Mrs Olson was probably offered...
Excellent; you're speculating, and in so doing proposing an alternative theory which you've aptly decided not to phrase - as so many here are inclined to - with terms suggesting either certainty or exactness.
The next question becomes: with respect to some explanations being more probable than others, what evidence, documentation, or other credible source(s) do you have point to the judgement that there is a "probab[ility]" that
(a) there was involvement by 'Delta Force' (more appropriately - and less in the vein of silly Hollywoodisms - known as the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment D); or that,
(b) a "first-class [?] limo" was utilized; and/or,
(c) a "stretch humvee" was involved; and/or,
(d) a "nondescript jet [flying] over the Gulf of Mexico" was specifically seen/cited.
Lest, of course, those details be relegated to a notional dustbin already overflowing with completely random, arbitrarily-derived details behind any number of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's important (I'd say critical) to determine how exactly these elements - which you describe as "probabl[e]" with respect to their inclusion in a description of the events of 9/11 - derive the situational precision you're imparting to them.
By virtue of what, exactly, are you asserting that these details are "probabl[e]"?
e |
