Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1036    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:03 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

KSM, is not a leader on the level of OSL. :no: BTW, who is KSM and what is he guilty of?
Oh dear...lol

http://en.wikipedia....Sheikh_Mohammed

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1037    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:08 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 February 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:


Let's see what the link you have presented has to say about him.

Quote

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is currently in U.S. military custody in Guantánamo Bay for acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians, as he has been identified as "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks" by the 9/11. He was captured in Pakistan on March 2, 2003.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's terrorist al-Qaeda organization; he led al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from around 1999 until late 2001.

So, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization and not an employee of the U.S. government.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2013 - 10:09 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1038    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Let's see what the link you have presented has to say about him.



So, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization and not an employee of the U.S. government.
hahahahaha!! Who said he was an employee of the US government?? :blink: :w00t:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1039    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:13 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

hahahahaha!! Who said he was an employee of the US government?? :blink: :w00t:

You just don't seem to understand when you are being setup!

It proves that Osama bin Laden and his organization was responsible for the 911 attacks, not the U.S. government. I knew who KSM was all along and you would have known that if you had been paying attention.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1040    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:17 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

You just don't seem to understand when you are being setup!

It proves that Osama bin Laden and his organization was responsible for the 911 attacks, not the U.S. government. I knew who KSM was all along and you would have known that if you had been paying attention.
So why ask who KSM was if you knew who he was all along?? :blink: hahahahahahahahaha!!

Don't tell me, to find out if I knew who KSM was?? lol

Edited by Stundie, 20 February 2013 - 10:18 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1041    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 February 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Oh but its fine when others such as Skyeagle carpet bomb the thread?? lol

Ha, so you're going to whip out the, "But Mommy, Suzy took a cookie from the cookie jar too without your permission", 'defense'?  It's not the carpet bombing alone that's the issue, it's the petulant repetition of the exact same question over and over, as previously noted it's the refusal to accept his response to your question because you didn't like it, and then to top it all off and what I specifically responded to, it's the hypocritical declarations of what is not acceptable behavior while coming very close to indulging in the same yourself.  Those are the differences between your posts and sky's, and they are not minor.  And yea, I found the little mocking 'lol' after every paragraph of yours to be annoying, but that's just a matter of taste, maybe others think it's cool.

Quote

I love how these guys come rushing to Skyeages defence, it's very noble.

What questions have I ignored? I think you'll find in Skyeagles spam-a-thon, I accept that OBL admitted his guilt.

If you do not like my lols, then all you have to do is ask Skyeagle to stop ignoring my simple question by answering it instead of repeatedly dodging it and repeating himself.

I know you are here to defend Skyeagle and it is very sweet of you but I think he is big enough to fight his own battles.

You sure do bring up sky a lot which is kinda odd considering that I never even mentioned his name in the post you are responding to.  This thread is at least generally about 9/11, if you'd like to discuss the subject 'why skyeagle is a big poopyhead' then how about going and starting a different thread with that topic so I can utterly ignore it.

So now that I've gotten that smartassedness out of me, I'm totally ready to defuse this.  You respond back to me with all the snark you'd like, I'll likely just give you the last word on that front.  Although I think you were being a little trollish, I withdraw the suggestion that you are actually a troll as you've provided in the quotes below something true trolls rarely do: content.

Quote

Errr!! How about building a case so that if he was captured alive, the US could then prosecute him with all the evidence they had collected and charge him. Its called the rule of law...like they are currently doing with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

I suppose if you are going to take that attitude, then why bother with indictments at all if according to your logic, you can't imagine what they accomplish. What was the point of indicting him for his other crimes if nothing would be accomplished?

I think you misunderstand 'my logic' then, and I don't think I actually laid any out.  I don't understand your response,  you build the case before you get the indictment, you don't indict and then start building the case.  When you indict you are going to trial, do you mean by 'building the case' just the attorney work of how they will present their case?  You mention 'evidence', but by the time of the indictment a lot of evidence should have already been collected, that's what justifies the indictment.  Regardless, the lack of indictment is not preventing anyone from doing anything, they can 'build their case' however you mean it without OBL being indicted.

Quote

It is clear from your response, it upsets you to think that there was no hard evidence to connect OBL to 9/11, hence your nonsensical rhetoric. I know that the law is only afforded to those who you think deserve it but the fact is the law should be afforded to all.

