There are seven billion of us each living a separate life.
And? That is not a relevant statistic to anything, what IS relevant is not casual coincidence, but improbable coincidence, among 7bn, that may happen a lot, but it does neither reduce the probability of an incident that is unlikely happening, it also is not applicable to 19 people and the vast resources arrayed AGAINST them. If we take JUST the hijackers on AA11 from visa application through to boarding, through to mace and boxcutters, through to the mossad warnings,
We are talking not 1 coincidence not 2, not 3 not 4 not 5 not 6 but more than 10 lucky breaks,or coincidences
This just does not happen as you yourself said before -
ME: "Now the likelihood on person with a expired visa gets on? but 2, and someone with NO passport?
YOU: Some for the first. None for the latter. Perhaps it was completely destroyed."
I have no desire for your manufactured scenario, here.Well of course not, because the chances of finding $50 is actually greater than the chance of two visa expirees and a man with no passport, getting on a flight (the same flight) If you acknowledge the scenario you acknowledge probabilities, if you do that you acknowledge the unlikeliness of such and how amazed you would be at one must imply you see the point of amazement in the 2nd. If you close your eyes to both you can't see either
All acceptable degrees of bureaucratic inefficiency. Nobody's perfect, and who's to know when something's going down?Whereas we saw earlier you doubt it possible anyone got on with no passport, now it is acceptable inefficiency (as far as "acceptable" you OVB's have made NO complaint that the inefficiency caused the death and destruction but NO ONE involved got sacked or demoted or disciplined, in fact many got promotions)
But inefficiency and not knowing do not count, you yourself claimed 1000's of people being efficient tracked the 19 so quickly, yet the same 1000's were so rubbish that them, plus the visa office, plus the police who arrested Atta, plus the computer systems, plus Mossad, plus Able danger, Plus FBI who,if you deny Sibel Edmonds (hard to do in light of under oath statements and her being gagged 2x) all failed just by "coincidence" and bureaucratic inefficiency across MULTIPLE agencies.
I cannot follow that. Restate it.What i was saying is that people outside of the 9/11 spectrum would be puzzled why Atta and Omari went to Portland as there was no explicable reason.
In case you suggest that it was to board easily at one airport and not be checked on another flight,
1) They still had to be checked on the first flight
2) They supposedly did their research and this would be denied by the fact Atta supposedly got angry at the second check saying he was told there would be no need, indicating he had done minimal research
3) No other hijacker was told to do this
4) Because it needs 0 research to know about natural crashes and delays, and knowing his visa was expired, he was deliberately exposing himself to discovery 2x by 2 different airlines, which doubles the "bureaucratic inefficiencies" multiplying the luck and improbability
I didn't "just tell" you "1000's work for security". I wouldn't, because it doesn't make sense. If you believe that such an operation could be identified in that time, then YOU don't make sense.Actually 1000s DO work for security and intelligence and as we are told Mossad and the Able Danger op identified it then yes it could, and the supposed admission by OBL which said he considered the twin towers when he was in beirut seeing those towers come down, (back in the late 80s) After 93' with PROVEN fbi involvement, they would be extra watchful of attacks (do not even bother with the evasive they could never imagine this scenario it is patently false)
But the hijackers spent months in the country and the plan went beyond that, they didnt just lucky dip for suiciders (some like Cheney suggest they did not know the mission till the day, is BS because they need people who know what and how to be sure they will do it not fight or give up when they know what it is)
This means there were months and months to unravel via warnings and plannings, the phoenix memo and Moussaoui trial proves that had they opened his computer the whole plot would be discovered and ended.
He was definitely one of only five people who knew what the plan was. OBL was a part-insider. He was an engineer and a close confidante of Pentagon circles. He knew how to plan a terrorist operation, and had the experience. He knew about US military maneuvers in advance.He can only be on the inside if the rumours of being a cia asset are true, and can only know exercises planned if someone on the inside knew them, even participants are not told what will be the exact scenarios, only the senior levels so as to ensure the training and preparation in a live situation is transferrable. You cannot find flaws or make improvements if the operational elements are told what to do and what is happening prior to every exercise. So they don't. This keeps them adaptable and able to respond fast and efficiently
Therefore if OBL knew senior members of the miltary or intelligence groups, those people were a part of the higher levels inside the pentgon and government ergo we PROVE insider assistance in just that statement
They were obviously neither empty nor fully-fuelled-up. Just as if they were ordinary internal flights.Ok so how much did leak inside the towers, how far was the range?
You are told.No not just i, do a bit of research, the OFFICIAL LIE tells us this, if true then you think to suggest a pilot at the front in the cockpit can see less than a Flight attendant at the rear of the plane? Do not even try such ridiculousness, if the pilot was dead, the official version has yet another flaw (how many do YOU allow before it is a pack of lies?) if he was alive then you think he would slam into buildings willingly? he was a war vet, he would have fought and lunged the plane to the river if no where else
Does it?Yes it does, because if the errors they made are not one but 3,4,5,6 AND they were the cuffed ones yet they just forgot to say, oh by the way they have us cuffed. It is unlikely they would BOTH neglect that if it was them or they knew any person had been. So it obviously calls into question whether the transcripts are correct. Especially when one of them thought she was on flight 12 and has to be asked four times before being able to get it right.
An internal flight? Of which he had done similar before?
He had gone with no passport twice? Well sorry but i have done connecting flights and there is not guarantee a person has not just entered the airport there, and protocol REQUIRES the same security for EVERYONE. Just showing a ticket saying i was on a flight that just came in, is NOT allowed as id is STILL required
You must get out more. OBL's plan worked because it always beat the response time of his watchers. He got done in two hours what it took the security services three hours to discover. Success...
No, actually the security services already knew, the faa linked the names in 45 minutes and the security could never do it all in 3 hours if they didnt already know who they were because just saying arab names is not court admissible nor even proof it was not hamas or hezbollah or any other group. To say within 3 hours AL QAEDA and we can prove it, means they KNEW not just who they were but could link each to persons of terrorist connections which is impossible to do unless they already know those connections. The official lie requires non terror linked persons explicitly so they COULD evade notice. Therefore the speed if actually 3 hours, once again proves insider knowledge because it proves they had to be in the security systems data banks already linked not just to one terrorist, but more than one and with provable links to each other.
At the time ONLY that would provide legal justification for conviction or attack.