“I’m only interested in discussing the anthrax attacks of 2001.”
And yes, on the webpage you created addressing Al Qaeda in 2002, you wrote that the hijackers were dead, dead, dead and Al Qaeda could not be responsible because if there were other operatives in the US, the FBI would be talking about them. As explained in the article, the FBI has studiously avoided talking about al-Marri, even keeping him out of the 911 Commission Report, according to the article. So it stands as rebutal to your uninformed analysis of an Al Qaeda theory —as does the public record facts relating to all the AQ operatives going to and fro in September 2001.
I concede that you can take almost any article that mentions al Qaeda and twist and distort it to somehow create what you believe is "proof" for your beliefs. But that doesn't mean you are right. It more likely means you are nuts.