• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

stateofgrace said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm


Well? Are you satisfied that there is enough evidence to indict UBL or are you going to, like every twoofer before you, look for reasons to dismiss this indictment?

So why have Spain indicted him if there is no evidence?
Click to expand...


I don't have to look for reasons because, contrary to you, I know who Baltasar Garzón is. His many critics accuse him of irresponsibly misusing his position to get public attention. His national and international track record is quite interesting. Read the wikipedia article to get an idea. In Spain:

wikipedia said:
[...] In July 1998 he instructed a case against Orain SA, the Basque communication company that published the newspaper Egin and owned the radio station Egin Irratia. Garzón ordered the closure of both and sent some of the company officers to prison, due to their alleged links with ETA. These charges were later dropped for lack of evidence, and the journalists were released. Many years later Mr Garzon imprisoned them again under the allegation of being part of ETA in a "broader" sense. Egin was allowed to reopen years later by the Audiencia Nacional, after all charges were found without foundation, but Orain SA was already bankrupt, not having been allowed to run operations and publish for years. In February 2003 Garzón also ordered the closure of Egunkaria, the only newspaper wholly written in Basque language, once again alleging links with ETA, although the evidence was never presented. There was an outcry of public opinion against the closure, especially within the Basque country and abroad. Prominent intellectual figures including Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky condemned the closure. [...]
Click to expand...


Bolding mine. While i would love to see Kissinger extradited to Spain and prosecuted, you see that Garzón isn't exactly the person who shys away from indicting someone without evidence.
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
"Video after video" - how many videos is that? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6?

Right, so where are these videos then? not fake videos but real one's.
Click to expand...
I knew that given enough rope TFT would hang himself time TFT would out himself as a truther.

Mu money's on him blaming Jews Zionists.
 
MikeW said:
Let's test your agnosticism:



You do know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh confessed to Al Jazeera's Yosri Fouda before their arrests, right?
Click to expand...

I decided to test your research and found not a confession, as you describe it, but the report of a confession.
 
RedIbis said:
I decided to test your research and found not a confession, as you describe it, but the report of a confession.
Click to expand...

So, Red, you must think that a journalist from the news agency most hostile to the United States lied about the whole thing. Why is that, in your expert opinion? Is Fouda actually a CIA agent? Did Dick Cheney give him a bunch of money?

Oh, and I see you have graced us with your presence after a break from posting in this section. Do you plan on falsely accusing people of using logical fallacies some more?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I don't have to look for reasons because, contrary to you, I know who Baltasar Garzón is. His many critics accuse him of irresponsibly misusing his position to get public attention. His national and international track record is quite interesting. Read the wikipedia article to get an idea. In Spain:




Bolding mine. While i would love to see Kissinger extradited to Spain and prosecuted, you see that Garzón isn't exactly the person who shys away from indicting someone without evidence.
Click to expand...

Ah, but I do know who he is and have read his track record before.Your link is very interesting but I posted a story about the indictment of UBL. Your link does nothing to refute this.

I am genuinely interested in this and if you have anything to offer to show that this indictment is wrong or unjust please offer it up.

It does raise the question as why somebody who fiercely critical of the US treatment of Al Qaeda suspects, campaigns strongly against the Iraq war and want Kissinger investigated would want to help the US by wrongly indicting UBL. Strange that eh?
 
RedIbis said:
I decided to test your research and found not a confession, as you describe it, but the report of a confession.
Click to expand...
A report with plenty to back it up, but fair enough, I accept that as a qualification. Now let's have truthers (or at least those who write books and make films) stop behaving as though this report, the video wills and al Qaeda tapes don't actually exist.
 
It didn't fail! It didn't! Didn't, didn't, didn't!

It just used a different definition of success.

"We've managed to convince everyone who is dain bramaged that there was a conspiracy. Success is ours! Bwa-ha-ha!"
 
MikeW said:
A report with plenty to back it up, but fair enough, I accept that as a qualification. Now let's have truthers (or at least those who write books and make films) stop behaving as though this report, the video wills and al Qaeda tapes don't actually exist.
Click to expand...

Why do you want them to acknowledge it exists? You know if they do, they will simply assume the truther default position...

"All evidence which does not prove 9/11 was an inside job, is fabricated."