Telepathic now are we?  You got all that from a seven sentence post of mine?  Thanks for the insight in how you 'reason' and come to conclusions from the evidence. (whoops, guess I wasn't quite done with the snark yet, but I do only try to give as good as I get)

Quote

Well if you go around indiscriminately killing people who you think may or may not have killed soldiers, then you are going to kill innocent people and more importantly make people angry at the injustices which will form more insurgents.

On this we are definitely in agreement, but I think that's probably a different topic.

So let me ask, to your point, since you did provide an answer to your own question:  the FBI did not have enough hard evidence to indict him.  Given that fact, what exactly?  People in the government at the very least mistakenly implied that OBL was largely responsible for 9/11?  That a lot of people today still mistakenly think he was more directly responsible for the planning and execution than he actually was?  I agree with that.  I think you are suggesting something larger though from this fact, not sure.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1042    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:49 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

No sir, there is no communications gap here, unless you want to consider semantics as such.  If I were speaking to myself, I doubt you would be replying, no?

If you are not speaking to yourself, where did the media claim come from? Of course I will reply, you referenced my post, and then spoke as if replying to another poster, I continue to remain perplexed at your deviation and pronouncement that I admitted to relying on Fox for all my information.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

It was YOU who first used the word "faith", and I merely responded to your use of that word.  Apologies if I missed the precise nuance you intended with your use of the word.  And certainly, "faith" is crucial to believing the official story, because all the "facts" contradict that story.

What does that have to do with your media accusation?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Are you calling the tapes and their transcripts "hearsay"?

Yes, you are borad brushing "tapes and their transcripts" you coud be referring to anything, heck, your claim is little more than a broad statement. How do you think this would stand up in a hearing if you personally barged in and blurted "Stop the proceedings, I can prove otherwise cause I have tapes and stuff"? Do you think any hearing would immediately halt and say, OK, lets starts again?

If you think something is convincing, then present it, and I am already shuddering at an expectation of blurry youtube videos with lousy voice overs which I detest. I do hope you can offer some technical information on paper as opposed to long winded opinions from people who sit in basements trying to make 911 seem like slaughtering madmen terrorists are not responsible fir the slaughter so many of their counterparts celebrated.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Cell phone calls from aircraft higher than about 1500 feet AGL and speeds greater than about 150 knots are impossible.  I have experienced that phenomenon many many many times flying both helicopters and airplanes.  Others have demonstrated that fact and written papers about it.  That you choose to believe otherwise is another fine demonstration of your Supreme Act Of Faith.

I choose to accept official studies that have been verified:

When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?
It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
But, Thompson warns, to find out how well your phone works on a plane, you risk going to jail.

LINK




3. Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work?



From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.

LINK


NTSB Narrative Summary Released at Completion of Accident The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.

LINK



View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

You don't care about facts, or else you would have a different view.  You care about keeping the official story alive.  Neither you nor anybody else can prove that story you believe, for the simple reason that all the facts we have work against it.

What about those facts above? Documented verified cases.
I care about seeing factual information proliferated, and peoples musing kept where they should be - to themselves.
The above indicates that you are wrong, facts do exist to prove that terrorists flew planes into buildings on 911.

The one bucking the facts and official recorded version of events is you. You seem to have some personal reason for wanting to tarnish your own Government, and lets face it, no matter what the subject, 911, UFO's or bigfoot you seem to think the Government is behind everything and anything, and wants to keep the public in that dark about everything, which just makes zero sense, only a paranoid outlook on life can culminate with this conclusion. If there was a shred of truth to your claim that the official version of events cannot be confirmed then we would not be having this discussion.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1043    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:32 AM

View PostStundie, on 20 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

So why ask who KSM was if you knew who he was all along?? :blink: hahahahahahahahaha!!

Don't tell me, to find out if I knew who KSM was?? lol

I did so to see if you had been paying attention, which you haven't, otherwise, you would have known that I have brought up KSM many times before.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1044    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:36 AM

View PostNathan DiYorio, on 20 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying there's no concrete way for anybody who didn't get hit in the head with a chunk of space rock to know.

