America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Scott]

As to believing what Mueller found and reported on, Mueller used the FBI and did extensive investigation to reach his conclusions.

I'm not as trusting of the FBI as you are.

No, you are more trusting of Russian media sources.

I take what they have to say into account, just as I take what the FBI has to say into account. I trust neither implicitly.

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Your response is a non sequitur.

You seem to be in the constant state of denying facts.

What facts? I went to the trouble of doing a bunch of nested quotes above to try to get you back on the subject of what we were talking about. You come up with these non sequitors all the time.

If you don't trust what RT says then why do you use them as a source?

I do tend to quote articles that I think are fairly true, but you might stop to consider that RT publishes a lot more articles than I've referenced. Prior to the war in Ukraine, I rarely read articles or saw video from RT. But once the Ukraine war started, that changed, primarily because Russia is clearly one of the main combatants in this war and I like listening to both sides of a story. I've used FBI sources when I thought it was relevant as well, whether it's a quote from the Mueller report or a quote from an FBI spokesman. Speaking of the FBI, let's not forget that this conversation -started- with you believing the claims of the FBI in regards to the Mueller report and me doubting them. It's right there at the top of the nested quotes above:

**
As to believing what Mueller found and reported on, Mueller used the FBI and did extensive investigation to reach his conclusions.
**

I simply said that I wasn't as trusting as you are when it comes to the FBI.

 

[Scott]

Apparently you don't know the definition of a journalist. I'll do my best to educate you. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
**
noun One whose occupation is journalism.
noun One who keeps a journal.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalist

For our purposes, the first applies.


Next, the definition of journalism:
**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalism

For our purposes, the first applies once more. The American Thinker site certainly qualifies as a place where journalists publish articles by this definition. For more information on their staff, feel free to take a look here:
https://www.americanthinker.com/static/about_us.html

Using the equivocation fallacy doesn't help your case.

I'm actually doing the opposite of the equivocation fallacy. I'm taking a dictionary definition of the word journalist precisely to avoid ambiguity in what is meant by the term.

News articles aren't supposed to be devoted to "the thoughtful exploration of issues."

According to who, you?

They are supposed to provide news that the reporter has personally researched and questioned sources about in an unbiased fashion answering the who, what, when, where and why questions.

It appears that you're under the illusion that news must solely be focused on the things you mention above. In point of fact, that's not the case. Here's the 4 definitions of news from the American Heritage Dictionary:

**
noun plural Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media.

noun plural A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.

noun plural New information of any kind.

noun plural Newsworthy material.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/news

There's no mention in any of these that issues of the day can't be explored thoughtfully in news articles.

 

[Scott]

As the video suggests, I believe that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is full of holes and contradictions that strongly suggest that it's a false narrative.

The holes in that video are so large you have fallen through them and are now wandering around your own wonderland and playing the parts of the mad hatter and the red queen yourself.

Alright, you assert that there are large holes in the video. Care to name one?

 

[Scott]

Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:

**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.

Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.

I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?

There is no reason to provide anything more than the soundbite because your 'essay' proves my statement.

My essay provides evidence for my assertions. All you're giving in return here are soundbites with no evidence to back them up.

The essay also provides evidence that disputes your assertion.

First of all, what assertion are you referring to? Second of all, I was referring to -my- essay, complete with quote from a linked article, not "the" essay.

The fact that you haven't read the entire essay would point to why you can't dispute my claim.

You're building on your faulty premise that I was referring to "the" essay, by which you apparently mean the article I linked to. I only quoted a portion of it for a reason- it's the part that I had read and agreed with.

 

[Scott]

You clearly didn't read very carefully. I'll quote Hussein's final dialogue in the quoted exchange and bold the relevant part:

**
HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
**

I think it's safe to say that they did not find a solution.

Was Iraq going to die in a week?

I never said that Saddam wasn't prone to dramatics, but he was clearly very frustrated with Kuwait's recent actions at the time.

Do you have evidence they met with Kuwait?

