Yep. Thats the one.

Im surprised how few visits there are to the pages. Either it is new,
or the principle of "I wont look at what I am unwilling to believe (a
*real* and valid instinct) prevails.

I hope everyone here who has an existing view, watches, and provides
feedback.

BOfL
----------------------------------------

Hi brian, doesn't seem to be anything new to me, or more convincing, in this
doco. Tis a little rubbery, like Powell's case for iraqi wmd at the sec
council. Same MO, iow. Lot's of cherry picking, lot's missing. At times they
also seemed to be presenting opposite alternatives as both being possible.

Maybe have a browse of this page. [ a pretty good reference site imho, but
nothings perfect ]
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?complete_911_timeline__war_on_terrorism__outside_iraq...

I'm a bit like Hans Blix here, ok it sounds plausible, but if this is the
"best" they can come up with, it's still lacking in hard evidence. Lot's of
talk, lot's of commentary, several holes in their theories, and not much
more than that.

Just one example is:
rumsfeld's order --- my first check of this found the following:

Re: Wrong info ? Please verify : Entry on June 1, 2001: New Policy
Posted by: matt (IP Logged)
Date: May 26, 2007 09:42AM

Hi Cassandra,

Thanks for pointing this out. We definitely need to clarify this in the
timeline entry (and I will do so ASAP). As you rightly say, the new
instruction in June 2001 was really just a minor modification of its 1997
predecessor.
http://www.historycommons.org/phorum5/read.php?24,807,811
----------------------------------

IOW, Rumsfeld was NOT required at all. You may also note that in every
circumstance military jets were scrambled and airborn within 6 minutes of a
direct request. Never before had 4 aircraft been hijacked at the same time,
let alone in the same nation, in the same regional area. Common sense tells
me that that no doubt would lead to some confusion, and that's exactly what
happened on the day.

cheers sean