Al Qaeda Admits Responsibility for 9-11 Again
And announces the identity of the 20th hijacker:
A Saudi militant killed in 2004 was due to have been the 20th suicide plane hijacker in the September 11, 2001 attacks, al Qaeda's media arm said in a statement on the Internet on Tuesday.
"Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001," the statement said.
"The (September 11) operation was brought forward for some circumstances that brother Mohamed Atta explained to the general leadership," it said, indicating that Muteiri could not join the other hijackers, led by Atta, in time.
posted by Pat @ 11:29 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Hold on a sec whilst I channel the innate senses of Nessie and Joan....
........
.................
You mean Al-CIA-duh ID'd the 20th crash-test dummy they were going to use to make the whole plot more symmetrical.
Welcome Jack!
Pull up a pillow and pass the baby oil when you get comfy.
Hey and if Usama Bin Laden was the master mind behind 9/11, why did FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb say on June 5, 2006, , “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”???
Do you read anything on here? One of your fellow nutjobs made a similar argument in another post and we showed why it's a nonpoint. There was no hard evidence linking Charles Manson to the Family murders, either. He's in jail last I checked.
This site is one big circle jerk
I love how you idiots think anytime a bunch of people agree it MUST be a circle jerk!
Contrary to the Loose Change forums (which I care to refer to as an "echo chamber" because I'm not a child), we agree because the facts are in our favor. If you read other threads you'll notice some of us disagree politically, and some even hate Bush. Of course, you're a moron and don't know what you're talking about, so I don't expect you to actually look up something before talking out your ass.
Wow Shawn! You didn't use the phase "logical fallacies" in two posts!
It's my fault you morons use them at every turn? 'Don't say logical fallacy all the time even though it's all we use!'
Also, I noticed you tried to change the subject.
No...no I didn't.
Or the evidence Bush link 9/11 to Osama when he was selling the war?
Let's see, Osama leads the group that committed 9/11.
Don’t they have that video of Osama admitting doing 9/11?
Ah, here's where your grasp of terminology comes into play. Hard evidence refers to physical evidence, you know like his fingerprints on the passports, or maybe some dried semen on someone's bed spread.
And btw, a circle jerk in this context is when a bunch of blowhards get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.
That's also what an echo chamber is, dumbass. I just don't use those juvenile terms because I can actually back up my points (sprinkling in a little ad hominem when you Einsteins can't understand the basic precepts of logic). Man, it's fun wrecking your guys' flimsy arguments, and what of it if we have a little high five and a brew every once and again for a job well done?
Have you even been to the Loose Change forums? That dumbass Roxdog comes in, posts some thoroughly debunked nonsense, and then everyone goes "oh good job, thanks Roxdog for backing me up".
And by the way, what does it matter if the choir preaches to itself when they're factually correct? Next you'll tell me it's bad for evolutionists (though I hate using the term since it's not a belief system, but scientific fact) to wreck creationists and point out the ridiculousness of their points and laughing.
God, you'd hate seeing me destroy a creationist, they use more logical fallacies than you guys do.
Mind you, Charles Mason didn't kill anyone but was the leader of a group that killed seven people and he's six feet under.
You prove my point for me, then act as if you refuted it. What is your deal? (Manson isn't dead by the way.)
I don't remember ever using a logical fallacy.
You may not have in any of your posts, but believing the Truthers or Loosers requires the use of several fallacies.
BS. You never back up you point, because you never make any of your own! You regurgitate the same shit over and over again, and if it's something you don't adgree with, you knock it down with one of your two cent big words. When you're challeged to defend the use of the two cent word , you refuse! What a big smart man you are.
Hello, Pot, meet Kettle. I'm sure you came up with "9/11 was a government plot" out of the clear blue sky, you also (on your own) misinterpreted the term "pull", you also mistook the towers falling at free-fall speeds (on your own), and ignored WTC7 being on fire for hours and having major structural damage (on your own). Keep digging, pal.
I doubt you have done any personaly research on that matter and would just vomit some shit you read in some main stream media paper.
hahaha I love when people dumber than me act as if I'm some zombie. Almost all my free time is spent researching, whether history or science, so don't play the ad hominem "you just regurgitate the mainstream media". Man, you're probably the first person to ever say I enjoy the mainstream media.
I bet you would "destory" a ID the same way you "destory" a Truther:
Yay for idiotic scare quotes! I've destroyed many a Truther/Looser, so it'd be real fun to take on ID (which is just creationism pretending to be science, it has no basis in fact or logic). ID is the haven of the false premise.
That's a LF. That's a AH. That's a SMT. That's a ____. I don't need to explain why because it is."
wow, are you really that dumb.
when I quote someone and say "false premise" or "arguing the consequent" there doesn't need to be any further comment. I've quoted the false premise/consequent/etc. I know I'm thinking too highly of you geniuses to assume you'd know logical fallacies, but I guess I have too much faith in mankind.
Jack, imagine me arguing that the world is flat and if you were to say "No, it's round" my response would be "psh do your own research, idiot, stop parrotting the mainstream media (cue scary music)".
That's what you're doing.
(PS that is a logical fallacy, called poisoning the well.)
And for explanation because your so thick: your insinuation was that anything from the MSM can't be trusted, so any "shit" I find there is suspect.
you're*
What's the deal with all the insults? Have I insulted you in some way other then calling you on your BS and use of the same word time and time again?
Well it isn't BS, so that is insulting.
And even though I have explained these elsewhere (and I don't have to, you should know what they are), I'll do it again.
Here are the logical fallacies most often used by conspiracy theorists:
Correlation implies causation - when something is inferred from two or more events, yet ignores that coincidence can explain the correlation
Affirming the consequent - follows the form 'If A, then B. B. Therefore, A.' In this scenario, B is a correct statement, but the fallacy is in thinking that affirming the consequent causes the antecedent to be true. ("If the WTC was demolished (A), it would fall down(B). The WTC fell down (B). Therefore, the WTC was demolished (A).")
A more specific form oft used is post hoc ergo propter hoc or "false cause". A occured before B, ergo A caused B.
There's also argumentum ad ignorantiam (or lack of imagination), which states that something is true only because it hasn't been disprove, or something false just because it hasn't been proven.
atrawman is consistently used (especially in Loose Change), where Dylan asserts certain things the official story claims (such as Flight 77 vaporizing), which have never been claimed.
Poisoning the well is another (you've used it) where no evidence is accepted because of its source. While we often mock certain sources here, we also show how said evidence is faulty.
Argumentum ad verecundiam is oft used around here, mostly by bg. (This is appeal to authority, just so you're aware.) He'll use as a source a professor or scientist who does to have an expertise in the field he's writing about, but will then ignore the statements of experts in the actual field.
I have a feeling you're going to keep arguing this (or make some ridiculous statement like "oh my god you read that in a book once, it's not your original thought" like I should've invented logical fallacies). It'd be nice if you surprised me and admitted your wrongdoing.
However you shouldn't use for it arguments you don't understand or simply disagree with.
I do understand their arguments, that's why I point out their logical fallacies.
For example, CT don't believe the tower was CD because they fell, but because of the way the tower fell.
It didn't fall like a controlled demolition.
The last I checked, a building collpase doesn't break in the middle and has bright flashes of light going up and down the tower (talking about WTC7).
How many flashes of light were there? I didn't see hundreds (which is what you would see in a controlled demolition).
hahahah WTC7 looked like this, huh?
When it actually looks like a controlled demolition (which it still doesn't) maybe your point will stand. But then you also have to ignore that the entire building was ablaze (which would've destroyed most, and possibly, all the demolition equipment).
* Of course the landlord wanted to say “pull out”, not “pull it” like CD manager said when they “pulled” for WTC 3,4,5,6. Silly me.
No, "pull it" is prefectly correctl. "Pull" meaning to evacuate and "it" meaning the building.
You didn't answer my post in any way whatsoever. You only made that stupid kid comment. WTC7 looked absolutely NOTHING like that demolition.
Here's where someone uses logic examines WTC7:
A building was almost completely engulfed in flames, smoke spewing out of nearly every window. There is massive structural damage. Since either one or both of those things would destroy a significant amount of the charges, the building would not fall correctly, and the demolition itself would be useless, as the structural integrity was ruined already. I mean, I'm arguing from where charges could've been placed, which is ridiculous. I guess all the people at WTC7 missed the months of work where people put cables running everywhere and planet large amounts of explosives.
It's kind of like the whole "look at the squibs" nonsense with the towers. Any sane human being could tell you that since floors are falling on one another, they would spew out the trapped air (as it can only escape outwards). And it just speaks of the ignorance of the CTers that they think randomly blowing out sections of floors can result in an actual controlled demolition?
planted*
"I would almost call that an outright lie. it's pretty ridiculous. the fires were on isolated sections of 2 floors."
Not according to FEMA and NIST. But, ofcourse, you're omnipotent, so we should listen to you, right?
"although a firefighter called the damage to one of the corners "massive," the damage was relatively minor"
Once again, not according to FEMA and NIST. You HAVE read the reports on WTC7, right?
"no, neither of these things would have damaged the charges."
Uhh. I can tell you from personal experience, fire makes C4 go BOOM.
"it wouldn't have taken months of work. from where did you pull that idea? "
From every controlled demolition ever done.
"placing the thermate charges wouldn't have taken all that much work,"
What the hell is thermate?
Thermite isn't used to demolish buildings. There's no precedent, so assuming it was used on 9/11 is foolish. Furthermore, insisting that thermite was used undermines your argument on the ammount of time it would take. Assuming you could somehow develop a way to accurately use thermite to demolish a building, you'd then DEFFINITELY need to do a lot of drilling and concrete removal in order to get access to the underlying steel. Placing thermite on a concrete pillar would be useless. So no matter where your true beleifs lie, you've just managed to contradict every viewpoint you could concievably hold.
"the fact the squibs were VISIBLE shows that they are not made of air, as any 2-year-old will tell you."
However the same 2 year old will turn around and say "you're a fucking moron, mister, fast moving air carries dust and debris!"
"who said anything about randomness? it was a -->controlled<-- demolition."
Oh yeah? Why? If you want to demolish a bunch of buildings, kill 3,000 of your countrymen, and scare the shit out of your citizens, why do a CONTROLLED demolition? Why go through the trouble when an uncontrolled demolition is so much easier, AND looks more realistic?
START THINKING.
Insidejob, EVERY single thing you said in your response to my post was either completely incorrect or just restating the point I refuted (which isn't refuting my points). Every one of your answers boils down to 'no, you're wrong'.
And small fires can't cause fires to come out of the windows of most of the floors genius.
Nor do the "squibs" go in sequence, nor do they go from bottom to top. The "squibs" follow the collapse of the towers and come at random.
I'm really getting sick of you idiots being willfully blind just so you can try to support your unsupportable points.
cause smoke*
most controlled demolitions take months of prep work because the building is usually stripped of its contents, etc, as I explained. and whether or not they needed months, they did have months.
It would've taken years to rig the two towers alone. They didn't have years.
And they didn't have months. Months means continued time where the building is empty of workers. A few hours here and there won't cut it, dumbass.
why? because just blowing the buildings up would be pretty obvious, whereas so far they've gotten away with explaining controlled demolition as "progressive collapse."
That's hilarious!
Let's see how the logic goes:
"if it had been an uncontrolled collapse, it would be too obvious that they blew it up!"
"so they did a controlled collapse! look at the evidence, it's so obvious!"
You really are an idiot. Why don't you talk some more about how explosives cause buildings to fall faster than free-fall speed.
Either that or explain to me just how thermate is supposed to be used for controlled demolitions.
Even better, explain how thermate would cause "squibs".
Post a Comment
<< Home