Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
website?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
moron.
Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.

So how does one confirm that she "testified"?

Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.


BTW, the article you
provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.


And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there was
no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?


An article on Tom
Flocco's site says it was December 2001.

What else does Mr. Flocco reveal?

And apparently some of her
information comes from intercepts that were translated AFTER 9/11.
And the question remains, if she wasn't working in the spring of 2001,
how does she know what she claims?

Her 200 or so co-working translators? Such a dim bulb you are, adam.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
the only
one who has come forward? Adam?

Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?

Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already answered
in the Independent.co.uk article.

Or are you claiming that
she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
term for that is heresay, isn't it?

snicker

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:06:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
the only
one who has come forward? Adam?

Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?

Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already answered
in the Independent.co.uk article.

Really?

Or are you claiming that
she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
term for that is heresay, isn't it?

snicker

Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
works?

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:02:27 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
website?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
moron.
Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.

So how does one confirm that she "testified"?

Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.

Well, you've never been much help. But then, it isn't my stupidity
that is in question.

BTW, the article you
provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.

And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there was
no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?

Anytime you want to explain how she knew about the inner working of
the Bureau in the time before she was hired, other than reporting
rumors from around the water cooler, please go right ahead.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:06:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is
she
the only
one who has come forward? Adam?

Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?

Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already
answered
in the Independent.co.uk article.

Really?

Yes, doofus.


Or are you claiming that
she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
term for that is heresay, isn't it?

snicker

Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
works?

Again I refer you to the Independent.co.uk article and ask you to rephrase
or retract your feeble question?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:02:27 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
website?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
moron.
Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.

So how does one confirm that she "testified"?

Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.

Well, you've never been much help. But then, it isn't my stupidity
that is in question.

Hmm. I'll give you some slack here. It is your stupid question?


BTW, the article you
provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.

And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there
was
no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?

Anytime you want to explain how she knew about the inner working of
the Bureau in the time before she was hired, other than reporting
rumors from around the water cooler, please go right ahead.

snicker

Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to be
shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this prove
your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a 9/11
style attack true?

Not a bright bulb, Adam.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:



Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to be
shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this prove
your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a 9/11
style attack true?

Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
something that I said.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:18:52 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Or are you claiming that
she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
term for that is heresay, isn't it?

snicker

Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
works?

Again I refer you to the Independent.co.uk article and ask you to rephrase
or retract your feeble question?

What is it in the article that demonstrates that Ms. Edmonds is not
repeating heresay? What is it that demonstrates her first hand
knowledge of what she is "reporting"?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:



Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to
be
shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
prove
your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
9/11
style attack true?

Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
something that I said.

Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best I
can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME, SOMEHOW,
SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.

-*MORT*-

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:



Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to
be
shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
prove
your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
9/11
style attack true?

Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
something that I said.

Doper, learn to read. Learn to comrehend. This Ms. Edmonds article was
posted exactly for that reason.