Talk:Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)