainees that they gathered information from, but again, this was not the only evidence they had against Al-Qaeda and their involvement in 911. Please read the report, it is a well-researched document, and if you would like to impeach any of the testimony in it, do so, categorically.

I know you like to dismiss Fouda's interview with KSM, but unless you're calling him a liar, KSM did confess before his capture.

 

[Sparky]

My favorite method for dealing with Twoofers at my company is to fire them. It may be unfair but it is efficient.

 

[1337m4n]

Again, where we disagree is in the standard of evidence.

What is your "standard of evidence"? What do you want from us? What can we give you that would change your mind about 9/11?

You state that you disagree about the standard of evidence. This implies that you have an idea as to what this standard of evidence should be. So tell us. Exactly what is your standard of evidence? You know what ours is; we deem the currently existing evidence to be more than sufficient. But we don't know what yours is. And you have not told us. THAT is the reason we get frustrated (aside from your veiled insults and question-dodging, that is): because you keep complaining that there is "insufficient evidence", yet never define what would be "sufficient evidence".

We are interested in your definition of "sufficient evidence". If you cannot provide such a definition, it will just show that you are not actually here to learn, but rather to earn internet debate points. If you were truly interested in learning, you would tell us what it is you seek to learn!

 

[gumboot]

Just to be clear here, the importance of KSM's interrogations in the 9/11 Commission Report is routinely exaggerated by Conspiracy Theorists. Here's a break down of the footnote sources for the report:

Chapter One:
241 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Two:
93 notes
1 reference KSM only
7 reference KSM along with others
1.1% exclusive
7.5% collaborated

Chapter Three:
114 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Four:
194 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Five:
132 notes
16 reference KSM only
34 reference KSM along with others
12.1% exclusive
25.8% collaborated

Chapter Six:
261 notes
1 reference KSM along with others
0.4% collaborated

Chapter Seven:
192 notes
12 reference KSM only
29 reference KSM along with others
6.3% exclusive
15.1% collaborated

Chapter Eight:
113 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Nine:
210 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Ten:
86 notes
1 references KSM only
1.2% exclusive

Chapter Eleven:
42 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Twelve:
42 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Thirteen:
22 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

So, what we've got here then, is only two chapters that use interrogations of KSM as evidence in any substantial way (Chapter 5 and Chapter 7), and even in these chapters only 12% and 6% of all notes rely exclusively on his interrogations.

Overall, the 9/11 Commission Report contains 1742 notes, of which, only 30 (or 1.7%) reference exclusively to interrogations of KSM.

Now, to be fair, much of the report relates to matters that KSM could not offer any insight into, so we'll exclude them.

Chapter One - The Flights on 9/11
Chapter Two - Beginnings of Al Qaeda/Radical Islam
Chapter Three - Development of Counter-Terrorism
Chapter Four - Specific Responses to Al Qaeda
Chapter Five - Al Qaeda Aims at USA
Chapter Six - Continuing Responses from US Government
Chapter Seven - The 9/11 Plot Unfolds
Chapter Eight - Threat Assessment Prior to Attack
Chapter Nine - Emergency Response on 9/11
Chapter Ten - Post 9/11 US Response
Chapter Eleven - Analysis
Chapter Twelve - Recommendations
Chapter Thirteen - Recommendations

For this purpose, I believe Chapter 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 can be excluded, leaving Chapters 2, 5, and 7 as Chapters KSM could provide insight for.

Of these 3 chapters, there are 417 notes, of which 29 (6.9%) exclusively reference KSM interrogations, and 70 (16.8%) reference KSM interrogations but are also collaborated by additional sources.

In conclusion, I believe it is not only gross exaggeration, but an outright lie to claim that "most" or "much" or even "a lot" of the 9/11 Commission Report relies on KSM's tortured confessions.

 

[TexasJack]

My favorite method for dealing with Twoofers at my company is to fire them. It may be unfair but it is efficient.

My question is why did you hire them in the first place?

 

[Sparky]

My question is why did you hire them in the first place?

When I hired them I didn't know they were so stupid!

