Relatives of those killed on 9-11 file lawsuit

I'm more interested in the 911 relatives who just filed a suit against the BUSH adminstration for unanswered questions around 911.

Notice there's no press coverage of it.

11th September Warnings Were Not Ignored by U.S. Authorities

Indeed, there is evidence that the threat was not ignored, at least not in certain selected respects. The San Francisco Chronicle reported one day after the attacks that Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijackings from what he described as his air security staff, warning him not to travel by air:

“For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security—a full eight hours before yesterday’s string of terrorist attacks—advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel… Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from ‘my security people at the airport.’”

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was booked to fly from the Bay area to New York City on the morning of September 11. Clearly, it seems that certain high-level U.S. security authorities anticipated some sort of grave danger, and believed it to be urgent, threatening and certainly real enough to inform a U.S. City Mayor about to catch a flight to New York—but not the general public.

The London Times reported that the famous novelist, Salman Rushdie, received a similar warning to avoid U.S. and Canadian airlines. According to Rushdie’s own testimony, the warning came directly from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Times reports:

“The author Salman Rushdie believes that U.S. authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the U.S. only a week before the attacks. On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying.”

Another news report records that “the FAA has confirmed it stepped up security levels relating to Rushdie,” but “the airlines weren’t willing to upgrade their security” in relation to the wider public. It is public knowledge that Rushdie is under 24-hour protection of UK Scotland Yard’s Special Branch, and that all his travel plans are approved by the MI5 for domestic travel within the UK, and by the MI6 for international travel. The MI5 and MI6 are the British equivalent of the American CIA. Clearly, it appears that British intelligence anticipated a grave danger, under the guidance of U.S. authorities, and believed it to be urgent, threatening and real enough to inform Rushdie—but once again not the general public.

Another report points to the Pentagon’s dubious role. Newsweek reported that on 10th September 2001, the day before the attacks, “a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.” An earlier report by Newsweek, published two days after the attacks, referred to the same event in more detail:

“… the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.”

Apparently, top Pentagon officials had known not only of an imminent threat to “security” in relation to their “travel plans,” but had even anticipated its exact timing and taken measures to protect themselves —but not the general public. Together, these reports strongly suggest that high levels of the U.S. military intelligence community knew something very significant—and took it seriously.

It is noteworthy that these reports also strongly suggest foreknowledge among high-level elements of the U.S. military intelligence community, that attacks would occur mid-September, and even more specifically on the 11th of that month. As WorldNetDaily editor and veteran American journalist Joseph Farah rightly observes:

“Now, you’re probably wondering why Willie Brown and Salman Rushdie [and senior Pentagon officials] are more important to the U.S. government than you and me and Barbara Olson. I’m wondering the same thing…

These selective warnings—and I have no doubt there were many more we have not yet heard about—suggest strongly that the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies had the information, knew something big was up, something that involved terrorist attacks on airliners, but failed to disclose the information to the airlines and the flying public in general. I think heads should roll at the FBI and CIA. I think there ought to be an investigation into what the FAA knew and when it knew it. I think, once again, the federal government has neglected its main responsibility under the Constitution—protecting the American people from attack.”

This is a a much bigger case than the case you mentioned just based on the numbers. There are only 12 families on the "Bush Did It" bandwagon versus over 600 family members of firefighters, police, and those on the planes in this case. I think Gerson has a decent shot considering he won the case against Libya in the Lockerbie incident.

Also, this is an international case as the plaintiffs are from the United States, Canada, Argentina, France, and other nations. And you can hear plenty about the case of the 12 families on "Donahue." Sort of says something about the validity of their case, dont cha think?

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous."

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."

review:
stop being dishonest and i go away

or

find me and kill me

You think one little nick switching spammer like you is any threat at all to free speech, little man? Hang around - we find you amusing as target practice against Illogicals like yourself. ;)

or choose one name and stick to it. what is doing more harm to your workers ness, me, or your dishonesty.

cause you aint gonna stop me till you get real.

free speach. did you fight for that ?

how about instead, we just amuse ourselves watching you make an imbecile out of yourself? How much fun would these boards be if we weren't attracting the attention of people such as yourself? And, uhm, by the way, I don't quite understand how stating the principles of fallacy is 'dishonesty' - whatever you are on it must be some good shit.

then you wouldnt have any fans outside of your head. because we both know, inside of your head its to dark to see. (hehe)

one word ness. think of it when you think of me. honesty.