Please tell us where your awareness of how intelligence works comes from. Television? Movies? Lurid paperbacks? CT websites with lots of red type, flashing lights and exclamation points?
Ahhh…extensive reading and personal experience.
And yours comes from…James Bond and Matt Helm?
Or Jason Bourne?
Available evidence indicates that the US Intelligence community knew something was up but not exactly when, where, nor how. Among these reports were mentions of AQ-associated training camps which specialized in how to use boxcutters to facilitate the hijacking of planes. Intelligence which did not get shared with the rest of the community until after the fact.
Because, by definition, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
The definition of conspiracy requires multiple people be involved:
Soooo…it’s just a “coverup” when a single person is involved?
Anyway…my point was this: Again, I have no doubts that the events of 9/11 occurred as they are claimed to have occurred. The preponderance of evidence indicates that and the most parsimonious explanation is that airplanes were hijacked by a small group of men with the intent to fly into buildings and cause mass death and destruction.
And this occurred without the CTers beloved “pre-planted” explosives in the World Trade Center, with a plane actually striking the Pentagon or having the plane in Pennsylvania being shot down by the US military. That was not my original point.
What I stated (again) was that if conspiracy theorist were looking to latch onto a “believable” conspiracy, then US intelligence being informed of the events in advance and dismissing them as being disinformation, unlikely or completely improbable seems to be a somewhat more logical conspiracy theory than:
- The event requiring pre-planted explosives
- The plane not actually impacting the Pentagon
- The plane being shot down near Shanksville,PA and the government covering up that event.
And that’s what I said earlier before things went off on a tangent.
Right.
[QUOTE=nevadaexile]
Anyway…my point was this: Again, I have no doubts that the events of 9/11 occurred as they are claimed to have occurred. The preponderance of evidence indicates that and the most parsimonious explanation is that airplanes were hijacked by a small group of men with the intent to fly into buildings and cause mass death and destruction.
And this occurred without the CTers beloved “pre-planted” explosives in the World Trade Center, with a plane actually striking the Pentagon or having the plane in Pennsylvania being shot down by the US military. That was not my original point.
What I stated (again) was that if conspiracy theorist were looking to latch onto a “believable” conspiracy, then US intelligence being informed of the events in advance and dismissing them as being disinformation, unlikely or completely improbable seems to be a somewhat more logical conspiracy theory than:
- The event requiring pre-planted explosives
- The plane not actually impacting the Pentagon
- The plane being shot down near Shanksville,PA and the government covering up that event.
And that’s what I said earlier before things went off on a tangent.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the above is more plausible on its face than the typical CTer nonsense, but they aren’t selecting their theories on the basis of believability. Quite the opposite, in fact, at least in some cases: the more outlandish the theory, the fewer people will give it any creedence, and the more smugly superior the CTer gets to feel for being one of a handful that knows the truth, asks the tough questions, and all that. That’s how you get to the point of theories involving the planes actually being sophisticated holograms.
More believable and logical, but it’s not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when two or more people plan to commit a crime. A failure to adequately judge the seriousness of a threat isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a fuck-up, but no crime is being committed.
He explained in a previous post:
Ah, yes, the old “incompetence” argument.
Doesn’t it strike you as odd the enormous gap between (a) infinite incompetence at every turn of those in charge and, (b) brilliant competence at some of the most complex tasks of those who did it?
Whatever helps you sleep at night is good enough, I guess.
Ah, yes, the old “dictionary” definition.
“infinite incompetence” and “brilliant competence”?
Give one example of where either was suggested by any poster in this thread. Overlooking an outlandish threat is not an example of “infinite incompetence”. Nor is leaving a swath of clues and failing to hit one of your targets and further failing to critically damage a 2nd target “brilliant competence”.
Add “excluded middle” to the things you should look up.
See, it’s all about being smugly superior:
Believability isn’t part of the equation.
actually the plot to drive airplanes into buildings WAS known. They got that information from Ramzi Yousef who bombed the WTC with a truck 10 years prior. I’d always thought that information was withheld from airliners but it was passed on to the FAA who released it to individual airliners. I don’t think the pilots of the doomed flights were aware of it or they would have alerted passengers to prevent access to the cockpit.
Why does this strike me the same as if you had said “Ah, yes, the old “2+2=4” argument”?
When it comes to stopping and preventing acts of terror, the phrase “we have to get lucky all the time, they only need to get lucky once” is quite apt.
brilliant competence? They learned to fly, hijacked planes, and crashed them.
Just say what you want to say and express a real opinion about what happened that day instead of game-playing. We got tired of that years ago.
There is plenty of evidence that some type of thermite was used. Here is a guy doing experiments in his backyard that perfectly match eye witness accounts and video. I already brought up the evidence of thermite found at the WTC and even the NIST report can’t explain the squibs, or pressure pulses as they call them.
The no planes thing that Loose Change went nuts with is misdirection, used to discredit 911 truth, but that is meaningless. It is not necessary to explain every detail of 911 if you don’t believe the official story.
The evidence of the collapse of buildings 1,2 and 7 show that the official story can’t be true, and that in itself warrants a real investigation.
You know what else perfectly matches eyewitness accounts and videos? Two planes crashing into the buildings and burning controlled for about an hour.
Also, there’s no evidence whatsoever for thermite being used at the WTC. None.
We have five pages of people explaining the “squibs” in this very thread, both explaining what they actually were, and pointing out why they couldn’t have been explosives.
9/11 Truth discredits itself. It doesn’t need outside assistance.
This is simply false. There is no evidence inconsistent with the official report. Not a scrap of it.
For very lesser definitions of ‘plenty’.
Which means jack squat and is still completely impractical.
Seems like they have been explained plenty well. You just do not like the explanation.
Loose Change didn’t really go with the no planes at WTC.
Maybe, but you sure need to explain a whole lot more than what you have given us.
Simply, utterly wrong. We had investigations. Truthers have yet to prove any need for their silly demands for another investigation.
They need their demands as a way to continue spouting nonsense. I suspect that, on the off-chance that some investigation finally proves them right, it’ll get dismissed as a cheesy attempt to buy their silence so they can continue spouting nonsense.
Now, proof of a need for yet another investigation is an entirely separate matter. 