It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

page: 19
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jfj123
Technically you are correct. We would add the component of TIME.


No fires? You say planes and time, all the federal agencies say planes and fire. Hmm. I'm guessing your investigation turned up something different about the impacts themselves.

You're not paying attention.
Like I've said the planes were the initiator.
The planes hit the buildings and did a lot of damage.
Fires started and did more damage.
At some point, the structures were no longer able to redistribute the weight and a global structural failure occurred.


Do you know how many columns were knocked out when the planes hit, and how many were left intact?

Depends on who you believe.


I can bet almost everyone on ATS knows that WTC7 also fell.



And a very disproportionate number of ATS members also believe 9/11 was an inside job. You know, I think there's a correlation here; you may be onto something. The more people know about 9/11, the more likely they are to think it was an inside job,

Actually I'm not suggesting that at all but go ahead and make up whatever you like to help support your conclusions.

And just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it so, or right.


because it was an inside job, and only ignorant people who don't know much about 9/11 except what they saw on TV, haven't caught on.

Well then, since you've determined this is so black and white, why not bring your black and white evidence to the proper authorities so they can prosecute the criminals involved.


Whatever makes you feel more comfortable, but you're still wrong about this whole thing.

Hey whatever makes you feel comfortable, but you're still wrong about this whole thing
Evidently you don't know that your opinion is just that, an opinion.




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
At some point, the structures were no longer able to redistribute the weight and a global structural failure occurred.


Yes, when the "additional energy" started being released.



Do you know how many columns were knocked out when the planes hit, and how many were left intact?

Depends on who you believe.


I take that to mean "no." So let me rephrase my question to make sure,

Do you know how many exterior columns were severed? (Hint: they were outside the building, people counted them.)

Do you know what the maximum number of core columns severed would have been according to NIST's computer simulations, in which they even changed the impact trajectory of one of the planes to maximize damage?


Actually I'm not suggesting that at all


You still can't deny the correlation even if you aren't suggesting a relationship. Knowledge is power.



And just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it so, or right.


That's what I'm always saying. It's all about the data.


Well then, since you've determined this is so black and white, why not bring your black and white evidence to the proper authorities so they can prosecute the criminals involved.


You still have no idea what is going on in this country, but we can come back to it later when you aren't so convinced that the roads here are still paved with gold.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
At some point, the structures were no longer able to redistribute the weight and a global structural failure occurred.



Yes, when the "additional energy" started being released.

No additional energy needed to be added but believe what you want.


Do you know how many columns were knocked out when the planes hit, and how many were left intact?


Depends on who you believe.



I take that to mean "no."

No it means, "it depends on who you believe.


So let me rephrase my question to make sure

Do you know how many exterior columns were severed? (Hint: they were outside the building, people counted them.)

Do we really need to completely derail this thread so we can count columns insider or outside? SERIOUSLY???


Actually I'm not suggesting that at all



You still can't deny the correlation even if you aren't suggesting a relationship. Knowledge is power.

You can try and read into what I say if you like but I say what I mean.
Planes hit towers and caused damage
Planes started fires and caused damage
Towers fell down
For the purposes of this discussion I'm only referring to WTC 1 and 2.



Well then, since you've determined this is so black and white, why not bring your black and white evidence to the proper authorities so they can prosecute the criminals involved.



You still have no idea what is going on in this country,

Or you don't



but we can come back to it later when you aren't so convinced that the roads here are still paved with gold.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by bsbray11]

I never said they were so stop putting words into my mouth.
You really need to read what people are saying instead of deciding what they mean. There is a difference.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No additional energy needed to be added but believe what you want.


There have been pretty extensive energy calculations done by various people that show a huge energy deficit when everything is said and done, versus how much PE/KE should have been available. If you know enough physics you could even do it yourself, or certainly double-check the figures these people use. Just knowing how the concept of energy works in physics, that is a sort of universal measure for any work being done, this is actually a very easy analysis to do.

Here's one simulation recently put together that puts all the numbers in perspective, using only the given PE/KE and requiring all the work that was done. It's amazing NIST or FEMA never used their money to do this kind of energy analysis; why do you think they never tried this? Instead, they didn't analyze the global collapses at all, only their hypothetical initiations.




No it means, "it depends on who you believe.


The number of columns knocked out by the planes is not simply a matter of belief, where you can just believe anything you want to and it's ok, and no one can venture any better guesses. I just told you, you could see most of the columns from the outside with your own eyeballs, so anyone could count them. Do you have an issue with that? Like maybe a painful denial issue, or can you look at the columns like the rest of us? The core columns present a tougher problem but there have still been analyses, I even refer to the ones performed by NIST.


Do we really need to completely derail this thread so we can count columns insider or outside? SERIOUSLY???


Ok, so when we start getting to the details of all this, you're going to throw your hands up and suddenly take offense? Just tell me if you don't WANT to know whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, because believe me, I know a lot of you wouldn't want to hear it even if it WAS the truth (and it is). So just let me know if you don't WANT to know, because that's a big difference. Ignorance is a painful and touchy subject sometimes, like if you are dealing with people in denial.


For the purposes of this discussion I'm only referring to WTC 1 and 2.


The "purpose of this discussion" is that 9/11 was an inside job and you can't refer to it like a bunch of Muslims did it and be racist on that count. I think if I want to mention WTC7, or the fact that it accelerated at the rate of gravity without so much as air resistance, or that a eutectic mixture ate holes through steel in that building and was recovered and analyzed in appendix C of FEMA's report (and they were unable to conclude where it came from), I surely can, because it's all related.


I never said they were so stop putting words into my mouth.


You must think some distant cousin of the roads being paved with gold, if you think you can go into any court house and accuse federal, military or even foreign entities of something like this and get anywhere with it. Especially if they actually did this, but you don't even need to assume that much to have the common sense to know you aren't going to be able to hold the federal government or military responsible for anything they do. If you disagree, you're free to take your own advice and tell me how it works out, but I've never had that interest.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ok, so when we start getting to the details of all this, you're going to throw your hands up and suddenly take offense?

No not at all but this is going to be an endless back and forth and it's the wrong thread for it.


Just tell me if you don't WANT to know whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, because believe me, I know a lot of you wouldn't want to hear it even if it WAS the truth (and it is). So just let me know if you don't WANT to know, because that's a big difference. Ignorance is a painful and touchy subject sometimes.

Your truth is different from THE TRUTH. You've already decided for sure that the government was behind 9/11-100% and nothing will dissuade you from this.


For the purposes of this discussion I'm only referring to WTC 1 and 2.



The "purpose of this discussion" is that 9/11 was an inside job and you can't refer to it like a bunch of Muslims did it and be racist on that count.

A bunch of muslim extremists did do it.


I think if I want to mention WTC7, or the fact that it accelerated at the rate of gravity without so much as air resistance,

Here's a problem with what you said. No matter how 7 fell, air resistance would come into play unless it fell in a complete vacuum. Keep in mind that deep space is not even a complete vacuum.


I never said they were so stop putting words into my mouth.



You must think some distant cousin of the roads being paved with gold, if you think you can go into any court house and accuse federal, military or even foreign entities of something like this and get anywhere with it.

If the evidence is so black and white as you've suggested, there is no way to cover it up and no way to ignore it. So either the evidence is not as compelling as you've suggested OR it is and you just don't want to do anything about it.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No not at all but this is going to be an endless back and forth and it's the wrong thread for it.


It wouldn't have to be like this if people would just stop referring to 9/11 as if it were an attack by Muslims.

Because, every time somebody says that, I'm going to do the right thing and correct them.


Your truth is different from THE TRUTH. You've already decided for sure that the government was behind 9/11-100% and nothing will dissuade you from this.


You don't know that, but then again you apparently don't want to know anything of the other things I'm talking about either. It's obvious which of us is avoiding the truth. I'll ask again, how many columns did the impacts take out? It's a question with a definite answer, that you can find in the FEMA and NIST reports, and there is no controversy here. Why are you so repulsed by such a simple question? Just answer it, and let's see how bad the plane impacts really were on the structure, since you are so confident that they necessitated doom for those buildings.


A bunch of muslim extremists did do it.


The only groups I know that deal with nanoenergetic substances are the Department of Defense, and other Western military interests. Not Muslims.


Here's a problem with what you said. No matter how 7 fell, air resistance would come into play unless it fell in a complete vacuum. Keep in mind that deep space is not even a complete vacuum.


I am well aware of that! Nonetheless, the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2 and that's exactly what even NIST has measured the building to accelerate at, as well as many other people, including myself (yes, I measured it myself on a couple of different occasions). That IS a problem, and you can't explain it, and neither can anyone else who thinks the building fell by itself. You just shot yourself in the foot. Even NIST admitted they couldn't explain how the building fell so rapidly and none of their models can predict it, because they all assume that the building's PE/KE did the work of "collapsing" it. Obviously they did not.


If the evidence is so black and white as you've suggested, there is no way to cover it up and no way to ignore it.


Yet you are doing just that, right now.

The evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice-versa, is also black and white, yet millions of people believed otherwise vehemently for many, many decades. Like you said earlier, what a lot of people believe has no bearing on the truth. You were fooled on purpose, that's the whole point, in case you don't know what a "false flag" is. I guess that's my fault for not asking you if you were familiar with psychological operations in the first place, or what the point of them is, or how they work.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jfj123
No not at all but this is going to be an endless back and forth and it's the wrong thread for it.



It wouldn't have to be like this if people would just stop referring to 9/11 as if it were an attack by Muslims.

You mean if we'd all just agree you're right.


Because, every time somebody says that, I'm going to do the right thing and correct them.

Maybe you're the one that needs to be corrected.


Your truth is different from THE TRUTH. You've already decided for sure that the government was behind 9/11-100% and nothing will dissuade you from this.



You don't know that,

And either do you



but then again you apparently don't want to know anything of the other things I'm talking about either.

Or you're simply wrong about the things you're discussing.


It's obvious which of us is avoiding the truth.

Yes...you.


I'll ask again, how many columns did the impacts take out?

What does it matter? Why are you so fixated about this?


It's a question with a definite answer, that you can find in the FEMA and NIST reports, and there is no controversy here.

Correct. And I've read them thoroughly.


Why are you so repulsed by such a simple question?

I'm not. This isn't the proper thread for it.


A bunch of muslim extremists did do it.



The only groups I know that deal with nanoenergetic substances are the Department of Defense, and other Western military interests. Not Muslims.

uhuh. Looks like you've glommed on to the newest most neatest conspiracy thread here



Here's a problem with what you said. No matter how 7 fell, air resistance would come into play unless it fell in a complete vacuum. Keep in mind that deep space is not even a complete vacuum.



I am well aware of that! Nonetheless, the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2 and that's exactly what even NIST has measured the building to accelerate at, as well as many other people, including myself (yes, I measured it myself on a couple of different occasions). That IS a problem, and you can't explain it, and neither can anyone else who thinks the building fell by itself.

It's irrelevant whether the building fell by itself. The point is that regardless what caused the collapse, it didn't fall in a perfect vacuum.


If the evidence is so black and white as you've suggested, there is no way to cover it up and no way to ignore it.



Yet you are doing just that, right now.

Not at all.


The evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice-versa, is also black and white, yet millions of people believed otherwise vehemently for many, many decades.

It was proven that the earth revolved around the sun and thus people stopped believing the other way. You have black and white proof so all you need to do is present it and get this whole matter straightened out.


Like you said earlier, what a lot of people believe has no bearing on the truth. You were fooled on purpose, that's the whole point,

Or you were.

Look, I've stated several times that this isn't the proper thread for discussing this. I'm not saying that to get out of an argument, I'm saying it because its true. I've read and posted in many, many 9/11 threads so your arguments are not new and they've been addressed by many people and we're not going to solve anything new in this thread.

Believe what you like. I don't care. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. I could present you with a lot of evidence to disprove your beliefs but you won't believe me.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe you're the one that needs to be corrected.


Well are you all talk or are we going somewhere?



I'll ask again, how many columns did the impacts take out?

What does it matter? Why are you so fixated about this?


Well, the first time I asked you, it was in response to you saying that the plane impacts doomed the towers from the moment they hit them. So I'm trying to analyze what led you to this particular conclusion, if anything.

When I asked, you revealed that you apparently think the number of columns taken out is a great mystery, and then took offense that I was trying to actually get a legitimate answer from you.

I could've asked a lot of other questions, and I'm sure it would go about the same way. Basically I'm asking you to think about all the nonsense you believe, is why I'm asking you these questions, and why they matter.



It's a question with a definite answer, that you can find in the FEMA and NIST reports, and there is no controversy here.

Correct. And I've read them thoroughly.


Then this should all be very easy. You know how many columns the impacts actually severed, then? And how much was left standing?


It's irrelevant whether the building fell by itself. The point is that regardless what caused the collapse, it didn't fall in a perfect vacuum.


Sorry, I can't tell whether you are saying you measured a different acceleration, or you are just having trouble accepting what the numbers imply happened to the building.

If all the air was pushed out of the way, just the same as the building itself was, like the (universally agreed-upon) numbers suggest, then that IS relevant to how the building fell. Specifically, it means its own PE/KE didn't cause it. That means something else was in the building, that did all the work of destroying it, and not the building itself. If this is not obvious to you, I'm sure I could explain it in greater detail, give you links to physics websites, etc., so you can figure it out yourself instead of having to listen to what so many other people think.


It was proven that the earth revolved around the sun and thus people stopped believing the other way.


That's actually not true. It was proven, but people didn't stop believing nonsense for many decades afterwards. Copernicus was actually thought of as a fool when he died, despite his contributions. So you see how powerfully ignorant mass mentality is, but there are many other examples.



You were fooled on purpose, that's the whole point,

Or you were.


Let's say you lived in Germany in the 1930s. Would you sooner believe the commies are out to get you, or that your own government is spreading propaganda? The Germans had a lot of trouble believing these things, too, but we're supposed to learn from history.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
So basically this thread now has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!


MODS can we close this please?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Funny how 911 fanatics seem to eventually hi jack most threads they have an area but just cant seem to stay in it.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



In this thread, people are bringing up 9/11 to justify torturing Muslims.

You people don't seem to understand that my thoughts on 9/11 are not exclusive to one part of an internet forum, nor is 9/11 an event that hasn't influenced our politics ever since that day. It is very relevant and vital to certain mentalities that are perpetuated endlessly here. These are my views no matter where I go, no matter what I am doing, and if I feel obligated to defend what I feel in my heart is right, I'm going to do that. If anyone could show me that I am mistaken I would shut up, but all I get instead is the whining that one would expect from a bunch of spineless hypocrites who don't have the capacity to consider such a thing legitimately even though they are promoting torturing people because of it. Yes, you are spineless for not having the courage to even question your own leaders as they murder millions of people in foreign countries.

I wouldn't care, if it were the Nazis using the Reichstag Fire to justify torturing Jewish people, and we had a special forum in German for discussing "conspiracy theories" relating to what the Nazis are doing. I would still be outspoken against them, because shedding light on their actions prevents them from being able to manipulate so many people. Not that they aren't still damned good at it, and that most people aren't very ignorant about it all anyway, but for what it's worth, every little bit counts.

Like I said, if no one wants to talk about 9/11, then don't talk about it. If you want to use it to justify invading x number of unrelated countries and torture all these people, someone is going to have to put up with me telling it like it really is, because this is what I stand for.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
This ain't meaned anything My cousin used to get gasoline in his eyes for fun,
The government is evil, REVOLUTION

God bless Amerwika



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe you're the one that needs to be corrected.



Well are you all talk or are we going somewhere?

I'm simply presenting an alternative view point




I'll ask again, how many columns did the impacts take out?

What does it matter? Why are you so fixated about this?



Well, the first time I asked you, it was in response to you saying that the plane impacts doomed the towers from the moment they hit them.

Never said that. I said they initiated the collapse.


So I'm trying to analyze what led you to this particular conclusion, if anything.

A number of things that are not pertinent to this thread.


When I asked, you revealed that you apparently think the number of columns taken out is a great mystery,

Nope. Never said that either.


and then took offense that I was trying to actually get a legitimate answer from you.

Frankly I don't care enough to take offense.


I could've asked a lot of other questions, and I'm sure it would go about the same way. Basically I'm asking you to think about all the nonsense you believe, is why I'm asking you these questions, and why they matter.

Do you have any background in building? Architecture? Even analyzing dead and live loads of buildings? I do so before you shoot your mouth off about "the nonsense I believe" you better actually know what you're talking about instead of parroting what you read on a 9/11 "truther" site.


It's irrelevant whether the building fell by itself. The point is that regardless what caused the collapse, it didn't fall in a perfect vacuum.



Sorry, I can't tell whether you are saying you measured a different acceleration, or you are just having trouble accepting what the numbers imply happened to the building.

You said the following:

I think if I want to mention WTC7, or the fact that it accelerated at the rate of gravity without so much as air resistance,

I responded to that by saying simply that the building did not fall in a perfect vacuum so there must have been air resistance- ie free fall within 1 atmosphere. You are claiming it fell in a vacuum.


If all the air was pushed out of the way, just the same as the building itself was, like the (universally agreed-upon) numbers suggest, then that IS relevant to how the building fell.

No it isn't relevant as the building could not have fallen in a vacuum.


Specifically, it means its own PE/KE didn't cause it. That means something else was in the building, that did all the work of destroying it, and not the building itself.

The method of destruction is irrelevant to the fact that it couldn't have fallen in a perfect vacuum.

Have you not figured out yet that this is the wrong thread for this discussion?


This is my final response to you regarding this topic. If you'd like to discuss the topic of the thread, I'd be more then happy to oblige.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
while i don't disagree with the premise of this thread, the title is very misleading.

I've listened to "Mancows Morning Madhouse" plenty of times on my way to work in the mornings, and i can tell you - it's not a political commentary type of show. It's more of a variety/comedy show than anything.

Saying "conservative radio host gets waterboarded" is like someone creating a thread about about Mr. Rogers that says

"Conservative minded militant talks to stuffed animals"


that aside:

Waterboarding does = torture

there's just no reason to distort facts to prove it.



[edit on 25-5-2009 by Fremd]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm simply presenting an alternative view point


You would be better at it if you posted more than a series of meaningless one-liners like this.

You don't really want to talk about 9/11 or reconsider what happened that day, and that much is obvious to me. You say lots of things, but then when I press you about them you lose interest in defending them. I would say that is because it takes way too much effort for you to try to defend total garbage logically, and you know it.

You won't even answer me as far as how many columns the planes knocked out. I know the answer is that it knocked out less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building, and the reason you have yet to tell me that yourself is because you don't want to think about how little damage that actually is.

You also see, how I am posting more than 1 line at a time, and my paragraphs actually form coherent ideas that even match raw data presented in federal reports. Just comparing and contrasting here.


Do you have any background in building? Architecture? Even analyzing dead and live loads of buildings? I do so before you shoot your mouth off about "the nonsense I believe" you better actually know what you're talking about instead of parroting what you read on a 9/11 "truther" site.


You and tens of thousands of other people. I know this is all just more bluffing and that you aren't really serious about defending any of this trash. Yes, I do have experience analyzing dead and live loads because I have taken statics classes as part of my EE major, but not in relation to the Twin Towers, and neither do you, so don't even act like it. If you really know what you're talking about then you would also know that no such analyses have ever been batted around 9/11 debates because all of the relevant structural documentation has been out of public hands since Sept. 11th. If you want to talk about how much FAITH you have in NIST's conclusions, etc., that's something different, and something you don't need any amount of expertise to do.


You said the following:

I think if I want to mention WTC7, or the fact that it accelerated at the rate of gravity without so much as air resistance,

I responded to that by saying simply that the building did not fall in a perfect vacuum so there must have been air resistance- ie free fall within 1 atmosphere. You are claiming it fell in a vacuum.


Ok, so you DON'T understand what 9.8m/s^2 means.

Three obvious questions that should clarify this for you:

1) What is the acceleration of gravity?

2) Does the acceleration of gravity take drag into account? (Yes or No)

3) At what rate did WTC7 accelerate, according even to NIST?


If you answer those 3 questions honestly you will find that I'm not "claiming" anything that the numbers themselves don't obviously show.


No it isn't relevant as the building could not have fallen in a vacuum.


Then you either think 9.8m/s^2 is not the constant for acceleration due to gravity, or else you have a better measurement for its collapse acceleration that you aren't sharing with anyone. Do you still not understand these numbers? I don't get to make this stuff up, come on man. You should be able to make more sense of it than this.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So, all your 9/11 "truther" non-sense has what, exactly, to do with ManCow and his radio program?

Was Mancow a secret pilot that we never knew about?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Here is some interesting info about the realities of torture


So the CIA did indeed torture Abu Zubaida, the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to have been waterboarded. So says John Kiriakou, the first former CIA employee directly involved in the questioning of "high-value" al-Qaeda detainees to speak out publicly. He minced no words last week in calling the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" what they are.


We're talking about a CIA employee who was DIRECTLY involved in the questioning.


"It was like flipping a switch," said Kiriakou about Abu Zubaida's response to being waterboarded. But the al-Qaeda operative's confessions -- descriptions of fantastic plots from a man who intelligence analysts were convinced was mentally ill -- probably didn't give the CIA any actionable intelligence. Of course, we may never know the whole truth, since the CIA destroyed the videotapes of Abu Zubaida's interrogation.

Basically he told them whatever he thought they wanted to hear to get them to stop torturing him, regardless of whether or not it was true.

And then the video tapes were destroyed. If they did nothing wrong, why destroy potentially valuable evidence? When is it ever a good idea to destroy evidence in any case but especially a terror case.

Myth 1

1 Torture worked for the Gestapo.
ad_icon

Actually, no. Even Hitler's notorious secret police got most of their information from public tips, informers and interagency cooperation. That was still more than enough to let the Gestapo decimate anti-Nazi resistance in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Russia and the concentration camps.

It's surprising how unsuccessful the Gestapo's brutal efforts were. They failed to break senior leaders of the French, Danish, Polish and German resistance. I've spent more than a decade collecting all the cases of Gestapo torture "successes" in multiple languages; the number is small and the results pathetic, especially compared with the devastating effects of public cooperation and informers.


Myth 2 Everyone talks sooner or later under torture.

Truth is, it's surprisingly hard to get anything under torture, true or false. For example, between 1500 and 1750, French prosecutors tried to torture confessions out of 785 individuals. Torture was legal back then, and the records document such practices as the bone-crushing use of splints, pumping stomachs with water until they swelled and pouring boiling oil on the feet. But the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse (an exceptional high). Most of the time, the torturers were unable to get any statement whatsoever.

And such examples could be multiplied. The Japanese fascists, no strangers to torture, said it best in their field manual, which was found in Burma during World War II: They described torture as the clumsiest possible method of gathering intelligence. Like most sensible torturers, they preferred to use torture for intimidation, not information.


www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Basically he told them whatever he thought they wanted to hear to get them to stop torturing him, regardless of whether or not it was true.

And then the video tapes were destroyed. If they did nothing wrong, why destroy potentially valuable evidence? When is it ever a good idea to destroy evidence in any case but especially a terror case.


that's remarkably interesting.
So did this guy eat lunch with mancow or appear on his radio show?

Is that why we're talking about him?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by jfj123
 



Basically he told them whatever he thought they wanted to hear to get them to stop torturing him, regardless of whether or not it was true.

And then the video tapes were destroyed. If they did nothing wrong, why destroy potentially valuable evidence? When is it ever a good idea to destroy evidence in any case but especially a terror case.


that's remarkably interesting.
So did this guy eat lunch with mancow or appear on his radio show?

Is that why we're talking about him?


OK so you're suggesting we only talk about mancow? Well lets just go ahead and close the thread now. About 1/2 a page was plenty. You don't think ancillary discussions related to water boarding is appropriate at all?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by jfj123
 


Basically he told them whatever he thought they wanted to hear to get them to stop torturing him, regardless of whether or not it was true.

And then the video tapes were destroyed. If they did nothing wrong, why destroy potentially valuable evidence? When is it ever a good idea to destroy evidence in any case but especially a terror case.



that's remarkably interesting.
So did this guy eat lunch with mancow or appear on his radio show?

Yes he did. So can we continue now ?
Just curious


[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join