Sure, the fact that Iraq said he wouldn't move on Kuwait until they met with the Kuwaitis. Please keep in mind that evidence is not proof. But if you think about it logically, how would it make sense for Saddam to move on Kuwait if Kuwait agreed to his demands? Furthermore, in transcript of Saddam's conversation with April Glaspie, he brings up the fact that the Kuwaitis had already thwarted a previosuly made agreement according to Saddam. Again from the transcript:

**
As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.

Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Once again, you cherry pick a quote and ignore any evidence that exists outside that quote. Iraq had moved troops to the border with Kuwait as evidenced by part of the quote you didn't bolden. Sadaam giving reassurances that the troops that were positioned for an invasion were not positioned for an invasion is what in your opinion?

No. Saddam made it quite clear that whatever was at the border would not attack them until they met with the Kuwaitis, presumably to find out if the Kuwaitis would agreed to their demands. He never said that these forces couldn't attack Kuwait.

 

[Scott]

If you think there was an error in the translation, by all means, point out what part you think was mistranslated.

If you are gullible enough to think that translations are true representations of the intent of a speaker then I can't help you.

Casting aspersions on my character is not the same thing as providing evidence for your position that there were errors in the translation.

 

[Scott]

Ah, I see. I'm guessing you meant to say that if viruses don't exist, how can smallpox exist, full stop. Your adding that it was caused by a virus got me to focus on the fact that you hadn't shown strong evidence of that assertion.

Anyway, I don't claim to know the specifics as to what causes smallpox, but I do believe that I know the general outline of its cause, as well as the cause of any other disease- toxicity, malnutrition and stress. Have you heard of Terrain Theory? It arose at around the same time as Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory. There are plenty of articles on it online, I personally like the following one:

Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org



Quoting the relevant passage:
**
Béchamp’s various discoveries led him to conclude that our bodies are, in effect, “miniecosystems.” When an individual’s internal ecosystem becomes weakened—whether due to poor nutrition, toxicity or other factors—it changes the function of the microbes that are naturally present in the body, producing disease.20 In other words, microorganisms only become pathogenic after environmental factors cause the host’s cellular “terrain” to deteriorate.15

As one example of the powerful influence of weakening forces on the host’s ecosystem, a mid-1980s study looked at French children who experienced complications of wild-type varicella (chickenpox).22 (Note: France has never implemented varicella vaccination.) Although three deaths resulted from what is ordinarily an extremely benign childhood illness, all three fatalities took place within a subset of nine children who had been taking steroid medications on a long-term basis. In comparison, ninety-four previously healthy children recovered from varicella without incident. The researchers concluded that the deaths occurred “as a function of the [weakened] terrain.”
**

I'm pretty sure you don't think that people don't actually exist.

If you'd like an hour and a half of doctors going over fine points as to what's missing in terms of evidence for viruses, I invite you to take a look at the hour and half video from Dr. Sam Bailey, her husband Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Tom Cowan here. And in case you're wondering, yes, I saw the whole thing myself:

Baileys & Cowan Respond to Kevin McKernan | drsambailey.com

Frankly your arguments are so stupid, I don't know where to begin.

You start off with an insult against my arguments rather than evidence. Not a good start.

If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist?

You haven't even proven that viruses exist. Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses. If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm actually doing the opposite of the equivocation fallacy. I'm taking a dictionary definition of the word journalist precisely to avoid ambiguity in what is meant by the term.

The equivocation fallacy is when more than one definition of a word is used. You have provided more than one definition without specifying which is the one you want to use.

According to who, you?

According to the definition of journalism that says it is the "reporting of news." Reporting is giving the facts without commentary or opinion.

It appears that you're under the illusion that news must solely be focused on the things you mention above. In point of fact, that's not the case. Here's the 4 definitions of news from the American Heritage Dictionary:

So you are resorting to the equivocation fallacy again?

**
noun plural Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media.

noun plural A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.

noun plural New information of any kind.

noun plural Newsworthy material.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/newsYou should notice that none of the definitions claim it is the thoughtful analysis

There's no mention in any of these that issues of the day can't be explored thoughtfully in news articles.

Cats, dogs and cars are also not mentioned in the definitions. Because something is not mentioned is not evidence that it is included in the definition. This is only further proof that you can't tell a news story from an opinion piece because you are either ignorant, stupid, or a troll. At least if you are ignorant you have the ability to educate yourself. Words have meanings that can't be extrapolated to whatever you want them to mean. You aren't in Wonderland.

I suggest you look at the meaning of the word reporting.
give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.
There is nothing in there about giving analysis.

News gives facts about an event. Opinion gives the author's feelings and thoughts on the event.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Alright, you assert that there are large holes in the video. Care to name one?

It only relies on one investigation to claim that the investigation wasn't complete. Multiple investigations were done.
It claims nothing was reported on Building 7. That is untrue since again there were multiple investigations including a rather extensive engineering one that shows the reason the building collapsed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, what assertion are you referring to? Second of all, I was referring to -my- essay, complete with quote from a linked article, not "the" essay.

What essay of yours? You seem to have provided 2 sentences. That is not an essay by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You start off with an insult against my arguments rather than evidence. Not a good start.



You haven't even proven that viruses exist. Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses. If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

No one is arguing that viruses cause all illnesses. Why are you attempting to introduce a straw man argument? Some illness is caused by bacterial infections. Some illness is caused by poison. Some illness is caused by cancer or other faulty DNA replication. Some illness is caused by none of the above. Many of those illnesses not caused by those listed above are caused by viruses.

Does smallpox exist as a disease? Does it have symptoms? Can smallpox be transmitted from one person to another?
The problem you have is that the "other factors" can be quickly proven to not be the cause.

Smallpox is not caused by a bacteria. If it was, bacteria would be quickly found since it is visible under a regular microscope.
Smallpox is not caused by a toxin. Toxins can not be spread from person to person. People do not develop an immunity to a poison's toxicity with one exposure. Pollution would be a poison if it made people sick. The fact that the disease is spread by contact with others and not because of an environment proves it isn't pollution.

Now that we have seen that it can't be bacteria and can't be a poison, provide your explanation that makes sense with the facts of how it is contracted.

 

[midcan5]

The word secret used by RT is kinda funny. Russian media is Russian media and thus mostly of interest to those who already believe or those who want to understand why some believe.


https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/03/russia-today-propaganda-shut-down/627606/

 

[midcan5]

The word secret used by RT is kinda funny. Russian media is Russian media and thus mostly of interest to those who already believe or those who want to understand why some believe.


https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/03/russia-today-propaganda-shut-down/627606/

Covid covered below:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?137657-Coronavirus-Information

 

[Scott]

ROFLMAO. The American Thinker has no journalists.

Apparently you don't know the definition of a journalist. I'll do my best to educate you. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
**
noun One whose occupation is journalism.
noun One who keeps a journal.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalist

For our purposes, the first applies.


Next, the definition of journalism:
**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalism

For our purposes, the first applies once more. The American Thinker site certainly qualifies as a place where journalists publish articles by this definition. For more information on their staff, feel free to take a look here:
https://www.americanthinker.com/static/about_us.html

Using the equivocation fallacy doesn't help your case.

I'm actually doing the opposite of the equivocation fallacy. I'm taking a dictionary definition of the word journalist precisely to avoid ambiguity in what is meant by the term.

The equivocation fallacy is when more than one definition of a word is used.

No, the equivocation fallacy is when one uses ambiguous words to make a point:
Equivocation Fallacy Explained, with Examples | grammarly.com

You did that yourself, back when you claimed that the American Thinker had no journalists. You didn't actually offer any evidence for your point of view, nor did you even specify what definition of journalist you were using. I put up the American Heritage's definitions, to give people a frame of reference as to what a journalist is, and then put up the American Heritage's definitions for journalism itself, as one of the definitions was "One whose occupations is journalism".

You have provided more than one definition without specifying which is the one you want to use.

You put up no definitions whatsoever when you made the claim that The American Thinker had no journalists. I put in the effort to give the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term, as well as its definitions for the term journalism.

News articles aren't supposed to be devoted to "the thoughtful exploration of issues."

According to who, you?

According to the definition of journalism that says it is the "reporting of news." Reporting is giving the facts without commentary or opinion.

Where are you getting that "reporting of news" quote from? The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term journalism is "The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles." No mention of reporting at all.

So you are resorting to the equivocation fallacy again?

No, you were, by not defining what you meant by news. By narrowing it down to the American Heritage Dictonary's definitions, I think I made a good case that The American Thinker does publish a good amount of news.

