<html> <head> <style> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body>yes, the last sentence is very important especially when contrasted with the general view on this list that the government is 'too incomptent' to have been involved in 9-11. Ellsberg is very much like most in the 9-11 Truth movement - they have doubts and are searching for the truth, sure there are those who have come to firm conclusions that they try to foist upon others, but many simply have grave doubts - and to the extent you also have doubts, welcome to the 'konspiracy klub'. By the way, here is an instance showing how the 'you are with us or you are without us' syndrome really works: Under Fire; US Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted for Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation" http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54 Like many other "conspiracy theorists' Ellsberg, based on that interview (and others): <ul><li>believes many of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible.</li></ul> <ul><li>find that “Very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”.</li></ul> <ul><li>thinks that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration.</li></ul> <ul><li>and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas issued.</li></ul>So yes, Ellsberg clearly has doubts that the 9-11 story begns and ends with the alleged hijackers - this  is also clear based on his support of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds who has alleged that the US State Department had blocked investigations showing links between criminal drug trafficking networks and the terror attacks on 9/11. http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds1.htm <hr id="stopSpelling">> From: jmhayes@j-o-r-d-a-n.com > To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A question for the anti-"conspiracy"-theoristsabout9/11 > Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:20:59 -0700 > > Joseph writes: > > > What is quite remarkable about the 'anti-conspiracists' on > > this list and in general is that they rarely if ever actually > > take on any specific 9-11 researchers or intellectuals who > > have questioned the 9-11 narrative [...] Daniel Ellsberg [...] > > [ ... ok, I'll bite; I read the links you sent ... ] > > > It seems fairly obvious that the criminal consiracy did not > > begin and end with the alleged hijackers. > > I'd like to see you show that Daniel Ellsberg supports this view.  The  > link you sent has a Correction at the top of it; it reads: > > -=-=-= > > Correction: > The original headlines for the interview with Daniel Ellsberg posted on  > July 19, 2006, and parts of the story, incorrectly paraphrased the  > accompanying transcript (which is accurate) and inadvertently  > misrepresented his views. He did not, and does not, predict that the  > "Bush regime will stage terrorist attack to provide pretext for Iran,  > Syria invasion," nor that "within days after a US military strike on  > Iran. Bush's handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in  > the West to legitimize the new war." Nor does he believe that the  > government "may have carried out 9/11" except in the limited sense that  > elements in the government have, in his opinion, the "psychological  > capability" to do so, as others, in his own experience, have had in the  > past. > > -=-=-= > > The last sentence is important. > > /jordan  > > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </body> </html>