Okay fine, fair enough, but don't stop there, you're just choosing an arbitrary point at which you say faith ceases, 'experiencing it first hand', and in my view it's a particularly inappropriate place to stop.  That point seems to rest on a couple incorrect assumptions, that our sensory inputs are comprehensive and that are brain's ability to comprehend them correctly is infallible.  There is abundant evidence of the biases that everyone has in their perception, that memories are not even close to being foolproof recordings of events, again that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable at times.  There are all kinds of possible scenarios where the person who was hit in the head with the space rock thinks it is a meteor (and according to you would not be faith-based) and is wrong for the same reasons you pointed out:  the person didn't first hand see the supposed meteor in outer space, doesn't know how fast it was going (they'd have to get that from a scientist, which would be faith-based), etc.  They are taking on faith that it was actually a meteor, and we can play that game with every supposed 'fact', including personally-experienced ones.

Quote

Thousands of people are saying it happened? There's physical proof you can hold showing you it happened?

Kind of like the millions of people saying everything in the Bible happened down to the word?

No, not at all like the Bible.  You didn't really respond to my post, but what does 'evidence' mean to you?  Because that is what distinguishes the literal truth of the Bible from meteors.

Quote

There's literally no difference. Although my point was never about the meteor to begin with, you people all just stuck to that like glue. My point was more about being fed supposed transcripts of phone conversations between people involved in a World Trade Center conspiracy.

Of course there is a difference, and the meteor was just a convenient example, use whatever you'd like.  Let me put it this way, if you are saying that we accept everything we know ultimately on faith, I agree; if you are saying that we accept everything we know purely on faith, then I disagree, there are clearly degrees of faith.

Quote

Oh, and yes: the current concepts of knowledge and faith are useless, wrong, and dangerous. They teach people to stop thinking because others "Know better" and they take it on faith that "Yes, this is exactly how the universe works, they know so" as opposed to going out and figuring it all out themselves.

They might do that to some people, but you're painting with way too wide a brush.  Contrary to what you argue, there are many people who specifically teach people to think, and to question.  And face it, no one has enough time to figure it all out for themselves, especially to the degree that you require to avoid being faith-based; I'm not even sure how under your definition I can ever know that mundane things like planets and radio waves and dinosaurs exist/existed.

Quote

Faith is not bad, though. That's one of the problems with the attitudes around here, this belief in faith being negative. I think we'd all be better off once we realize that we're all just consuming information, mostly written, and taken it on faith that the information is true, regardless of what it's about. Believing a scientific study you did not conduct and did not witness being conducted involves just as much faith as believing in any other tome.

Not sure where you mean exactly when you refer to 'attitudes around here', and I don't really know what to say concerning your beliefs about scientific studies.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1045    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:22 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Ha, so you're going to whip out the, "But Mommy, Suzy took a cookie from the cookie jar too without your permission", 'defense'?  It's not the carpet bombing alone that's the issue, it's the petulant repetition of the exact same question over and over, as previously noted it's the refusal to accept his response to your question because you didn't like it, and then to top it all off and what I specifically responded to, it's the hypocritical declarations of what is not acceptable behavior while coming very close to indulging in the same yourself.  Those are the differences between your posts and sky's, and they are not minor.  And yea, I found the little mocking 'lol' after every paragraph of yours to be annoying, but that's just a matter of taste, maybe others think it's cool.
I'm sorry you find my loling annoying but it is bore out comical fustration at what is suppose to be serious debate/debunking but is nothing more than what I refer to as pantomime. OBL confessed to 9/11 apparently and I have agreed with Skyeagle on every occasion he has spammed the thread us this so we have established a point of agreement. We both agree, right?

When I ask him why the FBI didn't have enough evidence to indict him, rather than him agreeing with the FBI viewpoint that they didn't have enough evidence to indict him for it even after his confession which is clearly true and an established fact, he ignores my point then proceeds to tell me he's dead. So even though we both agree that OBL confessed we can't move on because he won't establish a point of agreement cause he doesn't want to agree with me even though its the FBI saying they have no hard evidence.

How am I suppose to attempt to take this kind of debate seriously, it's not serious debunking/debate, its a bloody pantomime. I say the fbi had no hard evidence, he says "Oh no they haven't...lalalala! I can't hear you, he's dead and its a moot point.

And yes, we have different posting styles but I'm sure you realise it takes 2 to tango. It seem that the only person you want to dance with his me.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

You sure do bring up sky a lot which is kinda odd considering that I never even mentioned his name in the post you are responding to.  This thread is at least generally about 9/11, if you'd like to discuss the subject 'why skyeagle is a big poopyhead' then how about going and starting a different thread with that topic so I can utterly ignore it.
The only reason he is being brought up is because you are playing the blame game for this decending into spam and even though I'm certainly no victim, I just thought I would mention the bias, even though you have so eloquiently stated the differences of why I'm more like nails down a blackboard.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

So now that I've gotten that smartassedness out of me, I'm totally ready to defuse this.  You respond back to me with all the snark you'd like, I'll likely just give you the last word on that front.  Although I think you were being a little trollish, I withdraw the suggestion that you are actually a troll as you've provided in the quotes below something true trolls rarely do: content.
Thanks for withdrawl, I can promise you that I am aware that I can be annoying but I'm not a troll despite the toofing twoofer labels associated with the name. I just laugh a lot honestly.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

I think you misunderstand 'my logic' then, and I don't think I actually laid any out.  I don't understand your response,  you build the case before you get the indictment, you don't indict and then start building the case.
From my understanding, you would build a summary case and present evidence to a grand jury, they look at the arguments and supporting evidence to see if there is case to answer.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

When you indict you are going to trial, do you mean by 'building the case' just the attorney work of how they will present their case?  You mention 'evidence', but by the time of the indictment a lot of evidence should have already been collected, that's what justifies the indictment. Regardless, the lack of indictment is not preventing anyone from doing anything, they can 'build their case' however you mean it without OBL being indicted.
An indict is not a trial as such because the person being tried is absent and has no defense, it is about whether there is enough evidence to prosecute. Of course back in 2006 and up until his death, there was no indictment for his apparent involvement with 9/11. As I said, I'm sure that if they caught him alive, they would build a case and if that failed, they would have water boarded the crap and a case out of him.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Telepathic now are we?  You got all that from a seven sentence post of mine?  Thanks for the insight in how you 'reason' and come to conclusions from the evidence. (whoops, guess I wasn't quite done with the snark yet, but I do only try to give as good as I get)
No, I don't believe in telepathy. I

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

On this we are definitely in agreement, but I think that's probably a different topic.

So let me ask, to your point, since you did provide an answer to your own question:  the FBI did not have enough hard evidence to indict him.  Given that fact, what exactly?  
Well in effect, he has been convicted of crimes without a trial.

He was never indicted for his involvement, therefore suggesting if there is no hard evidence, then there is little evidence of his involvement, certainly not enough for a grand jury to indict him even with his confession. He gets killed by the seals. FBI closes the case and no trial to prove his guilt or innocence. Case closed!

I thought people were innocent until proven guilty, I thought this was like a fundamental concept behind critical thinking but apparently it's a the conspiracist mindset or something.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

People in the government at the very least mistakenly implied that OBL was largely responsible for 9/11?  
We all blame OBL, he's guilty as sin because we was told he was guilty even though there has never been a trial to establish his guilt.

Other than a danish TV program in which a mock court with jurors, proescution and defense preside over whether OBLK was guilty or not and they found him not guilty as well.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

That a lot of people today still mistakenly think he was more directly responsible for the planning and execution than he actually was?  I agree with that.  I think you are suggesting something larger though from this fact, not sure.
Well lets say if the US government was involved for a short moment, then they have their fall guy so to speak,  there 1984-esq Goldstein enemy of the state and freedom, distracting the citizens, giving them a focused hatred and even anger towards the bogeyman keeping the focus away from them, convicted by the court of public opini.

As I've said before, that is not to say that OBL is completely exonerated, he could stll be involved or guilly irregardless of whether he has had a trial or not but if the government was involved, it couldnt have happened better really.

Cheers

Stundie :)

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1046    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:35 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 February 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

When I ask him why the FBI didn't have enough evidence to indict him, rather than him agreeing with the FBI viewpoint that they didn't have enough evidence to indict him for it even after his confession which is clearly true and an established fact, he ignores my point then proceeds to tell me he's dead. So even though we both agree that OBL confessed we can't move on because he won't establish a point of agreement cause he doesn't want to agree with me even though its the FBI saying they have no hard evidence.

    CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT

    Federal Bureau of Investigation


Statement for the Record of Dale L. Watson
Executive Assistant Director Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence
   Federal Bureau of Investigation
on The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States

Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, D.C.


