Now read the "confirmation": 'A Hamburg Student'
Gentlemen, that is weak. That may be another bit of evidence, but it is not confirmation. BTW, I am not denying that there is a link, Peach states an excellent case, one which I agree with.
Had the headline said: 'Evidence of 9/11 link to Iraq continues to mount'
I would have had no problem. But the headline is misleading, which was my point.
The problem being?
Note that the title does not read, "Saddam connection to 9/11 mathematically proven". Just that a "link" is "confirmed".
To spell it out in more detail, the "link" is the evidence of an Atta-Prague meeting which we already knew about (that is evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, you see), and the "confirmation" (of that evidence) is the record of the appointment.
Again, I'd agree that this falls short of mathematical proof, but that is a red herring.
Gentlemen, that is weak.
So it's weak evidence, despite the confirmation. Ok. Not sure why you think that contradicts what's being said.
That may be another bit of evidence, but it is not confirmation.
It's confirmation of the evidence. I think we are using these words differently. You seem to be using "confirmation" as the same thing as "mathematical proof of the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11". I think you're right that this is not m.p.o.t.c.t.S.w.b.9/11 but I'm not sure who was saying that.
There was a Saddam link to 9/11 that we already knew of (the eyewitness account of the Atta-Prague meeting) and now we have further confirmation of that link.
Had the headline said: 'Evidence of 9/11 link to Iraq continues to mount' I would have had no problem.
In effect, it does say that, with different words.
But the headline is misleading, which was my point.
Well, clearly you understood it differently than I did, so point taken.