Monday, April 04, 2011

KSM: Military Tribunal at Gitmo

No particular surprise here, although (as noted) it is a reversal from Obama's campaign promise.

Furthermore, Mohammad made a complete pre-capture torture-free confession (along with Ramzi Binalshibh) in a Pakistan safe house to Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in 2002, reported at the time and recounted in his book "Masterminds of Terror." Fouda was prepared to be a government witness in either venue. Finally, there was voluminous evidence implicating the five 9/11 Gitmo defendants introduced publicly in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in Virginia federal court five years ago.

77 Comments:

At 04 April, 2011 13:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

http://www.breitbart.tv/father-of-911-heros-powerful-reaction-to-ag-holders-announcement-on-military-tribunals/

 
At 04 April, 2011 14:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

If a terrorist testifies under oath, but it's at a military tribunal, does the testimony still count in Brian's world?

 
At 04 April, 2011 18:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If a terrorist testifies under oath, but it's at a military tribunal, does the testimony still count in Brian's world?

Heh. Probably not. I imagine snug would describe such a proceeding as "dishonest", "[not] independent", "unbelievable", "unconstitutional", and/or "incomplete".

And don't forget the widows. And damn you Willie Rodriguez. Damn you to hell.

 
At 05 April, 2011 08:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

No doubt "the truth" will claim foul that the evidence isn't strong enough to convict in a civilian court, even though they would cry foul either way.

 
At 05 April, 2011 08:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 April, 2011 08:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fouda has no credibility. He admitted that he lied in his articles about the date of the interview, and his tapes are very suspect.

James Drummond wrote in Financial Times: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’”

 
At 05 April, 2011 08:49, Blogger Garry said...

Oh do fuck off, Brian. Your distortions on this (and a host of other subjects) has been dealt with repeatedly. Get a life.

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:11, Blogger Garry said...

I've just been able to access a genuine copy of James Drummond's FT article (11th September 2002). Here it is:

'Doubts were voiced yesterday about the authenticity of videos broadcast by al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite television channel, which appeared to confirm that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US.

The three videos, broadcast on Monday, showed some of the September 11 hijackers and one contained what the broadcaster said was the voice of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, claiming direct responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If genuine, the video would be the first time that Mr bin Laden has directly claimed direct responsibility for any of the bombings. In a tape obtained by US forces in Afghanistan last year, Mr bin Laden was heard telling followers about "calculations" to hit a tower - which many presumed to the World Trade Center - but there was no direct claim of responsibility.

But analysts cited the crude editing of the tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. The scepticism was deepened by al-Jazeera's silence yesterday about how it had obtained the videos.

Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: "I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI."'

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:14, Blogger Garry said...

Continued:

'The release of the videos again highlights the central role of the television station in the continuing propaganda war between the US and supporters of Mr bin Laden.

The channel is planning to broadcast an interview this week with two men, Khaled Sheikh Muhammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, who are believed to say in the film that they were the planners behind the September 11 attacks.

In a filmed interview, the two say they had considered attacking nuclear facilities in the US rather than the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Of the videos shown on Monday, one purports to show four of the September 11 hijackers - Ahmed al-Nami, Hamza and Said al-Ghamidi and Wail al-Shihri - studying maps and flight manuals. Al-Jazeera said the footage was shot in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar "several months" before the bombings last year.

The second tape was said to be the "will" of Abdul Aziz al-Amari, another of the bombers, announcing his intention to carry out an attack.

A third showed still photographs of the four teams of hijackers in which, against a background of Koranic chanting, an unseen Mr bin Laden hailed the men as heroes. Additional reporting by Mark Huband in London Copyright Financial Times Limited 2002. All Rights Reserved'.

Drummond's article makes it clear that Dia Rashwan is not referring to Yosri Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh, which at the time of writing had yet to be broadcast.

This is why you don't rely on truthers and their sources, because they distort the evidence and make shit up.

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well if Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" published by Harper Collins mischaracterized Mr. Drummond's article, then I stand corrected. It appears that FT no longer hosts that article on their site.

