Sunday, May 06, 2012

What Do They Want?

The September 11th Advocates (essentially the Jersey Girls minus Kristen Breitweiser plus Monica Gabrielle) release a statement on the upcoming tribunal of KSM and four others:

It would seem that the U.S. Government found itself in a conundrum when they allowed prisoners, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), to be tortured in secret prisons around the world. Once tortured, any confession or testimony from KSM, or others, could not be deemed reliable. Furthermore, the focus of the eventual proceedings would become a trial about the practice of torture, instead of being a trial about alleged terrorist crimes. That would have been untenable for the U.S. Government, which wants to avoid any and all accountability for their own crimes of torture.

In order to bypass potential discussion of torture, the latest Chief Prosecutor for the Military Commissions, Brig. General Mark Martins, found a willing witness in Majid Khan, a fellow GITMO inmate to KSM. Khan himself was not involved in the 9/11 plot. He supposedly got his information from time spent behind bars at GITMO with KSM. Kahn (sic) will be allowed to give this hearsay evidence against KSM in return for a reduced sentence. However, Khan’s sentencing won’t take place for four years. It seems the Prosecution is pinning their hopes and dreams on Khan’s upcoming performance. None of this lends credibility to an already suspect system.

Additionally, with campaigning for the upcoming Presidential elections heating up, the timing of this latest attempt at justice for 9/11 is exploitive (sic) at best.

First of all, why the focus on the supposed torture of KSM and others? KSM admitted his role in the 9-11 attacks before he was captured. Second, Casazza, Kleinberg, et.al., appear not to understand the meaning of the term "hearsay evidence". Admissions made to a fellow prisoner are not hearsay. It is when the admissions discuss third parties that it becomes inadmissible as evidence. If, for example, KSM confessed his part in the 9-11 attacks to Khan, that would be perfectly acceptable as evidence. On the other hand, if KSM told Khan that Ramzi bin-al-Shibh was the paymaster for the attacks, that would not be admissible.

More important is the third issue. Are the September 11th Advocates so wedded to the idea that KSM and his co-conspirators should be tried in a US court that they would be willing to accept the possibility of him being set free? I certainly am not.

133 Comments:

At 06 May, 2012 21:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

They will get a fairer trial than their victims did.

Plus this rant assumes the members of the tribunal won't think for themselves. I suspect a few will get off with prison sentences, life, and even time served. Not KSM, but some of the lackies.

It's better to wait for the verdicts before whining about how unfair everything was.

*Not every Nazi was hung at Nuremberg.

 
At 06 May, 2012 22:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, for your information that KSM admitted to the 9/11 attacks before capture you are relying on the self-serving assertions of a journalist who lied about the very interview you cite. He has produced no tapes to corroborate his claims.

Waterboarding KSM 183 times was not "supposed torture"--it was torture. Ask Christopher Hitchens, who lasted 15 seconds, and Mancow Muller, who lasted 6.

Your concern that a fair trial might wind up setting KSM free seems to reflect a lack of confidence in the government's case. So why would you assert the principle that it's preferable to have a phony trial and keep KSM in jail than it is to have a fair trial and prove his guilt?

 
At 06 May, 2012 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, to suggest that they wait for the verdict to complain is simple-minded.
A flawed process is as objectionable as a flawed verdict. The testimony of someone who is trying to buy his way out of jail with it is inherently suspect.

If they did wait for the verdict before they complained, then you'd say they should have brought up their complaint earlier.

"They will get a fairer trial than their victims did" assumes guilt, and it is lynch mob mentality.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:21, Blogger Ian said...

I would much prefer a civilian trial for KSM. It worked for Ramzi Yousef, and it worked for Timothy McVeigh, both notorious terrorists and murderers.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:23, Blogger Len said...

Brian

get back to us with evidence Fouda lied about KSM's confession.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's in "The Eleventh Day". Maybe if you'd learn to google, your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:42, Blogger The Q. said...

little OT:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqk73f_timelapse-one-world-trade-center_fun

bbye

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:21, Blogger Jon Gold said...

What do they want?

If you read the title of their statement (which you neglected to post here), you would see that it says, "Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals ... No Justice for 9/11 Victims Found Here"

Ya know? I think they might just want justice for what happened to their loved ones. Something that won't be found at GITMO.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ya know? I think they might just want justice for what happened to their loved ones.

Meaning what?

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Seriously, Jon. What does "justice" mean? A $25 fine? Execution? What does it mean?

And what makes the attitudes of your friends important, when tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors do not object to the tribunal form of justice? You probably lack the integrity to answer that question.

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors keep silent because they accepted the implicit deal: you take the money (average payout, 1.5 million per victim) and you count your blessings and keep your mouth shut.

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

Tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors keep silent because they accepted the implicit deal: you take the money (average payout, 1.5 million per victim) and you count your blessings and keep your mouth shut.

Hey, if a paranoid lunatic unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State say it, it must be true!

 
At 07 May, 2012 17:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State?

 
At 07 May, 2012 17:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

""They will get a fairer trial than their victims did" assumes guilt, and it is lynch mob mentality."

Cool

 
At 07 May, 2012 17:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Cool by you. Not by the widows. They want justice, not idiot revenge.

 
At 07 May, 2012 18:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors keep silent because they accepted the implicit deal:

You're claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have.

 
At 07 May, 2012 18:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, I'm expressing an opinion. An informed opinion, based on what I waa told by someone who was involved in survivors' groups.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I would much prefer a civilian trial for KSM. It worked for Ramzi Yousef, and it worked for Timothy McVeigh, both notorious terrorists and murderers.

I wouldn't object to a civilian trial either. I'm pretty sure the key reason for avoiding one is to keep classified info out of the public record. The government can get the benefit of relaxed rules of evidence in a tribunal, but a competent defense has plenty to work with.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

An informed opinion, based on what I was told by someone

Hearsay.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, it was her direct experience.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

No, it was her direct experience.

Not her. You. You telling me what she said is hearsay.

Furthermore, imputing what she said to every other 9/11 survivor is retarded.

 
At 07 May, 2012 20:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Informative comparison of defendants' rights in civilian court and tribunals here. Interesting factoid: if you're convicted by a tribunal you can appeal to the tribunal itself, and then appeal to the DC Circuit and finally to the Supreme Court. That's an extra appeal that civilians in federal court don't get.

 
At 07 May, 2012 20:40, Blogger Ian said...

Where did you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State?

You said you failed out of San Jose State.

No, I'm expressing an opinion. An informed opinion, based on what I waa told by someone who was involved in survivors' groups.

Nobody cares about your opinions, since you're a mentally ill liar and unemployed janitor.

 
At 07 May, 2012 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Informative comparison of defendants' rights in civilian court and tribunals here. Interesting factoid: if you're convicted by a tribunal you can appeal to the tribunal itself, and then appeal to the DC Circuit and finally to the Supreme Court. That's an extra appeal that civilians in federal court don't get.

As long as it is fair and follows Constitutional guidelines. I worry about a lynch mob mentality that could take over in a case like this. That's all.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:00, Blogger Len said...

BG babbled: 'It's in "The Eleventh Day".'

No it's not. Yosri Fouda's interviews with KSM and Binalshibh is discussed on pages 284 - 6 and the authors said no such thing. They described him as a "brave journalist". Here are the most relevant excerpts from their account:

-----------------------------------
THERE IS, however, a measure of considerable consolation [with the version KSM during interrogation]. Long before they were caught, KSM and a fellow operative freely volunteered much the same version of events to an Arab television journalist. The scoop of a lifetime had come to Yosri Fouda…

[…]

After prayers together the following morning, the two men shared their version of the preparation and execution of 9/11. Their accounts largely match the version subsequently extracted from KSM by the CIA. Binalshibh pulled from an old suitcase dozens of mementos of the operation: information on Boeing airplanes, a navigation map of the American East Coast, illustrations on “How to perform sudden maneuvers” — a page covered in notations made, Binalshibh said, by the hijackers’ leader, Mohamed Atta.

Unaccountably, 9/11 Commission staff failed to interview Fouda and mentioned his breakthrough interview only in an obscure footnote. It was included, however, in evidence presented during the military tribunal proceedings at Guantánamo. Two distinguished award-winning reporters, The Wall Street Journal’s Ron Suskind and CNN contributor Peter Bergen, who both interviewed Yosri Fouda, found his reporting of the Karachi encounter authentic and compelling.
-----------------------------------

Nowhere did they even hint that they thought Fouda had been less than truthful, quite the contrary they cited it as confirmation of KSM’s statements to the CIA.

Lying (making up facts) like this is really sleazy and on a site like this one dumb. Perhaps you can get away doing so on truther sites but most commenters here a reasonably were informed about 9/11 and check facts.

Maybe if you'd learn to google, your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar.

LOL this coming from someone who makes up facts and is considered “so peculiar” by both truthers and debunkers.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see that your thorough research didn't extend to the endnotes. They said that he lied. Maybe if you'd learn to google your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar, and maybe if you'd check your facts a little more carefully you wouldn't be so quick to accuse people who know what they're talking about of lying when you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. I never said that I failed out of San Jose State. I never even attended San Jose State.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:18, Blogger Len said...

From the other thread:
Ian

You know what's a really underrated album? "Adventure" by Television. Everyone (rightly) commends "Marquee Moon" for being one of the all-time great albums, but "Adventure" is fantastic as well and deserves more recognition, IMHO.


Ian I have a vinyl bootleg of them while Richard Hell was in the band, it includes some demos they did with Brian Eno and some live tracks at CB’s. Though the audio quality is not very good I like better than either studio album, the highlight is “Blank Generation” with Verlaine and Lloyd’s guitar work. The funny thing is I bought it decades ago at Bleecker Bob’s days after reading that this line up never recorded! I imagine you can find these recordings on the Net.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:25, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug dissembled...

I see that your thorough research didn't extend to the endnotes. They said that he lied. Maybe if you'd learn to google your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar, and maybe if you'd check your facts a little more carefully you wouldn't be so quick to accuse people who know what they're talking about of lying when you don't know what you're talking about.


Bullshit they said no such thing in the text or endnotes, you're a liar or deluded or both. Why would they bury such a key finding in their notes

Prove me wrong and produce the quote, wait I sniff another lame excuse coming

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 May, 2012 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, you're lying. Your tendency to paradigmatic thinking leads you to believe you know things you don't know, and to invent excuses to ignore the facts.

Chapter 21, note 244 (see p. 515). "Fouda said 'I lied because I needed to lie.'"

http://books.google.com/books?id=_3Khbl9ODkEC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=eleventh+day+fouda&source=bl&ots=7FiDEB1wOR&sig=ZJSSqcpVjPGcAKEfg5h1O0kDDh8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RDCpT7HfGbPMiQKMsLCjAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fouda%20lied&f=false

Now what was that you were saying about sleazy lying (making up facts) being dumb, and checking facts?

 
At 08 May, 2012 08:43, Blogger texasjack said...

A quote-mining truther. Here is the full quote from Fouda himself:

"Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.

So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communique because it alluded to the interview taking place in May."

There is no lying about the interview, only the date, and for very good reasons. There's a reason it ended up as an endnote in the book. It doesn't compromise Fouda's version in the least.

Let's not forget that KSM also confessed in 2008 with no waterboards in sight.

Let's not lose sight that confessions themselves don't mean crap unless there is corroborating evidence. A couple hundred confessions have been made in the Jon-Benet Ramsey case, yet none of them have been charged. I'm sure the govt has a boatload of evidence corroborating his confessions on those laptops they confiscated, but I'm going to wait for this to be played out in court.

 
At 08 May, 2012 08:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Point being, he lied about his article and he lied in his article. His blather about why he needed to lie makes no sense. There would be any number of references other than the date that would help to establish "guilty knowledge" of anonymous communicators.

Lying in journalism is unforgivable. His reports are not trustworthy. We have no reason to trust anything he says about the meeting he claims he had, and for Pat to leave the fact that Fouda is a liar out of his writeup is dishonest.

"No waterboards in sight" is certainly a disingenuous claim. Tell me, does the US government still have custody of KSM's wife and kids?

 
At 08 May, 2012 09:10, Blogger Ian said...

The discussion of Television makes me wonder what other bands out there have a second great album that is overshadowed by the more well-known or critically-acclaimed record. Nirvana jumps to mind immediately, as I've long felt that "Nevermind" was too polished, and that "In Utero" is really the sound they always wanted.

Also, there's no justice in the music world sometimes. If you added up all the albums released by Television, Mission of Burma, Jane's Addiction, and the Pixies (not counting lame reunion albums), it still doesn't add up to all the records released by Nickelback.

 
At 08 May, 2012 10:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Nickleback....The Brian Goode of rock.

 
At 08 May, 2012 12:40, Blogger Len said...

Blogger snug.bug said...

Point being, he lied about his article and he lied in his article. His blather about why he needed to lie makes no sense. There would be any number of references other than the date that would help to establish "guilty knowledge" of anonymous communicators.

Lying in journalism is unforgivable. His reports are not trustworthy. We have no reason to trust anything he says about the meeting he claims he had, and for Pat to leave the fact that Fouda is a liar out of his writeup is dishonest.


So say’s an unemployed former janitor whose views are shared by:

Chaim Kupferberg (possibly a pseudonym), a blogger whose writings sometimes appears on CT site like Global Research, and

Paul Thompson a psychologist, turned environmental activist, turned timeline compliler.

But apparently no journalists, historians or terrorism experts. On the other hand his account was accepted by:

Anthony Summers, a veteran journalist, just nominated for a Pulitzer;
Ron Suskind veteran journalist Pulizer prize winner formerly senior national affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal now a visiting scholar at Dartmouth

Peter Bergen veteran journalist, winner of several awards and author of several AQ related books.

CNN

Among others.

The is an audiotape of the Binalshibh interview and I believe of the KSM one as well.

If Pat "leav[ing] the fact that Fouda" gave an incorrect date "out of his writeup is dishonest" what does that make BG who failed to mention the fact there is no evidence any of his other claims are incorrect?

 
At 08 May, 2012 12:41, Blogger Len said...

Speaking of underrated 2nd albums I always liked 'Radio Ethiopia' better than most critics

 
At 08 May, 2012 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fouda admitted he lied in his article. His explanation of why he lied does not make sense. Please cite the section in the code of journalistic ethics where it says it's ok to lie.

Summers points out that the 9/11 Commission did not cite Fouda's work. So gee, I guess the 9/11 Commission did not find it credible.

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 08 May, 2012 14:06, Blogger Len said...

Fouda admitted he lied in his article. His explanation of why he lied does not make sense. Please cite the section in the code of journalistic ethics where it says it's ok to lie.

Summers points out that the 9/11 Commission did not cite Fouda's work. So gee, I guess the 9/11 Commission did not find it credible.

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.’”


- Fouda's explanation does make sense to you. Get back to us with a journalist, historian or terrorism expert who questions it

- There could be various reasons for the 9/11 C. not citing the interview. Most of what KSM said in it he told the CIA.

- The article in the FT was NOR about the Fouda interviews.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/financialtimes091102.html

 
At 08 May, 2012 14:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Please cite the section in the code of journalistic ethics where it says it's ok to lie.

You're saying it's dishonest for an undercover journalist to pose as somebody else?

