[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Pretty much....yes.

Speaks volumes I guess. The again, you did buy every single reason the administration has put forward for going into Iraq, so critical thought is not high on your list of skills. How can anyone repeatedly fall for a line of BS as obvious as the garbage the White House has tried to peddle is beyond me.

Like your firm belief that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. There are literally hunreds, if not into thousands, of people who saw a plane fly into that building. Yet the CT's continue to say it wasn't so. If not, how did the Gov't get all these people planted and involved. Everday folks from newspaper reporters to landscapers...all say the same thing. How is that possible if it DIDNT happen?

Thousands of people? Bull****. And the list goes both ways. Also, the testimony becomes sketchy because pretty well every person who has testified has admitted to watching the TV after the fact and hearing the "official story", so that poisons their testimony and what they think they saw. Stories are a little too uniform as well. Frankly, you should have 100 people observe something and get 100 different stories of the observation. The uniformity is indeed a strange thing for an investigation to come across. It would be interesting to know if the people in question would know the difference between a plane, a UAV or a crusie missle.

Also, why has the Pentagon NOT released the surveillence footage of that day? They could blow the whole conspiracy theory matter right out of the water by releasing the footage. Same with the siezed footage from the businesses around the Pentagon. What do they have to hide?

You actually think the FBI has made public EVERYTHING they know about Al-Quedas involvement? Why in the hell would they do that?? What they know that their enemies dont know is known.....is a help to them.

Who said anything about public? I do know many of the details released to state and local authorities and the FBI does NOT have anything to link the attack to al Qaeda.

Beyond that however...what about the repeated ADMISSION by OBL and others as to their involvement? Why wouldnt they have been involved since this has been their modus operandi for years and years. I guess they didnt bomd the embassies in Africa either huh? I guess they were wrong when they claimed responsibilty for the first WTC attack? When they attacked the nightclub in Bali? London Subways?

Where is this admission you are refering too?

And this is so beyond their M.O. it is not even funny. The only coordinated effort they were able to pull off at all was the African embassy bombings. The first WTC bombing was not actually done by al Qaeda. The group responsible for this was independent to al Qaeda at the time of their action. At that time al Qaeda was a small fry operation and was not considered capable of such attacks. It was Al Zawahri's coordination that made the 1993 attack come off, bin Laden's group didn't play much of a role. The Bali bombing was not directly linked to al Qaeda either, bit to an Indonesian Islamist group, Jemaah Islamiya. The Western media has attempted to create links between this group and al Qaeda, but the fact of the matter is they operate completely independent to the wishes of al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden. The problem here is that the Western media, following on the lead by the Bush administration, hears Islamic and terrorism and immediately attributes their actions to al Qaeda. That's like trying to link the FLQ and the IRA under one Western terror mastermind, becayse they are both terror orgainzations and western based.

Its what they do.....yet when the biggest one of all is pulled off by them....then the CT's say "there aint no proof"!!!!

But there isn't any proof. With the embassy bombings there was proof. With the attack on the USS Cole, there was proof. Here, there is no proof. Trust me, the FBI would love to have some hard proof of the al Qaeda link and pin the attack on the orgainzation and the leadership, but they have none.

I suppose if you want to ignore every single indication that it was them, as well as their admission to it and the fact they had tried before....then i suppose some peoples brains could come to the conclusion they werent involved.

What indication would that be? A list of men that were supposedly involved, yet over half of them are still alive and carrying on their lives just as they were prior to 9/11? And again, where is this admission? al Qaeda made a release praising the attacks, but never admitted responsibility. Where is this admission?

[/quote]Its just mind-boggling to me.[/quote]

Obviously.