So how did you obtain the Drummond article and why should we believe the personal affidavit of an anonymous intenet poster? (We shouldn't!) You didn't get it at amazonaws, by any chance? You call that a reliable source? That article doesn't mention Fouda at all!

You Official Conspiracy Theory nutjobs demonstrate selective skepticism and will believe anything that reinforces your cult belief system.

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:13, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You Official Conspiracy Theory nutjobs demonstrate selective skepticism and will believe anything that reinforces your cult belief system.

Bwian, have you ever heard of Jimmy Roberts? I think you should Google him for your sake. Cause you're acting just like him!

Here, I'll save you time:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/body_chr.htm

 
At 05 April, 2011 11:27, Blogger Garry said...

'Well if Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" published by Harper Collins mischaracterized Mr. Drummond's article, then I stand corrected'.

It did, I've just shown you it.

'So how did you obtain the Drummond article and why should we believe the personal affidavit of an anonymous intenet poster? (We shouldn't!) You didn't get it at amazonaws, by any chance? You call that a reliable source? That article doesn't mention Fouda at all!'

My workplace (yes, that's right Brian, I've got something called a 'job') has access to the FT articles on Proquest. That's how I got it. Piece of piss.

You won't be able to get it from the FT site because they have a paywall policy. And seeing as you're an unemployed janitor, I doubt whether you could afford it yourself.

As for Fouda's interview, try reading this:

'The channel [that's Al Jazeera] is planning to broadcast an interview this week with two men, Khaled Sheikh Muhammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, who are believed to say in the film that they were the planners behind the September 11 attacks'.

That's the Fouda interview, you dipshit.

 
At 05 April, 2011 12:41, Blogger David said...

Brian Good.... what a sorry little turd nugget...

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/profile/show?id=BrianGood

 
At 05 April, 2011 12:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, your inability to recognize that the bald assertions of an anonymous internet poster are proof of nothing is very telling as to the reliability of your opinions.

If what you say is true, then you have pointed out a very serious error in Mr. Thompson's terror timeline.

But since most of the posters on this board lie and lie and lie, I don't think I'll even bother to notify Mr. Thompson. You could do it yourself if you can find the time.

 
At 05 April, 2011 13:50, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, you're busted.

Your original source misrepresented the article in the 'FT' and - cretin that you are - you didn't bother to check.

This is just one of many examples in which so-called 'truthers' have distorted or misrepresented their sources to prove their point.

If you're gutted about the fact that you've been made to look stupid yet again, I've got nothing to say to you except the following. Get used to it, because this will be the story of what's left of your pathetic excuse for a life.

 
At 05 April, 2011 15:59, Blogger Triterope said...

Could someone explain to me why I should care whether this clown's trial is in a military tribunal or civilian court? I've never understood why it's such a hot issue.

 
At 05 April, 2011 23:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I'm sorry but the claims of an anonymnous internet poster are meaningless. If you had any integrity you would have called Ian out for lying months ago--but you didn't and you don't. There's no more reason for me to believe your claims about the FT article than I should believe Willie Rodriguez's claims about anything.

Get to people lying about 9/11? I am used to it. There's no reason to believe your claims.

TR, the old bromide about military justice is that it's like military music. Trying him in a military tribunal leaves the suspicion that he would not have been convicted by a civilian court.

 
At 06 April, 2011 03:19, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, that article is genuine. Do you think that I would go to the extent of making up a fake article in an internationally renowned newspaper just to prove a point? You really, really need medical help for your problems.

 
At 06 April, 2011 08:29, Blogger Pat said...

The Terror Timeline mischaracterized an article making it appear that it supported the conspiracy theory? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!

 
At 06 April, 2011 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garrt, the claims of an anonymous internet poster as to the authenticity of a text are meaningless to anyone with any smarts at all--but such "evidence" seems highly compelling to people who want to be convinced of what they already believe.

You didn't have to make up anything. You could have copied it from the amazonaws page.

 
At 06 April, 2011 10:26, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, get yourself a subscription to Proquest, or get yourself to a public library that has one:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&TS=1179844420&clientId=46766&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=32326&PageNum=1

Access the 'Financial Times' page, Do a search for 'Al Qaeda' (Citation and Document Text) with the date range between 09/01/2002 and 09/30/2002. Make sure you set it for 'Full Text Documents Only'.

You should get 94 hits. The 52nd is the article by Drummond I posted in full.

When you've done that, cut yourself a nice big fat slice of humble pie.

 
At 06 April, 2011 13:58, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, the old bromide about

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 06 April, 2011 19:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sure Garry, just as soon as you go to the NOVA interview with Shyam Sunder, go to 0;55, hear Sunder say that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and then tell Ian to STFU and stop lying about 9/11.

Just as soon as you go to justicefor911.org Appendix 4 and see that 271 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered, and then tell Ian to STFU and stop lying about 9/11,

 
At 06 April, 2011 20:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, do you really think there's a chance in hell that a military court will find KSM not guilty and admit that ten years of war in Afghanistan was a lie?

 
At 07 April, 2011 05:01, Blogger Garry said...

And yet again, Brian wilfully ignores the evidence in front of his eyes, because he's a complete and utter retard.

 
At 07 April, 2011 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

No Garry, I didn't ignore it. In fact I took steps to notify Paul Thompson so he could look into it.

But I'm not going to take the say-so of an anonymous internet poster for anything--especially one who doesn't even have the integrity to slap down blatant liars like Ian and GuitarBill.

How about you--do you think there's any chance KSM will get a presumption of innocence in the military court, and isn't a court without the presumption of innocence simply a formal lynch mob?

 
At 07 April, 2011 09:40, Blogger David said...

Damn! Now Brian Good is an expert on military legal proceedings. Which relative do you credit most for your super level of smarts Brian?

Joan Moskal
Lawrence Good
Karen Good
Janice Sundquist
or
Edwin Good?


I didn't know they could pack that much stupid into a person in a mere 56 years!

 
At 07 April, 2011 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 April, 2011 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, I didn't claim any expertise in military justice. I quoted Groucho Marx and asked a rhetorical question.

Where do you get the idea that expertise comes from relatives?

So, do you think KSM is going to get a presumption of innocence in a military tribunal, and do you think he has a chance in hell of being found not guilty, which would be an admission that nine years of war in Afghanistan was a lie? Don't you think the military has just a leetle bit of a conflict of interest in this matter?


Isn't a trial with a predetermined outcome nothing more than a show trial?

 
At 07 April, 2011 11:38, Blogger Garry said...

'No Garry, I didn't ignore it. In fact I took steps to notify Paul Thompson so he could look into it'.

Yeah, and like all the honest decent folk in the 'troof' movement - all those clowns who have never, ever, willingly twisted the evidence to suit their version of events - he will issue an immediate correction, and will also consult all the other sources he cites to check he's got them right.

'But I'm not going to take the say-so of an anonymous internet poster for anything--especially one who doesn't even have the integrity to slap down blatant liars like Ian and GuitarBill'.

Brian, I've told you how to check that the story I gave you was the right one. You don't want to do that, because you know that - yet again - you'll be found out.

'How about you--do you think there's any chance KSM will get a presumption of innocence in the military court, and isn't a court without the presumption of innocence simply a formal lynch mob?'

In a court of law, if the defendant pleas 'guilty', that's the end of the story. KSM admitted responsibility for 9/11 well before he was arrested. It's only retards and losers like yourself who fail to accept that.

 
At 07 April, 2011 12:27, Blogger David said...

"Where do you get the idea that expertise comes from relatives?"

You didn't get the way you are without some help...

 
At 07 April, 2011 12:34, Blogger David said...

Brian you dumbass - the militay has no conflict of interest because they didn't decide to go to war. They don't pick and choose where they operate you clueless bitch.

Using your logic the Ft Hood killing didn't happen

Does Banihashemi know he's renting to a complete moron?

 
At 07 April, 2011 14:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Who are you calling a blatant liar, sex predator? Your mouth is getting too big for your muzzle, Aunt Fancy.