 
At 08 May, 2012 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fouda's explanation does not make sense on its face. There are many tags he could use to verify the authenticity of the correspondence that would not require him to lie in his article. He lied and he admitted he lied. There is no reason to believe him.

 
At 08 May, 2012 14:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Fouda's explanation does not make sense on its face.

Stay on topic. Are you saying that it's never -- not even where working undercover, protecting anonymous sources, or in the interests of safety -- permissible for a journalist to lie?

 
At 08 May, 2012 15:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

It wasn't necessary to lie. There were plenty of other tags Fouda could have used other than the date. So this strongly suggests that he lied about his lie--which is what liars do.

You're all trying to obscure the point--that your claim that KSM confessed to 9/11 in 2002 is based on very unreliable evidence--it is sole-sourced in one person who is a demonstrated liar.

 
At 08 May, 2012 16:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

There were plenty of other tags Fouda could have used other than the date.

Such as?

 
At 08 May, 2012 16:06, Blogger Len said...

BG

Get back to use when you can cite a journalist or historian who doubts Fouda's account.

 
At 08 May, 2012 16:07, Blogger texasjack said...


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.’”


That's a c&p from history commons and not what the Finacial Times article says. You'll notice you can't access the article through historycommons. It's BS that Paul Thompson made up. Nowhere in the article does it state that Foudra had some highly questionable tapes. The tapes they are talking about refer to this part of the article:
'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."

That's why Paul Thompson is not a journalist and never will be. Foudra was a respected journalist, a gumshoe in the tradition of Steve Coll and Terry McDermott, before 9/11, and continues to be one afterwards. Because he upsets your fantasy, you'll go to any length to poison the well.

Foudra lied for a legitimate reasons, what is Paul Thompson's excuse?

 
At 08 May, 2012 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, I already did cite a journalist: James Drummond in Financial Times.

tj, Foudra's lie was not at all legitimate. There was no reason for it and his bogus explanation suggests that he lied about the lie.

There is no reason to believe that the amazonawes text is genuine. I'll suppose that Paul Thompson's excuse is that his work is correct. If you think he's wrong, ask him to check again.

Foudra lied in his article, he lied about his article, and it looks like he lied about the lies.

In any case, there is no reason to believe his claim that KSM confessed to 9/11 in 2002.

 
At 08 May, 2012 17:17, Blogger Len said...

BG babbled " Len, I already did cite a journalist: James Drummond in Financial Times."

As TexasJack and I already pointed out to you Drummond was talking about the OBL tape not the KSM one.

So my question still stands.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/financialtimes091102.html

 
At 08 May, 2012 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Take it up with Paul Thompson. Perhaps the amazonaws text is not the actual text of the article, and perhaps Thomson got mixed up and cited the title of the wrong article.

Quibbling about the criticisms is just a distraction. The fact remains that Fouda lied in his article, he lied about his article, and his explanation of why he lied smells like a lie itself. Y'all are citing an extremely unreliable report as the source for your claim that KSM confessed in 2002 to 9/11.

 
At 08 May, 2012 17:55, Blogger texasjack said...

It is legitimate text because I accessed it through my college library I'm an alumnus at.

I did contact Paul Thompson via e-mail months ago (I also pointed out the countless broken links he had). The liar never responded.

As Len has pointed out, there is not one legitimate journalist that questions his account. Foudra, in the interview, explained why he did it.

KSM has confessed at least twice, under no duress, and both accounts line up. When the confessions are corroborated with the hard evidence, truthers will have more nails in their coffin than wood.

 
At 08 May, 2012 18:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, an anonymous internet poster authenticated the document. I see you went to the Kevin Barrett college of scholarship.

Since Fouda is a liar there is no need to question his account. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

You don't know what duress KSM was under. You make this shit up.

 
At 08 May, 2012 18:37, Blogger texasjack said...

If you had access to a college library you could verify yourself. But that's never going to happen is it? Google University doesn't count.

 
At 08 May, 2012 18:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't have time. I trust Paul Thompson. I don't trust the claims of anonymous internet posters. Maybe he made a mistake. It's a trivial point not worth checking. The real point is that since Fouda is a liar, his story is under a cloud. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

 
At 08 May, 2012 19:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The real point is that since Fouda is a liar, his story is under a cloud.

Not true. The discrepancy was for a legitimate purpose and is immaterial to the story's content. Disclosure of the discrepancy was timely.

 
At 08 May, 2012 19:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 May, 2012 19:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

The discrepancy was NOT for a legitimate purpose. Fouda claimed that knowledge of the discrepancy was to serve as a tag for who was there. He could have used something else for a tag--something that wouldn't require him to lie in his new article.

The way you guys bend over backwards to defend liars while you're lawyering for the prosecution is very telling.

 
At 08 May, 2012 19:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

He could have used something else for a tag--something that wouldn't require him to lie in his new article.

Like what?

 
At 08 May, 2012 20:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Like a picture on the wall, a palm tree outside, the color of the rug, the identity of the other participants, something that went on in the conversation, what kind of tea they drank, what the small talk was about, and unusual ceiling fan, what brand of cigarettes KSM smokes.

 
At 08 May, 2012 20:56, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, an anonymous internet poster authenticated the document. I see you went to the Kevin Barrett college of scholarship.

