Historian Dr. Daniele Ganser: "911 - What is the so called 'war on terror' really?" (Cologne, 06 Nov 2017)


(pip linney-barber) #42

This is a translation of a speech by bin laden from al-jazeera

If there was mistranslation, or fabrication, al-jazeera would be taking on a massive risk to their reputation given their wide readership throughout the middle east. Yes? It’s not like five hundred million Arabic speakers couldn’t point out the mistakes. It is reasonable to assume a translational accuracy.

By ‘scientific thinking’ i’m assuming you mean the scientific method?

If so…ah…no.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Let me finish by asking you, Adel, a question. Exactly what evidence would you require for you to accept the proposition that it is almost certain that the 9/11 attack was carried out by al-Qaeda?


(Adel Fazel) #43

  1. Footage of the attackers talking direct instructions of how to conduct attacks.
  2. Exact source of funds of attackers.
  3. Fair trial, so all the facts are examined.
  4. in this case, you first showed a different video compared to this one.
  5. Psychopaths are known to boast inaccurately for propaganda.

(pip linney-barber) #44

But you dont trust media.

I started to look at google sources for this, i found a few, but i stopped, you dont trust sources, so what’s the point.

They’re all dead!

It made the same point.

Why do you assume they were psychopaths?

You do not have any evidence, i have a confession and the documented history of the organisation, the documented history of religious insanity. You have nothing. Look, this is quite silly. It’s of no consequence, in the scheme of things. Let historians find the retrospective truths if there are more to be known.


(Adel Fazel) #45
  1. I do trust his videos. If you show a video of him, or his allies which clearly shows that he hard unique knowledge of the topic which he wouldn’t have obtained otherwise that is good enough.
  2. Please do and do investigative journalism to find it. If there are exact checks with dates, etc more than happy to accept.
  3. Fair trial applies to any surviving person who can shed light to the event. Not an attacker per se.
  4. not sure what are you talking about.
  5. I do not know since when asking for concrete evidence to support a view is considered a heresy.
  6. this point aside on all other matters that I mentioned, homeopathy, Russian interference, trickle down, do we have disagreement? My point is that I am just very cynical. Happy to call it the day and discuss other things.
  7. I hope you find it in the spirit of constructive argument that I insist in concrete evidence.
  8. Works of Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges who do investigative journalism are sound to me. Happy to hear your counter arguments.

(pip linney-barber) #46

Yes, lets call our exchange a day. We have a disagreement, but the topic is of little consequence in regard to the broader project.

Cheers Adel.


(Adel Fazel) #47

Cheers and Peace;
We are better than Trump supporters.


(Laura) #48

Seeing reports that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York are setting up a Special Grand Jury to look into evidence relating to 9/11.

We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions.

image https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/7-nov-2018-u-s-attorney-geoffrey-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/

(The Lawyers’ Committee woman I saw being interviewed said that the letter had some coffee spilled on it as they opened it, so that might be why the scan looks a bit funny if they had to clean it up digitally.)

curious to see how this Special Grand Jury will pan out…