Telling blatant lies without evidence to substantiate your allegations doesn't add the force of credibility to your argument, Pinocchio.

No doubt, sex predator, you're so stupid that if your brain was chocolate, you couldn't fill an M&M.

 
At 07 April, 2011 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, policing Yosri Fouda's lies is not my first priority right now. He admitted he lied about the date of the interview, and so I will regard him as about as credible as Willie Rodriguez.

I think Paul Thompson has an interest in keeping his timeline fact-based. The facts are damning as it is, so there is no reason to waste credibility on exaggerations or misrepresentations.

A guilty plea is the end of the story if it's made in a court of law. The hearsay account of an admitted liar is hardly equivalent to a plea in court. People make false confessions to crimes all the time.

David, how do you know the military didn't decide to go to war? There's no question that they were calling the shots with respect to this latest surge in Afghanistan.

UtterFail I'm calling you a blatant liar. Your claims that the percentages in the RJ Lee report were by weight became a blatant lie when you refused to admit you were wrong. Your claim that you had proven that fly ash was used in all of the concrete at the WTC was a blatant lie.

 
At 07 April, 2011 17:05, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, do you really think

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 07 April, 2011 17:11, Blogger David said...

There's no question that they were calling the shots with respect to this latest surge in Afghanistan.

The latest surge, in no way, shape or form is comparable to the initial decision to go to war.

I'm arguing with an idiot...

 
At 07 April, 2011 17:16, Blogger David said...

"how do you know the military didn't decide to go to war?"

The military, as a whole decided the time was right to go to war?

and

Asking for additional troops to accomplish an ever changing objective.

Nope... can't seem to equate those two.

 
At 07 April, 2011 19:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, you're playing dumb. Can you in 30 words or less tell us what the objective of the latest surge was?

The brass didn't request more troops. News articles made clear that anything other than more troops would not be acceptable to them, and they got what they wanted.

Do we live under a military junta? Sure looks that way.

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:29, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, policing Yosri Fouda's lies is not my first priority right now. He admitted he lied about the date of the interview'

Of course he did. It was probably a precondition from the interviewees, who at the time were on the run from most of the globe's law and intelligence services. Other journalists getting interviews from the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have used a similar approach, deliberately fudging the date and time in the process.

But what you can't do is claim that the interview itself - or KSM's admission of guilt - was fabricated.

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:33, Blogger Garry said...

'I think Paul Thompson has an interest in keeping his timeline fact-based'.

He - like all other members of the so-called 'truth movement' - are habitual liars. That's why sites like SLC exist in the first place.

'A guilty plea is the end of the story if it's made in a court of law'.

You mean like it was here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7770856.stm

 
At 08 April, 2011 09:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, Fouda didn't have to lie. He could have said "the interview was conducted sometime over the last three months. The exact circumstances are being withheld for security reasons."

I didn't say the interview was fabricated. But because Fouda lied, his credibility is not good. Besides, people make false confessions all the time. Maybe KSM had strategic reasons to do so--to see how fast and how wide the story would spread, for instance. In any case, a hearsay account under no circumstances carries the weight of a guilty plea in court.

Your BBC report says that after announcing his intention to confess, KSM then refused to do so. Sounds like a publicity stunt. He also said he did not trust the judge, and could not work his his military lawyer, an Irag vet.

Would you mind citing an actual lie by Paul Thompson, who you call an "habitual liar"? If some overworked volunteer flubbed on a document summary, that's hardly a lie from Thompson.

And what's with your selective outrage? How come you never comment on the habitual lies of Ian and GutterBall?

 
At 08 April, 2011 11:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, sex predator?

You've never proven that I lied about anything.

In fact, all you've ever done is resort to a straw man arguments that blatantly misrepresent my propositions; then you "refute" the propositions you falsely attribute to me, without ever refuting my original proposition.

In other words, you're intellectually dishonest, lying troofer scum--not to mention a sex predator.

So sex predator, harassed any married women lately--you filthy home wrecker?

 
At 08 April, 2011 14:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 April, 2011 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, I'm not lying UtterFail. But you are, when you call me a sex predator and a goat molester.

I have shown that you lied about the RJLee report when you claimed emphatically that the 6% figure for iron microspheres was by weight. You have also lied when you claimed you proved that fly ash was used in all the WTC concrete.

And now you're going to lie by claiming that I misrepresented your positions.

You are also hypocritical in claiming that there was something dishonest about me citing information from a report that has conclusions with which I disagree, then turning around and yourself citing data from a report that has conclusions with which you disagree.

I didn't wreck any homes and didn't harass anybody, UtterFail. Ms. Brouillet complained of what she perceived to be my attitude, She was mistaken.

 
At 08 April, 2011 16:15, Blogger David said...

"The brass didn't request more troops. News articles made clear that anything other than more troops would not be acceptable to them, and they got what they wanted"

Dude - you are insne.

"Do we live under a military junta? Sure looks that way."

I wouldn't know - the internet is horrible at my gulag and I refuse to touch those filty newspapers in between beating sesions.

 
At 10 April, 2011 09:49, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, you're a fucking retard.

You admit that there's no grounds for regarding the Fouda interview as fake, and your rationale for KSM's repeated admissions of guilt (before and after capture) are something that only a mentally disturbed janitor could come up with.

As for the boo-hoo about Paul Thompson, he either failed to check his source before he made his claim - in which case he's as much of a spastic as you are - or he deliberately misrepresented it. Makes me wonder how often these 'mistakes' crop up in his 'research'.

 
At 11 April, 2011 20:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, your "Nobody's beating me so we don't live under a military junta" construct is irrational.

When the President must act to make the military happy instead of the military acting to make the president happy, that is rule by the military.

Garry, I never said there were no grounds for regarding the Fouda interview as fake. I never saw the interview. I don't know what grounds there might be,

People frequently confess to crimes falsely--some for rational reasons and some for irrational ones. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Maybe, just maybe, Paul Thompson made a mistake. It happens. Especially when one must rely on over-worked volunteers.

 
At 12 April, 2011 10:05, Blogger David said...

"When the President must act to make the military happy instead of the military acting to make the president happy, that is rule by the military."

Or else what - they hold their breath and throw a tantrum?

You dumbfuck - you just took a huge dump on all the victims of REAL military juntas and dictatorships throughout history.

make happy? WTF

 
At 12 April, 2011 13:45, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I never said there were no grounds for regarding the Fouda interview as fake. I never saw the interview. I don't know what grounds there might be'.

Bollocks. On repeated threads you've claimed that the Al Jazeera interview was completely fabricated, and KSM never admitted to responsibility for 9/11 prior to his arrest.

'People frequently confess to crimes falsely--some for rational reasons and some for irrational ones. That's a fact. Deal with it'.

Could you give me an example of someone admitting responsibility for an act of mass-murder just for shits and giggles? Or are you just going to make up some more shit.

'Maybe, just maybe, Paul Thompson made a mistake. It happens. Especially when one must rely on over-worked volunteers'.

Bullshit. Thompson either failed to check whether his source fitted his claim, or he just used it and hoped no one would notice. And the idea of 'troofers' being 'overworked' is more crap.

 
At 12 April, 2011 13:48, Blogger Garry said...

Brian Good says he never claimed the interview was fake, but on here he states that 'He [KSM] admitted [responsibility for 9/11] if the journalist, an admitted liar, can be believed.'

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/07/greatest-thread-evah.html

 
At 13 April, 2011 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you're missing the point. Just because we don't have summary executions in the street doesn't mean it's not a military junta. How much of the military budget was threatened in the recent $60 billion/ $30 billion cuts controversy?

I never said Fouda's interview was completely fabricated. Why would I say such a stupid thing? I said Fouda was an admitted liar despite the fact that it was not necessary for him to lie. His claims about his alleged interview are thus rather suspect.

People frequently confess to crimes falsely. That's a fact. I have no need to speculate about what their motives were.

Members of the truth movement are extremely overworked. I went through a period of months on three and four hours of sleep a night.

