Transcript: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11 role

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by WolfofWar
What other videos has he been seen with rings on?

I havent seen any. Screen caps please, because if you have a few, that pretty much ends that debate.

photos1.blogger.com...
photos1.blogger.com...
www.september11news.com...

Something tells me you don't go asking for a source like this any time a Truther makes a claim.

Good stuff, that pretty much settles that arguement.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Good stuff, that pretty much settles that arguement.

Holy crap. Did someone on the other side actually concede a point?

Well, WolfofWar, you just grew about ten inches in my eyes. There may be hope for you.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Smack
You mean the 'confession' that came from this totally discredited piece of CIA propaganda? Fat Bin Laden Tape

Don't bother reading the article, if you can't spot the imposter in this photo.

He's fat because the PAL to NTSC conversion of the video squashed the vertical by 17%. That's why he looks fat.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Oh, for crying out loud.. what do you know about PAL to NTSC conversion? Or did you just read that off of some disinfo website?

Please just stick with building your strawmen cases against thermite and what should/shouldn't have been found if explosives were used, I could at least tolerate your attempts in those threads.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Oh, for crying out loud.. what do you know about PAL to NTSC conversion? Or did you just read that off of some disinfo website?

PAL videos have a resolution of 720x576 and NTSC videos have a resolution of 720x480.

You might want to do that math before you go calling me a liar.

Please just stick with building your strawmen cases against thermite and what should/shouldn't have been found if explosives were used, I could at least tolerate your attempts in those threads.

It's a strawman, huh? Please explain to me:

1. Why no (non-cutting torched) cut columns were found.
2. Why no half-burned thermite was found.
3. Why no failed-to-ignite thermite was found.
4. Why no large burn areas were found around thermite-covered columns.
5. How they covered up all the above.

I suppose it was the magical black ops force from the comic books that can somehow make all that evidence disappear in plain view of hundreds of people.

Straw man my ass.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Smack
Believe whatever you want, sheep. Believe that GWB is Christ almighty as far as I'm concerned.

My logic cannot defeat your faith. It's a pointless exercise.

The seed has been planted. Perhaps when you've lost your comfortable home, your job, your children, and your freedom, you might remember something you were told here.

You are a Fool if you believe anything this Government tells you.

Yeah, yeah, anybody that doesn't agree with you is a George Bush-worshipping fool who believes everything the government tells them.

We got it the first time.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

here come the ad-hominem attacks, accusations of dis-info... so predictable...

It was done by terrorists, this guy admitted not once, but twice. Of course thats ok...

Believe whatever you want, sheep. Believe that GWB is the anti-Christ almighty as far as I'm concerned.

My logic cannot defeat your faith. It's a pointless exercise.

Wow... it's amazing how that statement goes both ways...

Originally posted by snoopy
The point being that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with truth and comes down to nothing more than personal opinion and trying desperately disguise that personal opinion as somethign more legitimate.

Smartest statement that i've read here yet...

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I havent seen any. Screen caps please, because if you have a few, that pretty much ends that debate.

If "he" did have any on in any other videos it would be the "orange" 2004 video. I think the December 2001 video was his last authentic video, and that he croaked some time shortly thereafter.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

It's a strawman, huh? Please explain to me:

1. Why no (non-cutting torched) cut columns were found.
2. Why no half-burned thermite was found.
3. Why no failed-to-ignite thermite was found.
4. Why no large burn areas were found around thermite-covered columns.
5. How they covered up all the above.

If im not mistaken,Rudy had most of,if not all,of the steel immediatly shipped to China to be melted down.
And i seem to recall Rudy as saying,he didnt think they would need it.
So they might explain why alot of what you are asking about wasnt seen.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Black_Fox]

I trust the government? Hmmm... missed where I said that. OH! You put words in my mouth... got it.

It’s a matter of the Shoe fitting. You apparently feel it’s a position you need to defend personally. KSM, without any substantive evidence being provided, is the proven mastermind behind 9/11 and any number of other acts of terrorism, ergo, trusting the word of the Government.

Yes, you're right it's so un-free... I'm going to go home and cry about it now. I mean since 9/11... I have to take my shoes off in an airport and get searched once before I enter a sporting event. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I won’t go into too much detail here, other than to point out what should be obvious to any American –

The Bill of Rights Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am not a criminal and do not expect to be treated as one by my Government. You can act like a slave if you want.

Bush and his cronies are so in control of everything that 75% of them got tossed out on their asses and Bush will go down as the worst president in history. We've let them win!!!! Our freedoms are gone!!!!

I’ll give you three reasons why that bit of satire is not accurate, funny, or relevant.
1. USA PATRIOT Act
2. Military Commissions Act of 2006
3. The Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (North American Union)

This is the same lame rhetoric that goes around every day. Every day "They'll come take everything from you..." Yet, it never happens.

My life is no differnet now than 6 years ago, I've lost nothing that I had 6 years ago, nor will I loose anything that I didn't have 6 years ago. It's just a new rally cry for the "They'll take your freedom man..." people that have been preaching since the 50's with no success...

Do you still have your conscience? How about your sense of Justice? Are you free from the Fear of Al-Qaida? I wonder what you may have lost and not yet realized it. Yes, the mob is placated with bread and circus. It was true in Cesar’s time, just as its true today. While you are fat and content, they are looting this country, but you won’t see it until they’ve sucked us dry and left us the empty husk.

Now, if you have any logic to share, vs scare statements and classical logical traps, we'll continue.

Fear is what seems to work for your sort, not logic. Logic dictates that those who have the most to gain from a crime, be subjected to, at least the same level of scrutiny, employed against those who had little or nothing to gain. This simply was not the case with 9/11.
By all means continue.