 

[TexasJack]

When I hired them I didn't know they were so stupid!

LOL...I love your avatar btw.

 

[A W Smith]

Jane. why are you here? Insane in the membrane

The purpose of debunking is to provide refuge for those with damaged egos who need to be repeatedly reassured that they are right and that everyone else outside their select, enlightened group is a moron.

Partly.

If so, to what purpose?

So why have you posted 25 times today Jane? Every post from a defensive position. Is your ego damaged? What is your purpose here? You have had no net effect on the opinions of debunkers here. A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result. Are you Insane Jane? Does it not disturb you to have your world view rejected?

 

[Sparky]

LOL...I love your avatar btw.

Great movie.

 

[1337m4n]

A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result.

And I have to say thus that pretty much the entire Truth Movement is insane, having done little more than post on the Internet and organize protest rallies of single-digit attendance.

 

[JihadJane]

So why have you posted 25 times today Jane? Every post from a defensive position. Is your ego damaged? What is your purpose here? You have had no net effect on the opinions of debunkers here. A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result. Are you Insane Jane? Does it not disturb you to have your world view rejected?

Thanks for everyone's various responses, above. Haven't got much time right now to respond to anyone in full but found the comment by A W Smith, above interesting,amusing and enlightening.

I'm also curious to know how he/she reached the conclusion implicit in this question. :

"So why have you posted 25 times today Jane? Every post from a defensive position".

Every post from "a defensive position" A W Smith?! How many of these these "25" posts have you read?

 

[Ethnikos]

Atta in Venice

The official version of Atta, accordig to Wikipedia says:

In early September 2001, Atta traveled to Maryland, where Hani Hanjour was at the time. Atta then traveled to Boston, and on September 10, he traveled with Abdulaziz al-Omari to Portland, Maine. On the morning of September 11, Atta and al-Omari flew on Colgan Air back to Boston, where they boarded American Airlines Flight 11.

Another version is that he drove from Florida to Portland. He was in Venice, FL on the tenth of September. A friend of mine knew him and saw him that afternoon.

 

[TexasJack]

I just had to come over here for a minute after reading all of turbofan's posts and unleash one of these:

 

[Orphia Nay]

Now there are posts from the last 6 days on the first page of the 9/11 CT forum.

About a year ago, there were only posts from one day, or at most two.

 

[Brainache]

The official version of Atta, accordig to Wikipedia says:

Another version is that he drove from Florida to Portland. He was in Venice, FL on the tenth of September. A friend of mine knew him and saw him that afternoon.

Your friend's name isn't Amanda Keller, is it?

 

[JihadJane]

Just to be clear here, the importance of KSM's interrogations in the 9/11 Commission Report is routinely exaggerated by Conspiracy Theorists. Here's a break down of the footnote sources for the report:

Chapter One:
241 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Two:
93 notes
1 reference KSM only
7 reference KSM along with others
1.1% exclusive
7.5% collaborated

Chapter Three:
114 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Four:
194 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Five:
132 notes
16 reference KSM only
34 reference KSM along with others
12.1% exclusive
25.8% collaborated

Chapter Six:
261 notes
1 reference KSM along with others
0.4% collaborated

Chapter Seven:
192 notes
12 reference KSM only
29 reference KSM along with others
6.3% exclusive
15.1% collaborated

Chapter Eight:
113 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Nine:
210 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Ten:
86 notes
1 references KSM only
1.2% exclusive

Chapter Eleven:
42 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Twelve:
42 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

Chapter Thirteen:
22 notes
0 references to KSM
0%

So, what we've got here then, is only two chapters that use interrogations of KSM as evidence in any substantial way (Chapter 5 and Chapter 7), and even in these chapters only 12% and 6% of all notes rely exclusively on his interrogations.

Overall, the 9/11 Commission Report contains 1742 notes, of which, only 30 (or 1.7%) reference exclusively to interrogations of KSM.

Now, to be fair, much of the report relates to matters that KSM could not offer any insight into, so we'll exclude them.

Chapter One - The Flights on 9/11
Chapter Two - Beginnings of Al Qaeda/Radical Islam
Chapter Three - Development of Counter-Terrorism
Chapter Four - Specific Responses to Al Qaeda
Chapter Five - Al Qaeda Aims at USA
Chapter Six - Continuing Responses from US Government
Chapter Seven - The 9/11 Plot Unfolds
Chapter Eight - Threat Assessment Prior to Attack
Chapter Nine - Emergency Response on 9/11
Chapter Ten - Post 9/11 US Response
Chapter Eleven - Analysis
Chapter Twelve - Recommendations
Chapter Thirteen - Recommendations

For this purpose, I believe Chapter 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 can be excluded, leaving Chapters 2, 5, and 7 as Chapters KSM could provide insight for.

Of these 3 chapters, there are 417 notes, of which 29 (6.9%) exclusively reference KSM interrogations, and 70 (16.8%) reference KSM interrogations but are also collaborated by additional sources.

In conclusion, I believe it is not only gross exaggeration, but an outright lie to claim that "most" or "much" or even "a lot" of the 9/11 Commission Report relies on KSM's tortured confessions.

Thanks for your statistics most of which, as you say, are irrelevant to establishing the importance of the tortured KSM's role as 'historical" information provider. I'm not sure how useful the remaining ones are either. A better method would be to list information about al Qaeda that is presented in the Report and note its source.

That notwithstanding, an "NBC analysis shows that more than a quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report refer to controversial interrogation techniques."*


* "The 9/11 Commission & Torture: How Information Gained Through Waterboarding & Harsh Interrogations Form Major Part of 9/11 Commission Report:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/7/the_9_11_commission_torture_how

Read how the lovely Philip Zelikow attempts to explain why the Commission relied so heavily on junk information, derived from torture.


----------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to return now to the lovely A W Smith's contribution that I touched on briefly earlier, which can be treated as representative of other, similarly emotional responses to my definition of "debunking"!

Jane. why are you here? Insane in the membrane

Originally Posted by JihadJane
The purpose of debunking is to provide refuge for those with damaged egos who need to be repeatedly reassured that they are right and that everyone else outside their select, enlightened group is a moron.

Partly.

Originally Posted by JihadJane
If so, to what purpose?

So why have you posted 25 times today Jane? Every post from a defensive position. Is your ego damaged? What is your purpose here? You have had no net effect on the opinions of debunkers here. A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result. Are you Insane Jane? Does it not disturb you to have your world view rejected?

I'll break A W Smith's lament into bite-sized chunks:

So why have you posted 25 times today Jane?

Entertainment, mostly, and some intellectual stimulation.

Every post from a defensive position.

Not true.

A couple of examples, from two different threads, of posts that A W Smith perceives as illustrating a "defensive position":

would be able

Some say "pineapple". Others say "pineapple". I say "pineapple". We're all unique.

Overall, A W Smith's brittle personal attack suggests that my belief that debunking offers refuge to damaged egos is correct

Is your ego damaged?

Yes.

What is your purpose here?

As stated above under "Why have you posted 25 times...?"; for a laugh; to subject by beliefs about 911 etc. to informed (?) criticism and to explore "debunker" psychology and politics.

You have had no net effect on the opinions of debunkers here.

Not sure how A W Smith has established this. I certainly seem to have had some sort of an effect on him/her! I don't expect to influence "debunkers'" opinions about 911 any more than I could, for example, influence a committed Christian's beliefs about the Resurrrection. My interest is in observing and understanding "debunker" psychology and politics, sometimes by stimulating discussion.

A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over yet expect a different result.

Though many different shades of politico believe their opponents to be mad this handy delusion is taken to tragicomic extremes by the "debunker", 911'sTwoo Moovement . To believe that mental illness is the only possible explanation for political disagreement suggests a startling lack of imagination and/or life experience. Perhaps it is a similarly blinkered tunnel vision that allows 911 "debunkers" to believe that Intelligence-nurtured operations leave trails of evidence pointing at their participation.

Are you Insane Jane?

No. I'm not really called Jane, either.

Does it not disturb you to have your world view rejected?

No.