Creative Speculation

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)

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

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:22 PM

Oct 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Osama Confession Video [View all] cpwm17 Oct 2012 OP

One way or another, we're being lied to. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #1

Osama and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were happy to take credit for 9-11 cpwm17 Oct 2012 #2

Wow. Nice attempt to sidestep reason. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #3

Your argument is based on who has the motivation to lie cpwm17 Oct 2012 #6

If I go into your house, The Doctor. Oct 2012 #8

Since when did I call the video itself hard evidence that Osama did 9-11? cpwm17 Oct 2012 #10

Again, you use troll tactics. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #11

Actually, no nano-thermite was found at the site. zappaman Oct 2012 #12

Unlike the poor sods out there who believe the garbage in your link, The Doctor. Oct 2012 #13

Read it when it came out zappaman Oct 2012 #14

Insinuation without links, evidence, or excerpts is a troll tactic. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #41

You read the entire document William Seger Oct 2012 #16

Really? Which page and paragraph? The Doctor. Oct 2012 #19

Google is your friend William Seger Oct 2012 #20

Awesome! The Doctor. Oct 2012 #22

I'll take that as a concession William Seger Oct 2012 #29

You're a constant source of amusement. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #31

So, you didn't read post #16, huh? William Seger Oct 2012 #34

You mean the post where you make a bunch of assertions The Doctor. Oct 2012 #37

Hmmmm.. William Seger Oct 2012 #42

The reason you shouldn't bother is either that you can't find them, The Doctor. Oct 2012 #47

What a pantload William Seger Oct 2012 #48

Amazing. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #51

LMFAO! William Seger Oct 2012 #55

So I say 'you have nothing', and ask for the *actual* refutations of the paper.... The Doctor. Oct 2012 #65

I see you didn't take my advice. What a surprise. William Seger Oct 2012 #69

Your 'advice' is irrelevant. I want links. You don't have them. The Doctor. Nov 2012 #74

Who do you think you're kidding? You apparently don't read links William Seger Nov 2012 #81

William says the video is not hard evidence. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #9

"It appears your argument is with him, not me." William Seger Oct 2012 #17

We got here because in another thread I said that there is no hard evidence The Doctor. Oct 2012 #18

"There is no 'evidence' of a confession" ?! William Seger Oct 2012 #21

It's a simple question: The Doctor. Oct 2012 #23

I called it a confession video because that is what it has already been called. cpwm17 Oct 2012 #24

You seem conflicted. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #25

You seem to be having difficulty with the English Language and very simple concepts. cpwm17 Oct 2012 #30

Strange question William Seger Oct 2012 #27

I'm just trying to get a clear answer. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #33

I'm beginning to think your main problem is reading comprehension William Seger Oct 2012 #35

So a video of someone bragging about comitting a crime is not hard evidence? The Doctor. Oct 2012 #38

BY ITSELF, the video "proves" nothing William Seger Oct 2012 #43

Here in reality, people are indicted, tried, and convicted on the strength The Doctor. Oct 2012 #45

Your faulty logic, arrogant assertions, and outright distortions of what's been said in this thread William Seger Oct 2012 #49

Calling a duck a tank doesn't make it one. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #53

Oh, so you think maybe bin Laden might have painted the buildings with exploding paint? William Seger Oct 2012 #56

More bullshit. How tiresome. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #66

More irony. How humorous. William Seger Oct 2012 #72

Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #75

Why would I alert on your funniest post yet? William Seger Nov 2012 #80

"The Doctor" is no longer with us. Quantess Dec 2012 #88

What.... Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #89

Where to begin? Quantess Dec 2012 #90

Was it this.... Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #91

Check out Meta-discussion cpwm17 Dec 2012 #93

Ok... Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #92

"Facts" ? William Seger Oct 2012 #5

LMAO! You've just proven beyond doubt that you can't be taken seriously. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #7

What you just did there is called "logical reasoning" huh? William Seger Oct 2012 #15

Again, you fail. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #26

Again, you fail to provide any cogent response to valid criticism William Seger Oct 2012 #28

If you want to provide a 'cogent' argument, The Doctor. Oct 2012 #32

Thanks again William Seger Oct 2012 #36

This should be amusing. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #39

Why should I expect that explaining it a fourth time would make a difference? William Seger Oct 2012 #44

Yer just about off the deep end here. I don't recall telling Tombs anything in person. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #46

Yes, you've convinced me that you'll keep repeating the same nonsense over and over William Seger Oct 2012 #59

If the FBI says it's not hard evidence, then it's a fact. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #67

That's rather authoritarian of you to accept the FBI so righteously, The Doctor. Bolo Boffin Oct 2012 #68

So now you believe there is a conspiracy theory that the FBI dismisses hard evidence? The Doctor. Nov 2012 #76

That video was shot with a PAL-format camera William Seger Oct 2012 #4

So I state in another thread that the FBI does not consider this video The Doctor. Oct 2012 #40

William Seger doesn't agree with you at all cpwm17 Oct 2012 #50

Well, he wants it both ways. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #52

All of you have a good point Spoopy Oct 2012 #54

You're using reason. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #58

Oh, bullshit William Seger Oct 2012 #60

You've divested yourself of the reality upon which my reasoning was based. The Doctor. Oct 2012 #64

Huh. You already asked him that. AZCat Oct 2012 #70

In the first place, "confession" should be in quotes William Seger Oct 2012 #71

So the video is not a confession? The Doctor. Nov 2012 #73

LOL, what about your "logical reasoning" that the video was fake? (n/t) William Seger Nov 2012 #82

All you have is an ambiguous statement spoken by an single FBI agent, cpwm17 Oct 2012 #61

Ambiguous? Are you that fucking stupid? The Doctor. Nov 2012 #77

Incredible claims require incredible evidence cpwm17 Nov 2012 #83

You are using the argument from authority cpwm17 Oct 2012 #57

If you can't understand the words "hard evidence" when they are put together, The Doctor. Nov 2012 #79

You've gone out of your way to avoid discussing your evidence for CD's cpwm17 Nov 2012 #85

Wait.... Frank_Norris_Lives Oct 2012 #62

At first, when Osama thought his ass was on the line, he said he didn't do it. cpwm17 Oct 2012 #63

Oh, Awesome! So when did he claim responsibility? The Doctor. Nov 2012 #78

I already showed you a link concerning Osama's claims of responsibility for 9-11 cpwm17 Nov 2012 #84

That explanation seems... Frank_Norris_Lives Nov 2012 #86

Osama did publicly take credit for 9-11. cpwm17 Nov 2012 #87

Room for doubt Spoopy Dec 2012 #94

As I wrote above, the "Confession Video" wasn't the only time Osama talked of his involvement cpwm17 Dec 2012 #95

Except there was no evidence that words were was bin Laden's... KDLarsen Dec 2012 #96

That interview was filed on 28th September 2001 cpwm17 Dec 2012 #97