Seems to me denial of existence is just as invalid as "fabricated" so who cares.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Why do you want them to acknowledge it exists?
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't expect that they will. Truthers know the "that's faked" excuse wears thin if you use it over, and over, and over again (especially with no supporting evidence at all), & so simply can't acknowledge inconvenient evidence like this. Still, there's no harm in asking occasionally - call it a moment of seasonal optimism.
 
stateofgrace said:
It does raise the question as why somebody who fiercely critical of the US treatment of Al Qaeda suspects, campaigns strongly against the Iraq war and want Kissinger investigated would want to help the US by wrongly indicting UBL. Strange that eh?
Click to expand...


Garzón is known as enfant terrible, attention seeker and fast shooter. His motivation was clear:

1 said:
In an interview for Mother Jones in 2004, he explained to Tim Golden why he was opposed to the Americans' approach to the "War on Terror," and why he favoured "a multinational, legal approach over what he describe[d] as a ‘militaristic' strategy of intelligence gathering, extrajudicial arrests, and military detention." "What frightens me is when people start going beyond the limits of the law," he said. "Taking the right to a defense away from those who are detained at Guantánamo. Establishing a license to kill terrorists. In this country, we know what it means to use this heavy hand. We know that when the fight against terrorism moves outside the law, it becomes very dangerous."
Click to expand...


So he relied on the info provided by US authorities and this is where the trial met the same wall of silence that the german authorities witnessed in the two trials against Mzoudi and Motassadegh: The US authorities refused to produce or give access to Binalshibh and KSM, and the written testimony they produced was considered not sufficient to be used as evidence:

2 said:
One aspect of the case that has received little attention is the fact that an appeal by Spanish prosecutors to be allowed to question the suspected coordinator of the 9/11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, was rejected by the US. Binalshibh is being held by the US, and his presence at the meeting in Tarragona with Atta was central to the Spanish case. Earlier judges in the German cases against the alleged Hamburg cell had also complained that they had been denied access to testimony from key 9/11 suspects in American custody.
Click to expand...


I followed the case in german media, so i had to first search for similar information in english before writing this post. It wasn't easy. You find a lot of articles about the opening of the trial in Summer 2005, but very few and not very detailed articles about the outcome in Autumn 2005. I found

1 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15995
2 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/spai-o10.shtml
3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-Qa'eda-boss-jailed-for-Sept-11-attacks.html

So, what was the outcome? No conviction of Bin Laden, because of the unability to even reach Binalshibh and KSM. The wall of silence. Instead:

3 said:
The head of an al-Qa'eda cell in Spain was jailed for 27 years yesterday for his role in the September 11 attacks in America at the end of Europe's biggest trial of Islamist terrorist suspects.

Imad Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, one of 24 defendants on trial in Madrid, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the attacks and of heading a terrorist organisation.

The verdict made him the only person with a standing conviction of links to the attacks in New York and Washington.

[...] Yarkas, 42, a Syrian-born Spaniard, had faced a Spanish record jail term of nearly 75,000 years - 25 years for each of the 2,973 people killed in the attacks - had he been convicted of killing them. But he was cleared of this.

[...] Another defendant in the Madrid trial, Driss Chebli, a Moroccan, was also alleged to have helped set up the meeting. He was acquitted of murder charges yesterday but convicted of collaborating with a terrorist group and sentenced to six years.
Click to expand...
2 said:
The judges said there was not enough evidence to convict the three main suspects, Yarkas, Driss Chebli and Ghasoub al Abrash Ghalyoun, of participating in the September 11 plot for which the prosecutor had asked for 74,000 years imprisonment—25 years for each of those killed in New York.

Ghasoub al Abrash Ghalyoun was acquitted on all counts at the trial. The accusation against him was that in 1997 he had taken film of the Twin Towers in New York which, according to the Public Ministry, had been used by the suicide terrorists for the attack. Ghalyoun had stated that they were holiday pictures.
Click to expand...
3 said:
16 were convicted of belonging to or collaborating with a terrorist group and five were acquitted. One of those found guilty was Tayseer Alouni, 50, a correspondent for the Arab television network, al-Jazeera, who once interviewed bin Laden. He was convicted of collaboration with terrorists and jailed for seven years.
Click to expand...
2 said:
One of the most sinister aspects of the trial was the prosecution of Al Jazeera journalist Tayssir Allouni. The Arabic-language television network sharply criticized the convictions. Editor-in-chief Ahmer Sheik said, “This is a black day for the Spanish judiciary, which has deviated from all the norms of international justice.”

Allouni, sentenced to seven years imprisonment, denied all the charges against him. Prosecutors used an interview that he conducted in 2001 with Osama bin Laden as evidence that he had a link to Al Qaeda. According to El Pais, the magistrates considered that he helped several members of Al Qaeda, knowingly, “in order to obtain from those individuals exclusive and profitable information about the organization.”
Click to expand...


