> the probative value of evidence is not a necessarily a function of its
> sheer volume.
For sure.
> Nonetheless, there is an abundance of information in the public
> record suggesting that the official story about 9-11 is a fabrication.
Depends on what you mean by "information" and by "the public record." (OK, I sound like Clinton; so sue me.) Do you mean by the latter "the Internet"? You and I both know that the Internet is full of millions of pieces of crap. Just because something is "in the public record" doesn't mean it is true. And if it's false, you can't call it "information." That is a common corruption of the English language these days -- people spew out any old thing, and it thereby becomes "information." But information is something that informs someone, and you can't be informed by something false -- it misinforms you.
> It is also clear that the Bush administration is suppressing
> information that might help shed light on not only who the
> perpetrators actually were but how they were so successful. For
> example, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who is under a gag
> order, has said:
>
> "If they were to do real investigations we would see several
> significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that
> is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they
> will do everything to cover this up."
This is a common weasel move by conspiracy theorists: quoting something in order to insinuate more than the person quoted has really said. Edmonds claims (and how do we know that she is right, anyway? She could be another nut case) that a number of high-level criminal prosecutions would result. But what would these convictions be for? She doesn't say that they would be convictions for putting explosives in the WTC, shooting a missile at the Pentagon, etc., etc. There are any number of other charges that could be involved.
Look, unlike you conspiracy folks, who seem to have unlimited amounts of time to wallow around in this stuff, I am very busy working and taking care of various other needs every day, so I have to restrict the sources of information about the world I rely on. Therefore, I try to pay attention only to what I consider high-quality sources. Based on your previous records, I don't regard you and your fellow conspiracy hobbyists as such sources. When and if I find my high-quality information sources talking about Bush blowing up the WTC, I'll pay serious attention.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax