Information on buildings in terror warning had been accessed, ...

[struggle4progress]

... perhaps updated, official says

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
August 6, 2004, 7:33 PM EDT
WASHINGTON
<snip>

James Loy, the deputy secretary of homeland security and No. 2 official at the agency, initially told The Associated Press that new surveillance photographs were taken in January of Prudential Financial Inc.'s headquarters in Newark, N.J., both interior and exterior, and were not simply old photographs that had been altered or otherwise updated.

"New pictures," Loy said after a ceremony in Elizabeth, N.J., to give badges to officers of the department's Customs and Border Protection Office. Pressed to provide specifics, he said: "Both inside and out."

But later Friday, Loy said that he had not personally been "poring over" the intelligence information. He added that, while it was clear the surveillance files of the Prudential Building, held on a captured computer, were accessed and perhaps updated in January, he could not say with certainty that there were new photos taken then. He said he had been speaking hypothetically of what could constitute updating of information.
<snip>

A Prudential spokesman in Elizabeth, N.J., Robert DeFillipo, said Friday that company officials were confident that terrorists had taken no photographs of the headquarters since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
<more>

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--terrorthreats0806aug06,0,1075290.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[54anickel]

1. Well, hypothetically speaking,

it was LIHOP/MIHOP. Those theories should have just as much credence as this BS.

[struggle4progress]

2. The company, meanwhile, actually SPOKE with the FBI and thus KNEW ...

... that there was NO evidence of updated photographs.

When in doubt, Bushistas just lie ...

[54anickel]

3. Another hypothetical, as long as they are so willing to banty them around

What if WE were the ones that updated the files with pictures from a stinkin' marketing slick. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

"One of the reasons they were confident was they noticed surveillance cameras that were installed after 9/11 were not in the photographs they examined. In addition, they noticed that some of the photographs that they looked at appeared to be taken out of a history of the company that was published four years ago."

The photos from the history book were of the building's interior and exterior, DeFillipo said.

[struggle4progress]

4. Them Bushistas is a sorry lot. eom