The problem would be, really, why someone who has no idea of how SIGINT works would just randomly believe what a conspiracy theorist website tells them. Like...why would you do that? It's insane.
Not quite sure who this was directed at, but the childish tone shines through... I'll just assume it was targeted to me, keeps the response simpler.
I'm not simply believing what they are saying, I knew we had a claimed expert here who could, in theory, address the issues.,, especially when you claimed it was wrong within minutes of the op.
So, I raised the appropriate question that someone with claimed expertise should be able to address. Why is it false?
When that question turns into insults and other diversions from the topic, it makes me wonder if there might be something being concealed, like perhaps they are a lot closer to accurate than the insulter would like to admit.
Especially because conspiracy theorists have very strong opinions about intelligence agencies, but yet it turns out...they don't really know much. Color me surprised. You can't do signals collection without knowing where the selector is. If you don't know what a selector is, perhaps a remedial google search could help you out with extremely simple terms that these agencies use, that you don't even know, yet you know "all about" what it is these agencies do to cover up conspiracies. ....Right.
Right, I do a search for selector, it gives the dictionary definition. You are clearly using the term as jargon, which is useless to someone who does not understand the jargon.
Seriously, put up a link, a search term that. Will come up with usefulness results, or spend the 5 seconds to explain the term. You are the claimed expert on the subject after all.
As for the distinction, what and how data is collected is different from actions that involve the flow of money, resources, etc.. But you know that.
The difference between SIGINT and COMINT has been a minor kerfuffle for...way longer than I've been associated with things, possibly before I was even born. But 95% of the time they're interchangeable so it doesn't matter. And yes, phones count. If you didn't know phones were included in "signals" that's great, but then why would you have strong opinions on intelligence collection and intelligence agencies? Like it's absurd. The blatant lack of knowledge base when forming opinions is just astounding to me, and just when I think it can't get any worse or any more unbelievable, conspiracy theorists outdo themselves.
That's why the questions were raised...
So of course NSA knew where the phone calls were from. It's impossible that they'd collect them but not know.
So, you are saying the blog article was correct?
So why would the blog want to play up that option so much? Think about it. Use your little conspiracy beans and come up with a decent reason why someone would do that.
Could it be that discussing reasons why NSA wouldn't readily share it with FBI would lead to a bunch of reasons that would have absolutely nothing to do with any type of inside job or super conspiracy but instead a broken sharing system and territorial pissing contests? That wouldn't be very attractive to the Bobs of the world, though, would it? So instead we obfuscate the actual issue.
It's made by idiots, for idiots: It's a conspiracy theory.
That may be, but, understand, that when information is covered up, even for legitimate reasons, it raises the question of whether or not an example that could have seen, some, and potentially all the terrorists, stopped before they got on the planes... Well, you see the problem.
The blog played up the fact that of the data on the destination of the phone calls were known, that they should also have known the source of the calls, while it was being denied. So, I think you accidentally told us there that the blog article was correct, even if they didn't use the jargon that you prefer to use.
Alright, that is enough. Stick to the topic or get out.
