> If the head of the FBI says: "there is no paper trail" -
> that is, by a definition, a mystery - yes.
I think this is out of context. He's saying that there's no firm indication that they were planning this attack: no, uh, evidence. That's very different from saying we don't know whether they did it.
Maybe you think OJ Simpson is innocent.
> To me the whole thing is something of a riddle.
It's a riddle that perhaps it was really Charles Burlingame, the AA Captain, who flew the 757 into the Pentagon? We don't have a paper trail that says he didn't do it. Really: there are only 64 choices here ...
> My point is that there are many holes and inconsistencies
> with the official story that should be examined closely.
NEWS FLASH! OFFICIAL STORY HAS INCONSISTENCIES! CALL A COP!
And are you saying that this Olmstead guy is the only one who is examining this closely? Because he's been pretty thoroughly debunked by now. Do you agree that your star witness is just a joker?
> I think it is obvious that the real identities and purpose
> of those who carried out the attacks are not really known.
No, I don't find it obvious at all from anything I've read before and including today. I've seen some discussion that up to 4 or 5 of the alleged 19 are in question, but that's because of fake identities and other issues, not because "it's a riddle" . . . no one (except I think Atta's father!) has come forward and said: you're wrong about my Joey, he was on his way to California to be a big movie star. And I can believe that perhaps some of them used fake identities. I'm not sure that makes one bit of difference today.
> I don't see why you find it annoying to raise questions about
> the dubious claims of an obviously mendatious and malevolent
> administration.
That's not what's annoying. What's annoying is you putting forth some kind of conspiracy theory based on a crackpot and (unfounded) "obviousness" . . .
> Don't you find it annoying that the Bush administration clearly
> lied about not having any warnings or any idea of the nature
> of the attacks beforhand ...
I really couldn't say what Ms Rice meant by her statement. On the face, it sounds like an off-the-cuff remark taken out of context. I'm always concerned about official lies and coverups, but I don't see one here except if you squint and turn the lights way down and smoke a bong hit or twelve.
The intelligence business is full of second-guesses and half-truths; the answer to "will he or won't he?" is never an exact science.
> and also that they appear to
> have at best sat on their hands and not intervened?
I'm not sure this necessarily follows. Can you be more specific? And further: what's your implication of this?
Are you saying that you'd like to live in a country where this kind of threat got intervened upon? Because I think I know what it would take: PATRIOT and a hyperactive TSA. Ooops, looks like you got your wish. Sorry, I'd like to go back to what used to be an enjoyable activity pre 9/11: the joy of flight.
> Even if the story about the 19 Arab Hijackers is true, they were
> definitely tracking them, why didn't they stop them.
Because, as Mueller says clearly for you, there was no indication that this plot was being hatched (even in the aftermath!). So there was nothing to 'stop' them from doing. They defeated the intelligence aparatus of the US by utilizing superior tactics. Your insinuation that because "they didn't stop them" that there's some big "riddle" here isn't just from left field, it's from outside in the parking lot.
> The official story about 9-11 makes little sense.
Which part exactly makes 'little sense' to you? Everything you've insinuated so far is explainable by anyone with an ounce of reasoning skills and Google.
> even Newsweek reported that some of the alleged hijackers were
> allegedly trained at US military installations (see below)
NEWS FLASH! THE US MILITARY TRAINS FOREIGN PILOTS! OMFG!
Oh, but of course they mention this:
>> It is not unusual for foreign nationals to train at
>> U.S. military facilities.
Ok, so we have the fact that it's not unusual; and we've got the fact that some of the names on the manifests match those from previous training. So what!?
Please: state your case clearly instead of just jumbling together some items that you find clever here and there and hoping everyone will nod in agreement and "see how obvious" it all is and how "the official story about 9-11 makes little sense" . . .
Thanks,
/jordan