First off, I wanted to say I hope you don't mind me referring to your post
Of course I don't mind. Freedom of speech.
I don't think it would be that difficult for someone to get info for the war games. I could be wrong, but at the same time a couple of bucks
would easily open someone's mouth if you asked them "So, any interesting drills going on soon?" And that would also involve fewer links in the
chain than some of the other theories out there--just a grunt who now has his kid's school paid for or something. They could also be "disposed" of
in a fashion that wouldn't draw as much attention as if it were a more important player; the public would probably never even notice a random
accident occuring a month or two before the attacks that kills a PFC or Corporal. At the very least the connection would never be made.
That's possible, but it would create some interesting problems. The most obvious problems would be created when the suspicion would be thrown back
upon al Qaeda, at which point the evidence suggesting the Twin Towers were demolished would be complicated.
The evidence from the WTC, as controversial here as it is, shows pretty conclusively I think that those buildings came down with a little more than
just gravity. There were even numerous demolition squibs caught on tape as the buildings free-fell, for Pete's sake. Too many problems, noted mostly
in the WTC thread.
So then how would al Qaeda acting alone fit into this? Did al Qaeda plant the explosives and detonate them? If that's the case, then how did they get
past security, and why did they fly planes into the buildings too? Why would they even wait for NORAD was busy to launch hijackings to the WTC when
they could just bring the buildings down with the push of a button?
The WTC security was overseen by Marvin Bush, one of the president's brothers, which might answer 'how' security was breached to plant explosives.
The security was lowered before the Thursday before the attacks by employee accounts, answering 'when' security was likely breached to plant the
explosives. Security may have been back to normal on
9/11. FEMA visited the WTC in NYC on Sept. 10 according to Rudolph Giuliani, to set up,
allegedly, for a wargame that was to take place on the 12th. Bush said he saw the first plane hit on TV. At least one of them mirrored an exact aspect
of the 9/11 hijackings. The nature of the others has not been officially commented on. Larry Silverstein was quoted, and recorded, saying he gave an
order to "pull it" in regards to Building 7.
Those are some of the things that the al Qaeda theory would have to compensate or compromise. I don't really see how it could. There's a lot
of circumstantial evidence linking these operations and even the attacks themselves to government officials. There is direct evidence linking the WTC
Towers with controlled demolition. If these guys were taken to the World Court and a fair trial took place, I'm confident Cheney and Bush and
Rumsfeld and all would be convicted.
The circumstantial evidence linking the events to al Qaeda, though, is few and full of holes. The hijackers were not on the passenger lists of any of
the hijacked flights, and yet still managed to get on without a problem. The suspect list given to us by the FBI is very questionable, seeing as how
some of the suspects came forward alive. And the tapes of 'Bin Laden' admitting responsibility were allegedly found in a bombed-out village in
Afghanistan, being a 'home movie' of sorts and not aired on al Jazeera, didn't even match with known photographs of Bin Laden. When you compare
this sort of evidence with the circumstantial evidence against key government officials, it becomes apparent that the stronger case is against the
government officials, at least circumstantially. The smoking gun seems to be the WTC collapses.
Those are some of my thoughts, anyway. Or a lot of rambling. Pretty much, saying al Qaeda did it does not explain a lot of problems with the official
story, and with an event like 9/11, it'd be nice to know the truth