In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that:
Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.
The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have.”
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used “meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources speciously announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seems to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped “discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc etc.
Now Mueller’s comments seem to contradict everything that’s been said.
>From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] They simply 'failed'
>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:05:04 -0800
>
> > http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
>
>I don't get it.
>
>-- AA announces there were 64 on-board
>-- AA later gives a list of who they identified
> (total 56) ... a simple mistake; he asked them to
> update their list and they decline. So what? Plane crash
> manifest errors are common
>
>I found htis other list from AA on 9/12:
>
>http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2001/09/12/American_Airlines_Flight_77:_List_of_Victims.html
>
>It has minor inconsistencies (includes Sandra Teague, doesn't include Hilda
>Taylor, etc.) but seems to add up to the same 57-58 people.
>
>-- AFIP identifies 58 "victims" and says they can't find a
> little girl whose parents are on the list.
>
>So where are the five?
>
>-- AA didn't list them because they were probably pissed off; Israeli
> media routinely don't count suicide bombers in the death toll of
> such incidents
>-- AFIP didn't list them because they don't count them as "victims"
>
>Did he just get a bunk answer to his FOIA request? Maybe! I didn't see
>his FOIA request, just the response. And the response seems specifically
>vague: note the distinction between the statement that the guy asked for
>something and the next sentence of what was provided.
>
>His implication is "No Arabs on Flight 77" which isn't supported at all by
>his article and the "evidence" he puts forward.
>
>You believe this kind of crap?
>
>And of course the "Sierra Times" isn't exactly a newspaper . . .
>
>/jordan
_________________________________________________________________ Grab our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup