Can 9/11 Commission Info Derived from Torture Be Trusted?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here's my evidence...

No torture is never an accurate way of gaining information.

So who got tortured for the commission to find out about the pre warnings of an Al Qaeda attack?

Obviously no one since that info has turned out to be correct.

stateofgrace mentions that the warnings were specifically about Al-Qaeda. RedIbis seemingly agrees with this, but wait! RedIbis didn't actually use the name "Al-Qaeda" (or variations thereof) in his response, so he can conveniently deny that he was agreeing with the Al-Qaeda part of the statement he was responding to, while agreeing with the warning part of the statement.

Observe:

Did I say that? What I will certainly say is that there were many warnings of such an attack. Something tells me you won't catch this subtlety.

False dichotomy. You figure out the other options, if you can.

"I didn't say Al-Qaeda. I was merely agreeing with a statement that pointed to Al-Qaeda. I meant someone else."
"Who?"
"Someone..."
"The government?"
"I didn't say that..."
"The Jews?"
"I didn't say that..."

And around and around we go...

 

[bje]

Red is poisoning the well. He's referring to the allegation that the CIA destroyed video's of torture being used during interrogation as background for the report.

Red is playing more gotcha, trying to accumulate CTist points. He's playing games. He should tighten his hoodie, cross his arms and scowl.

Since RedIbis crashed and burned (<-- see Avatar to right) on his claim that,

Unfortunately, there is very little evidence of a commercial airliner at the Pentagon, ...

and ran away from supporting it, he's getting even more desperate. You have to wonder what his purpose is in being here if not to discredit "9/11 Truth" even more.

 

[AZCat]

He's thinking about the Jews, but he won't come out and say it, because he wants to take the high ground. He implies other possibilities, we offer some, he denies that those are what he had in mind, implying that we're lesser humans for trying to put words into his mouth. He'll forever be vague and non-committal.

It's a game. Don't fall for it, people.

Ahhh, the Jews. Does this mean the thread has been Goldwyn'd?

 

[dbalsdon]

Theres a reason half the board has Red on ignore. This thread is a good example why.

The other half just watch, as he continues to scrape the bottom of the barrel, until the point in which he finally goes too far, gets banned, then runs off to a truther forum and whines that he was treated unfairly by jref.

 

[beachnut]

Well then you'd be wrong. A very high level of bifurcated thinking must be maintained to support the official story. In reality it's not that simple.

No you do not mean what you said. You mean 9/11 truth is bifurcated, into crazy as insane ideas and super stupid ideas. The simple ideas are too hard for 9/11 truth. And reality, you have zero reality, in fact you are too afraid to say what you really think because you have no facts to back it up.

Wrong, it takes rational thinking to understand the official story, the truth movement, how did the former president say, "look like idiots".

The article you posted answered your OP. You have to check your information, even if it is from a torture. What did they do, make them listen to 9/11 truth stuff?

 

[RedIbis]

Here's my evidence...





stateofgrace mentions that the warnings were specifically about Al-Qaeda. RedIbis seemingly agrees with this, but wait! RedIbis didn't actually use the name "Al-Qaeda" (or variations thereof) in his response, so he can conveniently deny that he was agreeing with the Al-Qaeda part of the statement he was responding to, while agreeing with the warning part of the statement.

Observe:




"I didn't say Al-Qaeda. I was merely agreeing with a statement that pointed to Al-Qaeda. I meant someone else."
"Who?"
"Someone..."
"The government?"
"I didn't say that..."
"The Jews?"
"I didn't say that..."

And around and around we go...

Oh this gave me a good laugh. The only thing this proves is that any perspective which opposes the official story must ultimately be from an anti-semite.

I think this is what my grandparents would call mashugana, since all four of them spoke fluent yiddish. There are going to be some folks in Israel who are going to want to know why their cousin is a Jewish anti-semite. Great work, Sherlock.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, torture has been used since the beginning of time because it doesn't produce reliable information. It's just done to get unreliable information. And recreation of course since those doing it are always evil and diabolical.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Oh this gave me a good laugh. The only thing this proves is that any perspective which opposes the official story must ultimately be from an anti-semite.

Actually, my "he's thinking of the Jews" was rather tongue-in-cheek. My assessment that you will forever remain vague and non-committal to any specific position is, however, seems to be holding up nicely. Let's test my hypothesis one more time, shall we?

Is your position that the warnings about an Al-Qaeda attack proved true, yet 9/11 was actually carried out by some other group?

 

[RedIbis]

Actually, my "he's thinking of the Jews" was rather tongue-in-cheek. My assessment that you will forever remain vague and non-committal to any specific position is, however, seems to be holding up nicely. Let's test my hypothesis one more time, shall we?

Is your position that the warnings about an Al-Qaeda attack proved true, yet 9/11 was actually carried out by some other group?

Please. There was nothing satiric about it. You played the old card, no different than the bigots you pretend to oppose.

You spent two posts with your so called evidence and observations and now you want to call it tongue-in-cheek.

And you wonder why I don't answer your incessant questions.

 

[T.A.M.]

Red:

It really does not help that you always change topic, or talk yourself around direct questions like you have been asked.

It is a simple question...

Do you believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11?

No qualifiers, no "Perhaps, but..." a simple yes or no answer, the rest is simply perspective, which noone is asking for at this moment.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Red:

It really does not help that you always change topic, or talk yourself around direct questions like you have been asked.

It is a simple question...

Do you believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11?

No qualifiers, no "Perhaps, but..." a simple yes or no answer, the rest is simply perspective, which noone is asking for at this moment.

TAM

Before accusing me of changing topic, you might want to make at least a polite nod to the OP. Your two cents, so to speak...

 

[T.A.M.]

and in fairness, I will give you my answer to the question in the OP.

Yes, information gleaned from people while tortured can be reliable.

Now that I have answered, here is my reasoning for the answer.

If the information in question is obtained SOLELY through the torture of a single witness, than it is NOT RELIABLE.

However, if said information is CONFIRMED via other testimony, gleaned through torture or other means, then it becomes more reliable, with more corroborating evidence making it more and more reliable.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Before accusing me of changing topic, you might want to make at least a polite nod to the OP. Your two cents, so to speak...

lol...see I was even thinking ahead...lol

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

and in fairness, I will give you my answer to the question in the OP.

Yes, information gleaned from people while tortured can be reliable.

Now that I have answered, here is my reasoning for he answer.

If the information in question is obtained SOLELY through the torture of a single witness, than it is NOT RELIABLE.

However, if said information is CONFIRMED via other testimony, gleaned through torture or other means, then it becomes more reliable, with more corroborating evidence making it more and more reliable.

TAM

So, torture the suspect until he comes around to your pet theory?

 

[T.A.M.]

no, I did not say that...

I would say, that leading questions make the answers, especially during torture, MUCH LESS RELIABLE.

I do not condone, and as a matter of fact, I abhore, the concept and use of torture, including waterboarding.

TAM

 

[boloboffin]

So, torture the suspect until he comes around to your pet theory?

He answered your question as you demanded. Before you begin to spin, answer his:

Do you believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11?

 

[LoudHoward]

All the witnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, who found the parts of AA77, who collected and identified the body parts from AA77, who found and decoded the FDR's from AA77 must have been tortured.

Until I see a clear video of them not being tortured, one can only assume that they were tortured and can use this new fact as the foundation to build an infallible conspiracy theory.

 

[RedIbis]

no, I did not say that...

I would say, that leading questions make the answers, especially during torture, MUCH LESS RELIABLE.

I do not condone, and as a matter of fact, I abhore, the concept and use of torture, including waterboarding.

TAM

From an ethical standpoint, we're certainly on common ground here. From a tactical standpoint, torture is notoriously unreliable. Do you think it degrades the credibility of the information used by the Commission?

This is really the primary question.

 

[T.A.M.]

I will answer your question, as I did the OP, so then PLEASE, answer the question I first posed, with a yes or no answer, followed if you wish, with an explanation...

YES, compared to a hypothetical scenario where the same information was gleaned WITHOUT TORTURE, the use of torture degrades the evidence.

Based on what I have said above, in my opinion, if the information in question was obtained only through the torture of a single victim (as people who are tortured are), with no corroboration through physical evidence and/or corroborating testimony, then the testimony of the tortured victim is unreliable.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I will answer your question, as I did the OP, so then PLEASE, answer the question I first posed, with a yes or no answer, followed if you wish, with an explanation...

YES, compared to a hypothetical scenario where the same information was gleaned WITHOUT TORTURE, the use of torture degrades the evidence.

Based on what I have said above, in my opinion, if the information in question was obtained only through the torture of a single victim (as people who are tortured are), with no corroboration through physical evidence and/or corroborating testimony, then the testimony of the tortured victim is unreliable.

TAM

Fair enough. Please realize your condition of a "yes or no answer" is a false dichotomy.

Obviously, I'm extremely reluctant to provide any hypothetical scenario because I'm commited to the scrutinization of official evidence, documents, etc, not speculation. Providing the scenario is what you guys are salivating for because it's the easiest argument to refute. What you don't like to do is scrutinize the officially released information for its flaws.

So if your question is, "Do you believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11?" the best I can give you is a fully disclosed subjective opinion. I have no pretense of complete knowledge of such a complicated day.

Enjoy the softball: in my obvious opinion, US gov't intel was connected to and able to access AQ operatives. Their locations and movements were well known. They were assets whether they knew it or not. Therefore, it appears to me more probable that the 19 Arab hijackers were patsies. There are several equally justifiable theories that can create the conditions necessary to make it appear that Atta had led the operation.

What I also "believe" is that we are studying the result of a plan, not necessarily exactly as planned, regardless of whether it was AQ or an Inside Job.