Re: "I suppose that you did not read the link."
Sure I did, why do you ask, I can't tell.
Re: "As for sources, it's well known that the INC was funneling news through Fox and Newsmax"
This has nothing to do with any point you are trying to make, and means nothing since attacking messengers isn't argument to the point. The information doesn't come from Fox or Newsmax or the INC at any rate, it comes from individuals who were there.
Re: "try to find one instance of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld giving any credence to the fuselage being used by Islamic terrorists. You won't. Why is that? It's because it's not true...that's why."
First, the above implies (I suspect unwittingly) that Bush and Cheney won't say a thing unless it's true. Good.
Indeed, why should Bush and Cheney "trumpet from the rooftops (as someone suggested they would)" this thoroughly still plausible testimony, when it cannot be proven with records from the facility or further testimony of those presumably involved directly with the training of Saudi's there? The evidence stands, has not been recanted nor debunked in any way we are aware of, but is only what it is, no more.
Secondly, as the old maxim goes, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." If the 911 hijackers DID (as suggested by the testimony) train at Salmon Pak on that handy fuselage, then herein is a root of 9/11! Would you believe, given a year of warning that we'd be liberating Iraq, that records outlining the reality of what took place in Salmon Pak would be just left behind for us to read? No, you wouldn't. That would be nuts, "pal."
In short, your article in NO WAY confirmed your contrary notion that there were no Islamic terrorists there at all, and if you understood anything about the rules of logic and evidence, you'd know that.
Dan B. |
