Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Anthony Thorne]

A new 9/11 video with a heck of a lot of footage I hadn't seen before (and a music score which I could probably do without). It only goes for 10 minutes but is well worth a watch. Any comments anyone? The dozens of people shown here all seem pretty clear about what they saw and heard.

[Michael Hogan]

Mohammed says responsible for 9/11

Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:22 PM EDT

By Andrew Gray

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top al Qaeda suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has claimed he organized the September 11 attacks on the United States and other major attacks, according to the transcript of a hearing released on Wednesday.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed, speaking through a personal representative, said according to the transcript of the hearing on Saturday at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

Mohammed, a Pakistani national, also said he was responsible for a 1993 attack on New York's World Trade Center, the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, and an attempt to down two American airplanes using shoe bombs.

U.S. officials have said Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2003 and handed over to U.S. custody, was the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks which destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

"I was the operational director for Sheikh Usama (Osama) Bin Laden for the organizing, planning, follow-up, and execution of the 9/11 operation," he said through his representative, a member of the U.S. military.

The transcript, released by the Pentagon, showed Mohammed was present at the hearing, which is to determine whether he meets the U.S. definition of an "enemy combatant."

The transcript had been edited by U.S. officials. The Pentagon has said this is necessary to remove sensitive security information.

Full Story:

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...OHAMMED-COL.XML

[Sid Walker]

Mohammed says responsible for 9/11

Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:22 PM EDT

By Andrew Gray

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top al Qaeda suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has claimed he organized the September 11 attacks on the United States and other major attacks, according to the transcript of a hearing released on Wednesday.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed, speaking through a personal representative, said according to the transcript of the hearing on Saturday at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

Mohammed, a Pakistani national, also said he was responsible for a 1993 attack on New York's World Trade Center, the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, and an attempt to down two American airplanes using shoe bombs.

U.S. officials have said Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2003 and handed over to U.S. custody, was the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks which destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

"I was the operational director for Sheikh Usama (Osama) Bin Laden for the organizing, planning, follow-up, and execution of the 9/11 operation," he said through his representative, a member of the U.S. military.

The transcript, released by the Pentagon, showed Mohammed was present at the hearing, which is to determine whether he meets the U.S. definition of an "enemy combatant."

The transcript had been edited by U.S. officials. The Pentagon has said this is necessary to remove sensitive security information.

Full Story:

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...OHAMMED-COL.XML

That is a great headline, Michael.

I imagine a similar headline on the death of J J Angleton, something like: "Jesus mourned in Israel!"

Anyhow, nice to see this case is all tied up now.

As 'Mohammed' is in 'safe hands', I wonder if we can all ask him questions?

I'd like to inquire how he and his henchmen managed to down WTC-7 in roughly ten seconds.

As a follow-up question, I'd ask why he send out tantalizing advance reports of the collapse of that mysteriously doomed 47-storey building to BBC News? Was it an Al Qaida cock-up - or a deliberate conspiracy to make this fine media institution appear foolish?

Just how devious and mischievous are these fanatical Muslim extremists?

I presume one writes c/o Camp X-Ray, Cuba?

Edited March 15, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

And of course we can believe every word that he says. What a sick joke.

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

Sources Say Agency’s Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

ABC News

Nov. 18, 2005 — Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.

Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan.

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Contacted after the completion of the ABC News investigation, CIA officials would neither confirm nor deny the accounts. They simply declined to comment.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him.

Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation.

According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

When properly used, the techniques appear to be closely monitored and are signed off on in writing on a case-by-case, technique-by-technique basis, according to highly placed current and former intelligence officers involved in the program. In this way, they say, enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets — Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed, none of them has died, and all of them remain incarcerated.

While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons — a gulag, as it were — in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.

The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.

According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level — by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use.

Two sources also told ABC that the techniques — authorized for use by only a handful of trained CIA officers — have been misapplied in at least one instance.

The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the "salt pit" that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia.

According to the sources, a second CIA detainee died in Iraq and a third detainee died following harsh interrogation by Department of Defense personnel and contractors in Iraq. CIA sources said that in the DOD case, the interrogation was harsh, but did not involve the CIA.

The Kabul fort has also been the subject of confusion. Several intelligence sources involved in both the enhanced interrogation program and the program to ship detainees back to their own country for interrogation — a process described as rendition, say that the number of detainees in each program has been added together to suggest as many as 100 detainees are moved around the world from one secret CIA facility to another. In the rendition program, foreign nationals captured in the conflict zones are shipped back to their own countries on occasion for interrogation and prosecution.

There have been several dozen instances of rendition. There have been a little over a dozen authorized enhanced interrogations. As a result, the enhanced interrogation program has been described as one encompassing 100 or more prisoners. Multiple CIA sources told ABC that it is not. The renditions have also been described as illegal. They are not, our sources said, although they acknowledge the procedures are in an ethical gray area and are at times used for the convenience of extracting information under harsher conditions that the U.S. would allow.

ABC was told that several dozen renditions of this kind have occurred. Jordan is one country recently cited as an "emerging" center for renditions, according to published reports. The ABC sources said that rendition of this sort are legal and should not be confused with illegal "snatches" of targets off the streets of a home country by officers of yet another country. The United States is currently charged with such an illegal rendition in Italy. Israel and at least one European nation have also been accused of such renditions.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

[Sid Walker]

And of course we can believe every word that he says. What a sick joke.

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

Sources Say Agency’s Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

ABC News

................................

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him.

Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation.

............

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Apparently 'Mohammed' was a water boarding champion, Ron.

I wonder, does that make his confession more or less reliable?

Also, when can we first expect this exciting new sport at the Olympics?

China in 2008?

Or London 2012?

[Len Colby]

I gotta go with Ron on this one. Unfortunately due to the circumstances under which it was obtained KSM’s confession is less than conclusive evidence, we don’t even have access to audio or video of it and have to take the DoD’s word for it that he said what they claim he did.

No I’m not changing my position re: 9-11 but unlike some members of this forum I won’t desperately accept any evidence that seems to back my views no matter how dubious. I don’t think he made a false confession but I don’t think it proves much. Nor is it really anything new much of the 9-11 Commission Report was based on his comments.

Sid unfortunately continues to till dead horses and beat windmills with the BBC 7 WTC non-story.

[Len Colby]

A new 9/11 video with a heck of a lot of footage I hadn't seen before (and a music score which I could probably do without). It only goes for 10 minutes but is well worth a watch. Any comments anyone? The dozens of people shown here all seem pretty clear about what they saw and heard.

How many times can same clips be rearranged and still be considered new and compelling? If you think anything in it is especially persuasive let us know.

[Michael Hogan]

Len Colby weighing in on Len Colby:

.....but unlike some members of this forum I won’t desperately accept any evidence that seems to back my views no matter how dubious.

I'm sure that most Forum members feel fortunate to have such a staunch defender of the truth in their midst.

[Len Colby]

Yes the forum was almost as lucky to be blessed by my presence as I am to have my own personal carper here. Almost half of his posts on this (sub)forum are critiques of yours truly. If you don’t count the messages which are merely copy and paste jobs or links such posts probably make up about 90% of his contributions here. A man obsessed? Perhaps I should feel flattered.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;highlite=%2B

Edited March 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Anthony Thorne]

A few pages back (or it may be on the Loose Change page) you dismissed the idea that folks had heard, seen or witnessed explosions going off in the buildings before they fell. The YouTube piece has many more quick-shot testimonies from folks who all heard or saw basically the same thing, and suggesting that they all misheard, were duped, were in shock so didn't know what they were hearing or whatever, seems not to tackle the sway of the overall evidence. The higher number of similar testimonies shown here seems fairly persuasive. The very first shot of the clip has folks reacting to a loud explosion about 10 seconds in, and - probably most compelling to me - there are a few clips shown new to me where firefighters are clearly shown telling people to get away from the WTC as there are 'bombs in the buildings'. A guy on the street asks the firefighters to repeat what they just said, and they repeat it. I can't tell from your post whether you watched the piece or not (as I said, it's only 10 minutes long) but I'd be interested in hearing what the argument is against the idea that the firefighters knew what they were talking about, or why they would have said such a thing in the first place. If you've responded to that already elsewhere in another thread just let me know where and I'll read it if you've already covered those arguments. I disagree with most of your comments about 9/11 but you do put in a lot of work responding so if you've covered the firefighter remarks already just let me know. I think the clip is worth watching though if you haven't seen the exact footage I'm referring to.

[Michael Hogan]

Almost half of his posts on this (sub)forum are critiques of yours truly.

My last 25 posts going back to November 7th quote you in five of them.

A man obsessed? Perhaps I should feel flattered.

In the last four months, until yesterday, I never mentioned your name. Only one post was addressed to you. In fact, my sum total of comments in those posts where I quoted you are so brief, they can be reproduced:

I'm sure that most Forum members feel fortunate to have such a staunch defender of the truth in their midst.

There are probably no rules against rudeness and whining either. Just because others may do it does not mean such behavior is proper, justified, or becoming.

I suppose that it never occurred to you that some that agree with John Simkin's assessment of Sid may not feel inclined to involve themselves in debating these subjects.

Incidentally, it has not escaped my notice that you have dramatically altered (for the better) the way you select your fonts, format your posts, and proofread for typos. Mike Stapleton notwithstanding.

Nor is John alone in his.

To characterize those posts (seven sentences in 125 days) as "critiques of yours truly" is quite a self-flattering stretch.

Go complain to the moderators.

I used to be more vociferous in my criticisms of you, until I realized it was a waste of time debating you. I came to the realization that you are your own worst enemy, and learned to confine observations about your many posts to a sentence here and a sentence there.

PS) Thanks for posting the link to my post history. It made it easy for me to go back and retrieve the above documentation.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

I'm mostly with Len on this one.

Although it does support what I believe to be the truth, I have doubts about the US methods of questioning. I simply think that this confession cannot be relied upon. It may be 100% correct, but I'd like to see other sources corroberate it.

[Michael Hogan]

U.S. officials raise doubts about Sheikh Mohammed's confession

WASHINGTON (AP) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims he was responsible for dozens of successful, foiled and imagined attacks in the last 15 years relies on a loose definition of the word "responsible."

U.S. officials said the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States was crucial to some plots but a bit player in others.

The 31 on his list range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, to others that current and former government officials said were more talk than concrete plans, such as a plot to kill Jimmy Carter and other former U.S. presidents.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting Mohammed's activities are likely to be the subject of a military tribunal.

His confession, his first public statement since his March 2003 capture in Pakistan, came in a secret hearing in the newly established U.S. tribunal process. A 26-page transcript of the Saturday session at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was made public Wednesday night.

While there apparently is truth in much of the statement, several officials said, there's also an element of self-promotion. They view the claims as at least in part a rallying cry to bolster his image and that of al-Qaida in the only venue Mohammed has left: a military courtroom from which the public is barred.

"I have never known a criminal - either terrorist or otherwise - that didn't exaggerate," said Michigan Representative Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House of Representatives intelligence committee.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said authorities would decide the credibility of Mohammed's claims if he is tried.

Full Story:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/200...3761484-ap.html

[Len Colby]

Almost half of his posts on this (sub)forum are critiques of yours truly.

My last 25 posts going back to November 7th quote you in five of them.

A man obsessed? Perhaps I should feel flattered.

In the last four months, until yesterday, I never mentioned your name. Only one post was addressed to you. In fact, my sum total of comments in those posts where I quoted you are so brief, they can be reproduced:

I'm sure that most Forum members feel fortunate to have such a staunch defender of the truth in their midst.

There are probably no rules against rudeness and whining either. Just because others may do it does not mean such behavior is proper, justified, or becoming.

I suppose that it never occurred to you that some that agree with John Simkin's assessment of Sid may not feel inclined to involve themselves in debating these subjects.

Incidentally, it has not escaped my notice that you have dramatically altered (for the better) the way you select your fonts, format your posts, and proofread for typos. Mike Stapleton notwithstanding.

Nor is John alone in his.

To characterize those posts (seven sentences in 125 days) as "critiques of yours truly" is quite a self-flattering stretch.

Go complain to the moderators.

I used to be more vociferous in my criticisms of you, until I realized it was a waste of time debating you. I came to the realization that you are your own worst enemy, and learned to confine observations about your many posts to a sentence here and a sentence there.

PS) Thanks for posting the link to my post history. It made it easy for me to go back and retrieve the above documentation.

At least we agree on one thing our exchanges are a waste of time, odd that if you really think so that you keep initiating them. I said before I’d refrain from replying to you unfortunately I forgot about that. Hopefully next time I’ll remember. Nuff said.

[Len Colby]

U.S. officials raise doubts about Sheikh Mohammed's confession

WASHINGTON (AP) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims he was responsible for dozens of successful, foiled and imagined attacks in the last 15 years relies on a loose definition of the word "responsible."

U.S. officials said the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States was crucial to some plots but a bit player in others.

The 31 on his list range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, to others that current and former government officials said were more talk than concrete plans, such as a plot to kill Jimmy Carter and other former U.S. presidents.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting Mohammed's activities are likely to be the subject of a military tribunal.

His confession, his first public statement since his March 2003 capture in Pakistan, came in a secret hearing in the newly established U.S. tribunal process. A 26-page transcript of the Saturday session at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was made public Wednesday night.

While there apparently is truth in much of the statement, several officials said, there's also an element of self-promotion. They view the claims as at least in part a rallying cry to bolster his image and that of al-Qaida in the only venue Mohammed has left: a military courtroom from which the public is barred.

"I have never known a criminal - either terrorist or otherwise - that didn't exaggerate," said Michigan Representative Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House of Representatives intelligence committee.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said authorities would decide the credibility of Mohammed's claims if he is tried.

Full Story:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/200...3761484-ap.html

Funny if 9-11 really were a Bush Administration plot and they had the supposed mastermind in their custody for years and released a transcript of torture induced confession I’d expect to get a more believable recounting from him. I can see two reasons for him exaggerating his role:

1) Ego - despite having resisted torture for a great length of time he probably felt ashamed of having caved in to “the great Satan” perhaps felt portraying himself as some sort of super-terrorist counterbalanced that. In any case it is human nature to exaggerate one’s importance.

2) “Screwing with the enemy”- Perhaps he felt that giving his interrogators false information was a way of getting back at them. Once the veracity of some of his claims came into doubt it would be hard of them and their superiors to know what was and wasn’t true and make much use of the info.