It appears that you're under the illusion that news must solely be focused on the things you mention above. In point of fact, that's not the case. Here's the 4 definitions of news from the American Heritage Dictionary:

**
noun plural Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media.

noun plural A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.

noun plural New information of any kind.

noun plural Newsworthy material.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/news

There's no mention in any of these that issues of the day can't be explored thoughtfully in news articles.

Cats, dogs and cars are also not mentioned in the definitions.

Indeed they are not.

Because something is not mentioned is not evidence that it is included in the definition.

Agreed. But I'm guessing you -meant- to say that just because something is not mentioned -doesn't- mean that it's not included in the definition. If so, I'd disagree. If something is part of the definition of a word, it should be included in the definition.

This is only further proof that you can't tell a news story from an opinion piece because you are either ignorant, stupid, or a troll.

And you're back to base insults. Well, you had a fairly good run.

 

[Hawkeye10]

No, the equivocation fallacy is when one uses ambiguous words to make a point:
Equivocation Fallacy Explained, with Examples | grammarly.com

You did that yourself, back when you claimed that the American Thinker had no journalists. You didn't actually offer any evidence for your point of view, nor did you even specify what definition of journalist you were using. I put up the American Heritage's definitions, to give people a frame of reference as to what a journalist is, and then put up the American Heritage's definitions for journalism itself, as one of the definitions was "One whose occupations is journalism".



You put up no definitions whatsoever when you made the claim that The American Thinker had no journalists. I put in the effort to give the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term, as well as its definitions for the term journalism.



Where are you getting that "reporting of news" quote from? The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term journalism is "The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles." No mention of reporting at all.



No, you were, by not defining what you meant by news. By narrowing it down to the American Heritage Dictonary's definitions, I think I made a good case that The American Thinker does publish a good amount of news.



Indeed they are not.



Agreed. But I'm guessing you -meant- to say that just because something is not mentioned -doesn't- mean that it's not included in the definition. If so, I'd disagree. If something is part of the definition of a word, it should be included in the definition.



And you're back to base insults. Well, you had a fairly good run.

You are so fucking exhausting.

 

[Scott]

It only relies on one investigation to claim that the investigation wasn't complete. Multiple investigations were done.
It claims nothing was reported on Building 7. That is untrue since again there were multiple investigations including a rather extensive engineering one that shows the reason the building collapsed.

Alright, you've put in enough effort on this subject that I've decided it's time to move it to a thread of its own, since I certainly believe it's a subject that's worthy of its own thread. The thread is here:

What really happened on 9/11? | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, the equivocation fallacy is when one uses ambiguous words to make a point:
Equivocation Fallacy Explained, with Examples | grammarly.com

You did that yourself, back when you claimed that the American Thinker had no journalists. You didn't actually offer any evidence for your point of view, nor did you even specify what definition of journalist you were using. I put up the American Heritage's definitions, to give people a frame of reference as to what a journalist is, and then put up the American Heritage's definitions for journalism itself, as one of the definitions was "One whose occupations is journalism".

LOL. So if you claim opinion is news, that means you didn't use the equivocation fallacy? Journalism requires that they report the news. Reporting means they are merely providing facts and not commentary. The American Thinker states pretty clearly that they are providing analysis. Analysis is commentary. Your attempt to claim analysis is reporting would be an attempt to make the words report and news ambiguous.

You put up no definitions whatsoever when you made the claim that The American Thinker had no journalists. I put in the effort to give the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term, as well as its definitions for the term journalism.

You are the one that is changing meanings by claiming something that is not in the definition should be included.

Where are you getting that "reporting of news" quote from? The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term journalism is "The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles." No mention of reporting at all.

What do you think news is? What do you think reporting is? What do you think information is? None of them have anything to do with thoughtful analysis.
news

pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
1.
a. Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media.

in·for·ma·tion (ĭn′fər-māshən)
Share:
n.
1. Knowledge or facts learned, especially about a certain subject or event.

report
v. re·port·ed, re·port·ing, re·ports
v.tr.
1.
a. To make or present an official or formal account of: The study reported a decline in heart disease. The audit reports that the company lost money.
b. To write or provide an account or summation of for publication or broadcast: report the news.

n. pl. a·nal·y·ses (-sēz′)
1.
a. The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.
b. The study of such constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.

No, you were, by not defining what you meant by news. By narrowing it down to the American Heritage Dictonary's definitions, I think I made a good case that The American Thinker does publish a good amount of news.

By narrowing it down to the dictionary you have revealed that you can't tell news from opinion.
How is a report the same thing as an analysis? A report is a factual accounting.

v. re·port·ed, re·port·ing, re·ports
v.tr.
1.
a. To make or present an official or formal account of: The study reported a decline in heart disease. The audit reports that the company lost money.
b. To write or provide an account or summation of for publication or broadcast: report the news.

n. pl. a·nal·y·ses (-sēz′)
1.
a. The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.
b. The study of such constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.

Indeed they are not.

Agreed. But I'm guessing you -meant- to say that just because something is not mentioned -doesn't- mean that it's not included in the definition. If so, I'd disagree. If something is part of the definition of a word, it should be included in the definition.

So if it should be included in the definition why are you claiming something that is not in the definition is part of the definition.
The word report does not include analysis or commentary. It says provide and account or summary. An analysis is NOT a summary. An analysis is NOT a report.

And you're back to base insults. Well, you had a fairly good run.

Reciting facts about your ability to think is not name calling. It is reporting if we use your made up definition of the word. Why are you upset that I am simply reporting about you? Don't you use the same definition all the time?

My statement would actually be commentary since it is a thoughtful analysis of your ability to think. What do think a thoughtful analysis is?

It is pretty clear you are using the words ambiguously to try to make a point. I guess we could take away the benefit of the the doubt that you are using the equivocation fallacy and just say you are lying about word definitions if that makes you feel better.

 

[Scott]

First of all, what assertion are you referring to? Second of all, I was referring to -my- essay, complete with quote from a linked article, not "the" essay.

What essay of yours? You seem to have provided 2 sentences. That is not an essay by any stretch of the imagination.

I provided a lot more than that. I'm including the part of projectcensored.org's article that I quoted. Here it is again:

**
**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.
**

Source:
Post 434 of this thread

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I provided a lot more than that. I'm including the part of projectcensored.org's article that I quoted. Here it is again:

**
**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.
**

Source:
Post 434 of this thread

OMFG.. That is NOT your essay. You complained I didn't respond to YOUR essay.
At this point I don't know WTF you are talking about.

 

[Scott]

You haven't even proven that viruses exist. Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses. If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

No one is arguing that viruses cause all illnesses. Why are you attempting to introduce a straw man argument?

You're the one introducing a straw man argument. I said that everyone agrees that many diseases aren't caused by viruses. I assumed that you would agree with this as well, and it's clear that you do.

Some illness is caused by bacterial infections. Some illness is caused by poison. Some illness is caused by cancer or other faulty DNA replication. Some illness is caused by none of the above.

There is a bit of debate as to how much bacterias cause illnesses, as evidenced by the germ vs. terrain theory. However, everyone [that I know of] agrees that bacteria exist. The same can't be said for viruses.

Many of those illnesses not caused by those listed above are caused by viruses.

That is what you have failed to prove.

Does smallpox exist as a disease? Does it have symptoms?

Yes. The issue is what causes it.

Can smallpox be transmitted from one person to another?

I don't believe so.

The problem you have is that the "other factors" can be quickly proven to not be the cause.

So you say. I haven't seen any such proof though.

Smallpox is not caused by a bacteria. If it was, bacteria would be quickly found since it is visible under a regular microscope.

That makes sense.

Smallpox is not caused by a toxin.

Can you prove that?

Toxins can not be spread from person to person.

There is some debate that they can, certainly if someone exposed to toxins exhales them. There are also some concerns of the blood of those who have gotten covid vaccines:

Should all blood donations from Covid-vaccinated people be BANNED from use until research PROVES them safe? | vaccinedeaths.com

Furthermore, people who are near each other tend to be exposed to the same toxins.

People do not develop an immunity to a poison's toxicity with one exposure. Pollution would be a poison if it made people sick. The fact that the disease is spread by contact with others and not because of an environment proves it isn't pollution.

For starters, you haven't proven that smallpox is spread by contact with others.