Reply #61: Yes

[Frederik]

Theologians usually aren't authorities on these things. To say with absolute certainty that a Boeing 757 did not strike the Pentagon is ridiculous, especially from someone who really don't have the expertise required to make that judgement. I also wonder how people can talk about "overwhelming evidence" when that evidence, interesting as it may be, consists of a few photos. I don't think he's a paid disinfo agent, but I wish they had someone like Daniel Hopsicker instead, who has spent three years researching the whereabouts of the alleged hijackers and their connections, or someone like John Judge, Peter Dale Scott, or Webster Tarpley who has researched "synthetic" and state-sponsored terrorism since the 70s. Griffin is embarrassing at times, and he just doesn't know much about these things.

The most fruitful aspects to pursue, imho, is the drug trafficking connection and the Saudi/Pakistani connection, and how this ties in with what Indira Singh called the "CIA within the CIA", the covert infrastructure of drug/arms trafficking, covert operations, money laundering, organized crime, right-wing politics and terrorism (what the political scientist Robert Cox has called the "covert world"). It was within this infrastructure that the hijackers appear to have operated.

Studying how the buildings came down is interesting, but even if you could prove conclusively that they were brought down by controlled demolition or microwawes or whatever, you wouldn't be any closer to who did it, other than a vague "Government" at best.