Speaking of which, has anyone authenticated the list of "questions" from "widows" that Brian constantly posts? I mean, Brian is a known liar, so there's no reason to believe that the widows have questions.

Since Fouda is a liar there is no need to question his account. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he knows KSM freely admitted his role in masterminding 9/11, and that destroys his delusions about magic thermite sprayed on the towers by members of the Bush administration.

You don't know what duress KSM was under. You make this shit up.

Squeal squeal squeal!

I don't have time. I trust Paul Thompson. I don't trust the claims of anonymous internet posters. Maybe he made a mistake. It's a trivial point not worth checking. The real point is that since Fouda is a liar, his story is under a cloud. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

Nobody cares who you trust. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and was expelled from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

 
At 08 May, 2012 20:57, Blogger Ian said...

Let's all remember the important points here: in his hysterical squealing, Brian confirmed that there is no reason to believe that the widows have questions.

Thanks for proving my point, Brian.

 
At 08 May, 2012 21:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Like a picture on the wall, a palm tree outside...

Those details are subjective and subject to change. The date is not.

What standard are you using to determine which details are OK to lie about? You don't seem to have one.

 
At 08 May, 2012 21:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, we've already been over the authenticity of the questions. The website is that of the organization that presented the questions to the Attorney General of NY.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 08 May, 2012 21:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the fact that the details are subject to change makes them good indicators that someone was actually there.

There was no need to lie about anything. If he wanted to use the ceiling fan as an indicator, he'd just leave it out of the story.

 
At 08 May, 2012 21:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, we've already been over the authenticity of the questions. The website is that of the organization that presented the questions to the Attorney General of NY.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


So an anonymous internet liar is claiming the website is authentic. Thanks for proving my point. There is no reason to believe the questions are authentic.

The widows have no questions. If they did, they would tell us that they did, and wouldn't need a mentally ill unemployed janitor and pervert and liar to speak on their behalf.

 
At 08 May, 2012 21:38, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, Kevin Barrett says you live with your parents. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

That's what I'd expect from someone who can't hold down a job mopping floors. I bet your mom dresses you every morning too.

 
At 08 May, 2012 22:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 May, 2012 00:27, Blogger Pat said...

So "only" 91% of their questions were answered?

 
At 09 May, 2012 00:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry Pat, my mistake. You know as well as I that only 9% of the widows' questions were answered, so your tolerance of Ian's lies on this point is a mystery to me.

 
At 09 May, 2012 05:22, Blogger Len said...

Len, I already did cite a journalist: James Drummond in Financial Times.

tj, Foudra's lie was not at all legitimate. There was no reason for it and his bogus explanation suggests that he lied about the lie.

There is no reason to believe that the amazonawes text is genuine.


You cited the Drummond article it is up to you to establish it says what you claim. Based on the online text it does not, according to texasjack it does not and unfortunately for you the text was posted on a forum for Muslims 2 days after it was published in the FT. It would be easy for you to show the Amazon text is fake, all you have to do is visit a decent library.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?8487-Doubts-Over-Latest-Al-Jazeera-Videos

Also you claim Fouda “produced no tapes to corroborate his claims” but also cite an article supposedly indicating the tapes were fake, which is it?

So my question still stands.

 
At 09 May, 2012 06:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If he wanted to use the ceiling fan as an indicator, he'd just leave it out of the story.

Many others would have access to details like ceiling fans, palm trees, KSM's cigarettes, etc. The tag needs to be something that only those present would know. You don't seem to understand how this works.

And you still haven't explained why journalists are permitted to lie, except in the sole and unique case of Yosri Fouda.

 
At 09 May, 2012 06:44, Blogger Ian said...

Sorry Pat, my mistake. You know as well as I that only 9% of the widows' questions were answered, so your tolerance of Ian's lies on this point is a mystery to me.

Actually, Brian, nobody knows this, because you have yet to present any evidence that the widows have questions, and given that you're a delusional sex predator, it wouldn't surprise me if you made things up about these "widows" because you're stalking them.

 
At 09 May, 2012 09:55, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"supposed torture"

"what do they want?"

"accountability for what?"

Am I senile, or just playing dumb? You be the judge!

-Pat Curley

 
At 09 May, 2012 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, when did I say journalists are permitted to lie? It's y'all who were arguing that Fouda was justified in publishing an unfactual article.

 
At 09 May, 2012 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have many times presented the proof that the widows have questions. Why you think it's funny to lie about this I don't know.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 09 May, 2012 14:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I have many times presented the proof that the widows have questions. Why you think it's funny to lie about this I don't know.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


So an anonymous internet liar posts a link that hasn't been authenticated and we're supposed to just accept it.

Sorry, Brian. You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you want us to actually believe that the widows have questions.

 
At 09 May, 2012 14:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, when did I say journalists are permitted to lie?

It's true whether you said it or not. The issue here is your inconsistent, illogical standard for Yosri Fouda.

 
At 09 May, 2012 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see, so Ian is reduced to claiming that a link has not been authenticated, and RGT is reduced to claiming that I said something whether I said it or not.

Fouda lied. He admitted he lied. His explanation for why he lied made no sense. But you guys can't figure this out.

 
At 09 May, 2012 15:57, Blogger Ian said...

I see, so Ian is reduced to claiming that a link has not been authenticated, and RGT is reduced to claiming that I said something whether I said it or not.

Nobody cares. You're still a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons and squeals hysterically over the fact that his 9/11 fantasies have no basis in reality.

Fouda lied. He admitted he lied. His explanation for why he lied made no sense. But you guys can't figure this out.

See what I mean?

 
At 09 May, 2012 15:59, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, enough talk about "widows" or Fouda. Let's talk about how Brian was banned from the Northern California Truth Alliance for being a pervert and sex predator who stalked Carol Brouillet.

 
At 09 May, 2012 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I've attended several meetings of the Truth Alliance in the last few years. Only one person questioned my standing to attend and he got silence for an answer. I rarely attend because it's a 50-mile drive one way.

You can not back up any of your claims.

 
At 09 May, 2012 17:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I've attended several meetings of the Truth Alliance in the last few years. Only one person questioned my standing to attend and he got silence for an answer. I rarely attend because it's a 50-mile drive one way.

That's right. You have no job and thus can't afford gas, and your broken-down Volkswagen Beetle would just die on the Bay Bridge anyway.

You can not back up any of your claims.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 09 May, 2012 19:58, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, the Mets swept the Phillies in Philadelphia tonight. Awesome series, right?

 
At 09 May, 2012 20:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess you like sitting around watching men in pajamas scratch their balls, huh?

 
At 10 May, 2012 06:59, Blogger Len said...

BG – Still waiting for you to:
- name a single journalist, historian or terrorism expert who expresed doubts regarding the authenticity of the Fouda – KSM interview.

-clarify whether you believe their are no tapes of the interview or there are tapes but they are fake.

 
At 10 May, 2012 07:01, Blogger Len said...

Ian

The all time classic under appreciated sophmore album is ‘Carburator Dung’ by the Count Five. Only Lester Bangs realized its true genius! LOL

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Count+Five

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1770706/a/Psychotic+Reunion+Live%21.htm

 
At 10 May, 2012 07:06, Blogger Ian said...

I guess you like sitting around watching men in pajamas scratch their balls, huh?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times, and this is the best he can come up with in response. Brian wears women's underwear and was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team (i.e. underage girls), so this is his feeble response.

I guess that's all he can do when he still hasn't presented a single question asked by the widows. Not one.

 
At 10 May, 2012 08:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, the end notes to "The Eleventh Day" report that Fouda admitted that he lied in his report.





Ian, I have many times presented the proof that the widows have questions. Why you think it's funny to lie about this I don't know.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 10 May, 2012 08:49, Blogger Ian said...

Len, the end notes to "The Eleventh Day" report that Fouda admitted that he lied in his report.

Nobody cares.

We do care, however, about the fact that you're a failed janitor who believes in invisible widows.

Ian, I have many times presented the proof that the widows have questions. Why you think it's funny to lie about this I don't know.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


See what I mean?

 
At 10 May, 2012 09:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's my point, Ian. Nobody cares. Pat writes that KSM had confessed to 9/11 and doesn't mention the fact that the journalist who wrote the report is a liar and admitted that he lied in the report. And nobody cares about Fouda's dishonesty or Pat's.

 
At 10 May, 2012 09:31, Blogger Ian said...

That's my point, Ian. Nobody cares. Pat writes that KSM had confessed to 9/11 and doesn't mention the fact that the journalist who wrote the report is a liar and admitted that he lied in the report. And nobody cares about Fouda's dishonesty or Pat's.

Yup, nobody cares, because we're all smart and successful and don't waste our time on a loony conspiracy theory.

You care because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor and you're desperately looking for something to give meaning to your wasted life, so you cling to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

And that's why, no matter how many times you paste the link to the widows questions, I can still say "the widows have no questions". Nobody cares about the widows.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

 
At 10 May, 2012 10:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

I care about the widows, and I'm somebody.

 
At 10 May, 2012 12:31, Blogger Ian said...

I care about the widows, and I'm somebody.

Nobody cares. Also, you're nobody. While serious truthers like Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, and Bill Deagle appear on TV, you do nothing but spam this blog.

 
At 10 May, 2012 13:11, Blogger Len said...

“Len, the end notes to "The Eleventh Day" report that Fouda admitted that he lied in his report.”

That was NOT my question. He initially lied about the date and gave his reasons. Get back to us when you can name a single journalist, historian or terrorism expert who thinks this casts his account into doubt. Do you think Fouda never interviewed KSM or that he did but lied about what he said? In either case why would he lie about the date?

Also are there tapes of the interview?

 
At 10 May, 2012 15:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

How about you get back to me when you find a journalist who's willing to say it's okay to lie in a news story?

I don't think anything except that he lied--which casts much doubt on his claims. There's a conspiracy theory about why he lied but I never bothered with it--to me it's enough that he lied at all.

 
At 10 May, 2012 17:33, Blogger texasjack said...

How about you get back to me when you find a journalist who's willing to say it's okay to lie in a news story?

Fouda, for one. Your turn.

 
At 10 May, 2012 18:24, Blogger Len said...

- Anthony Summers, a veteran journalist, just nominated for a Pulitzer;

- Ron Suskind veteran journalist Pulizer prize winner formerly senior national affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal now a visiting scholar at Dartmouth

- Peter Bergen veteran journalist, winner of several awards and author of several AQ related books.

All accepted Fouda's knowing about the discrepancy

 
At 10 May, 2012 19:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see no indication that Suskind or Bergen even knew that Fouda had lied--let alone accepted it.

We give journalists the benefit of the doubt. When they say that an anonymous source told them something, we believe it. That's what makes it shocking when a journalist lies, let alone admits so casually to it.

Fouda has no credibility.

 
At 11 May, 2012 07:06, Blogger Ian said...

Fouda has no credibility.

Well, he has no credibility with you, but you're a liar and lunatic and failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

He has credibility with normal people, which is what matters.

 
At 11 May, 2012 07:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're not just a liar, you're a stupid one. Smart liars lie by omission and by allowing people to make incorrect inferences and leap to biased conclusions based on carefully selected facts.

Your lies only demonstrate your total disconnect from reality.

 
At 11 May, 2012 07:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're not just a liar, you're a stupid one. Smart liars lie by omission and by allowing people to make incorrect inferences and leap to biased conclusions based on carefully selected facts.

Your lies only demonstrate your total disconnect from reality.


My, such squealing!

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 
At 11 May, 2012 08:25, Blogger Len said...

I see no indication that Suskind or Bergen even knew that Fouda had lied--let alone accepted it.

2008: Bergen cited Fouda's interview and gave the date as "April 2002" thus he must have been aware of the latter's 'lie'

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.bergen.html

We give journalists the benefit of the doubt. When they say that an anonymous source told them something, we believe it. That's what makes it shocking when a journalist lies, let alone admits so casually to it.

Fouda has no credibility.


Still waiting for you name a journalist or historian who feels the same way. I'm only aware of , Thompson, Kupferberg and you. Only the former is remotely credible but be isn't a journalist or a historian and misquoted an article on this topic.

Also KSM was not "an anonymous source"

 
At 11 May, 2012 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bergen's book is dated 2011. Probably his research on Fouda's story is based on Fouda's 2003 book. Did Fousa admit in that book that he had lied, or did he just report as if it were a fact that his alleged interview took place in April?

Where do you get your belief that journalistic culture permits lying?
The code of ethics of The Society of Professional Journalists starts out:

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information . . . . Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

 
At 11 May, 2012 09:16, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical over the fact that Fouda is a reputable source and none of us care what a liar and lunatic like him thinks.

 
At 11 May, 2012 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fouda is an admitted liar, and you consider him reputable only because he tells you what you want to hear.

 
At 11 May, 2012 09:51, Blogger Ian said...

Fouda is an admitted liar, and you consider him reputable only because he tells you what you want to hear.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's upset that we consider Fouda a reputable source, but we don't consider a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State a reputable source.

You can keep squealing all you want, Brian, but the facts won't change.

 
At 11 May, 2012 09:56, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, now that we're done talking about Fouda, let's talk about how Brian was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team.

Any comment on that, Brian?

 
At 11 May, 2012 09:57, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

...lie by omission and by allowing people to make incorrect inferences and leap to biased conclusions based on carefully selected facts. -Snug

*Paging Fat Pat and Oystein*

Hey Ian, say 'squeal' again. It makes you convincing, even though you have nothing to say.

 
At 11 May, 2012 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never vandalized any wikipedia pages at all, let alone any pages about Chinese gymnasts.

 
At 11 May, 2012 10:04, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never vandalized any wikipedia pages at all, let alone any pages about Chinese gymnasts.

You also said you're not petgoat, that you don't believe in controlled demolition, that you didn't run away from a debate challenge from Willie Rodriguez, and that you didn't stalk Carol Brouillet.

I detect a trend here, Brian. You're a pathetic liar. That's in addition to being a sex predator, and a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

Well, at least you can entertain us with your desperate babbling about invisible widows and magic thermite elves.

 
At 11 May, 2012 10:59, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

You should repeat yourself again, Ian. Say something about elves and janitors again, QUICK! Get Pat's truth out there! You're a well-respected "debunker"!

 
At 11 May, 2012 11:25, Blogger Ian said...

It's hilarious to be attacked by someone who is part of this group of winners.

Fuel tank for a sex machine, eh? Yeah, I'm sure the ladies are dying to get with a scrawny, unemployed truther. You'd probably do better with the tiger shirt.

 
At 11 May, 2012 11:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Fouda did not distort. Changing the date of contact amounts to an immaterial change.

 
At 11 May, 2012 11:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's hilarious to be attacked by someone who is part of this group of winners.

"Scootle's Law: In any discussion about 9/11 truth or WTC7, citing Popular Mechanics as a credible source loses you the argument immediately.'" Even by Truther standards, that's pathetic.

 
At 11 May, 2012 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, more than distorting, Fouda lied. Like Ian, you defend him because he tells you what you want to hear.

Given the context, the change was material. Obviously you haven't a clue as to what the context was.

 
At 11 May, 2012 12:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Given the context, the change was material.

It's certainly possible for a 6 - 8 week discrepancy to be important, but that's not the case here. You're just playing Opportunistic Contrarian (tm Snowcrash) again.

The widows hate you, by the way.

 
At 11 May, 2012 12:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have no idea what the context of the April to June period was, so you have no idea what made the discrepancy important.

 
At 11 May, 2012 13:18, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Better compare notes with Master Pat again, idiot. I'm Cosmos, remember? Or was it Scootle? Oh yeah, I'm Pat Curley, who embarrassed his father to death.

Say 'squeal' again. It works.

 
At 11 May, 2012 13:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You have no idea what the context of the April to June period was, so you have no idea what made the discrepancy important.

Yeah, whatever. Is this your dad? He looks like a nice guy. I bet you play really well.

 
At 11 May, 2012 13:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Say 'squeal' again. It works.

Repetitive babbling isn't a safe topic for you.

But don't worry. I know it's your vaccine-shattered brain doing the talking. I forgive your failures.

 
At 11 May, 2012 14:50, Blogger Len said...

” Bergen's book is dated 2011. Probably his research on Fouda's story is based on Fouda's 2003 book. Did Fousa admit in that book that he had lied, or did he just report as if it were a fact that his alleged interview took place in April?”

AQ terrorism has long been one of Bergen’s primary areas of interest and expertise. He interviewed OBL in 1997 and Holy War was published Nov.7, 2001 so obviously he did most of the writing and research before 9/11. The KSM interview was one of the most important AQ related stories, it was reported by many media outlets including his employer CNN and the charge by Islamists that he’d set Binalshibh was news as well. It is unlikely he was not aware Fouda had originally said the interview occurred in June.

Where do you get your belief that journalistic culture permits lying?
The code of ethics of The Society of Professional Journalists starts out:

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information . . . . Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp


Why don’t you contact the SPJ and send them a link to the interview where he said he lied and ask them for comment.

You have no idea what the context of the April to June period was, so you have no idea what made the discrepancy important.


Why don’t you tell us?

 
At 11 May, 2012 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no point in trying to teach you guys anything. You'll just make stuff up and change the subject and bury it under a lot of spam.

 
At 11 May, 2012 22:02, Blogger PhilBiker said...

There's no point in trying to teach you guys anything. You'll just make stuff up and change the subject and bury it under a lot of spam

So stop posting here, dumb-head.

 
At 12 May, 2012 09:18, Blogger Ian said...

There's no point in trying to teach you guys anything. You'll just make stuff up and change the subject and bury it under a lot of spam.

I see Brian spent another lonely Friday night babbling hysterically. Poor Brian. 9/11 truth has been a total failure, and yet he can't give it up because he has nothing else to give his life meaning.

 
At 12 May, 2012 22:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"There's no point in trying to teach you guys anything. You'll just make stuff up and change the subject and bury it under a lot of spam."

Translation: I can't answer the question. I have painted myself into another corner and I'm screwed. Why can't I learn to shut up?

 
At 13 May, 2012 08:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why should I dignify a distraction with discussion that will only get buried in spam? The point is that Fouda lied and so his credibility is nil. You guys try to claim it's okay for journalists to lie--and thus that it's okay for you to lie.

Democracy demands that our journalists, our scientists, and our officials tell the truth. That's why we need honest 9/11 investigations.

 
At 13 May, 2012 09:14, Blogger Ian said...

Why should I dignify a distraction with discussion that will only get buried in spam? The point is that Fouda lied and so his credibility is nil. You guys try to claim it's okay for journalists to lie--and thus that it's okay for you to lie.

Fouda has no credibility with you, but nobody cares because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor.

To the rest of us (normal, intelligent, successful), Fouda has credibility, which is what matters.

Democracy demands that our journalists, our scientists, and our officials tell the truth. That's why we need honest 9/11 investigations.

We had honest investigations. You can squeal and cry all you want about how we need new investigations, but they will never happen. Deal with it.

BTW, I noticed you didn't post last night. I guess I've really humiliated you by mocking you for spending your weekends posting dumbspam on this blog.

 
At 13 May, 2012 09:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fouda wrote an article that lied. You argue that he has credibility. He has no credibility and you have no credibility.

We did not have honest investigations. The 9/11 Commissioners admit that they allowed NORAD to lie to them. Condi Rice was allowed to perjure herself--and Zelikow ran interference for her in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The NIST reports failed to fulfil their stated objective of explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed. They did not even try to explain how. Thus their claims about "why" have no weight.

There will be investigations in the future. There's no stopping that. Computer modeling of the mysteries of the WTC collapses will become a very popular subject for Master's theses and PhD dissertations in the future.

 
At 13 May, 2012 10:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Democracy demands that our journalists, our scientists, and our officials tell the truth.

Cosmos is a journalist. He lied about his relation to Mark Rothenberg. Does that destroy his credibility?

 
At 13 May, 2012 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

I am not aware of any journalist named Cosmos.

 
At 13 May, 2012 10:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I am not aware of any journalist named Cosmos.

You don't consider 9/11 Truth News journalism?

 
At 13 May, 2012 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know if 911TruthNews is journalism or not. Its title suggests it's propaganda.

 
At 13 May, 2012 11:09, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I don't know if 911TruthNews is journalism or not. Its title suggests it's propaganda.

Do you feel the information presented by 9/11 Truth News is reliable?

 
At 13 May, 2012 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have not investigated it sufficiently to have an opinion.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home