It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“In the official version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A. listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi’s account],” Thompson added. “Whereupon he's an incredible good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their rent, etc.” ”But from the FBI's timeline, we now know the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi's place on Jan. 15 – the very same day they arrived,” Thompson says. “So obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken care of from their very first hours in the US. That's huge because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers never had any accomplices in the US.”
The FBI timeline reveals that Al-Ghamdi, the alleged United hijacker, was booked onto several flights scheduled for after the 9/11 attacks, a piece of information not documented in the Commission’s final report.
Originally posted by seethelight
. . . agencies didn't (and still don't) communicate.
Originally posted by mikelee
And...
If you guys who swear by the OS fairy tale were doing any research at all instead of coming to ATS 911 forum and basically just being a roadblock to the truth, then YOU would have found that instead of me.
Kinda puts you OSer's in the proper context now don't it?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Once again this is just proof that there isn't a single Official Story.
When I've asked for a definition of it TM people usually say - well, the story given out by officials. And the media. And any alphabet agency.
But some of the time they disagree. So answer me this: if the FBI aren't singing from the same hymn sheet as everyone else, doesn't that suggest that they haven't been given the same lines? And that therefore the notion of a cross-agency cover up is flawed?
Indeed, isn't it more likely that in the scramble to cover their own asses each agency gave out a story that made it sound like it was least at fault?
(Finally, I fully endorse Satan as a candidate for 2012)
The reasons for Soviet silence are, like everything else in Soviet policy, a matter of conjecture. Have the Soviet government something peculiarly disgraceful to hide? Do they shrink from submitting their conduct, however remote, to general scrutiny? Are there perhaps no records - the commissariat of foreign affairs having been too incompetent to make any? Or have the Soviet government learned the lessson of many past disputes over historical topics - that the only watertight way of sustaining a case is never to submit evidence in it's support?