I'm sorry you guys can't handle epistemic nuance. Maybe if you'd ponder some of the differences between known knows, unknown unknowns, known unknowns, and unrecognized knowns your statements would be a little more intelligent.

 
At 13 April, 2011 12:37, Blogger David said...

Brian - I really do miss beating the shit out of you in grade school.

 
At 13 April, 2011 15:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The homosexual psychopath whines, "...epistemic nuance."

Tell us more about "epistemic nuance", Mr. Cognitive Dissonance.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass, let alone substantiate your assertions.

Go play in the freeway, gay boi.

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gee GutterBall, did anybody ever tell you you're not very bright?

I bet you had to work really hard to get where you are--which is nowhere.

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, gay boi?

Butthurt because I OWN your lying ass? Notice that no one is calling me a liar, or questioning the evidence I provide.

Well, if nothing else, you're a fully-qualified compulsive liar with an IQ that barely approaches your shoe size.

Conversed with any plankton lately, felcher?

 
At 14 April, 2011 08:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you own nothing but your own ignorance. You're not even man enough to own your errors. You claimed that all 424,000 tons of concrete was destroyed at WTC, and you haven't a clue about why that's impossible.

You claimed that column 79 held up the entire east end of WTC7 when anybody who'd even so much as visited in a high rise building would know that notion is absurd.

You're reduced to sputtering grade-school insults.

I'm calling you a liar, and the fact that no one else does is irrelevant. No one else calls Ian a liar either, though he lies blatantly and persistently. What a pair of gunsels you two make--Ian lies because he thinks it's funny and you lie because you think it's smart.

 
At 14 April, 2011 12:46, Blogger Garry said...

'Members of the truth movement are extremely overworked. I went through a period of months on three and four hours of sleep a night'.

Brian, it is not my fault - or that of anyone else - that you, Thompson and assorted nut-jobs, social failures and borderline psychopaths have wasted your lives since September 2001 trying to prove - against the vast weight of evidence - that anyone other than AQ was responsible for 9/11.

Your decade of distress would be touching were it not for the fact that it is self-inflicted.

I can only repeat again my suggestion that you seek medical help from a professional who specialises in mental health problems. It's the only thing to stop you from going full-on with a Travis Bickle.

PS: The Fouda interview is real, and KSM's admission of responsibility (and pride in his handiwork) is real. Deal with it.

 
At 14 April, 2011 17:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 April, 2011 07:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, al Qaeda did not cripple the air defenses of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Use of hijacked airliners as as missiles was not only anticipated, it was the subject of NORAD drills, even an airliner-into-WTC scenario.

Hamilton and Kean wrote that they were so upset by NORAD's lies to the 9/11 Commission that theuy considered referring the matter to the DoJ for a criminal investigation.

That you can not see the absurdity of the bald assertions of an anonymous internet poster as to the journalistic claims of an admitted liar only further demonstrates why you should not be granted any credibility at all.

Fouda didn't have to lie. He could have simply been vague about the date of the interview. That he gave away his credibility so easily shows that he never had any.

 
At 16 April, 2011 12:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, you've never proven that I lied, and you've never offered anything more than your lying, worthless, unprofessional OPINION to substantiate your threadbare position.

You're a typical homosexual psychopath--and our prison system is filled with degenerate scum just like you--you lying butthole surfer. You lie first, last and always.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you lied 4/12 at 1:09 in the April Gallop thread when you wrote: "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7." That is not true, and it is not a mistake. You wrote as if you knew what you were talking about and you didn't. It was a lie.

You lied when you claimed that the RJ Lee report's measure of microspheres was by weight.

You lie when you claim that I lie.

You still don't know why the NRDC figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is impossible, do you? And you can't even find an authority well-enough informed to clue you in.

You're pathetic.