Originally posted by Smack

It’s a matter of the Shoe fitting. You apparently feel it’s a position you need to defend personally. KSM, without any substantive evidence being provided, is the proven mastermind behind 9/11 and any number of other acts of terrorism, ergo, trusting the word of the Government.

Yet you simply make conjecture that he only confessed because he was forced to despite not having any evidence of that. And that doesn't even go into the fact that he confessed to it before he was captured.

You're right, it certainly is about the shoe fitting...

And your whole logic is that if the government says it, it's a lie. And of course this is based on no real evidence but simply opinion, which drives all your other decisions as well. And the fact is there is no physical evidence of a controlled demolition, just as there is no evidence of him being forced to confess. Thus making your claims based simply on faith which you refer to as logic. And those who aren't making such assumptions you accuse of relying on faith as opposed to your "logic".

Just my .02, read my earlier ppost on P 2 I think, and I say no matter if the real Osama and the Real KSM really admitted and left all this evidence for real, diregarding torture, impersonators, etc., this is still all way too convenient. A onetime (??) US agent and assett turns into public enemy number one and rather than waging a smart campaign to actually undermine the US on many levels, simply launches a string of atrocious and highly symbolic attacks to rile the US up for war, admit to everything, and just play the perfect villains. Maybe I'm wrong but it all seems too convenient, almost scripted somehow, especially when we consider how these attacks - especially 9/11 - just happen to also slip thru all defenses at just the right time via strangely synchronized failures, "walls" in the intel community, "Cold War" radar posture, etc...

Thus making your claims based simply on faith which you refer to as logic. And those who aren't making such assumptions you accuse of relying on faith as opposed to your "logic".

The Government claims that KSM has confessed to 9/11. Where is the evidence that he actually masterminded 911? Is it not reasonable to ask? Should I just take their word for it?

I'm not sure what you define as a logical argument but it seems as though you are lashing out at me for giving spooner a rhetorical spanking.

Perhaps the Sheik can explain how he accomplished the complete destruction of three modern, steel-framed skyscrapers, or how he penetrated three rings of the pentagon, the most heavily reinforced bunker in the world, with an aluminum-skinned airplane. How did he get NORAD to stand down?

I'm waiting on pins and needles for the answer.

nevermind

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

If im not mistaken,Rudy had most of,if not all,of the steel immediatly shipped to China to be melted down.

Yes, you are mistaken.....

Originally posted by Smack

Thus making your claims based simply on faith which you refer to as logic. And those who aren't making such assumptions you accuse of relying on faith as opposed to your "logic".

The Government claims that KSM has confessed to 9/11. Where is the evidence that he actually masterminded 911? Is it not reasonable to ask? Should I just take their word for it?

I'm not sure what you define as a logical argument but it seems as though you are lashing out at me for giving spooner a rhetorical spanking.

Perhaps the Sheik can explain how he accomplished the complete destruction of three modern, steel-framed skyscrapers, or how he penetrated three rings of the pentagon, the most heavily reinforced bunker in the world, with an aluminum-skinned airplane. How did he get NORAD to stand down?

I'm waiting on pins and needles for the answer.

It's not their word, it's his. He admitted to it and went into details about how he operated. This is not something relayed by the government. And this latest news bit is just him confessing during a US hearing. How about when he admitted it in 2002 to Al Jazera?

You didn't give anyone a spanking. You claimed to be using logic against his faith. But you are the one using faith because your arguments have no physical evidence and are based on speculation. You are assuming that he must be lying both times. And you are assuming this because the government is involved and that the government is responsible for all these bad things. Another assumption based on faith.

All snooper is doing is taking what the guy is saying at face value. He isn't making assumptions that the guy has been lying. He isn't making assumptions that because the government is involved (which is unavoidable) that it must therefore be a lie. So it's quite ironic that you would make such a statement when the reality is quite the opposite.

The guy did explain how he did what he did. But as far as the things youa re asking about, it's absurd. They got guys to crash planes into buildings. There was no mathematics involved. They simply trained, aimed and prayed for the best. This notion that they planned it down to the number of rings in the Pentagon and whatnot is absolutely silly. And the fact of tha matter is the Pentagon was never meant to be hit. The Capitol building was the target, but the pilot couldn't find it, so he hit the pentagon instead which was much more visible. This stand down claim is also pure conjecture. There is no evidence proving any kind of stand down. There is evidence that you ASSUME must mean there is a stand down, but it's another huge baseless assumption to fullfill your fantasies.

And likewise it doesn't matter how many confessions there are. It does not matter what evidence comes to light. Unless it says there is a conspiracy, you will find any and ever excuse to dismiss it.

Again, if a government official came out and admitted to engineering 9/11, would you sit there and say "The government expects us to believe them, why should we?", or would you say "See! they did do it!"?

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious, and the question you need to be asking is why.

There was no mathematics involved. They simply trained, aimed and prayed for the best. This notion that they planned it down to the number of rings in the Pentagon and whatnot is absolutely silly.

Thank you for conceding my point. We obviously don't share the same definition of logic.

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

damn it only took 4 years of turtouring to admit it!!! thats effiecency!

You must have missed the Al Jazeera interview with KSM (before we captured him) in which he discussed how he planned 9/11...........

You must have missed that interview I did with entertainment tonight on how I confessed to being the real father of Anna Nicoles baby! See how that works, I confessed on t.v. that the money...er I mean baby is mine! Therefore it must be true!!

So he confesses before being caught, and he's just lieing.
Then he confesses after being caught, and it was obviously tortured out of him.

Will anything make you happy ?

Please point out to me where I ever implied he was tortured? I was simply infering that just because someone claims to be responsible for something on television doesn't mean they really are?