Spanish media reported:

2 said:
The daily La Razon wrote: “The first trial against Islamic terrorism in our country has finished with a certain sense of failure in not being able to prove a direct link between the accused and the September 11 attacks.”

Barcelona’s La Vanguardia said: “The sentence, way below that sought by the state attorney, is a blow to the judicial investigation and the prosecution.”

The conservative El Mundo was forced to cast doubt on the case made by the Spanish prosecutors. While declaring that there was no doubt that most of those convicted “formed part of a group dedicated to making propaganda for the jihad, financing fundamentalist Islamic movements, recruiting fanatics for Chechnya, Bosnia and Afghanistan and maintaining contacts with the Algerian GIA and other violent groups,” it continued, “It is another thing to try to connect this group with the preparation for September 11, which was the basis for reopening this investigation at the end of October 2001.”
Click to expand...


Then, in 2006:

1 said:
However, in a momentous decision by the Spanish Supreme Court in July 2006, [Hamed Ahmed's] sentence was dismissed. The Supreme Court ordered his immediate release, and said that the High Court had not considered him "innocent until proven guilty," and had used evidence collected at Guantánamo that "should be declared totally void and, as such, non-existent," adding that the High Court was "entirely remiss in its role of providing evidence."

Ikassrien, transferred in July 2005, was released on his return, but was ordered to report daily to the police, and was prohibited from leaving the country without permission. When his trial came around, he, like Hamed Ahmed, had his case dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded, in October 2006, that there was no evidence to back up charges he was a member of al-Qaeda, stating, "It has not been proved that the accused Lahcen Ikassrien was part of a terrorist organization of Islamic fundamentalist nature, and more specifically, the al-Qaeda network created by [Osama] bin Laden." Significantly, the Supreme Court's judgment followed another momentous decision, four months before, to quash the conviction of Imad Yarkas, the lynchpin of the whole case against Hamed Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamil El-Banna and Omar Deghayes, for conspiracy to commit murder in the 9/11 attacks, although his conviction for belonging to a terrorist organization was upheld.
Click to expand...
 
peteweaver said:
These ideas, are considered by most Americans to be totally insane
Click to expand...
Substitute Americans for people. The world is bigger than America. Substitute Americans for people. The world is bigger than America.
Click to expand...

Popular notions of sanity in politics and finance are not a good guide to the truth.

Six months ago, except to a small number of US realists, the idea that the catastrophic collapse of the US economy would be well underway by Christmas was also considered insane.
 
JihadJane said:
The part describing the al Qaeda plot.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you can prove the 9/11 Commission relied heavily on testimony obtained from torture to describe the al Qaeda plot....................



What? You can't and you are lying. I'm shocked! Who would have ever thunk that a twoofer would lie!?!
 
Last edited:
Like I said, provide evidence, you know, valid investigative proof, that the "Al-Qaeda Plot" was exclusively, or even in the majority, obtained using torture?

Still waiting.

TAM:)
 
MikeW said:
A report with plenty to back it up, but fair enough, I accept that as a qualification. Now let's have truthers (or at least those who write books and make films) stop behaving as though this report, the video wills and al Qaeda tapes don't actually exist.
Click to expand...

I think they existed. I think AQ is a terrorist organization that plotted attacks on the US and its interests. That doesn't resolve whether or not the US gov't was aware of its operations, took advantage of its operations or even infiltrated and manipulated it.

Regardless, calling the report of a confession an actual confession is not a small matter.
 
parky76 said:
#5. They allowed politics to invade their theories. True skeptics, are skeptical of ALL theoies....ALL ideas..and looks into them using real hard evidence. 9-11 truthers, are clearly guided by their hatred of Bush, Republicans, Neo-Conservatives, liberalism, and even democracy. It doesn't take a genius to realize that. Had 9-11 taken place on President Al Gore's watch, I doubt 9-11 truth would have been as popular as it was.

A true skeptic would have been just as skeptical of the 9-11 truth ideas..as they were of the government's story.

....feel free to add.
Click to expand...
You may be right. However, I have seen vile dirt dumb ideas when idiots blame Clinton for killing people. There are dolts who had web sites of how many people the Clinton’s had killed, such as Ron Brown. So poor Al Gore would have taken a hit, and there would be idiots making up dirt dumb doltish rants about 9/11 and blame poor Al. I think no matter what your politics are, things like 9/11 truth have to be exposed as fraud and stupidity movements.

You have to look to find the fringe groups of idiots like p4t. These idiot groups proposing junk ideas are not mainstream and most of the country doesn’t know these idiots are spewing lies and dirt dumb ideas. I doubt the core members of p4t understand how dumb Balsamo is on 9/11 and flying topics. All the core member of p4t dolt movement have no evidence to support any of the non-theories Balsamo can’t make (I don’t understand how Balsamo has any members when he proposes zero theories, but implies the dumbest lies). One of the newest members, over 86, must be senile to join the p4t idiot idea parade of stupid. How dumb can a group be, you must be senile or able to beleive dirt dumb stupid ideas? Balsamo would be bashing 9/11 non-theories even if Al were president, Balsamo is dirt dumb, paranoid, and anti-government enough to be party independent and hang us all when he takes over not matter who was president.

I agree, why are the cult members not using their heads and being as skeptical of the 9/11 truth lies made up by idiots selling DVDs, and books, as they are of their own government. Pure stupid, 9/11 truth. Not a single piece of evidence after 7 years of failure – 9/11 truth - 100 percent evidence free.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Garzón is known as enfant terrible, attention seeker and fast shooter. His motivation was clear:




So he relied on the info provided by US authorities and this is where the trial met the same wall of silence that the german authorities witnessed in the two trials against Mzoudi and Motassadegh: The US authorities refused to produce or give access to Binalshibh and KSM, and the written testimony they produced was considered not sufficient to be used as evidence:




I followed the case in german media, so i had to first search for similar information in english before writing this post. It wasn't easy. You find a lot of articles about the opening of the trial in Summer 2005, but very few and not very detailed articles about the outcome in Autumn 2005. I found

1 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15995
2 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/spai-o10.shtml
3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-Qa'eda-boss-jailed-for-Sept-11-attacks.html

So, what was the outcome? No conviction of Bin Laden, because of the unability to even reach Binalshibh and KSM. The wall of silence. Instead:




Spanish media reported:




Then, in 2006:
Click to expand...

You are correct and I now see that this indictment of UBL by Spain is unsound.

Having seen and read your links my opinion of this indictment has changed. It is easy to take things at face value and not look beyond what is presented but in this instance it is an eye opener to be shown what lies beyond.

This is not to say I do not believe for a moment that UBL was not involved in the events of sept 11th but I will say the reaction from Spain and this indictment is questionable to say the least.

It is easy to be dogmatic in our beliefs and easy to be take things at face value without actually looking beyond it. To this end CE is correct and has presented compelling evidence through her links to cast doubt on this indictment.I like to think of myself as a skeptic, rather than a debunker or a truther.I am more than willing to accept fact, evidence and logic when it is presented. This as been presented by CE. As such, unless it is shown to be false, I will gladly accept it.This does not make me no planer or believer of any other irrational conspiracies.
But being a grumpy old git, it is rare my opinion changes on any issues but on this one, my opinion has changed.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I think they existed. I think AQ is a terrorist organization that plotted attacks on the US and its interests. That doesn't resolve whether or not the US gov't was aware of its operations, took advantage of its operations or even infiltrated and manipulated it.
Click to expand...

Since you obviously believe that the USG did this, it is now your job to go out and prove it. Come on, what are you waiting for? Worldwide fame, riches, and the satisfaction of putting the perps in prison await you.

And since you are the master of logic that you are, you must be well aware that it is not anybody's job to do something that is often impossible-prove a negative. So I don't have to go out of my way to prove this didn't happen.
 
RedIbis said:
I think they existed. I think AQ is a terrorist organization that plotted attacks on the US and its interests. That doesn't resolve whether or not the US gov't was aware of its operations, took advantage of its operations or even infiltrated and manipulated it.

Regardless, calling the report of a confession an actual confession is not a small matter.
Click to expand...

This, once again, leads us down that familiar road of "What does it take" to convince. I am not saying, one way or the other, whether they have provided enough proof that the confession is real. So far it is, as you have said, reported. But is not ALL OF THE 9/11 EVIDENCE, to the non-investigative googler, REPORTED? Is it all not second hand.

So the question, for you Red, is what would it take to prove the confession real as opposed to "reported". DO you have to actually have to see it? You see, even if someone provided an image of said confession, how do you know it has not been photoshopped? So do you need to see, IN PERSON, the actual confession, for it to be "real"?

ditto the DNA evidence and the plane parts, correct???

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom