>Chuck - how do you know or why do you assume that the plot - whoever
>put it together - was planned it in 8 the months prior to it
>happening? The main claim made by consiracy people about certain
>members of the administration is that they *knew* not that they
>necessarily planned it - an operation of such a scale would have to
>transcend whoever was in the White House and would probably have to
>involve the intelligence apparatus of other countries and I would
>assume that a pla of such magnitude would take years to set up - but
>what do I know? I think the real question that goes begging about
>the official story -even if one accepts it on its face - is - who
>within the US security apparatus enabled the alleged hijackers -
>they must have had, as a practical matter, even a little help from
>*someboy* 'inside' - no?
The trouble with this is that it assumes that US intelligence agencies are intelligent and competent. But if you assume they aren't, and there's some evidence for this, then there's no need for conspiracy explanations. In fact a successful conspiracy involving the Bush administration and US intelligence agencies seems quite implausible.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas