• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

9/11 mastermind/Guantanamo detainee trials to begin

You need a coerced confession when you already have an un-coerced confession and mountains of evidence? Are you sure it's not more of a mole hill? You're making more and more sense all the time. Keep talking.

I don't need anything at all; I have no stake in any of this. You have the need to make mole hills out of mountains; you are the one with the fantastical claims.



They still need to rule on whether or not the coerced confessions will be admissible or not and it was all just for revenge?
Beats me. I guess you missed the shoulder shrug in my flippant answer. However, I don't doubt that KSM ended up in the hands of some very angry and very serious people. I would have preferred that he be treated humanely, but I have difficulty mustering up sympathy for him.



It does if that treatment is what got most of the so-called evidence.
It isn't. But you already knew that.



Lame excuses do not equate an answer to my questions.
You want me to justify torture? Sorry, not going to do it. In fact, as you pointed out, it may hurt the govt's case. It's still not evidence that he didn't do it.



Depends on the circumstances and right now the circumstances are torture.
And my question was under what circumstances would you accept a confession? We already know that you don't accept both KSM's coerced and un-coerced confessions.



Not if he was tortured. I don't believe most of what he claims anyway regardless of what it is. And not so-much because he's a liar but because he's a dumbass and he's just generally wrong. That being said why the hell would a stooge have to fully be in on anything?
OK. So if Bush was tortured and confessed, you would be sceptical. You imply that you would also be sceptical of an un-coerced confession based on your perception of Bush's general idiocy. In that case, how about [insert nefarious Bush administration individual(s) who are, in your opinion, likely suspects]? Same question.
 
I am glad they're finally doing this. In my opinion they should have done this some time ago. This is like the Nuremberg Trials - these people are captured enemy combatants who have committed war crimes, and it is appropriate they they are tried by military tribunal.

I can't see the waterboarding to be a major issue as there is almost certainly ample evidence to convict these people without requiring forced statements from other prisoners.

I find the list of charges laid quite telling - they're all war crime charges, and very different to the charges laid in civil courts against those involved in the attacks. I think it's good that the USA has finally adjusted its mindset. Terrorism is a civil criminal act, yes. But Al Qaeda are not just a terrorist organisation. They are a military enemy of the USA that employs terrorist tactics. As such they must be treated very differently.
Gumboot, the objects of LC and Mr Photon are also indicators of "moving the goalposts". One of the biggest objections to the "official story" was that there were no charges laid. I think you can still go to oilempire and similar sites and find that one in black and white.

Now there are charges--so, move the goalposts a little bit--it's the "illegal" way of gathering some of the information that's the issue. Can you imagine how long we'd be waiting for the charges to be laid against the right people after the "truth movement" legal team had finished grilling Dick Cheney, Dr Frank Gayle, General Richard Myers, and Scooter Libby?
 
Well there you go. Maybe he was just bragging about being involved in 9/11 when actually he had nothing to do with it.

In the exact same room as a man who lived with, and wired money to people whos remains were found in destroyed airplanes on September 11th and present in matyrdom videos from tarnac farm released a few years later?

I think the chances are quite low don't you?
 
Last edited:
Infact, LastChild, here is a challange for you. An ABC journalist releases a tape of Bush in the Oval Office, with the very clear sounds of him going 'Yes, we made sure the buildings were wired two weeks prior.. It was... gave us mandate to attack.. Cheney stood down.. '

Would you be skeptical about that? I would bet a substantial amount of money you would not.
 
Last edited:
It seems they could use some lessons on how to be so efficient when planning such a vast and complex mission.

Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.
- Get a US Student Visa
- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in
- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence
- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane
- Buy ticket on plane
- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives
- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight
- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter
- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats
- Remove bodies and take controls
- Turn transponder switch to off position
- Log new airport location into Autopilot
- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight
- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.


So what part was vast and complex again?
 
I don't need anything at all; I have no stake in any of this. You have the need to make mole hills out of mountains; you are the one with the fantastical claims.

What fantastical claims have I made?

Beats me. I guess you missed the shoulder shrug in my flippant answer. However, I don't doubt that KSM ended up in the hands of some very angry and very serious people. I would have preferred that he be treated humanely, but I have difficulty mustering up sympathy for him.

Still that doesn't explain why they need revenge torture admissible. Especially since according to you they have mountains of other evidence.

It isn't. But you already knew that.

I have yet to see you point out this mountain of evidence. Is it the same hard evidence they don't have on UBL?

You want me to justify torture? Sorry, not going to do it. In fact, as you pointed out, it may hurt the govt's case. It's still not evidence that he didn't do it.

More importantly it's not evidence that he did.

And my question was under what circumstances would you accept a confession? We already know that you don't accept both KSM's coerced and un-coerced confessions.

A signed un-coerced confession that cooberates his story with other evidence would be a start.

OK. So if Bush was tortured and confessed, you would be sceptical. You imply that you would also be sceptical of an un-coerced confession based on your perception of Bush's general idiocy. In that case, how about [insert nefarious Bush administration individual(s) who are, in your opinion, likely suspects]? Same question.

We would need a real investigation to determine that. For all anyone knows the most they are guilty of is covering-up negligence and accountability for failing to protect the US on 9/11. But as it stands we haven't even got that far in any investigation to date. Just whitewash where no one is held accountable for failing to do their job in protecting America and it's citizens. If you disagree then name someone and how they were held accountable.
 
Infact, LastChild, here is a challange for you. An ABC journalist releases a tape of Bush in the Oval Office, with the very clear sounds of him going 'Yes, we made sure the buildings were wired two weeks prior.. It was... gave us mandate to attack.. Cheney stood down.. '

Would you be skeptical about that? I would bet a substantial amount of money you would not.

Yes I would. I would want to know where this guy was at the time the tape was made for a start...



Now where's my money? And what do you consider substantial amount of money? I hope it's not the same amount as what you consider a substantial amount of evidence.
 
Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.
- Get a US Student Visa
- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in
- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence
- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane
- Buy ticket on plane
- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives
- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight
- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter
- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats
- Remove bodies and take controls
- Turn transponder switch to off position
- Log new airport location into Autopilot
- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight
- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.
So what part was vast and complex again?
Much too difficult tasks for 9/11 truth to grasp. Makes you wonder how dumb you have to be to join such an elite group of morons. Is there a test for 9/11 truth membership? If so what are the questions?
 
What fantastical claims have I made?

Sorry. I was under the impressions that you were a promoter of 9/11 "Truth" conspiracies. Is this incorrect?



Still that doesn't explain why they need revenge torture admissible. Especially since according to you they have mountains of other evidence.

I have yet to see you point out this mountain of evidence. Is it the same hard evidence they don't have on UBL?

I've lurked quite a bit on this sub-forum and I've seen the evidence pointed out time and time again to truthers by knowledgeable folks to no avail. If those people, who are much smarter than me on this subject, can't succeed, I'm not interested in trying.


More importantly it's not evidence that he did.
Agreed. If a confession was tortured out of him, it is useless. But that's not really the point. The circumstantial evidence points to his guilt and he admitted his guilt without coercion. Why do you doubt his guilt? Simply because it is likely he was mistreated during his captivity? That is not a good reason.



A signed un-coerced confession that cooberates his story with other evidence would be a start.

You have that minus the signed part. (I think...I'm not sure about the mechanical details of his un-coerced confession. Maybe someone can step in and clear that up). What makes a signature more compelling than an oral confession that corroborates the circumstantial evidence?


We would need a real investigation to determine that. For all anyone knows the most they are guilty of is covering-up negligence and accountability for failing to protect the US on 9/11. But as it stands we haven't even got that far in any investigation to date. Just whitewash where no one is held accountable for failing to do their job in protecting America and it's citizens. If you disagree then name someone and how they were held accountable.

Well...I don't strongly disagree with this in general. But you are implying that an investigation is only legitimate or "real" unless it comes to a pre-ordained conclusion - namely that someone in the govt be held accountable for negligence. That isn't a "real" investigation.

Nonetheless, even if there was negligence beforehand and ass-covering afterwards, it doesn't alter the fact that KSM confessed and evidence supports his confession.
 
Hmmmmm....

- Ring US flight school and apply for a position.

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Get a US Student Visa

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Fly to the US and set up a flat to stay in

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?


- Attend Flight School and learn to fly just well enough to get commerical licence

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Scope out targets on ground and by air in rented plane

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Buy ticket on plane

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

- Get on board plane carrying allowed weapons like short knives

Is that all they had? How do you know?

- Stand up and announce you have a bomb once plane is airbourne and in steady flight

They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

- Tell crew to open cockpit door if it's locked, else just enter

Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

- Stab pilots while they are strapped into seats

Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

- Remove bodies and take controls

Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

- Turn transponder switch to off position

What does this do and how did they know to turn it off? Does it matter or not? And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking? If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

- Log new airport location into Autopilot

Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

- Sit back and enjoy ride until target is insight

They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

- Look directly at target keeping the point you want to hit in the centre of the windshield.

Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

So what part was vast and complex again?

Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I wonder of LastChild is ever going to read the 9/11 Commission report and its associated staff monographs. I guess not. That's truly sad.
 
Wow, I wonder of LastChild is ever going to read the 9/11 Commission report and its associated staff monographs. I guess not. That's truly sad.

I wonder if Gravy is ever going to fully commit to keeping some people on ignore like he claims to have?
 
I wonder if Gravy is ever going to fully commit to keeping some people on ignore like he claims to have?

In another thread he did say that everyone was off ignore. I asked him directly but he ignored me.
 
Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

So six of your arguments for the operation's complexity are that it cost money?

1) What was the yearly operating budget of Al Qaeda?
2) What was the overall cost of the Planes Operation?
3) How many years did the Planes Operation last?


Is that all they had? How do you know?

It's not necessarily all they had. It's all they needed.


They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

Who said anything about them having a bomb? PhantomWolf merely said they "said" they had a bomb. How many bombs, fake or otherwise, are required in order for an individual to state in English "I have a bomb"?


Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

In September 2001 it would have worked on a thousand planes. One of them was warned 10 minutes beforehand? Which one was this?


Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

They were trained in Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. I imagine some of the pilots were indeed ex-military. What secret do military personnel have that makes them invulnerable to knife cuts?


Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

You already asked that. See above. Although Beachnut claims no real training was necessary.


What does this do and how did they know to turn it off?

Because they went to flight school and read a book about how air traffic works?


Does it matter or not?

Yes. Although not as much as they might think it does.


And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking?

Because the FAA also have primary radars.


If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

Because it makes it harder.


Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

Don't project your ignorance onto others. You can learn how to do all of this using Microsoft Flight Simulator.


They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

Autopilot. Did you miss the bit above about punching a beacon code into the autopilot?


Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

Parallel parking is significantly harder than flying into a building.


Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.

Finally, you get it.
 
Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

For the phone call to the US? I imagine they paid that themselves. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Again, getting a Visa would have been paid for by themselves, it's not that much, I just got my B2 it was NZ$170 and had just gone up from NZ$130. Pre-2001 it would have been much less. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

Tickets to the US again appear to have been paid for by themselves, as was setting up their flats. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?[/quote]

Money for the flight training was wired to them via Ramzi Binalshibh in Germany (and is one of the people listed as to be charged) and through a second intermediatary in UAE. They got wired around a total of $140k. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for that and where did they get the money. Specifically?

How much does it cost to walk around a building? As to the plane rentals, mostly they seem to have used planes they had access to as students and the money would have come from the same place as the training money. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who paid for 19 of them and where did they get the money. Specifically?

asked and answered, twice. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Is that all they had? How do you know?

Passangers and crew reported knives and in one case possible pepper spray. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

They had a bomb? How did they get that on board? Even a fake one? Who was found liable for letting that happen?

Do you need a bomb to claim you have one? We had our first ever hijacking here the other day. A loopy woman attacked the piloits with a knife, injuring them both, and claimed to have a bomb. She didn't have one, but it didn't stop her claiming it. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Or say "open sesame". It'll work four times on four different planes simultaneously. Even when one of them was warned 10 minutes before hand.

All airline crews pre-9/11 were trained and told to follow the instructions of a hijacker. These hijackers showed they were willing to kill people to get their way. Would you refused to have opened the door after seeing them kill someone for not doing so? So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Who trained them to be killers with just "short knives" and who paid for it? Weren't some of the pilots ex-military?

They attended Al Qaeda training camps. As to the pilots being military, I don't care if they were John Rambo. No one, and that means no one, has a chance against a person standing behind them with a knife if they are strapped into a airline cockpit seat, the restrains prevent them from doing so and any pilot will tell you that you can't just instantly release those restraints and stand up, you have to push the seat back and undo them then swing around and get up. By then you're dead. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Take controls? Who paid to teach them that?

Asked and answered. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

What does this do and how did they know to turn it off? Does it matter or not? And if it was off how do you know what the ATC were tracking? If they can still be tracked without it then why turn it off?

Go and look it up on the threads it was gone over, all 150 of them. So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

Wow they knew how to do this too? That's some expensive training. You know so much. Were you there?

Wow, you can learn to do that with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that's how expenisive the training had to be. As to knowing it, the Flight Data Recorder's show that neither 93 or 77 had their autopilots switched off, why should we assume different for 11 and 175? So how hard was and how many people did it take to do it?

They navigated by eye-site or autopilot? Turn left at cloud 9.

Again, the FDR for 77 and 93 say they used the Autopilot until shortly before the crashes, why should 11 and 175 be any different?

Wow you must be a wiz at parallel parking.

Wow, you must be wetting yourself to be old enough to get a driver's licence.

Apparently it's only a vast and complex mission if it was an inside job. If it wasn't an inside job just about anybody could do it according to you.

Anyone could have done it, it wasn't that hard to do.
 
I would like to hear Lastchilds claim of where the money came from. His question has already been answered, he just doesn't think it has been. But I would like his take.
 
Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.
 
Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.


ETA. Pull off all of the above without a single honest person with a conscience finding out.
 
Since LastChild seems to want to compare difficultly and people involved with the different scenarios, I thought perhaps he could answer these too.

- Paint up two planes in Airline colours (How many people involved?)
- Paint up missile in airline colours (How many people?)
- Invent and test entirely new explosives and demolition procedures without detection. (How many people involved?)
- Rig up three entire skyscrapers without detection, including removing and replacing walls over night. (How many people?)
- Invent remote control system for Boeing 757 and 767 that can be installed undetected into planes. Test these undetected. (How many people?)
- Install remote units into six airliners, four of which must remain undetected by the pilots. (How many people?)
- Take control of Flight 11 and 175 then substitute them with fake planes without ATC noticing (How easy is that?)
- Land and dispose of Flight 11 and Flight 175 the get body parts of passengers and crew to Ground Zero. (How many people?)
- Take over and land flights 77 and 93, disposing of them and getting body parts to the Pentagon and Shanksfield. (How many people?)
- Fire disguised missile into Pentagon (How many people?)
- At Pentagon, plant bodies, body parts, aircraft debris, knocked over poles, and cut the top off a nearby tree in a circular fashion (how many people?)
- Blow hole in ground at Shanksfield (including wing and tail markings) then plant aircraft and body parts, being sure to bury most of then at least ten feet into the bottom of the crater so they need removal with a backhoe. (How many people?)
-Detonate special ThermateBlast explosives in a carefully timed sequence to knock down the towers floor by floor (even better wait till the top starts to collapse, then detonate them…) Do this twice for good measure.
-Wait seven hours and detonate the ones in WTC 7.

Yeah that's much easier than simply having some guys fly a plane into a building.

That's some vast conspiracy you have there. Somehow in your AQ theory though they didn't need any of that. How come? Your not playing favorites are you?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom