Osama Confession Video

[cpwm17]

There's a thread in General Discussion where someone questions the authenticity of the "Osama Confession Video."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021587491

Some point to this picture taken from the video of Osama's conversation about his foreknowledge of 9-11:

[IMG][/IMG]

That looks fat for Osama. I haven't seen any frame in the "Confession Video" where Osama looks like that. I think there are other versions of the video where Osama may look fat. Here's some evidence that the video is genuine.

They may have used a cheap subtitle editing program on the video that seems to have created a variable appearing Osama in the "Confession Video." That may be what altered the aspect ratio. But there seems to be different copies with some videos showing Osama particularly fat in parts. There are also scenes in the better videos where Osama looks perfectly like himself.

It seems to have been, at the minimum, a deliberate attempt to mislead by choosing the worst moment in the video where Osama looks the least like himself.

From same video, compared with known Osama pictures:

[IMG][/IMG]

That sure looks like Osama to me, and he talks about his foreknowledge of 9-11 in the video.

More info here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video

[The Doctor.]

1. One way or another, we're being lied to.

The truth is not some intangible chimera that is left up to interpretation when it comes to some things. There are things that are simply true, and simply false. The tools by which we arrive at the truth are sharp and surgical. They involve reason, facts, and critical questions.

Let's first start with your initial claim that there was an original video of bin Laden that was then changed to appear as a fake. From the video you've posted, this appears to be a possibility. As for where the image was taken from, freeze the video at 5:50 and you'll find it right around there. (I had great difficulty as my PC has a bug which makes it crash when I attempt to stream videos)

Let's start with reason.

What reason would the CIA have to fake such a thing? That answer is obvious. The administration was desperate to start a war as per their PNAC agenda. Top administration and Pentagon officials stated years before, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to invade the Middle East. So obviously, getting a 'confession' from bin Laden would work very well toward that end.

They had a reason to produce a video, one way or another, which created that impression.

What reason would the OV skeptics have to take the original video, change it, and claim it was entirely fake? None.... that would just be plain stupid given that there would be an original to compare it to. To get recruits? That would also be foolish because no one likes getting fooled, and it would only ultimately alienate support.
That last part there actually gives reason for OV adherents, like yourself, to manufacture a fake in order to discredit the skeptics. It wouldn't be the only Rovian attempt to do so given the ridiculous theories of holograms and UFO's that are out there.

So the only people for whom faking the video, in one way or another, would be an advantage would be the OV adherents, not the skeptics.

Now, we look at facts:

What facts do we have to work with here?

- The CIA/Pentagon, in whose interest it was to 'acquire' a confession, have told us that the bin Laden in the video is 'confessing' to knowledge of or responsibility for the attacks.

- The video depicts a man who bears some appearance to bin Laden, and could possibly be the man himself.

- The translation of the video has been very controversial as many Arab language scholars (not all Muslim) contend that the CIA's interpretation is wrong.

- The FBI, presumably aware of the video's existance, claimed that there was "No hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11.

- Video has always been considered 'hard evidence' by law enforcement.

Given those facts, we can come to a critical question that NO OV adherent has yet answered:

Why does the FBI not consider what we've been told is a confession "hard evidence" of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11?

When we apply reason again, there are only a few possible answers, and none of them can possibly be that the video represents a confession. The answers are:

a) The video is entirely faked, which would be child's play for the FBI to have determined.

-OR-

b) The CIA translation, for whatever reason, is false... which would also be easily determined.


Either way, we've been sold bad goods. The video is not any kind of 'confession'.

[cpwm17]

2. Osama and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were happy to take credit for 9-11

This 2004 tape played on Al Jazeera's Arabic language stations where Osama talks about his involvement in 9-11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also wanted credit for 9-11. This interview with an al-Jazeera reporter was before he was captured and tortured:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism

It seems, from what I can find, that the FBI didn't feel the need to indict Osama for 9-11 since they already had an indictment against him.

"Truthers" often have trouble with the truth. They frequently fabricate their own facts. That is why there are so many contradictory claims by the "Truthers."

What reason would the OV skeptics have to take the original video, change it, and claim it was entirely fake? None.... that would just be plain stupid given that there would be an original to compare it to. To get recruits? That would also be foolish because no one likes getting fooled, and it would only ultimately alienate support.

This is where you are wrong. There are plenty of people that are willing to believe just about anything if it satisfies some sort of need. No amount of evidence will change their mind. Just look at the number of people that believe the "Truther" claim that the towers fell into their own footprints. One look at any video of one of the collapsing towers proves that claim laughably wrong.

Richard Gage claims that WTC7 only had small fires and that the smoke around WTC7 originated from elsewhere - an obvious lie, which is extremely easily discredited. Richard Gage is loved by the "Truthers."

Many other ridiculous claims by the "Truthers" include: bombs in the towers' basements, CDs, no plane hit the Pentagon, etc. All of these claims can easily be discredited. But the "Truther" crowd still falls for this BS. They seem to want to be lied to, considering the ridiculous things they believe.

[The Doctor.]

3. Wow. Nice attempt to sidestep reason.

Also, you need to read the posts you respond to. I addressed the issue of crazy theories.

If you can't discuss this honestly, then this discussion is over.

[cpwm17]

6. Your argument is based on who has the motivation to lie

I showed that the "Truthers" have a bad history of perpetuating many obvious lies. I responded to your post.

You wrote:

When we apply reason again, there are only a few possible answers, and none of them can possibly be that the video represents a confession. The answers are:

a) The video is entirely faked, which would be child's play for the FBI to have determined.

-OR-

b) The CIA translation, for whatever reason, is false... which would also be easily determined.


Either way, we've been sold bad goods. The video is not any kind of 'confession'.

You left out a couple of options:

c) Osama did the crime and the "confession" is true.

d) Osama, for some reason, created a video where he talks of foreknowledge for a crime he didn't commit.

Option 'c' appears to be correct.

[The Doctor.]

8. If I go into your house,

pick up your phone, and call in a bomb threat to a local business or school, then obviously someone in your household is guilty, right?

Here's something you're plainly ignorant of: There are two sets of 'truthers'. 1) The actual skeptics who use science, facts, and reason to attempt to determine the truth. 2) The crackposts who create bullshit and attribute it to the skeptics so that people like you can conflate the two and attempt to discredit the serious truth-seekers.

Now here's how I know you're a troll: You've been told this plenty of times, you can see for yourself that there are very science and fact-based sites that debunk the sillier theories and then sites that create those stupid theories, yet you continue to deliberately and knowingly conflate the two different camps as though it is your job.

Now please alert so that 6 random people can see in this very thread that the video has been declared, by an OV adherent, not to be hard evidence, and that you are clearly one of the OV-pushing trolls just doing your day job.

Thanks!

[cpwm17]

10. Since when did I call the video itself hard evidence that Osama did 9-11?

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

It was you that tried to claim that the man in this video wasn't Osama. I presented evidence that it is Osama, and that Osama has made similar claims elsewhere.

You have a very bad habit of calling people "trolls" that disagree with you.

You recently claimed that there was thermite in the towers' debris, indicating a CD. You called the person a "troll" that challenged your claim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014270525#post73

I know what kind of "Truther" you are, and it's the only kind of "Truther" that exists.

[The Doctor.]

11. Again, you use troll tactics.

I never said that mere 'thermite' was found in the debris.

It is a simple fact that 'nano-thermite' was found in the debris.

Here are the tactics that trolls use:

Someone says that nano-thermite was found in the debris. The troll says, "Thermite can't be used for demolition." This is a clever troll tactic because it is true that thermite cannot be used for demolition, and the average audience will miss the sleight of mind the troll is using on them. So then the troll gets corrected and told, "No, I did not say "thermite", I said "nano-thermite" which can be used in demolition."

At this point, the troll's true colors will be revealed.

If the troll says, "Oh, I didn't realize that. Can you please give me more information?" Then they may not actually be a troll.

If, otoh, the troll changes the subject to another canard, or shows up in other threads and continues to use that misinformation tactic of deliberately misstating what was found in the debris, then they have left no doubt that their motivation is to quash discussion through deliberate deception.

That is one of the definitions of 'trolling'.

In that other thread, the troll in question used the well-worn canard that what was thought to be nano-thermite was actually 'paint chips'. I explained that paint chips were indeed found in the same debris that the nano-thermite was found in and that it was also tested and showed very non-thermitic characteristics, while the nano-thermite was unquestionably nano-thermite. By way of explanation, I posted links to the original documents the 9 scientists composed from their study.

Despite the explanation, despite being given access to the information, the troll continued to lie and claim that only paint chips were found.

You posted a video backing up your claim that the CIA didn't 'fake' it. I said, "okay, I'm willing to believe that". Do you know why? Because I'm rational, reasonable, and empirical.

Trolls are none of those things.

You yourself can go to that thread, pull up the links, study the documents and then make a choice: create a conspiracy theory that scientists from many different parts of the world faked their findings despite the fact that samples of the debris are in laboratories everywhere and ready for testing at any time...

-Or-

You can acknowledge that nano-thermite was found in the debris.

One of those choices will indicate very clearly that you are here to troll rather than engage in honest discussion.

So which is it?

[zappaman]

12. Actually, no nano-thermite was found at the site.

Unless you believe hucksters...which would make you a quack, Doctor.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

[The Doctor.]

13. Unlike the poor sods out there who believe the garbage in your link,

I actually read the entire document of the testing.

Whoever the person is who wrote that crap you linked to is, they are using many of the same bullshit tactics I have described.

The dead-giveaway that the piece in your link is propaganda is that the same bullshit is used to 'debunk' the findings: That what they tested were paint chips. From there, the author then states that the scientists 'changed their position' because of the criticism.... but provides exactly *zero* links to any such changes.

As I said, you can read the document yourself and see that they had very different results for the paint chips than for the thermitic material. But you won't do that, because, well.... you know why.

[zappaman]

14. Read it when it came out

has it changed?
*quack*

[The Doctor.]

41. Insinuation without links, evidence, or excerpts is a troll tactic.

So don't do it.

[William Seger]

16. You read the entire document

... and you didn't notice that even if one made the mistake of taking the data at face value, the data didn't support the conclusions?

What their own data showed is that the chips neither looked like nor behaved like any known form of thermite, so the paper "concluded" that it must be some unknown, "highly engineered" form. This, despite the fact that the paper did not actually demonstrate any thermitic reaction or prove that it was even theoretically possible. There is exactly zero chance that such nonsense would have ever been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed technical journal.

You also seem to be unaware that a fellow "truther" who was given a sample reported that he was unable to duplicate the results stated in the paper, after which the "researchers" decided that they would no longer share their samples with anyone. Nonetheless, a fairly recent independent study of different samples, using more precise analyses, concluded that the dust was full of paint chips. And it's interesting to note that the dust should have been expected to contain paint chips, but the "researchers" only found thermite? What happened to the paint chips that should have been there?

> As I said, you can read the document yourself and see that they had very different results for the paint chips than for the thermitic material. But you won't do that, because, well.... you know why.

That's actually a great example of both the idiotic "science" in that paper and your uncritical reading of it. Instead of making any attempt to compare the chips to paint actually used in the WTC, Steven Jones scraped some paint off the bleachers at BYU and tested that. Jones is walking, talking proof that having a PhD doesn't make you a scientist.

[The Doctor.]

19. Really? Which page and paragraph?

Are you lying or just making shit up?

Nowhere in the document does the phrase "highly engineered" occur.

I understand the desperation to explain this away, but it doesn't suit you.


Here, you can read it for yourself:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Now come up with something better like: "All those scientists were in collusion... it's a conspiracy!"

It's not like you'll sound like a climate change denier or anything.

[William Seger]

20. Google is your friend

The paper claims that the material "incorporat{es} nanotechnology" which the "researchers" themselves characterize as meaning "highly engineered":

https://www.google.com/search?q=thermite+%22highly+engineered%22

But I understand your desperation to avoid the substance of my comments. It's not like you sound like Fox News or anything.

[The Doctor.]

22. Awesome!

So we've determined that 'nano-thermite' is 'highly engineered'. Even though the phrase "highly engineered" is not in the original documents.

No reason to avoid anything since you seem to finally understand that nano-thermite was found in the debris.

Good for you!

[William Seger]

29. I'll take that as a concession

... that you are totally unprepared to defend that idiotic paper.

[The Doctor.]

31. You're a constant source of amusement.

Please pick something from the documents you disagree with and explain why.

That's what a non-troll would do.

A Troll, otoh, would simply call the paper 'idiotic' and be otherwise incapable of addressing any of the details substantively. Eventually, the Troll will just say that the scientists "made it up" despite being independent of the 9/11 skeptics movement.

[William Seger]

34. So, you didn't read post #16, huh?

That's what a non-troll would do. Go ahead, I'll wait....

[The Doctor.]

37. You mean the post where you make a bunch of assertions

With no evidence, no links, and no excerpts to back them up?

Yes, I read it and laughed my ass off at the notion that you thought that would be sufficient to prove anything to anyone who wasn't a complete moron.

[William Seger]

42. Hmmmm..

Which is it, now:

> A Troll, otoh, would simply call the paper 'idiotic' and be otherwise incapable of addressing any of the details substantively.

or:

> You mean the post where you make a bunch of assertions... With no evidence, no links, and no excerpts to back them up?

If you wanted links and excerpts, then you should have asked for them. Instead, you go with the "troll" bullshit yet again and accuse me of "simply call{ing} the paper 'idiotic'." I was giving you the benefit of a doubt by suggesting that you hadn't read post #16, but now you say you did but decided to ignore it and then lie about its existence?

You're late to the party. We've discussed that paper MANY times here before -- and I suspect you've actually seen some of it, but would likewise prefer to pretend that it didn't exist -- and it's been discussed in extreme detail on the JREF forum, among other places, including criticism from materials science guys. Anyone who has a serious interest in the subject could easily find out why, after three years, the paper has zero chance of ever being taken seriously among real scientists.

So, can you give me one good reason why I should spend time summarizing those criticisms and looking up references that you could look up yourself, after you have shown such blatant intellectual dishonesty?

[The Doctor.]

47. The reason you shouldn't bother is either that you can't find them,

Or what you will find will be weak and easily deconstructed propaganda.


But the truly stunning revelation in your post is this: You haven't bothered doing the diligence of verifying the information for yourself.... you simply believe it

Otherwise, you wouldn't have look up anything, you'd have the links.


Meanwhile, the only intellectual dishonesty in this thread is the claim that an uncoerced video confession is not 'hard evidence', but still somehow manages to be 'proof' (which is, well, also considered 'hard evidence').

[William Seger]

48. What a pantload

Just a quick search on this board, and golly gee, there's even a thread where you were involved, and I wasted time in a futile attempt to help you understand the significance of the facts that the ignition temperature and energy density given in the paper ALONE prove that it wasn't thermite -- i.e., my point about their own data not supporting their conclusions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x320133#320135

And, huh, here's another thread on the same topic where you think ignoring facts and twisting what others say will save your failed arguments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x320144#320144

In my previous post, I gave a specific example of your intellectual dishonesty, and here we have another: I have to assume that the only reason you're asking for details now is to demonstrate your awesome ability to dismiss facts and reason and keep making the same irrational arguments over and over and over, despite how many times your errors are clearly pointed out.

There's lots of other info just on DU, such as the following post concerning the paper's failure to prove that thermitic reaction was even possible, because it didn't do the testing necessary to determine if there was any elemental aluminum present, and also has a link to the "truther" who was unable to reproduce the claimed results: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x295316#296095

> But the truly stunning revelation in your post is this: You haven't bothered doing the diligence of verifying the information for yourself.... you simply believe it

If you hadn't already broken my irony measure, I'm sure that one would have made it catch fire. But please do carry on; this is the funniest thread we've had here for quite some time.

[The Doctor.]

51. Amazing.

You're nothing but a case study in the ignorance of reason, failure of logic, and inability to distinguish fact from opinion.

I just read through a few of those posts, and guess what?

There is STILL nothing demonstrating that their findings were false. No links there either! Wow!

Like here, you just make shit up and apparently rely on your insistance that it's true for people to believe it.

You had nothing then and you have nothing now.

The only thing I can't work out is whether you actually believe in your verisimilitude or you know that you're full of crap.

This is a classic example of how trolls poison dialogue: Throw enough bullshit to obscure the reasoning, wait to be called on it, and then try to claim that the other participant is 'arrogant' or 'un-civil'.

I can't count the number of times I've run into this tactic with climate change deniers. It's identical.

Another tactic you've used here: Claim that the issue 'was already resolved' or 'disproven' "somewhere else" and then throw up links to more chaff.

Where are the ACTUAL refutations of the paper????

As I suspected, you have nothing.

[William Seger]

55. LMFAO!

> There is STILL nothing demonstrating that their findings were false.

In the first place, of course that's not how science works, for reasons that should be obvious to a logical person. Science is based on logic, so I'm not surprised that you don't understand that nobody is required to demonstrate that the paper's findings are false; it's their job to prove their findings are true. And yet, that thread discusses at length that: (A) they failed to do the type of tests that would have conclusively proved any thermitic reaction actually happened; (B) they failed to do the type of tests that would have conclusively proved the presence of elemental aluminum which is necessary for any such reaction; and (c) they failed to do comparison tests on the type of paint that was actually used in the building. There's no "link" necessary to show that they simply try to infer those things indirectly rather than directly testing for them; it's self-evident right there in the paper! Admittedly, it requires a certain degree of reading comprehension to notice that, but once someone points it out to you, there's no excuse for continuing to deny it. And then we have the uncomfortable fact (which is linked) that a fellow "truther" was unable to duplicate the results they used to infer those things! That is world class fail, dude, regardless of your inability to understand why.

But it gets much worse, because in this particular case there IS very convincing evidence right in the paper that their findings are false, and I pointed you to two major problems with their conclusion: The ignition temperature of the reaction they detected and the energy density they measured are not even close to those of a thermitic reaction, while they are quite common for ordinary organic materials burning in air. Specifically, the ignition temperature is at least 100 degrees too low for even "supernanothermite" and the energy density is at least twice the theoretical maximum for any thermitic reaction, "nano" or otherwise, even if the stuff were pure aluminum and iron oxide (which it wasn't). Again, there's no "link" necessary unless you are completely incapable of looking up for yourself what those values should be. If that's the case, then you should have said so and I would have tried to help you out. But then, as now, you seem to think that your ignorant and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient rebuttal. Sorry, but your inability to comprehend that the ignition temperature and energy density are fundamental properties of any exothermic chemical reaction, not random meaningless variables, is laughably irrelevant to the issue.

On the JREF forum, there is a very long list of criticisms leveled against the paper by experts in the field, but I have focused on the three major failures in the paper and the two major instances of contradictory evidence because they are well within the grasp of we laymen who are possessed with ordinary reasoning skills. If you are not a member of that group, that's not my problem.

> Like here, you just make shit up and apparently rely on your insistance that it's true for people to believe it.

Really? And yet, everything I've said is completely backed up by what's actually in the paper, accessible to anyone with ordinary reading comprehension, and by what's conspicuously missing from the paper, which can't be denied by anyone who understands why it matters. I defy you to point to a single instance of me "making shit up."

> You had nothing then and you have nothing now.



> Where are the ACTUAL refutations of the paper????

Not that I expect you to take my advice, but I'll at least ask that you please do yourself a favor: Read and reread the first two paragraphs above until you understand enough of the issues to at least attempt to answer to them rather than just fart in their general direction. Either that, or quietly back away and hope that a few months from now, people will have forgotten this thread. As it is, you're just making a fool of yourself.

[The Doctor.]

65. So I say 'you have nothing', and ask for the *actual* refutations of the paper....

And you think that by continuing not to post them you're proving something?

Links.

Actual refutations.

Actual excerpts.

Let's have them.


You keep making claims about what's in the paper without posting what's in the paper.
All you've proven is that you have nothing.

[William Seger]

69. I see you didn't take my advice. What a surprise.

The two paragraphs I asked you to reread ARE actual refutations, dude. Understanding what they say would take you a long way to understanding why, after three years, no serious scientists take that ridiculous paper seriously, and why the never will: It's unscientific crap.

Yep, I could certainly provide excerpts from the paper for everything I said about it, but you SAID you already read all of it. If that were true, then the only reason I should need to provide excerpts for what the paper says is your poor reading comprehension. Why should I expect your reading comprehension to improve if I copy pieces of it here, especially when you have already demonstrated so many times in this thread that the written word escapes you?

And why should I expect that effort to have any effect on someone who is not only laughably illogical but who seems to be incapable of arguing honestly? You accused me of "making shit up." That is a lie, and I'm gonna guess that the reason that you won't even ATTEMPT to point to something I made up is that you KNOW it's a lie.

So, here's the deal: Accuse me again of "making shit up" and point to an example based on your vast understanding of the paper and the issues, and I will then show this board which one of us is full of shit.

Your move.

[The Doctor.]

74. Your 'advice' is irrelevant. I want links. You don't have them.

You can't back up a gawd damned thing you claim about that paper.

If I were in such a position of fail, that would make me throw tantrums too.

Lucky for me I don't put myself in indefensible positions.

[William Seger]

81. Who do you think you're kidding? You apparently don't read links

... or can't comprehend what they say. I gave you a link to a report by someone who tested samples received from Harrit and was unable to duplicate the results reported in the paper. He is a materials scientist, so you can't claim he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he is a "truther" so you can't claim that he's a biased debunker.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

You say I can't back up a "gawd damned thing," completely oblivious to the fact that Manieri's report substantiates virtually everything I claimed. To wit:

I claimed that the paper did not do the type of testing that would have conclusively proved the presence of elemental aluminum. Speaking of the MEK testing that the report uses to infer elemental aluminum, Manieri says:

If the intention of the researchers was to break up the carbon matrix of the red layer to allow analysis of the nanoparticles embedded in it, the result regarding the presence of aluminum does not appear to be compatible with this goal, since it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum. This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions. The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive.

I claimed that the paper also did not do the testing that would be necessary to conclusively demonstrate a thermitic reaction, and that it in fact ignored the contradictory evidence of the low ignition temperature and high energy density. Manieri says:

This is a clear attempt to influence the less than careful reader by suggesting explicitly the analogy between the analyzed samples and the products of thermite reaction, without investigating whether a similar spectrum might be due to other causes and reactions. In other words, the authors jump immediately from the incorrect assessment of the presence of highly reactive elemental aluminum to the (evidently highly desired) conclusion that the collapse of the World Trade Center involved some sort of thermitic reaction of a mysterious product that is triggered at low temperature, provides twice the energy of ordinary thermite, and is characterized by the presence of nanoparticles that give explosive properties to a substance that otherwise is only an incendiary. These are dramatic claims that need to be backed by equally dramatic evidence, not by suggestions. Let's now consider the energy issue.

- Thermal DSC analysis conducted in air -

The authors analyze the behavior of the samples when heated in air in a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The result is that all the samples begin to burn in the temperature range between 415 and 435°C. In some cases, the heat generated by the exothermic reaction reaches 7.5 kJ/g. After combustion, spheroidal particles are found in the porous burned residues. Some of these particles are rich in iron and other are rich in silicon (which is transparent and translucent). These particles indicate that high temperatures were reached as a result of an unspecified chemical reaction (which begins at 430°C!). According to the authors, this reaction can only be thermitic. In particular, therefore, the authors claim (page 22 of the paper) that a highly exothermic reaction, such as to generate temperatures of approximately 1400°C, needed to melt iron and iron oxide, was triggered at only 430°C. What this thermitic reaction that is triggered at 430°C might be is not known, since the ignition temperature of commercial thermite is higher than 900°C. The authors seem to have failed to consider that the matrix of the red layer is highly abundant in carbon and that carbon has a lower heating value (or net calorific value) of 34.03 kJ/g, whereas thermite releases 3.9 kJ/g in combustion. In other words, one gram of carbon releases, in combustion at constant pressure, more than eight times the energy released by one gram of thermite. Since the measurement was performed in air (why? Is this another rather embarrassing error in methodology, after the MEK blunder?), one cannot exclude the combustion of carbon, which is instead highly probable. In order to obtain reliable results, since thermite does not require an oxidizer from the external environment, the DSC measurement should have been conducted in an inert gas environment (with nitrogen or argon).

I claimed that the paper's paint testing was absurdly inadequate, and in another post gave you a link to Jones' email saying they tested paint from the BYU stadium rather than paint similar to that used in the WTC. Manieri writes:

The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.
These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.

In short, I claimed that the paper's conclusion are not supported by the paper's own data, and this materials scientist says:

The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.

Let's recap: You say I "can't back up a gawd damned thing" I claim about that paper and demand links, even though I had already given you a link that does indeed back up my claims. In a deleted post below, you called me a "lying sack of crap," yet you have the unmitigated gall to say this:

> Lucky for me I don't put myself in indefensible positions.

No, what's "lucky" for you is that you apparently can't even comprehend the "position" you've put yourself in. What's "lucky" for me is that I stopped taking you seriously after your second post on this thread, and now I'm just enjoying the humor value.

Wanna play again? Your move.

[The Doctor.]

9. William says the video is not hard evidence.

Therefore proving my point and giving legitimacy to Tomb's statements.

It appears your argument is with him, not me.

So should I believe you, or him?

[William Seger]

17. "It appears your argument is with him, not me."

Nope, cpwm17 correctly pointed out that your conclusion left out a couple of possibilities, which is damning evidence of a logical fallacy. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of an invalid inference.

And nope, there is no contradiction between my claim that the video is not "hard" evidence and cpwm17's opinion that confession is probably genuine, given the totality of the evidence, which your are so determined to ignore.

And nope, you're not going to get away with trying to change the point you were claiming, since it's still right there in the OP.

[The Doctor.]

18. We got here because in another thread I said that there is no hard evidence

of bin Laden's involvement.

Then the video came up, and cpwm17 carried that discussion here.

I haven't changed a thing. You're just coming in to the second half of a discussion.

There is no 'evidence' of a confession. If you can't follow the simple logic, then I suggest just leaving the thread so it can sink.

If the video is a confession, then it provides grounds for indictment. You say out of one side of your mouth that he 'didn't necessarily confess' in the video, but you find yourself in the awkward position of having to support cpwm17. So either it's a confession, which on video most certainly constitutes 'hard evidence', or it is not.

Which do you believe it is?

[William Seger]

21. "There is no 'evidence' of a confession" ?!

You keep digging your hole deeper and then suggest that I'm the one who should leave the thread to sink? Too funny. Yes, there IS "evidence" of a confession. Whether or not it is "hard" evidence is clearly a matter of opinion.

> If you can't follow the simple logic, then I suggest just leaving the thread so it can sink.

Back to the irony thing, huh. Thanks; you know how much I appreciate that. Here is your "simple logic" restated in a form that should make the flaws obvious, even to you:

An FBI PR guy is required to agree with your opinion that a video of bin Laden bragging to his friends about his involvement must be considered "hard evidence," so when he said in a casual phone interview that the FBI didn't have any "hard evidence" that means the video must be fake or the translation must be inaccurate.

Calling that a weak argument would be giving it too much credit; it's just a silly argument involving both an unsound premise and an invalid inference. You keep talking about "logic" but you seem to be oblivious to the fact that "logic" has a specific meaning, and it's not whatever pops into your head.

[The Doctor.]

23. It's a simple question:

Is it a confession or not?

I understand the troll tactics you've been using: Throw enough irrelevant flack in the air to obscure the point. You've been doing that quite a bit here; saying I 'didn't consider other possibilities' and that failing to do so means I 'can't reason'. But even though some stupid people might fall for that, I don't. Instead, I cut through the bullshit like this:

Is it a confession video or not?

And then, if you're a troll, you'll go to great lengths to avoid answering the question.

I have a great deal of fun doing this, because trolls are Soooo predictable! Since I don't know for sure if you're a troll or not, I'll wait for your answer.... if it ever comes.

[cpwm17]

24. I called it a confession video because that is what it has already been called.

I put quotes around "Confession Video" for that reason. It's clearly not a "confession" since it is only a recording of Osama and his associates speaking of their involvement in 9-11. It isn't "hard evidence" for his guilt, but it is evidence. That's why many "Truthers" have tried to discredit its authenticity.

[The Doctor.]

25. You seem conflicted.

Wait, no.... you are conflicted.

So it is a video of bin Laden confessing his involvement in 9/11, but it is not a video of bin Laden confessing his involvement in 9/11.

The FBI stated that they had "No hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11. You say the video contains proof that bin Laden was connected to 9/11 at the very least.

The FBI seems to disagree with you.

What's more interesting is how you appear to disagree with yourself.

Just to be clear, video evidence of someone confessing to involvement in a crime is not hard evidence in your universe?

As for the people discrediting the video, they include many Arab Language scholars that have no involvement with the 'truthers'. I'm guessing that like most wingnuts, you just lump anyone that disagrees with you into one camp, thereby making those scholars de facto 'truthers'?

Those are two questions that will help eliminate my confusion. I'd really be appreciative if you could answer them. Because, you know... a troll would just avoid them, and you're not a troll, are you?

[cpwm17]

30. You seem to be having difficulty with the English Language and very simple concepts.

The word 'confession' has a particular meaning.

What constitutes 'hard evidence' is somewhat subjective, but a video tape of people disusing their involvement in a crime falls short of such evidence. I'd call it good evidence, which when combined with other evidence, makes a good case.

This could lead into a discussion into the meaning of 'hard evidence.' I find tangential discussions and arguments over word meanings to be non-productive, so I will not go there.

[William Seger]

27. Strange question

... considering that the post you're replying to says, "Yes, there IS evidence of a confession." In case you really are confused -- not just trying to deflect from your apparent inability to respond cogently to criticism of your faulty arguments -- yes, I was referring to the video.

It's also strange that you seem to be much more interested in provoking people with arrogant taunts than in rational debate, yet you call other people "trolls." Strange, but amusing.

[The Doctor.]

33. I'm just trying to get a clear answer.

You now state that the video shows bin Laden confessing to involvement in 9/11.


So if the video is a confession,

Then why can't the FBI cite that as proof bin Laden was connected to 9/11?

[William Seger]

35. I'm beginning to think your main problem is reading comprehension

I already answered your question at least twice: A video of someone bragging to his buddies is weak circumstantial evidence.

[The Doctor.]

38. So a video of someone bragging about comitting a crime is not hard evidence?

Then why do so many people cite that video as proof of bin Laden's involvement?

I really do appreciate that you're willing to admit that the video proves nothing, thanks for that.

[William Seger]

43. BY ITSELF, the video "proves" nothing

In the context of the totality of the evidence, it's a credible confession.

And again, you try to dance away from the ridiculous conclusions in your first post, which certainly wasn't that "the video proves nothing." Should I repost those conclusions again to refresh your apparently very short memory?

[The Doctor.]

45. Here in reality, people are indicted, tried, and convicted on the strength

of video and/or audio admissions of crimes.

This is really all I need to hear from you to know that when it comes to the OV, you'll disregard inconvenient reality. You've chosen such a ludicrous position that it's just not worth going any farther.

Those who live in reality can by now see very clearly that you are willing to both call the video a 'confession', but then turn around and make the, frankly insane, assertion that a video confession does not constitute 'hard evidence'.

Essentially, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the video to 'prove' bin Laden's involvement without it having to be proof.

You may not realize how completely preposterous your position is, but I'm glad to have a thread that demonstrates how the OV adherents will choose to ignore reality in order to protect their faith in the Bush Administration's story.

My logic sits on the very sound fact that video confessions are considered 'hard evidence'. I can't expect to get through a mind so twisted as to believe we have indicted, prosecuted, and jailed so many thousands of people without any hard evidence of their guilt because only video/audio of their crime or confession was in evidence.

Oh, and since you don't speak Arabic, how do you know it is a confession?

[William Seger]

49. Your faulty logic, arrogant assertions, and outright distortions of what's been said in this thread

... are not "reality."

> Essentially, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the video to 'prove' bin Laden's involvement without it having to be proof.

Essentially, you wish you had some good reason for exonerating the 9/11 murders, but this bullshit is the best you can do, so you'll cling to it until hell freezes over. The video is weak circumstantial evidence, which is a type of evidence here in the real world, but it's not enough to get a murder conviction, or at least it shouldn't be provided that the jury consists of people with better reasoning skills than you seem to possess. But a rational person would consider the totality of the evidence against bin Laden, including his involvement in other terrorist attacks, and in my opinion, that evidence makes the confession credible. And even without it, in my opinion, there would indeed be enough other evidence to get a conviction. You are, of course, completely free to ignore that evidence and believe whatever bullshit you like, for whatever perverse reason you choose. That right, however, does not protect you from criticism if you try to blow smoke up peoples' asses and call it "facts" and "logical reasoning." Those terms have meaning that are beyond your ability to destroy.

[The Doctor.]

53. Calling a duck a tank doesn't make it one.

Neither does throwing a tantrum and calling me arrogant and deliberately deceptive make it so. You are apparently engaging in the very same tactics wingnuts use. If they are guilty of it, they generally point fingers and scream invectives at the other party.

In this case, given that anyone with a properly functioning pre-frontal cortex can see that my reasoning is based on very, very sound assumptions, and that you have failed to actually produce any cogent argument beyond throwing irrelevant chaff, and given that you are unwilling to acknowledge a simple reality that I've pointed out many times (One more for the veiwing audience: "Uncoerced video of someone confessing to involvement in a crime is absolutely considered "hard evidence"&quot , it can't be more clear which is the irrational party.

I get the exact same responses from climate change deniers when I break down the logic that leads to the inexorable conclusion that we are responsible for global warming. They call me 'arrogant' as well.


You claim all this evidence exists, yet the FBI did not believe there was enough for a mere indictment. You are terribly conflicted in that you claim the video is both proof and 'weak circumstantial evidence'. Then, to top it all off, you think you're some kind of mind-reader that believes I want bin Laden exonerated?

Let me ask you a question: When and where did I say I believed bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11? And please, I know you're not accustomed to doing so, but do provide a link.

Bonus question: Do you believe Humans are responsible for the current global warming?

[William Seger]

56. Oh, so you think maybe bin Laden might have painted the buildings with exploding paint?

OoooooooooooKaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. I retract my insinuation that you are an apologist for murderers. I have a replacement insinuation, but stating it might push the limits of the forum rules.

As for the apparently endless repetition of your failed argument, did you find that legal definition of "hard evidence" yet? 'Cause it appears that you aren't even trying. And tell me again why Tomb is compelled to accept a video of someone bragging to his buddies as "hard evidence -- or actually, tell me for the first time? Also, you didn't answer to the fact that your conclusions could be wrong even if your faulty premises were correct, because a fake video or fake translation are clearly not the only possible explanations for why an FBI PR guy would say what he did.

> You claim all this evidence exists, yet the FBI did not believe there was enough for a mere indictment.

That's correct, I make that claim despite the fact that one FBI PR guy apparently didn't agree in a casual telephone interview. Such is the nature of opinion, as you so eloquently pointed out yourself.

> Bonus question: Do you believe Humans are responsible for the current global warming?

Yes, I do. Bonus suggestion: Stick to the topic. That irrelevancy and the "troll" bullshit are just making you look even more foolish.

[The Doctor.]

66. More bullshit. How tiresome.

The thermite and the paint chips tested very differently.


You have yet to post a single credible refutation of the paper. You're relying on the troll tactic of saying it's been done 'elsewhere' where there are also no credible links to anything.

I asked about climate change because you're using the exact same tactics the deniers use.

I've seen enough of your insanity. It's insurmountable. As I said, there's no getting through to someone who denies a simple reality (That uncoerced video confession aren't 'hard evidence'), can't distinguish facts from reason (it wasn't Tombs' "Opinion" that the FBI had no hard evidence), and refuses to post any substantive links to back up his claims (that the nano-thermite paper has been refuted).

What you seem to be doing here is trying to dilute the thread with bullshit so that casual readers become confused or bored. Another troll tactic.

[William Seger]

72. More irony. How humorous.

> The thermite and the paint chips tested very differently.

And I have told you twice (not counting that previous thread that I found!) that they did not even ATTEMPT to test paint like that used in the WTC. Are you really not capable of understanding why that matters?

> I asked about climate change because you're using the exact same tactics the deniers use.

Bull. Shit. Not only are you apparently incapable of either defending, correcting, or retracting your faulty logic, that may be the most pathetic attempt at poisoning the well that I've seen for quite some time.

> What you seem to be doing here is trying to dilute the thread with bullshit so that casual readers become confused or bored. Another troll tactic.

Okay, second most pathetic. You keep using that word "troll." I do not think it means what you think it means. If there are any "casual readers" here who can't see which one of us is the bullshitter, I can't say I'm too worried about what they think.

[William Seger]

80. Why would I alert on your funniest post yet?

> The paper is very clear about the testing of the paint chips.

"Very clear," huh? One of the many glaring omissions in that paper is that it doesn't say squat about what kind of paint they tested, which is yet another example of how laughably unscientific the paper is. But from an email from Jones, we do know this much:

We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.

Exactly as I said, they didn't even ATTEMPT to test paint similar to that used in the WTC, apparently "supposing" that all paint is alike, which means that (A) the paint tests described in the paper are completely meaningless, and (B) as "scientists" these guys are just clowns.

This was not something unknowable, either: From the NIST report, we do know of two specific paints that were used, and you might imagine that these "scientists" would be highly embarrassed to learn that one of them is a remarkably good match to their red/gray chips.

> You're a lying sack of crap.

You lose. Wanna play again?

[Quantess]

88. "The Doctor" is no longer with us.

Just wanted to share the good news.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

89. What....

....got him revoked?

[Quantess]

90. Where to begin?

For the official reason, you can always click on their profile, then click where it says posting priviliges revoked. The official reason for that jackass' banning is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

91. Was it this....

....thread you think?

[cpwm17]

93. Check out Meta-discussion

It seems a lot of people had various problems with him.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

92. Ok...

...found it.

[William Seger]

5. "Facts" ?

- The FBI, presumably aware of the video's existance, claimed that there was "No hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11.

It's a fact that Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said that in a casual telephone interview, but the assertion itself is clearly a matter of opinion, and one not necessarily shared by FBI lawyers. That's a pretty shaky premise for your bold conclusion.

- Video has always been considered 'hard evidence' by law enforcement.

Another faulty premise. A video of someone committing a crime might justifiably be called "hard evidence," but a video of someone bragging to his friends about his involvement in a crime is weak circumstantial evidence. By itself, the video doesn't prove anything, but that's why a truly reasonable person should consider the totality of the evidence, such as the evidence connecting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the plot and to bin Laden.

Your argument is not convincing.

[The Doctor.]

7. LMAO! You've just proven beyond doubt that you can't be taken seriously.

Your world must vacillate wildly around you.

Video has been used both to indict and prosecute individuals since its inception. It is practically the very definition of 'hard evidence'.

Tombs stated what he knew, and he never refuted his claim. What he stated was not 'an opinion'. I understand that you, like so many people these days, can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, so I'll help you out a little: a 'fact' is either 'true' or 'false'. An opinion is neither true or false, it just has degrees of validity. If someone states a fact that is not true, then it is a 'lie'.

So either Tombs was lying, or he was stating a fact. Since his statement was never refuted by the FBI or anyone else, the conclusion is that his was a statement of fact.

What I just did there is called 'logical reasoning'. You should give it a shot sometime.


Lemme guess, it's also not a 'fact' that Obama was born in the US, right? Because I can use your exact reasoning to shoot down all the evidence that he was.


But the best part is how you go on to say that the video is not 'hard evidence' thereby proving my entire point. There is no 'hard evidence' linking bin Laden to 9/11.

Thanks for stepping up for me.

[William Seger]

15. What you just did there is called "logical reasoning" huh?

Sez you. I call it bad logic and pointed you to the two most glaring faults. Your rebuttal amounts to hysterical hand-waving.

> Video has been used both to indict and prosecute individuals since its inception. It is practically the very definition of 'hard evidence'.

Really? And whose "very definition" is that? Yours, obviously. If you don't understand why a video of someone bragging to his buddies is weak circumstantial evidence, then you're a prime example of why I believe "truthers" should be barred from jury duty.

> Tombs stated what he knew, and he never refuted his claim. What he stated was not 'an opinion'.

Except that you don't actually have any legal definition of the term "hard evidence," and even if you did, whether or not a particular piece of evidence fit that definition would generally be a matter of opinion. About the only exception would be a genuine "smoking gun," which we don't have.

> I understand that you, like so many people these days, can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, ...

One of the things I really love about this particular board is the irony.

> ... so I'll help you out a little: a 'fact' is either 'true' or 'false'. An opinion is neither true or false, it just has degrees of validity.

Which is PRECISELY why Tombs' comment about "hard" evidence was a matter of opinion! Jeez.

> So either Tombs was lying, or he was stating a fact. Since his statement was never refuted by the FBI or anyone else, the conclusion is that his was a statement of fact.

What I just did there is called 'logical reasoning'.

No, what you just did there is try support an invalid inference with an unsound premise. The unsound premise is that Tombs was either lying or stating a fact, whereas he was actually stating an opinion, and as I pointed out, not one necessarily shared by FBI lawyers. The invalid inference is that your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premises, even if they were factual, because there could be other reasons why the FBI never refuted Tombs' opinion.

> Lemme guess, it's also not a 'fact' that Obama was born in the US, right? Because I can use your exact reasoning to shoot down all the evidence that he was.

LOL, I don't see how you could make that claim unless you simply don't understand my reasoning. Where Obama was born is a genuine matter of fact, not a matter of opinion about the meaning of the words "where" and "born."

> But the best part is how you go on to say that the video is not 'hard evidence' thereby proving my entire point. There is no 'hard evidence' linking bin Laden to 9/11.

Wow, you seem to have forgotten your own "entire point" pretty quickly, so let's look at it again:

> When we apply reason again, there are only a few possible answers, and none of them can possibly be that the video represents a confession. The answers are:

> a) The video is entirely faked, which would be child's play for the FBI to have determined.

> -OR-

> b) The CIA translation, for whatever reason, is false... which would also be easily determined.

> Either way, we've been sold bad goods. The video is not any kind of 'confession'.

What I said was, indeed, the video is weak circumstantial evidence, not "hard evidence," and it needs to be considered along with all the other evidence, in view of which the confession is quite credible. That statement in no way, shape, or form, proves the "entire point" that you actually made above. Which brings us back to the title of you post:

> LMAO! You've just proven beyond doubt that you can't be taken seriously.

Did I mention how much I love irony?

[The Doctor.]

26. Again, you fail.

Stating that the FBI has 'no hard evidence' is only an 'opinion' if it is false. It has never been shown to be false, and it was stated as a fact.

Since you can't even begin to distinguish between facts and opinions, there are only two possible explanations:

1) You are using troll tactics in the hope that either I or the readers are too intellectually lazy to recognize that you don't know what you're talking about.

2) You really don't know the difference between facts and opinions. That would be sad considering that such an affliction resides mostly among wingnuts.

[William Seger]

28. Again, you fail to provide any cogent response to valid criticism

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Again, you fail to even attempt to provide any definition of the term "hard evidence," much less explain why others are compelled to accept your opinions on what does and doesn't qualify as "fact." All you seem to have is argument from arrogance.

[The Doctor.]

32. If you want to provide a 'cogent' argument,

You really should learn the difference between facts and opinions.

Of course you can't make sense of what I've said if you haven't learned that yet.


In the case of the FBI, "Hard evidence" is what would be necessary to officially state bin Laden's connection to 9/11. They don't have any, so they can't state as much.


I'm astounded that someone who has some semblance of literacy can't wrap his head around something so simple. But really, I'm not astounded. Because I know that understanding and recognition are two things that might threaten the nice, comfortable belief in the official version of 9/11 that protects people from the implications of the reality.

[William Seger]

36. Thanks again

> You really should learn the difference between facts and opinions.



"Argument from arrogance" means claiming you're right because you're right. You still don't have any legal definition of the term "hard evidence" and you still haven't provided any "logical reasoning" for why everyone is compelled to accept your opinion of what is and what isn't.

> I'm astounded that someone who has some semblance of literacy can't wrap his head around something so simple.



Thanks, as I said, this is what I enjoy most about this board.

[The Doctor.]

39. This should be amusing.

Did you tell your math teacher that claiming 2+2=4 was 'arrogant'?

Your failure to understand simple logic does not make it wrong. But I'm having fun with this too given that I find your troll tactics amusing and easy to play with.

Here is what I said upthread:

"Tombs stated what he knew, and he never refuted his claim. What he stated was not 'an opinion'. I understand that you, like so many people these days, can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, so I'll help you out a little: a 'fact' is either 'true' or 'false'. An opinion is neither true or false, it just has degrees of validity. If someone states a fact that is not true, then it is a 'lie'.

So either Tombs was lying, or he was stating a fact. Since his statement was never refuted by the FBI or anyone else, the conclusion is that his was a statement of fact."

Please explain how that is 'wrong'.

Again, this should be amusing.

[William Seger]

44. Why should I expect that explaining it a fourth time would make a difference?

If you're just going to repeat yourself, then I can play that game, too:

"You still don't have any legal definition of the term "hard evidence" and you still haven't provided any "logical reasoning" for why everyone is compelled to accept your opinion of what is and what isn't."

> Your failure to understand simple logic does not make it wrong.

And again, what makes your "simple logic" wrong is (A) your primary premise -- that Tomb is required to accept your opinion about what is and isn't "hard evidence" -- is simple arrogance, and (B) your conclusions -- that the video must be fake or the translation inaccurate -- do not necessarily follow from the premises, even if they were true, which is a sure sign that your inference is invalid. I don't know anyone whose logic is 100% infallible, but why do you keep talking about logic when you clearly don't even understand the fundamental principles?

[The Doctor.]

46. Yer just about off the deep end here. I don't recall telling Tombs anything in person.

Or over the phone.

Tombs knows what 'hard evidence' is, I'm certain.

You're outside the realm of reason, can't understand simple logic, but I'll try one more time:

It's not MY opinion that the video is not 'hard evidence', it is the FBI's opinion. I think the FBI knows better than either of us what constitutes hard evidence.

Once again, it seems pretty clear that the OV adherents like yourself want the video to be proof of bin Laden's guilt, but then believe that even with such proof, he cannot be indicted for the crime.

My reasoning is very sound. What isn't is your unwillingness to accept a very, very simple reality: uncoerced video confessions are considered 'hard evidence' enough to put people in jail, let alone merely indict them.

Your attempts to deflect from this are plenty enough proof that you have no solid ground to stand on, and a reinforcement of my initial conclusions. Thank you for that.

[William Seger]

59. Yes, you've convinced me that you'll keep repeating the same nonsense over and over

> It's not MY opinion that the video is not 'hard evidence', it is the FBI's opinion.

Exactly my point, thank you -- it's an opinion, which I happen to share for the reasons repeatedly stated -- but excuse me, it's really only the opinion of one PR guy, as far as we know, not the entire FBI.

This third subthread serves no purpose, so unless you have some actual, non-hand-waving defense of your faulty reasoning, I won't be responding on this one. The other two are still quite fun, however.

[The Doctor.]

67. If the FBI says it's not hard evidence, then it's a fact.

Nice try at twisting things though.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. That's rather authoritarian of you to accept the FBI so righteously, The Doctor.

Are you willing to grant that same acceptance to everything the FBI says about everything? Or just the bits that seem to back up what you want to believe here?

[The Doctor.]

76. So now you believe there is a conspiracy theory that the FBI dismisses hard evidence?

Yeah, the FBI is SO on the side of the 'Truthers' that I'm sure you're right.



The more of this irrational BS I see, the easier it is to believe that the PNAC got what it wanted by proactive execution.

[William Seger]

4. That video was shot with a PAL-format camera

... which has 625 horizontal lines. It was apparently converted to NTSC-format's 525 lines by a program that simply discarded lines, scrunching the image vertically and making OBL look fat. When the images are stretched out to the size they would be at 625 lines, as in the center image below, it's clearly OBL:



Ironically, this was discovered by a "truther."

[The Doctor.]

40. So I state in another thread that the FBI does not consider this video

to be sufficient evidence of bin Laden's connection to 9/11.

You post a thread to discuss it, and the other poster (William) in the thread effectively argues for my position.

Have you abandoned your thread?

[cpwm17]

50. William Seger doesn't agree with you at all

You were denying that that video was actually Osama. I provided evidence that it was.

We know for a fact that al Qaeda did 9-11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

The FBI investigation into the attacks, codenamed operation PENTTBOM, was able to identify the 19 hijackers within days, as they made little effort to conceal their names on flight, credit card, and other records.[6] By checking flight manifests and comparing them with other information, like watch lists, customs officials were able to quickly find the names of all 19 hijackers.

Passengers and crew aboard the flights provided information about the hijackers while the hijacking was in progress. Two flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney, contacted airline personnel on the ground. Sweeney provided the seat numbers of the hijackers, and descriptions of the men, identifying Mohamed Atta as one of the hijackers.[7][8][9] A flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175 called a United Airlines mechanic and reported that hijackers had killed the crew.[9] While the hijacking was in progress on American Airlines Flight 77, several passengers, including a flight attendant, Renee May, contacted and reported details of the hijacking to persons on the ground.[10] Sales clerks identified two individuals to whom they sold tickets on Flight 77 as the hijackers Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.[9] During the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, Jeremy Glick identified the hijackers as Arabic-looking and carrying box-cutters.[11]

Mohamed Atta's luggage did not make the connection from his Portland flight to American Airlines Flight 11. In his suitcase, authorities found a handwritten letter in Arabic. As well, a handwritten letter was found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and another in Hazmi's vehicle.[12] When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind

Osama was more than happy to take credit for the attacks conducted by al Qaeda, which was founded by Osama himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[125][138] In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.[125]

According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War.[139]

Through two other tapes aired by Al Jazeera in 2006, Osama bin Laden announced, "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers. [...] I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers [...] with the raids" (May 23, 2006).[140] In the tapes he was seen with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, as well as two of the 9/11 hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they made preparations for the attacks (videotape broadcast September 7, 2006).[141]

Identified motivations of the September 11 attacks include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U.S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. enforcement of sanctions against Iraq.

We know what brought down the towers in detail, and we know who did it: al Qaeda.

[The Doctor.]

52. Well, he wants it both ways.

He wants the video to represent proof of bin Laden's involvement without the FBI, which can authoritatively identify 'proof', I suspect, considering it 'proof'.

That was the point I was making even in the other thread.

The more I see the OV adherents desperately avoiding simple reality (like... that the FBI knows proof when it sees it), the more certain I am that they are wrong.

[Spoopy]

54. All of you have a good point

The "confession" video is compelling and it looks to me like Bin Ladin, if that is who the man in the video is, is talking about his part in 9/11. But then the FBI spokesperson really did say the FBI did not have enough hard evidence, even with this video. That means to me that the video argument is moot and more investigation is needed. How about bringing in a special prosecutor, someone to use some of the newer evidence gleaned since the original commission to see if maybe there wasn't, say, some criminal negligence, or dare I say it, a conspiracy.

[The Doctor.]

58. You're using reason.

You are apparently unaware of what's going on here.

This is actually a form of interrogation. They think they're interrogating me, pressing me, and 'shutting me down'. I have no problem with their thinking that. In the process, I'm extracting and putting on display their failure of reason.

Reason is purely subjective for them, so your reasonable approach will be rejected.

Like I said, they want it both ways: They want the video to be proof of bin Laden's involvement, but they also don't want it to be the proof that could be used to indict him because that would run headlong against a reality they don't like: The FBI does not consider the video to be 'proof' or in their words, "Hard evidence."

They will even go so far as to claim that 'proof' and 'hard evidence' are two different things... and I would agree. Hard evidence is a slightly lower bar than 'proof'. So what they want is proof without evidence.

Because of this conflict, their only course for resolution is to claim that an uncoerced video confession does not constitute 'hard evidence'. This flies in the face of decades of indictments and convictions arrived at through nothing more than video/audio evidence, and is simply insane.

Having exposed their insanity, my work here is pretty much done, but I'm hanging around to see how much more I can squeeze out of them.

Thanks very much for your suggestion, BTW. I agree that there should have been a more thorough investigation because there really wasn't much of one.

[William Seger]

60. Oh, bullshit

It seems you don't even understand what's being argued here. It IS NOT what other people think of the video; it's your so-called "logical reasoning" that if an FBI PR guy said in a casual phone interview that there was no "hard evidence," that means that either the translation or the video itself is fake. There is nothing "logical" about that "reasoning," and you haven't addressed the obvious problems with your logic except to blithely deny that there are any. Nor have you even attempted to offer any actual evidence that the video is fake. All you've got is argument from arrogance that Tomb and everyone else is required to share your opinion about what constitutes "hard evidence," despite your unwillingness to even attempt to define the term. You simply believe that your own opinions are "fact" and your own invalid inferences are the epitome of "logical reasoning," and that anyone who says otherwise is a "troll" regardless of the reasons they provide.

If your objective was to make a fool of yourself, then yes, your work is pretty much done. But I'm gonna bet that your ego won't allow you to let it go, and you'll keep digging the hole deeper. And, yes, I'm happy to keep egging you on, because the subplot on this forum is what sort of fuzzy thinking underlies the process of promoting unbridled paranoid conspiracy speculation to be "truth."

[The Doctor.]

64. You've divested yourself of the reality upon which my reasoning was based.

You claim an uncoerced video confession isn't hard evidence.

There's no getting past that.

All the other bullshit you throw out there, all the lame and unfounded accusations, it's just chaff to desperately distract from the insanity you've displayed.

If I'm so very wrong, then why can't you stop? Why do you persist?

Meanwhile, did you answer my other questions?

Do you deny human caused climate change?

[AZCat]

70. Huh. You already asked him that.

Are you ignoring his answer re. climate change? Because that's upthread, in post #56. The one you responded to with post #66.

[William Seger]

71. In the first place, "confession" should be in quotes

... because, as has been repeatedly called to your attention (to no avail), it's actually a video of him bragging to his buddies rather than "confessing". But, yes, I claim that any reasonably rational person can easily why that's weak circumstantial evidence rather than "hard evidence."

Unlike you and your "hard evidence" bullshit, I can even define the term "circumstantial evidence": "Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference."

And unlike you, I can even say specifically why it's "weak" circumstantial evidence: The necessary inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact requires the premise that he wasn't just lying to his buddies to impress them, but that is a possibility, so the inference is unreliable as "proof" of anything.

See what I just did there? It's called defending my argument with reason. You should try it sometime.

> If I'm so very wrong, then why can't you stop? Why do you persist?

LOL, there's that reading comprehension problem again. You're responding to a post in which I just gave one reason why I'll keep egging you on as long as you want to play this silly game. It's actually just another case steady of the poor "reasoning" used by conspiracists and, as Jonathan Swift once noted, the impossibility of reasoning someone out of beliefs that were never the result of reasoning in the first place.

> Meanwhile, did you answer my other questions? Do you deny human caused climate change?

And there it is again! Would answering a second time help? I have to doubt it.

[The Doctor.]

73. So the video is not a confession?

Well then, that would mean that there really is no hard evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.

Or at least you can all stop pointing to that video as proof of his guilt.

[William Seger]

82. LOL, what about your "logical reasoning" that the video was fake? (n/t)

[cpwm17]

61. All you have is an ambiguous statement spoken by an single FBI agent,

a non-scientific paper that you don't understand written by some cranks, and poor reading comprehension on your side.

You have no evidence for your controlled demolition theory. You can't even give a plausible explanation on how 9-11 might have gone down, let alone how 9-11 really went down according to your MIHOP theory.

A CD would be impossibly complicated and well beyond the ability of any group to pull off. Your CD theory is completely nonsensical, considering aircraft hit the buildings first. A CD attempt would be exposed well before it could be pulled off. You clearly have no understanding of how the human brain works.

We know how 9-11 went down. It's simple and easy to explain. Reality has just about the entire scientific, engineering, and law enforcement community on its side. Now that's an 'argument from authority' that is worth mentioning.

[The Doctor.]

77. Ambiguous? Are you that fucking stupid?

There's nothing ambiguous about saying you "don't have something". It's either true or false.

He said they have 'no hard evidence'. That is either true or false. There is no in between. Or are you not familiar with the meaning of the word "ambiguous"?

Couple that with absolutely NO refutation, or links, or anything to back up your utterly bullshit claim that the paper was 'non-scientific', and it's quite clear who the 'crank' is.

Please, I'm begging you... alert on my asking you if you're 'that fucking stupid' so that some random folks can read this thread and realize that some of you are just plain full of shit.

Please.

[cpwm17]

83. Incredible claims require incredible evidence

Appealing to authority of one FBI Agent's opinion concerning Osama's guilt and one highly disputed paper, that you can't defend, does not equal incredible evidence for controlled demolitions. They don't equal evidence for CD's at all.

We've already covered the "hard evidence" for Osama's guilt issue. You can watch the video and evaluate much of the collaborating evidence the same as your favorite FBI agent.

Science is a process. One paper written by some folks with fancy titles doesn't necessarily equal science. A large percentage of preliminary results from initial scientific studies are not accurate. The initial study must be duplicated or falsified by further studies. That's the only way science can work.

Just about the entire scientific community supports the obvious fact that the towers were brought down by the planes and subsequent fires. Scientists and engineers determined why the towers fell through a diligent scientific process.

You're claiming that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. The burden of proof is on you. But your hurdle is infinitely high, since we already know who took the towers down and why they collapsed.

[cpwm17]

57. You are using the argument from authority

Last edited Mon Oct 29, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

based on the ambiguous opinions of one man. As William Seger pointed out, you haven't even defined what "hard evidence" means. It apparently means what you want it to mean.

There often isn't just one piece of evidence that convicts a defendant. If there is a video of Joe Blow from Montana bragging about conducting 9-11, without any collaborating evidence, one could disregard the evidence.

In the case of Osama, he has a history of such activities, known associates involved in the crime, multiple statements claiming responsibility, motive, and authority over the organization that committed the crime, and whatever other evidence that may exist. That makes a compelling case. You need to address the case rather than trying to appeal to authority.

[The Doctor.]

79. If you can't understand the words "hard evidence" when they are put together,

Then there's no bringing you up to speed with reality.

Oh, and I did define 'hard evidence' in this thread. Too bad you don't bother reading the posts you respond to.

[cpwm17]

85. You've gone out of your way to avoid discussing your evidence for CD's

You need to start a new thread to present your evidence.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

62. Wait....

didn't OBL disclaim everything several times at the beginning?

First he says he didn't do it and then he says he did? What's the point of that? Smells to me of DISINFO designed to confuse discussion.

[cpwm17]

63. At first, when Osama thought his ass was on the line, he said he didn't do it.

After he figured he was safe he claimed responsibility. He wasn't a fan of dying. He didn't want to be a martyr.

[The Doctor.]

78. Oh, Awesome! So when did he claim responsibility?

In that video that the FBI does not consider hard evidence of his responsibility?

So in your universe it both is and isn't proof of his involvement?

You can't pick a reality to live in?

Is that it?

Try.

[cpwm17]

84. I already showed you a link concerning Osama's claims of responsibility for 9-11

which you ignored – of course.

You're displaying your poor reading comprehension skills again.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

86. That explanation seems...

...unconvincing.

This was a man who articulated the Arab anger over US troops in his home of Saudi Arabia, a man who was the best-known anti-US leader in that part of the world for over 10 years prior to 9/ll and once he pulls the greatest foreign attack ever on US soil, he's not going to crow about it to his Arab brethren? Doesn't make sense.

[cpwm17]

87. Osama did publicly take credit for 9-11.

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

See my post #50:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11353759#post50

Osama was braver than most, but he was human. He didn't want to die. He barely got out of Afghanistan alive. After he thought he was secure, he openly took responsibility.

The earlier "Osama Confession Video" doesn't appear to have been made for public viewing.

[Spoopy]

94. Room for doubt

Bin Ladin denied 9/11 in a September 28, 2001 interview with a Pakistani publication which was reported on the BBC wherein he said the following:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."

I also read the translation of the video is skewed to implicate him but of that I am not sure.

Whatever, don't be too hasty to blame Osama when there are still unanswered anomalies which indicate he may have not have been the bogeyman.

[cpwm17]

95. As I wrote above, the "Confession Video" wasn't the only time Osama talked of his involvement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

This was presented in Arabic, on Al-Jazeera:

The video is reported to be 18 minutes in length; Osama only speaks for 14 minutes 39 seconds.[1] Al-Jazeera released a transcript of the complete tape on November 1, 2004

... His remarks, in Arabic but addressed to citizens of the United States, instruct them that "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" (a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks), is to not threaten the security of Muslim nations, such as Palestine and Lebanon.

Osama is clear about his involvement:

The tape also contains bin Laden's first public acknowledgment of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S., noting that he first thought about attacking the World Trade Center in 1982, after watching Israeli aircraft bomb Lebanon during the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon:

"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

He also admits for the first time a direct link to the attacks, saying that they were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation". Bin Laden threatens further retaliation against the U.S., noting that the conditions which provoked the 2001 attacks still exist and compares America to "corrupt" Arab governments.

He speaks of his desire to bankrupt the U.S.

[KDLarsen]

96. Except there was no evidence that words were was bin Laden's...

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010929010503/http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html

[cpwm17]

97. That interview was filed on 28th September 2001

Here's the October 29, 2004 video of Osama from Al Jazeera:

with the English transcript from Al Jazeera:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

If it were possible for the US to fake the 9-11 attacks, the US certainly wouldn't claim that Saudis were the perpetrators; and that Bush Sr's slaughter or Clinton's devastating sanctions against Iraq, or our support for Israel were motivating factors for 9-11. That puts US foreign policy in the cross-hairs and motivates questions of our support for a couple of alleged allies: Saudi Arabia and Israel.