On purpose, because your argument depends on the unproven first sentence. Prove the premise, and then we can begin. Otherwise we're no farther along than you pulling "quotes" from a dark orifice.
You want me to tell you why it wouldn't take that many people, but you're not offering up why it would take that many. Since I'll answer your objection, will you answer why LIHOP requires thousands-and-thousands (an ambiguous phrase BTW).
It wouldn't take thousands-and-thousands to be accomplished because there were only so many Chiefs and Indians who would be intimately aware about sensitive Intelligence operations, including domestic ones and counterintelligence operations.
Do we know who the field operatives were or what they collected, saw or were aware of in the OBL/al Qaeda stations in the C.I.A. & F.B.I. or the other collections efforts from the N.S.A. & D.I.A. No, we don't, but according to government statements and all of the official and mainstream accounts of 9/11 History like
Ghost Wars, there was not "thousands-and-thousands" of people working only on OBL and al Qaeda that would be the ones going out and getting the information or the ones the information is brought directly to, like Senior Executives.
The record on U.S. Intelligence Operations & Activities, Foreign or Domestic, directed against OBL/al Qaeda/other terrorist groups/Islamic fundamentalism in general is murky because although there are many links to be brought to attention, the links available are not the end of the story it is telling. So much has been and continues to be withheld in just those regards on this issue that maintaining, absolutely, that there is no reason whatsoever to question anything about it because you know, absolutely, that nothing we're purposely not being shown is bad enough to change the accepted narrative, the one you absolutely defend, in any significant manner whatsoever.
I'm more than ready to be proven wrong. I hope with everything in me that I would be proven wrong. The almighty trump card of National Security cannot be an unchallengeable habitually gone-to escapes from telling us what we actually need to know.
But you are so sure that there is nothing bad to be seen that you argue for the information being withheld in the so-called defense of National Security. The 9/11 Commission used pseudonyms in their report to talk about U.S. intelligence officers who had a cover to be protected. Why can't that be accomplished again but tell us what "Dane" did as a field operative in his pursuit of the known al Qaeda operatives living in the U.S. Where are the counterintelligence reports? Al Qaeda operatives were not and never have been as smooth as operatives from the Soviet Union/Russia, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, Jordan, China or Cuba, and the U.S. has stood against them all and everyone else who sends spies over here. The hijackers lived openly, open credit cards, phone numbers, and they were known al Qaeda operatives because the U.S., along with all of the other spies around the world watching the progression of events unfold, were aware of what the ********* were wanting to do.
The line that we're supposed to believe is that 9/11 was a surprise attack. It is an insult to someone's intelligence to really try and defend that canard. We're not supposed to be really skeptical about the claims we're supposed to believe, largely, without question because to question it is to jeopardize National Security. Last time I looked, the U.S. does not have a glass jaw. They have pulled that line so much that it seems as though the next stiff cold breeze will do us all in.
Often enough,
the 'truth' is a bitter pill that is tough to swallow.
