I just read her book. I just have no idea, with the amount of "evidence" she seems to put forth, how this conclusion continues to go unchallenged.
What would "challenge" the evidence?
I have not read the book but Richard Clarke's book is quoted by a few columnists thus, "Ramzi Yousef and [Terry] Nichols had been in the city of Cebu on the same days.... Could the al Qaeda explosives expert have been introduced to the angry American?... We do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned. We also know that Nichols continued to call Cebu long after his wife returned to the United States."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mylroie200404050847.asp
Though Clarke is hardly reliable I nevertheless wonder why he's straying from covering for Clinton. Why would he include something in his book that raises questions about the the lone "ditto-head" bombers, McVeigh and Nichols?
One mainstream source says, "Clarke says he could never disprove a conspiracy theory linking Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda operatives who helped plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Terry Nichols, one of the organizers of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-28-clarke-book_x.htm
I say again. Patriots endured years of abuse, ridicule, and threats before we got serious investigations of Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Sounds a lot like the Vince Foster murder(Suicide). With all the evidence.I just do not get it.