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie after being proven wrong, and scribbles, "...UtterFail, you lied 4/12 at 1:09 in the April Gallop thread when you wrote: "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

The NIST Report proves that you're a liar, gay boy--and I quote:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

Thus, we can see that it was only necessary for one column to fail--column 79A--in order for the global collapse to proceed. It's also clear that "the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." Hence, contrary to your lying assertions, fire played a major role in the collapse. In addition, we can see that your post at 8:26 completely and wantonly misrepresents the contents of the NIST Report.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SEX PREDATOR.

Now, squirm--you lying weasel, squirm.

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You lied when you claimed that the RJ Lee report's measure of microspheres was by weight.

FALSE. Comparing apples to oranges isn't proof. It's more evidence that you're a compulsive liar.

"...You lie when you claim that I lie."

FALSE.

"...You still don't know why the NRDC figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is impossible, do you? And you can't even find an authority well-enough informed to clue you in."

You've never proven that the NDRC is wrong. All you do is lie like the homosexual degenerate and psychopath you've always been.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you continue to quote-spam, citing material that has nothing to do with your lying claim that "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

Did anyone ever tell you that you're the one who tries to hide what you don't know to begin with?

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, gay boy?

If the failure of column 79A led to the global collapse, it's defined as a critical column. Thus, my statement is perfectly true.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you didn't say column79a was a critical column. You said "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

That's not true. It was a lie, one of many that comes from you. You don't know what you're talking about, and pretending that you do is only revealing your ignorance, cynicism, and dishonesty.

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, you didn't say column79a was a critical column."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Another bald-faced lie. I've stated over-and-over again that column 79A was a critical column--and the NIST Report on WTC 7 also states that column 79A was a critical column.

And here's the proof that you're lying:

"...That's right, sex predator, be sure to conveniently omit that column 79A was considered a critical column because column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/04/aprils-case-gallops-ahead.html#c6429460669248044386

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're a liar and quote miner.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, gay boy, lie to us again.

Obviously, the gay boy has reached rock bottom and shows signs of starting to dig.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're nothing but a degenerate and a psychopath.

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you said "column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

That wasn't true. It was a lie, and you're not man enough to admit it.

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gay boy, I've proven that you're a liar once again.

The following passage from the NIST Report proves that I'm right and you're wrong:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

All you have is worthless opinion, lies, gay squeal spam and intellectual dishonesty.

There's a good reason why you can't quote an authoritive source to back your position. You're a liar.

You lose, once again.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your quote-mined quote-spam does not address the fact that you lied when you said that column 79 ALONE held up the eastern section of WTC7.

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven anything, gay boy. You haven't proven that I quote mined anything, and you've utterly failed to provide one scintilla of evidence to show that the failure of the critical column didn't initiate the global collapse. All you offer are lies, logical fallacies and your worthless opinion.

You're merely attempting to bury your latest exposure as a liar, fraud and a con artist under an avalanche of gay squeal spam--you no account felcher?

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I proved that you lied.

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to bury your latest defeat in an avalanche of gay squeal spam, felcher?

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not trying to bury anything. It's you with the endless quote- and insult-spam. You lied about column 79 and you're not man enough to admit it.

 
At 17 April, 2011 17:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, I didn't lie about column 79A, gay boy.

You lied when you wrote, "...There were at least three columns (79, 80, and 81) holding up the floors at the eastern end of WTC7, and it would be more accurate to say six columns (76-81)."

Six columns? That's a bald faced lie.

You also lied when you claimed that I never said column 79A was critical column.

In addition, you lied when you claimed the failure of column 79A wasn't responsible for initiating the global collapse. You also mislead the reader when you ignored another very important fact: Of the three columns, column 79, 80 and 81, column 79 was the critical column.

And that's only four lies that I care to document. The fact is that you lie constantly, and when caught lying you either rationalize the lie or directly contradict yourself.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Six columns, oh Mr. Never-Can-Be Wrong. Some of us avoid being wrong by avoiding saying stupid things, and some of us (you) have to settle for lying about what we said to try to cover over the fact that we were wrong.

Six columns hold up "entire east section of World Trade Center building 7" that you claimed in the April Gallop thread (4/12 1:09) were supported by "column 79A ALONE".

We've already been over this, and you're just engaging in obfuscatory repeat-spam.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home