However, as the events of September 11 demonstrated with horrible clarity, the United States also confronts serious challenges from international terrorists. The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests.

The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.

http://web.archive.o...atson020602.htm


Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/1711874.stm

http://www.fbi.gov/w...usama-bin-laden

In August 1996, Usama bin Laden issued a public "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans," in which he called for the murder of U.S. military personnel serving on the Arabian Peninsula.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 February 2013 - 01:41 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1047    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:39 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 February 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:



Okay fine, fair enough, but don't stop there, you're just choosing an arbitrary point at which you say faith ceases, 'experiencing it first hand', and in my view it's a particularly inappropriate place to stop.  That point seems to rest on a couple incorrect assumptions, that our sensory inputs are comprehensive and that are brain's ability to comprehend them correctly is infallible.  There is abundant evidence of the biases that everyone has in their perception, that memories are not even close to being foolproof recordings of events, again that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable at times.  There are all kinds of possible scenarios where the person who was hit in the head with the space rock thinks it is a meteor (and according to you would not be faith-based) and is wrong for the same reasons you pointed out:  the person didn't first hand see the supposed meteor in outer space, doesn't know how fast it was going (they'd have to get that from a scientist, which would be faith-based), etc.  They are taking on faith that it was actually a meteor, and we can play that game with every supposed 'fact', including personally-experienced ones.



No, not at all like the Bible.  You didn't really respond to my post, but what does 'evidence' mean to you?  Because that is what distinguishes the literal truth of the Bible from meteors.



Of course there is a difference, and the meteor was just a convenient example, use whatever you'd like.  Let me put it this way, if you are saying that we accept everything we know ultimately on faith, I agree; if you are saying that we accept everything we know purely on faith, then I disagree, there are clearly degrees of faith.



They might do that to some people, but you're painting with way too wide a brush.  Contrary to what you argue, there are many people who specifically teach people to think, and to question.  And face it, no one has enough time to figure it all out for themselves, especially to the degree that you require to avoid being faith-based; I'm not even sure how under your definition I can ever know that mundane things like planets and radio waves and dinosaurs exist/existed.



Not sure where you mean exactly when you refer to 'attitudes around here', and I don't really know what to say concerning your beliefs about scientific studies.

I was going to break up your argument and respond to it point by point, but I'll respond to just the following, because I think it sums up fairly well your stance:

Quote

to the degree that you require to avoid being faith-based;

And my response is: why avoid it? What is inherently wrong with the concept of faith that it must be avoided?

Posted Image


#1048    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:00 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 February 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:



CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Statement for the Record of Dale L. Watson
Executive Assistant Director Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence
   Federal Bureau of Investigation
on The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States

Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, D.C.


However, as the events of September 11 demonstrated with horrible clarity, the United States also confronts serious challenges from international terrorists. The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests.

The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.

http://web.archive.o...atson020602.htm
So in 2002, they have evidence, but by 2006 when asked why they have no warrant for his arrest for his 9/11 crimes, they say there have no hard evidence and not enough for a grand jury to indict him.
Sorry how does this statement in 2002 disprove what the FBI stated in 2006??:blink:. (Insert laughiing for the poor pantomime debunking.)

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 February 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/1711874.stm

http://www.fbi.gov/w...usama-bin-laden

In August 1996, Usama bin Laden issued a public "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans," in which he called for the murder of U.S. military personnel serving on the Arabian Peninsula.
Goldstein had the same effect on the citizens in 1984 too.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1049    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 February 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

I did so to see if you had been paying attention, which you haven't, otherwise, you would have known that I have brought up KSM many times before.
You didn't know who KSM, you knew I knew who KSM was cause you asked me who KSM was and would not have asked me who KSM was if you thought I didn't know or wasn't paying attention.

You clearly didnt know who I was refering to when I said KSM because you said this....http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=240942&st=1035#entry4671903

Skyeagle : Let's see what the link you have presented has to say about him.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1050    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:34 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 February 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

Cheers

Stundie :)

The very same to you, Stundie.  Sorry if I jumped down your throat and was too harsh, I'm thinking I read more animosity in your posts than was actually there, my bad.  Ha, indeed, laughing a lot is good policy especially around here, and don't worry if maybe you're slightly annoying at times, you're just joining me as a member of a very large club that includes all of us.  :tu:

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users