in other words your own source isn't sure of the credibility of this story. Why is it hard to see that this is beside the point? And assuming what you seem to be trying to prove, that this man was tortured and is telling the truth when he says that he had planned to fly a plane on 9-11, in what way does the knowledge make us safer?
>Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could >better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities >in the reporting. > >... KSM has insisted to his interrogators that he always contemplated >hijacking and crashing large commercial aircraft. Indeed, KSM >describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be >hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts -- >they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI >headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in >California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the >tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male >passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech .... > > >On 10/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:217966 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
