Talk:Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Comments

Ronabop: you removed fairly a fairly mild observation because Wikipedia "is not propogandapedia," but then you insert a full paragraph of fairly POV discussion. Also, expecting someone pre-9/11 to consider jet fuel in a jet as what is meant by "an explosive" is quite a reach. Cecropia 05:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. If you don't think "historical" is a "talking point" word, please find me examples where it was not used in relation to this brief, and explain to me how any PDB magically predicts the future, rather than describes the history of the past. Or, at least, paraphrase.

2. I may be POV, edit as needed to bring discussion to the center. That what I tried to do.

3. If you think jet fuel is not an explosive, I will be happy to (hypothetically) give you some cigarettes, and a plane. After all, fertilizer and fuel oil is only mildly explosive when not used as fertilizer and fuel. If the current US administration is too stupid to realize that fuel burns rapidly, calling it an "explosive" is the least of our problems. Ronabop 07:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jet fuel, i.e. kerosene, isn't an explosive, not even a low explosive. Unlike "fertilizer and fuel oil" (ANFO). Perhaps jet fuel could be used in a fuel-air explosive, but on 9/11 it simply "burn[ed] rapidly", acting as lighter fluid to set the buildings on fire. --wwoods 17:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is some speculation that the text shown on the Fox and CNN web sites may not be the entire PDB content related to Osama Bin Laden and related intelligence. (anon)

There is always speculation of that sort. When men landed on the moon, critics said it was a stage set. If your criminal client's DNA is a perfect match, "the sample was mishandled," "the sample was faked," etc. An assertion of that nature requires a credible source. Cecropia 23:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The partial line above the footer on page two very much resembles the line that would be produced by physically cutting portions of the paper out, and then photocopying it to produce new document. The partial line or anything resembling it does not appear on page one. This is clear evidence that the physical paper was altered. Timbach2

Illuminating Blacked-Out Words

Markoff's article, "Illuminating Blacked-Out Words", which was originally published in The New York Times[1] appears to have been completely removed from their archives. Could someone help me find a link to the article on the NYT website, paid or not, or explain what happened to it? I already have a copy of it from other sites (many are available). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

Why did Condoleezza Rice tell the 9/11 Commission the PDB "did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States", when in fact it did, and that's the general consensus of most analysts on the subject. Did she mean to say or imply that it did not warn of any specific attacks? I'm guessing that she did mean to say that, but her testimony is very confusing on this point. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The current article says, "Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and General Richard Myers have stated that contrary to repeated claims, the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". The problem is that this is exactly the opposite of what our best sources say on the subject. The best sources say, "In two separate instances under oath, Condoleezza Rice said that the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting" before 1998. However, Rice's claims are contrary to what the original authors of the PDB said in the actual memo, as well as what 9/11 Commission members who reviewed the memo observed. Rather than "historical", the PDB mentioned specific warnings and threats to targets in the United States, hence the title, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423032225/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)