By Jefferson Morley washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Thursday, April 8, 2004; 9:51 AM
"The sensational story of Sibel Edmonds illuminates the world of difference between the international online media and the U.S. press.
Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator whose February allegations to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks directly challenge the credibility of the commission's star witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In an April 2 interview with the Independent of London, Edmonds said she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.
"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks," she said. She added that specific cities with skyscrapers were mentioned."
>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pacifica 9-11 coverage
>Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 18:11:58 -0400
>
>On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>>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
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk