QUES: Bin Laden reportedly discussed the planes operation with KSM and Atef in a series of meetings in the spring of 1999 at the al Matar complex near Kandahar. KSM's original concept of using one of the hijacked planes to make a media statement was scrapped, but Bin Laden considered the basic idea feasible. Bin Laden, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Laden wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets. Bin Laden also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khallad, and Abu Bara al Yemeni. During the al Matar meetings, Bin Laden told KSM that Mihdhar and Hazmi were so eager to participate in an operation against the United States that they had already obtained U.S. visas. KSM states that they had done so on their own after the suicide of their friend Azzam (Nashiri's cousin) in carrying out the Nairobi bombing. KSM had not met them. His only guidance from Bin Laden was that the two should eventually go to the United States for pilot training. Hazmi and Mihdhar were Saudi nationals, born in Mecca. Like the others in this initial group of selectees, they were already experienced mujahideen. They had traveled together to fight in Bosnia in a group that journeyed to the Balkans in 1995. By the time Hazmi and Mihdhar were assigned to the planes operation in early 1999, they had visited Afghanistan on several occasions. Khallad was another veteran mujahid, like much of his family. His father had been expelled from Yemen because of his extremist views. Khallad had grown up in Saudi Arabia, where his father knew Bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh").
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: Who was involved in the initial selection of targets?

QUES: Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: What text gave viewers the wrong impression

QUES: You may wonder if there are other examples of static discharge. The answer is yes. Lightning is a form of static discharge. It is much more dramatic than what happens between you and the door knocker, but it is the same principle. You can see how it occurs in the following diagram and animation. You have no doubt seen lightning in a rainstorm. What does lighting have to do with static electricity? As it turns out, everything! During a rainstorm, clouds develop regions of different charges. This happens due to the movement of air molecules, water drops, and ice particles. The negative charges are concentrated at the base of the clouds. The positive charges are concentrated at the top. The negative charges repel electrons on the ground below. The ground then becomes positively charged. Over time the differences increase. Eventually the electrons are discharged. This is what we see as lightning. You can watch an awesome slow-motion lightning strike below.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: How can different regions of clouds have different charges?

QUES: On a day it celebrated 50 years of giving free legal advice, Southern Arizona Legal Aid announced it has received two grants totaling more than $7 million. One of the grants includes the creation of a Web site with legal advice for the poor. A three-year grant worth $6.6 million and a separate technology grant were announced at a press conference and dinner held Thursday at Evo. A. DeConcini Federal Courthouse, 405 W. Congress St. Deconcini was one of the organization's early board members. Thursday's celebration was the first public even held at the courthouse. About 100 members of the legal community attended, including state Attorney General Janet Napolitano and Arizona Supreme Court Justice Thomas Zlaket. Both grants come from the Legal Services., a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress in 1974 to offer poor people equal access to the justice system. It's funded through congressional appropriation. The $6.6 million grant will pay for staffing operations. The Web site, which will be created with a $50,000 grant, is intended to offer legal advice to poor people across Arizona, said Paul Julian, chief executive officer of Southern Arizona Legal Aid. He said he wants every poor person in Arizona to have legal help. "This is another step in trying to realize that. We feel like we do a pretty good job of helping people who find us," Julian said. Julian said that though most people do not own computers, they can still access them at libraries, schools, and courthouses. He said the Web site will help bridge the "digital divide" that keeps the poor from using the Internet as a resource. Southern Arizona Legal Aid was founded in 1951 as the Legal Aid Society of the Pima County Bar Association. It offered free legal advice on civil matters including disputes in small claims court, divorce proceedings and obtaining Social Security benefits. Charles Ares, a member of the board of directors in the 1950s, said the office was kind of a charity operation.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION:
What grants did Southern Arizona Legal Aid receive on the day it celebrated 50 years of giving free legal advice?