>And how Henwood arrives at the conclusion that this constitutes a
>'fuck up' by 9-11 researchers is beyond me. Clearly the people who
>have fucked up are in the US National Security apparatus.
Which is what I said. Perhaps the antecedents were unclear. The national security establishment fucked up, bigtime. Still, 9-11 "researchers" strike me as a bunch of paranoids who belong on the right.
>"Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."
>— Gore Vidal, from "The Enemy Within", 27 Oct 2002
>
>"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible.
>Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any
>point in talking about it."
>—Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January
>2002, in response to a question from the audience about US
>government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators
>had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior
>warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected
>to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in
>identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in
>Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.
Gosh, given a choice between following the political judgment of Gore Vidal (an elitist with a deep nativist streak who has a lot in common with certain precincts of the American right) and Noam Chomsky, I think Chomsky wins in a landslide.
The ISA-AQ connection is widely known and 9-11 "researchers" don't have much to do with exposing it. If anything, they discredit it.
You're kind of a wuss. You put "hijackers" in quotes, but you remain "agnostic" on "complicity." What's your point? That we don't know all about what really happened, or something more grandiose than that (Bush knew? Bush did it?). Had we world enough & time, this coyness, Wanzala, were no crime!
Doug