The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

"Ladies and Gentlement it has come to my administration's attention through the excellent work of the Intelligence Community that OBL and Al-Q have been in preparation to commit a mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil using passenger airlines as instruments of destruction.


Please point out where any warnings were received of a plan to use airliners as weapons. If any were, please explain how credible they were. Please also explain how announcing that the plot had been uncovered would not have been likely to have caused the plotters to have switched to a different form of attack, and how such an announcement could not possibly have compromised intelligence sources and methods.


My senior cabinet officials along with the FAA and the airline industry will be putting into place the following security measures to ensure the safety and security of air travel. . (insert measures here that have been recommended by the Joint Terrorism Task force prior to 9/11, security experts, FAA, and the airline industry). These measures may inconvenience you at worst but rest assured as your President I place the security and safety of the American people as my highest priority. While these measures are being instituted at airports and on airlines across the country, the FBI at home and the CIA abroad are working around the clock to bring these terrorists who mean us harm to justice. We will not falter and we will not fail nor will we be held captive by the fear that terrorists try to impose upon us."


A "joint terrorism task force" is a criminal-investigation team composed of personnel from both the FBI and local law-enforcement agencies. Presumably you meant the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, AKA the Hart-Rudman Commission.

From a salon.com article (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html):

Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday's tragedy. "Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don't think it would have changed what happened," Rudman says. "There wasn't enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now."

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner." [emphasis added]


Further, Rudman and Hart are referring to the question of what might have happened had their recommendations had been adopted earlier in the year--not beginning five weeks before the attacks.

The talking heads and pundits heap lavish praise upon the President for being a proactive President at work and not on an extended vacation.


And the millions of air travelers who have to stand in line at security checkpoints for hours are extremely irate. That does wonders for a President's popularity.

The odds are of course that 9/11 is prevented . . .


Of course. :rolleyes:

. . . and the terrorists with box cutters are prevented from boarding the plane as they are arrested at the security checkpoints.


People found with prohibited items that have obvious non-weapon uses are not arrested at security checkpoints; the items are merely confiscated. Further, there are (and were) highly concealable knives available that do not set off metal detectors, and/or are disguised as inocuous items Here is a list (http://www.asisonline.org/lac/reports/fbiweapons.pdf) put out by the FBI in response to the September 11 attacks.

If they do make it on the plane, air marshals are there to prevent any deaths, reinforced cockpit doors have already been installed, and armed pilots await any terrorists that make it past the first three measures. Or perhaps the terrorists are apprehended by the FBI as Sibel Edmonds and her cohorts are not stymied or hampered by their superiors.


And this would all (or even partly) have been put in place within five weeks of the August PDB??

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

This huge number of trained sky marshals would have just magically appeared in five weeks, right? Along with the specially reinforced cockpit doors? And no one would have objected to arming pilots? No one--not the airlines, not the FAA, not Congress, would have objected to any of this or even wanted to discuss it or provide input? Everyone just meekly went along with these hugely expensive and controversial measures, didn't they? Further, you are still ignoring the fact that on September 11, 2001, the protocof for hijackings was to cooperate with the hijackers, as experience up to that time had demonstrated that in most cases this was the best way to avoid death or injury to passengers and crew.

On a side note, the term is "sky marshal." "Air marshal" is a Royal Air Force rank equivalent to lieutenant general (three stars) in the US Air Force. This common misuse is a major pet peeve of mine, for obvious reasons. :)

But instead we get a President that takes an extended vacation while him and his administration ignore numerous warnings, FBI superiors that hamper field agents in their investigation, and 9/11.


The above have been addressed here by others. In sum, your scenario is nothing more than a textbook example of combining hindsight with wishful thinking.

[Billdave2]

Whoops double post sorry

[Billdave2]

Proactive versus reactive has nothing to do with hindsight. The fact is the President was not proactive.

You really want me to address planes as weapons without a hijacking?

Planes as weapons source here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0601german#a0601german)

Here is a start...

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
Edit event

German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern militants are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
Edit event

Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah’s men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” The Christian Science Monitor will call the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/2002] In late July 2001, the king of Jordan will offer the US to send two battalions of Jordanian special forces to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda havens there (see July 24, 2001).

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
Edit event

Russian President Vladimir Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/2002] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/2001] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, will claim, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article will claim that at least two of the militants were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/2001]

Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001 (see July 16, 2001), was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of ‘Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines’
Edit event

Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they “are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11. When the Cayman government notifies the US is unknown. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no-questions-asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter will meet with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and will claim his information was a “premonition of sorts.” The three men will later be arrested. What has happened to them since their arrest is unclear. [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

Yes I see, you have a handful of warnings, only one of which has both hijackings and planes as weapons and one (the Jordanian warning) which appears to have not even actually happened. I am sure you realize that the US governement recieves hundreds of such warnings every day. So we have 4 warnings, only one that is even close to being actionable out of several thousand warnings that the Bush administration received from Jan to Sept of 2001. Thank you for proving my point that only with hindsight is it possible to see this "clear" picture.

[Swing Dangler]

Yes I see, you have a handful of warnings, only one of which has hijackings and planes as weapons both and one (the Jordanian warning) which appears to have not even actually happened. I am sure you realize that the US governement recieves hundreds of such warnings every day. So we have have 4 warnings, only one that is even close to being actionable out of several thousand warnings that the Bush administration received from Jan to Sept of 2001. Thank you for proving my point that only with hindsight is it possible to see this "clear" picture.

Proactive versus reactive. Enough said. I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q.
I have 4 warnings that were made public. We have no idea how many more were made public. You may want to look at the Atlantic Rules scenario and the Genoa conference as well as far as those warnings.You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q as provided to the Administration. Excellent cherry picking but there is no need to cry big picture.

You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

Remember when members of this Administration publicly stated that no one could imagine planes as weapons? Chalk it up to more lies. Yeah I know, straw man.

You can continue to be an apologist and accept the inaction on the part of the Administration and continue to cling to "no one is responsible".
That is your prerogative. I have a higher standard of accountability for our nations leaders than you do. If 9/11 happens again and again, no one will be held accountable I'm sure.

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.

[Unsecured Coins]

so is it a little late to be asking how I can connect PDB warnings about Arab Terrorists and planes to thermite and bombs in the WTC? Arguing over semantics is fine, I just really wanna know how this all ties in with preplanted explosives and faked phone calls.

[Civilized Worm]

It doesn't, but Swing hasn't had much luck with that approach either.

[Drudgewire]

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.
Oh everything about this administration reminds you of murderers. :rolleyes:

[HyJinX]

Proactive versus reactive. Enough said. I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q.
I have 4 warnings that were made public. We have no idea how many more were made public. You may want to look at the Atlantic Rules scenario and the Genoa conference as well as far as those warnings.You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q as provided to the Administration. Excellent cherry picking but there is no need to cry big picture.

You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

Remember when members of this Administration publicly stated that no one could imagine planes as weapons? Chalk it up to more lies. Yeah I know, straw man.

You can continue to be an apologist and accept the inaction on the part of the Administration and continue to cling to "no one is responsible".
That is your prerogative. I have a higher standard of accountability for our nations leaders than you do. If 9/11 happens again and again, no one will be held accountable I'm sure.

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.

Why do you keep your apologetic stance towards the terrorists that murdered 3000 world citizens? I think that's a bigger issue than sifting through "what ifs" and "how comes". You're giving terrorism a pass...and that's sad, my friend.

[Swing Dangler]

Further, Rudman and Hart are referring to the question of what might have happened had their recommendations had been adopted earlier in the year--not beginning five weeks before the attacks.

Ok. Earlier in the year, which is even better. Thanks.

And this would all (or even partly) have been put in place within five weeks of the August PDB??

No earlier in the year...or years.

This huge number of trained sky marshals would have just magically appeared in five weeks, right? Along with the specially reinforced cockpit doors? And no one would have objected to arming pilots? No one--not the airlines, not the FAA, not Congress, would have objected to any of this or even wanted to discuss it or provide input?
Safety and security versus inconvenience. I included the FAA and the airlines in my scenario. Congress of course could have input.

Everyone just meekly went along with these hugely expensive and controversial measures, didn't they?
Sure. Source on hugely expensive? I'm sure a few corporate tax breaks here and there would help derail some of the costs.


Further, you are still ignoring the fact that on September 11, 2001, the protocof for hijackings was to cooperate with the hijackers, as experience up to that time had demonstrated that in most cases this was the best way to avoid death or injury to passengers and crew.
Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.

The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker?


On a side note, the term is "sky marshal." "Air marshal" is a Royal Air Force rank equivalent to lieutenant general (three stars) in the US Air Force. This common misuse is a major pet peeve of mine, for obvious reasons. :)
Misuse of the term?You can take that up with the Federal Government.
Please see- http://ntl.bts.gov/faq/airmarshal.html

I understand now. You favor reactive instead of proactive. :confused:

[Swing Dangler]

Why do you keep your apologetic stance towards the terrorists that murdered 3000 world citizens? I think that's a bigger issue than sifting through "what ifs" and "how comes". You're giving terrorism a pass...and that's sad, my friend.

ROFLMAO. Proactive instead of reactive. It is very simple concept. The key is to try to prevent terrorism, not do nothing about it and then react to it.

[Swing Dangler]

so is it a little late to be asking how I can connect PDB warnings about Arab Terrorists and planes to thermite and bombs in the WTC? Arguing over semantics is fine, I just really wanna know how this all ties in with preplanted explosives and faked phone calls.

Wow, my allergies are acting up from all this straw.

[Billdave2]

Swing Dangler
Somewhere in the world a US citizen is going to be murdered in the next 30 days. There will be a weapon involved (possibly a gun). The person or persons who will commit this murder may be males between the ages of 1 and 120. Show us how you can be reactive and prevent this murder. You have just as much (if not more) detail that is present in the intelligence reports you have listed. If you do not prevent this murder, you are just as guilty as the US goverernment is in 9/11.

[Civilized Worm]

Wow, my allergies are acting up from all this straw.


Sorry Swing, we forgot that you don't believe in the controlled demolition theory. Oh no wait a minute, YOU DO! And lots of other wacky stuff!

[HyJinX]

ROFLMAO. Proactive instead of reactive. It is very simple concept. The key is to try to prevent terrorism, not do nothing about it and then react to it.

Swing, do you have any idea what the term "Monday Morning Quarterback" means? If not, look it up. The title fits you well. And while you're at it...look up the word "reality". I think you've been out of touch with the meaning of that word as well.

[Unsecured Coins]

Wow, my allergies are acting up from all this straw.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1510746decd6bd913a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8115)

Now, tell me how it all adds up, thanks.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing Dangler
Somewhere in the world a US citizen is going to be murdered in the next 30 days. There will be a weapon involved (possibly a gun). The person or persons who will commit this murder may be males between the ages of 1 and 120. Show us how you can be reactive and prevent this murder. You have just as much (if not more) detail that is present in the intelligence reports you have listed. If you do not prevent this murder, you are just as guilty as the US goverernment is in 9/11.

Hasty generalization of course.

[Swing Dangler]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1510746decd6bd913a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8115)

Now, tell me how it all adds up, thanks.
:big: Thanks!


I'm waiting for MJD to do that. Which is why I want to move on to his next step whether we agree or disagree on whether the Administration was right in being reactive instead of proactive. After all he started this thread....

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, do you have any idea what the term "Monday Morning Quarterback" means? If not, look it up. The title fits you well. And while you're at it...look up the word "reality". I think you've been out of touch with the meaning of that word as well.

I take that to mean your in the reactive camp. Thanks for attacking the character and violating those terms of agreement.

[funk de fino]

Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.

The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker? :

SD I gave you a link which tells you this, the FAA had warnings and pre-911 the protocol was to co-operate with the hijacker because hijackings generally lead to landing at airfields and negotiations taking place. No one thought they would fly them into buildings killing everyone onboard.

Read the link before you put your foot any further in your mouth with your trolling

[Unsecured Coins]

:big: Thanks!


I'm waiting for MJD to do that. Which is why I want to move on to his next step whether we agree or disagree on whether the Administration was right in being reactive instead of proactive.

I'm genuinely interested in how one can effectively combine the elements of a let it happen scenario with a make it happen scenario without throughly trampling all over one's wiggle stick in the process. Of course, I'm pretty much asking for someone to effectively show me how Bush and Co. with no certainty of him being elected into office, got wind of a plot that was at least 2 years in the planning process, and thereby ordered nothing to be done that day, and just for schietzengiggles had hushaboom's installed in every single building that collapsed that day to "help further the cause" for war.

because.. unless I'm mistaken, that's pretty much paramount to what the argument looks like

[DGM]

ROFLMAO. Proactive instead of reactive. It is very simple concept. The key is to try to prevent terrorism, not do nothing about it and then react to it.
The problem is "the boy who cried wolf". How many of the warnings do you react too before us Americans no longer pay attention? Do you know right now what our alert status is? What are the current threats? They tell us this now and for the most part we no longer pay attention.
Any action that would have been taken without clear results would have been fought as a restriction of our freedoms in short order, and you know it.

[Swing Dangler]

SD I gave you a link which tells you this, the FAA had warnings and pre-911 the protocol was to co-operate with the hijacker because hijackings generally lead to landing at airfields and negotiations taking place. No one thought they would fly them into buildings killing everyone onboard.

Read the link before you put your foot any further in your mouth with your trolling

Did that report include the pilot giving up his plane to a hijacker? Yes or no?

[HyJinX]

I take that to mean your in the reactive camp. Thanks for attacking the character and violating those terms of agreement.

I prefer "reality camp" over "reactive camp"...but I don't expect you to understand the difference. Calling you an Idiot would be attacking your character...saying that you're out of touch with reality is my opinion given your arguements thus far. Sorry your feelings got hurt.

[Unsecured Coins]

Did that report include the pilot giving up his plane to a hijacker? Yes or no?

Tell me, what did protocol dictate as the SOP for cooperation after a hijacker kills you?

[Billdave2]

Hasty generalization of course.

So when the Bush administration had vague warnings with very little detail, they were supposed to magically react and prevent these attacks from happening, but when I give you a single example that has some actual specifics, you dismiss it as a "hasty generalization".

Nice dodge.

[funk de fino]

Did that report include the pilot giving up his plane to a hijacker? Yes or no?

did you read it - Yes or No?

Who gave up? Hijackers in the past did not fly, the pilots did not give up, they had no choice even if they knew what was to happen.

They were to cooperate, its very simple. What else were they to do without the hindsight we, yet again, possess?

Flight crews were trained not to attempt to thwart or fight the hijackers. The object was to get the plane to land safely. Crews were trained, in fact, to dissuade passengers from taking precipitous or “heroic” actions against hijackers.

[Belz...]

I am sure you realize that the US governement recieves hundreds of such warnings every day.

I'm not sure he realises it.

Proactive versus reactive.

Sure. Have you ever had to take an important decision that would affect other people's lives, based on fragmentary information ?

[Belz...]

Proactive instead of reactive.

Is that your new mantra, now ?

[DavidJames]

ROFLMAO. Proactive instead of reactive. It is very simple concept. The key is to try to prevent terrorism, not do nothing about it and then react to it.Based on the evidence you provided of future terrorist attacks, I take it then that you believe those terrorists are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, correct?

[Swing Dangler]

The problem is "the boy who cried wolf". How many of the warnings do you react too before us Americans no longer pay attention? Do you know right now what our alert status is? What are the current threats? They tell us this now and for the most part we no longer pay attention.
Any action that would have been taken without clear results would have been fought as a restriction of our freedoms in short order, and you know it.

This is a valid point. But as you see more and more of these warnings and the DIC is running around wild as MJD pointed out etc, and then combine them with the foreign intel warnings, a pretty clear picture emerges.

fought as a restriction of our freedoms in short order, and you know it.
I don't agree with this however.
Is tighter airport security and increased security on planes a restriction of our freedoms? Again, if the Administration issues declarations as to why they are putting into place proactive measures, I don't think it would be fought at all other than as an inconvenience. Now after the history of lies from this administration it is easy to understand why that is cried from the rooftops now days.

Is that your new mantra, now ?
When it comes to terrorism, sure.

did you read it - Yes or No? I skimmed it.
But I didn't see anywhere about pilots giving up the yoke of their plane to a hijacker. I may have missed that part.

Have you ever had to take an important decision that would affect other people's lives, based on fragmentary information ?
Make or take? Anyway, yes. Now when it comes to the safety of people's lives, then no.

Calling you an Idiot would be attacking your character...saying that you're out of touch with reality is my opinion given your arguements thus far.
I suppose that is one way of apologizing for the lack of action by the administration.

[Sabrina]

I don't agree with this however.
Is tighter airport security and increased security on planes a restriction of our freedoms? Again, if the Administration issues declarations as to why they are putting into place proactive measures, I don't think it would be fought at all other than as an inconvenience. Now after the history of lies from this administration it is easy to understand why that is cried from the rooftops now days.

A restriction of our freedoms? Not necessarily, no. But given that the security at airports was handled by the airlines themselves and NOT by the federal government, I can just about guarantee you they would think first of their bottom line first and only second of the safety of the American people. If they couldn't provide some kind of definitive PROOF that there was something potentially happening (which they couldn't, given what they had; please don't argue this point again though. I think we've done it to death) the people who were the lifeblood of the airline industry would have taken their business elsewhere where they weren't so drastically inconvenienced by changes in security, giving rise possibly to new airlines who did NOT follow the procedures in order to gain more business, thereby negating the process in the first place. Post-9/11, the changes make perfect sense; pre-9/11, they do not. It's just that simple.

[Swing Dangler]

So when the Bush administration had vague warnings with very little detail, they were supposed to magically react and prevent these attacks from happening, but when I give you a single example that has some actual specifics, you dismiss it as a "hasty generalization".

Nice dodge.

Single example....hast generalization. It is a fallacy, plain and simple. Correct the scenario to reflect reality and I will entertain it.

And no need to state "prevent" when "try to prevent" will suffice.

[Swing Dangler]

A restriction of our freedoms? Not necessarily, no. But given that the security at airports was handled by the airlines themselves and NOT by the federal government, I can just about guarantee you they would think first of their bottom line first and only second of the safety of the American people. If they couldn't provide some kind of definitive PROOF that there was something potentially happening (which they couldn't, given what they had; please don't argue this point again though. I think we've done it to death) the people who were the lifeblood of the airline industry would have taken their business elsewhere where they weren't so drastically inconvenienced by changes in security, giving rise possibly to new airlines who did NOT follow the procedures in order to gain more business, thereby negating the process in the first place. Post-9/11, the changes make perfect sense; pre-9/11, they do not. It's just that simple.

Of course we can agree to disagree on the warnings, however, the bottom line can be impacted by corporate tax breaks and higher prices to offset the increased cost in security. Personally, I would pay a higher ticket price if I knew the end result was trying to prevent a possible terrorist attack. Now we are forced to pay higher prices to try to prevent another terrorist attack.
This is another reason I would place part of the blame on the airlines. See that mantra that Belz was talking about.;)

Install the TSA in the airports as a result of the unprecedented threat level and that would be a proactive measure.

A little straw here but I find it interesting that it is ok to take proactive measures when it comes to foreign policy but the buck is passed when it comes to domestic policies.

[Belz...]

When it comes to terrorism, sure.

Then it's time for a police state. No problem with security in those.

Oh, wait...

[Belz...]

Of course we can agree to disagree on the warnings, however, the bottom line can be impacted by corporate tax breaks and higher prices to offset the increased cost in security. Personally, I would pay a higher ticket price if I knew the end result was trying to prevent a possible terrorist attack.

The problem is, again, that you KNOW there WAS an attack on 9/11. They get threats very, very often. If they act on every single one, well, we're back to that police state.

[Billdave2]

Single example....hast generalization. It is a fallacy, plain and simple. Correct the scenario to reflect reality and I will entertain it.

And no need to state "prevent" when "try to prevent" will suffice.

Yet a single example of a warning that contained hijacking and using planes as weapons was enough for the Bush administration to turn the travel indusrty upside down? I have given you one warning that is absolutly going to happen and you aren't even going to "try and prevent it" from happening? Youhave more information to go on then Bush did, but you point the blame at him, so won't you be to blame if you don't at least try to prevent this murder from happening. Do you see how ridiculous this is? No one expects you to run out and start jousting at this windmill because it is obvious that you don't have enough information to even begin. That is why there was nothing that you would consider "reactive" done in the summer of 2001. There were a handful of warnings mixed in with a boatload of other warnings, some which were closely related, some that were not and some that flat out contridicted the others. It is easy now to look back and say "Ah Ha! There are the warnings they should have been paying attention to!" If you get up tomorrow morning and read in your local paper about a murder will you say "I should have called the police! Billdave2 warned me about this and I did nothing!"? of coarse you want, yet you blame the administartion for not being able to find the needle in the haystack.

[Swing Dangler]

Tell me, what did protocol dictate as the SOP for cooperation after a hijacker kills you?

Well that depends if your into a bunch of virgins or roads paved of gold....;)

Now in relation to the topic of discussion a proactive response would be arm the pilots.

[Sabrina]

Of course we can agree to disagree on the warnings, however, the bottom line can be impacted by corporate tax breaks and higher prices to offset the increased cost in security. Personally, I would pay a higher ticket price if I knew the end result was trying to prevent a possible terrorist attack. Now we are forced to pay higher prices to try to prevent another terrorist attack.
This is another reason I would place part of the blame on the airlines. See that mantra that Belz was talking about.;)

Install the TSA in the airports as a result of the unprecedented threat level and that would be a proactive measure.

A little straw here but I find it interesting that it is ok to take proactive measures when it comes to foreign policy but the buck is passed when it comes to domestic policies.

I feel I should note this; TSA didn't EXIST prior to 9/11. TSA was formed IN RESPONSE TO 9/11. The only government agency remotely resembling TSA prior to 9/11 was the FAA, and they had an entirely different mandate. TSA is about the security of transportation and pretty much nothing more; the FAA was about much more than that and could not possibly have been able to do what TSA is doing now in the airports then unless they had a drastic increase in personnel. There are over FORTY FIVE THOUSAND TSA employees countrywide; that's actually BIGGER than the FAA if I'm not mistaken. In other words, there's a reason the airlines were responsible for their own security then and not the government.

[Swing Dangler]

]Yet a single example of a warning that contained hijacking and using planes as weapons was enough for the Bush administration to turn the travel indusrty upside down?
Given the big picture and the run up don't you think here were enough warnings?


I have given you one warning that is absolutly going to happen and you aren't even going to "try and prevent it" from happening?
You need to narrow that warning down a bit.




Youhave more information to go on then Bush did, but you point the blame at him, so won't you be to blame if you don't at least try to prevent this murder from happening.
I've held his administration accountable. Nowhere in this thread did I point the finger strictly at him to the best of my recollection.
Do I have the power, the authority, and the resources to try to prevent the murder?



Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Can you restate your scenario based upon the historical record?
and some that flat out contridicted the others.
Source?

It is easy now to look back and say "Ah Ha! There are the warnings they should have been paying attention to!" If you get up tomorrow morning and read in your local paper about a murder will you say "I should have called the police! Billdave2 warned me about this and I did nothing!"? of coarse you want, yet you blame the administartion for not being able to find the needle in the haystack.[/QUOTE]
No but if Billdave 2 tells me this guy and his friend's names, where he and his friends resides, his connections to other murders, the type of weapon he was going to use, that he had been training with the weapon of choice, how he was going to get to his target, his potential targets, that he had been under surveillance for some time, and people from around the globe were sharing similar information with me, and that this person was going to attack very soon, you darn well bet I'm going to be proactive.
If I have the power, authority, and the resources to try to prevent this event then I try my best. Now if I choose to do nothing and I tried to hide all this information I had what should happen to me? Nothing?

"Sorry, victims, I did nothing to prevent this act because I didn't know the exact time, date, and airline number in regards to the attack."
(pause...another warning just came in I ignored..)

Enjoy the afternoon as I'm out for the day.

[T.A.M.]

just a comment on your mention of "enough warnings".

The warnings reached their peak in July to August 2001. They were all non-specific regarding method, locale, etc...

Looking at this with a PRE 9/11 PERSPECTIVE, what would have (A) been reasonable, and (B) Tolerated by the general public, given there was NO SPECIFIC THREAT?

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

just a comment on your mention of "enough warnings".

The warnings reached their peak in July to August 2001. They were all non-specific regarding method, locale, etc...

Looking at this with a PRE 9/11 PERSPECTIVE, what would have (A) been reasonable, and (B) Tolerated by the general public, given there was NO SPECIFIC THREAT?

TAM:)
The irony there is the same people who are talking about all these steps that should have been taken are the same ones that, had 9/11 been prevented using these methods, would have been screaming the loudest that there never was a threat and it's all a neo-con fantasy to increase law enforcement budgets and further erode our privacy rights. :rolleyes:

[DGM]

just a comment on your mention of "enough warnings".

The warnings reached their peak in July to August 2001. They were all non-specific regarding method, locale, etc...

Looking at this with a PRE 9/11 PERSPECTIVE, what would have (A) been reasonable, and (B) Tolerated by the general public, given there was NO SPECIFIC THREAT?

TAM:)
And to add:
With the bureaucracy in the US any actions would most likely be implemented by Christmas..... If we were lucky.

[Sabrina]

Just wondering if anyone else notices the irony in SD's last post.

It's perfectly okay for HIM to ask for specifics, but point out that the government needed more specifics too and LOOK OUT!

[Unsecured Coins]

so it wasn't just me.

[mjd1982]

With regard to the airlines being in charge of their security- this is all very well, but since they do not have intel services telling them that people are plotting to hijack planes, there must , sensibly, exist a degree of co ordination between gov intel and the airlines. This is very simple. Now, we know that French intel warned the CIA that AQ were plotting to hijack United and AA planes, they told them this back in Jan. We know of course that there were big suspicions about AQ hijacking planes, all the way up til August. We also know that no one was warned by the Fed Gov about this- no agencies, no nothing. There were "no warnings" to quote the WH. So as I have said many times, it is not an issue that the gov didnt stop the attacks, when certain measures may or may not have been out of their reach, rather that they did not take any substantive steps that may have stopped the attack. This is the negligence that we are looking for; please dont make me say this again...

[funk de fino]

I skimmed it.

But I didn't see anywhere about pilots giving up the yoke of their plane to a hijacker. I may have missed that part.
.

Speaks volumes sunshine

You missed the part that I quoted. It proved someones earlier quote correct about cooperating with hijackers pre 911. You then tried to wriggle out by twisting it to "give control". Who says they gave anything? Who says it was not taken by force?

Pretty sick insinuation perhaps, that they just gave up their seats?

[twinstead]

mjd it's obvious what you are LOOKING for: It's called predetermination and it's how you folks...oh, sorry I should use your tactics...people of your ilk operate.

The issue is what if you don't find it? Will you adjust your world view accordingly or just go on to some other 'smoking gun'?

[T.A.M.]

With regard to the airlines being in charge of their security- this is all very well, but since they do not have intel services telling them that people are plotting to hijack planes, there must , sensibly, exist a degree of co ordination between gov intel and the airlines. This is very simple. Now, we know that French intel warned the CIA that AQ were plotting to hijack United and AA planes, they told them this back in Jan. We know of course that there were big suspicions about AQ hijacking planes, all the way up til August. We also know that no one was warned by the Fed Gov about this- no agencies, no nothing. There were "no warnings" to quote the WH. So as I have said many times, it is not an issue that the gov didnt stop the attacks, when certain measures may or may not have been out of their reach, rather that they did not take any substantive steps that may have stopped the attack. This is the negligence that we are looking for; please dont make me say this again...

So there is actual CIA documents confirming that AQ was setting up attempts to hijack AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITE AIRLINES Aircraft at that time?

Out of curiosity, got a reference for that so I can look at this alleged warning in its full context.

TAM:)

[Billdave2]

No but if Billdave 2 tells me this guy and his friend's names, where he and his friends resides, his connections to other murders, the type of weapon he was going to use, that he had been training with the weapon of choice, how he was going to get to his target, his potential targets, that he had been under surveillance for some time, and people from around the globe were sharing similar information with me, and that this person was going to attack very soon, you darn well bet I'm going to be proactive.
If I have the power, authority, and the resources to try to prevent this event then I try my best. Now if I choose to do nothing and I tried to hide all this information I had what should happen to me? Nothing?

"Sorry, victims, I did nothing to prevent this act because I didn't know the exact time, date, and airline number in regards to the attack."
(pause...another warning just came in I ignored..)

Enjoy the afternoon as I'm out for the day.

Ok lets see. He/They live in the US. There names are listed in a government database of some sort. He/They will use an object, posiibly a gun to commit this murder. He/They are familier and have used this object before. He will walk or ride in a caqr to get their. I have already told you the target is a US citizen somewhere in the world. Sombody saw him/them in the last 24 hours. and this will happen in the next month.

That answers all you questions except hearing from multiple sources. You have the power to try and prevent this. Pick up the phone and dial 911 (no pun intended) or your local newspaper, or drive down the street yelling this warning out to others. Maybe you can convince the mayor of your town to institute martial law and/or a curfew. You could confince the police chief to strip search everyone intown. At least you would be trying to prevent the murder.

As I said this is of coarse ridiculous. The difference between my ridiculous example and waht really happened is that my example has MORE detail than the actual warnings. Yet, you think our Government (and when I said Bush earlier I meant it as a synonym) can not only do something based on less detail, but can pick which nebulous warning out of the pile is the right one! Of coarse you can list four or five warnings after the fact. We know what happened. Would you like to place a bet on last year's superbowl? I bet you a million dollars the colts won.

[mjd1982]

So there is actual CIA documents confirming that AQ was setting up attempts to hijack AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITE AIRLINES Aircraft at that time?

Out of curiosity, got a reference for that so I can look at this alleged warning in its full context.

TAM:)
No, French intel docs, sent to the CIA, read the post before you reply to it.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

Posted this many times now.

[Unsecured Coins]

we want the actually document, not a web page talking about it

[Sabrina]

As friends of mine on another forum like to say...

"pics, or it didn't happen". Or in this case, "documents, or it didn't happen".

[DGM]

No, French intel docs, sent to the CIA, read the post before you reply to it.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

Posted this many times now.
I would like to see someone with a reliable track record translate that article. You have already shown you only see what you want to see.

[Drudgewire]

we want the actually document, not a web page talking about it
Would you settle for a youtube video of someone talking about it? :p

[Unsecured Coins]

Would you settle for a youtube video of someone talking about it? :p

hell yeah!!! everything's true on youtube!!
Like... my new video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlIlQA7kiHY)

[mjd1982]

I would like to see someone with a reliable track record translate that article. You have already shown you only see what you want to see.
LMFAO!!!

The link to the original is there somewhere, go ahead and do it yourself!

D'uh... bunker!

[mjd1982]

we want the actually document, not a web page talking about it
No, I dont think you do. I'm guessing your desires probably don't leave the sofa very much, am I right?

[firecoins]

I have never heard of specific warnings to 9/11, French or otherwise. The CIA, FBI, State dept, FAA and the airines all had major flaws in commincation with each other and plenty of missed opportunities but they had no specific warnings.

[DGM]

LMFAO!!!

The link to the original is there somewhere, go ahead and do it yourself!

D'uh... bunker!
I'm starting a new thread to do just that. I don't speak French.

[Pardalis]

The translation is pretty accurate, but still doesn't give any links to the real documents.

[Billdave2]

No, French intel docs, sent to the CIA, read the post before you reply to it.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

Posted this many times now.

All see is a mention of hijacking American and United jets out of Frankfort. Nothing about hijacking planes in the US or flying them into buildings. The article even quotes the French Intelligence person as saying it is completly understandable why nothing was done.

In other words more hindsight with a little Texas' Sharpshooter thrown in to boot.

[Unsecured Coins]

No, I dont think you do. I'm guessing your desires probably don't leave the sofa very much, am I right?

reported and....
This my job.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Tank004.jpg

you are wrong again. Jackass.

[HyJinX]

No, I dont think you do. I'm guessing your desires probably don't leave the sofa very much, am I right?

So, am I to understand that you haven't seen the actual document either and you're just regurgitating possible falsehoods that you found on the internet and then claiming that the information is factual?

Hmmmmm. Interesting approach to Truth™

[HyJinX]

reported and....
This my job.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Tank004.jpg

you are wrong again. Jackass.

Dude...is that you?

[funk de fino]

With regard to the airlines being in charge of their security- this is all very well, but since they do not have intel services telling them that people are plotting to hijack planes, there must , sensibly, exist a degree of co ordination between gov intel and the airlines. This is very simple. Now, we know that French intel warned the CIA that AQ were plotting to hijack United and AA planes, they told them this back in Jan. We know of course that there were big suspicions about AQ hijacking planes, all the way up til August. We also know that no one was warned by the Fed Gov about this- no agencies, no nothing. There were "no warnings" to quote the WH. So as I have said many times, it is not an issue that the gov didnt stop the attacks, when certain measures may or may not have been out of their reach, rather that they did not take any substantive steps that may have stopped the attack. This is the negligence that we are looking for; please dont make me say this again...

Lets look shall we

First, no documentary evidence reviewed by the Commission or testimony we have received to this point has revealed that any level of the FAA possessed any credible and specific intelligence indicating that Usama Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates or any other group were actually plotting to hijack commercial planes in the United States and use them as weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the threat posed by Usama Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, and al Qaeda affiliates, including their interest in civil aviation, was well known to key civil aviation security officials. The potential threat of Middle Eastern terrorist groups to civil aviation security was acknowledged in many different official FAA documents. The FAA possessed information claiming that associates with Usama Bin Ladin in the 1990s were interested in hijackings and the use of an aircraft as a weapon.

Third, the potential for terrorist suicide hijacking in the United States was officially considered by the FAA’s Office of Civil Aviation Security dating back to at least March 1998. However in a presentation the agency made to air carriers and airports in 2000 and early 2001 the FAA discounted the threat because, “fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction"

Neither Administrator Jane Garvey nor her deputy routinely reviewed daily intelligence, and what they did see was screened for them. She was unaware of a great amount of hijacking threat information from her own intelligence unit, which, in turn, was not deeply involved in the agency's policymaking process. Historically, decisive security action took place only after a disaster had occurred or a specific plot had been discovered.

The FAA had no idea about any warnings? I do not think so

[Drudgewire]

So, am I to understand that you haven't seen the actual document either and you're just regurgitating possible falsehoods that you found on the internet and then claiming that the information is factual?

Hmmmmm. Interesting approach to Truth™

They use other approaches? :confused:

[Unsecured Coins]

Dude...is that you?
Yup.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Tank002.jpg

[HyJinX]

They use other approaches? :confused:

Think Lytetrip. He's got an approach that's all his own.

[HyJinX]

Yup.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Tank002.jpg


Nice!

Thanks for serving. It's appreciated.

[Unsecured Coins]

Nice!

Thanks for serving. It's appreciated.

much thanks

[lapman]

Safety and security versus inconvenience. I included the FAA and the airlines in my scenario. Congress of course could have input. There still would not have been the justification. A few threats is not justification to the American public. It's not just the inconvenience, but the extra cost to pay for the unjustified security measures.

Sure. Source on hugely expensive? I'm sure a few corporate tax breaks here and there would help derail some of the costs.
Upwards of $100,000 per plane (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/776916/)! Again. With no real justification, the companies won't want to go through the expense.

Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.
The chances of that were pretty much nil.

The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker?
Again, the attitude of the day was that the hijackers would want the plane to land and negotiate. Not kill the pilots and fly them into buildings.

Misuse of the term?You can take that up with the Federal Government.
Please see- http://ntl.bts.gov/faq/airmarshal.html

Interesting item from that web site:
On September 11, 2001, the Air Marshal Program consisted of less than fifty armed marshals who, by statute, flew only on international flights flown by U.S. air carriers.
This shows the attitude I'm talking about.

I understand now. You favor reactive instead of proactive. :confused:Proactive against what? Something they don't believe will happen? Have you pro-actively protected yourself and your home from a nuclear winter? A meteorite strike? A UFO landing? Eliminations from a flying pig?

[Jonnyclueless]

much thanks


That's one damn expensive soda. I wouldn't wanna be sitting on it when you're watching a football game and your team is losing!

[Unsecured Coins]

That's one damn expensive soda. I wouldn't wanna be sitting on it when you're watching a football game and your team is losing!


my team's always losing

:wide-eyed

[mjd1982]

Lets look shall we





The FAA had no idea about any warnings? I do not think so
We're not talking about the FAA. We're talking about the airlines.

[T.A.M.]

okay, since mjd has decided to become uncivil, and just down right belligerent, I am putting him on ignore (as I should have a while ago, but for a while he was acting somewhat civil). Someone let me know if he decides to act civil again so I can take him off the list.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

Please get the thread back on topic, and with no further incivility or personal attacks.

[DGM]

All see is a mention of hijacking American and United jets out of Frankfort. Nothing about hijacking planes in the US or flying them into buildings. The article even quotes the French Intelligence person as saying it is completly understandable why nothing was done.

In other words more hindsight with a little Texas' Sharpshooter thrown in to boot.
So It's another MJD interpretation the way he sees it. Why would there be no links to the real documents? I wonder.

[funk de fino]

We're not talking about the FAA. We're talking about the airlines.

Dodge noted

We also know that no one was warned by the Fed Gov about this- no agencies, no nothing.

The FAA intelligence committee got intel from the relevant intel parties and passed this onto the airlines. This was their job. Are you saying, with hindsight, that there should have been a change in this protocol?

While the agency was engaged in an effort to pass important new regulations to improve checkpoint screener performance, implement anti-sabotage measures, and conduct ongoing assessments of the system, no major increases in anti- hijacking security measures were implemented in response to the heightened threat levels in the spring and summer of 2001, other than general warnings to the industry to be more vigilant and cautious.

Fifth, the FAA did react to the heightened security threat identified by the Intelligence Community during the summer of 2001, including issuing alerts to air carriers about the potential for terrorist acts against civil aviation. In July 2001, the FAA alerted the aviation community to reports of possible near-term terrorist operations…particularly on the Arabian Peninsula and/or Israel. The FAA informed the airports and air carriers that Staff Statement No. 35 it had no credible evidence of specific plans to attack U.S. civil aviation. The agency said that some of the currently active groups were known to plan and train for hijackings and had the capability to construct sophisticated improvised explosive devices concealed inside luggage and consumer products. The FAA encouraged all U.S. Carriers to exercise prudence and demonstrate a high degree of alertness.

I suggest you rethink your claims

[mjd1982]

So It's another MJD interpretation the way he sees it. Why would there be no links to the real documents? I wonder.
As I have said, too many times now, just because the imtel agencies didnt know what colour underwear Atta was wearing, this doesnt excuse inaction.

[mjd1982]

Dodge noted



The FAA intelligence committee got intel from the relevant intel parties and passed this onto the airlines. This was their job. Are you saying, with hindsight, that there should have been a change in this protocol?





I suggest you rethink your claims
Excuse me. I should have been more precise about the agencies in question.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Look for the quotes from the CR- ive posted them here so many times, cant be bothered to do so again.

Nonetheless, were the FAA warned about the threats to Utd and AA? No. This is closer to the point at hand.

[Unsecured Coins]

i'm still waiting for actual documents. 2nd time asking....

[mjd1982]

i'm still waiting for actual documents. 2nd time asking....
The "actual documents" arent online. Therefore they dont exist.

[DGM]

Excuse me. I should have been more precise about the agencies in question.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Look for the quotes from the CR- ive posted them here so many times, cant be bothered to do so again.

Nonetheless, were the FAA warned about the threats to Utd and AA? No. This is closer to the point at hand.
Of course you have no proof that anyone was (warned). Your simply repeating someone else's hearsay. Unless you can show the documents.

[Unsecured Coins]

The "actual documents" arent online. Therefore they dont exist.

So what does this tell you? It tells me you're relying on word of mouth, someone said it, so it MUST be true. If you cannot produce the documents that spell out the specific airlines to be hijacked, you are touting speculation as fact and therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

[lapman]

As I have said, too many times now, just because the imtel agencies didnt know what colour underwear Atta was wearing, this doesnt excuse inaction.
Yeah, those imtel guys really need to get their act together.:rolleyes:

[Drudgewire]

The "actual documents" arent online. Therefore they dont exist.
It was reported one time in one newspaper with no follow-up and posted on a blog with an absolute bias. Clearly they do. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

last comment mjd1982 - (2 months ago)

y has this only got 1700 views? This is as important a vid as could be seen. Start spreading it!

your majority of the world that think 911 was an inside job have really spread this one eh? its only just creept up to over 2000

sad, very sad

i'd rather have the original doc you are claiming the french sent to the us intel agencies

[Billdave2]

Excuse me. I should have been more precise about the agencies in question.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Look for the quotes from the CR- ive posted them here so many times, cant be bothered to do so again.

Nonetheless, were the FAA warned about the threats to Utd and AA? No. This is closer to the point at hand.

Since the hijackings in the article you quote were to take place in Frankfurt, shouldn't the French have passed this along to the German or EU equivelant of the FAA?

[SpitfireIX]

Ok. Earlier in the year, which is even better. Thanks.


First, you said that Bush should have given this speech after the August 6 PDB and the other warnings. Are you now saying he should have pressed for these measures earlier in the year? If so, upon what basis? Further, did you even read the quote--Hart and Rudman both said that even had implementation begun in the spring, the attacks would still likely have happened.

No earlier in the year...or years.


Again, upon what basis? The purported warnings weren't received until the summer. Further, Bush didn't become President until January, 2001. Are you saying that Clinton is equally to blame? If so, how does this fit into any MIHOP or LIHOP scenario of yours?

Safety and security versus inconvenience. I included the FAA and the airlines in my scenario. Congress of course could have input.


Which means that every change would have had to have been thoroughly discussed and debated. Further, when Federal rules are changed on a non-emergency basis, they have to be proposed, and in most cases those affected given time to comment, and more time must be allowed for those affected to comply. This takes months, and even years in many cases. Look how long it took to implement all of the things you say Bush should have done during the summer, and that's with the tremendous impetus of the September 11 attacks driving events.

Sure. Source on hugely expensive? I'm sure a few corporate tax breaks here and there would help derail some of the costs.


From an Associated Press article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/attack/main547827.shtml) from April 2003:

Congress gave domestic airlines $100 million for the doors, which amounts to about $13,000 per aircraft — far less than the $30,000 to $50,000 the FAA estimates they actually cost. Airlines are lobbying Congress for more money to pay the difference.

The Senate voted on Thursday to directly reimburse the airlines for the cost of the doors, while the House proposed giving airlines cash to pay for new security costs. The issue is likely to be resolved next week.

Foreign airlines authorized to operate in the United States also have to install the reinforced doors. Wanda Warner, spokeswoman for the International Air Transport Association, said she expects them to meet the deadline.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations' aviation arm, is requiring every airliner in the world to install reinforced cockpit doors by Nov. 1.

The association estimates it will cost airlines $2 billion to comply with the directive. The U.S. government won't reimburse foreign airlines for the cost.


Note this is just for the cockpit doors.


Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.


Wishful thinking. You're saying that one report among many should have been given special credence to make such a major change.


The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker?


As I said, it was to cooperate, which includes letting them in the cockpit and letting them stand behind you. From which it's easy for them to knife you if they feel like it.

Misuse of the term?You can take that up with the Federal Government.
Please see- http://ntl.bts.gov/faq/airmarshal.html


Sadly, just because Congress passed the law naming the program that it doesn't make it correct. The term Sky Marshal pre-dates this program by 10 years, and the change was unnecessary, confusing, and incorrect. Or do you think the US government is always right, Swing? :rolleyes:


I understand now. You favor reactive instead of proactive. :confused:


Straw man. Of course I favor proactive approaches. But you are confusing "proactive" with "prescient," and ignoring the realities of the pre-September 11 political environment.

[jsfisher]

reported and....
This my job.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Tank004.jpg

you are wrong again. Jackass.


Unsecured Coins,

Please accept my thanks for your service to our country.

[Unsecured Coins]

Unsecured Coins,

Please accept my thanks for your service to our country.

no thanks needed, but appreciated.

[Belz...]

D'uh... bunker!

Twoofer!

(Edit: oops, sorry, chillzero!)

[Belz...]

There still would not have been the justification. A few threats is not justification to the American public. It's not just the inconvenience, but the extra cost to pay for the unjustified security measures.

Again, the attitude of the day was that the hijackers would want the plane to land and negotiate. Not kill the pilots and fly them into buildings.

Proactive against what? Something they don't believe will happen? Have you pro-actively protected yourself and your home from a nuclear winter? A meteorite strike? A UFO landing? Eliminations from a flying pig?

You're wasting your time, Lap. Dangler doesn't care about the situation THEN. We should have applied TODAY's knowledge to the situation.

[Belz...]

As I have said, too many times now, just because the imtel agencies didnt know what colour underwear Atta was wearing, this doesnt excuse inaction.

And just because they thought maybe an attack was going to occur at some time doesn't justify action.

[Swing Dangler]

First, you said that Bush should have given this speech after the August 6 PDB and the other warnings. Are you now saying he should have pressed for these measures earlier in the year? If so, upon what basis? One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".


Which means that every change would have had to have been thoroughly discussed and debated. Further, when Federal rules are changed on a non-emergency basis, they have to be proposed, and in most cases those affected given time to comment, and more time must be allowed for those affected to comply. This takes months, and even years in many cases. Look how long it took to implement all of the things you say Bush should have done during the summer, and that's with the tremendous impetus of the September 11 attacks driving events.
Executive Order with a little help from Congressional friends. N'uff said. Instead of using the 'fear' of another attack to push through laws, you use the fear of responsibility for allowing a first attack to occur.
Every large commercial plane flying in the United States will have bulletproof cockpit doors by next week,

Hmm. It doesn't take that long now does it?

From an Associated Press article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/attack/main547827.shtml) from April 2003:
Note this is just for the cockpit doors.

Before the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings, cockpit doors were designed to provide a quiet office environment for pilots. After the attacks, Congress decided cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots from attackers. Pilots are to focus on flying, no matter what happens in the cabin.

How easy would have been for Congress to decide that cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots before 9/11? Pretty straightforward in my opinion.

Wishful thinking. You're saying that one report among many should have been given special credence to make such a major change.
No, numerous reports growing more specific as the attacks grew closer.


As I said, it was to cooperate, which includes letting them in the cockpit and letting them stand behind you. From which it's easy for them to knife you if they feel like it.
Let them in the cockpit and take control of the plane?
Combine armed pilots with reinforced doors and you get proactive response with a strong likely hood of preventing 9/11.
on a flight from Miami to Buenos Aires managed to kick in a small breakaway panel across the bottom of the door and put his head into the cockpit before a co-pilot clubbed him with an ax.
Granted after 9/11, but how difficult would have been to implement something like this prior to 9/11?

Sadly, just because Congress passed the law naming the program that it doesn't make it correct. The term Sky Marshal pre-dates this program by 10 years, and the change was unnecessary, confusing, and incorrect. Or do you think the US government is always right, Swing?
I will let you argue that point with the Congress. It is of no significance to this topic and a distraction at worse.

Straw man. Of course I favor proactive approaches. But you are confusing "proactive" with "prescient," and ignoring the realities of the pre-September 11 political environment.
Not a strawman, as you agree with proactive approaches.
At least we agree then the Administration should have done something proactive to prevent the terrorists attacks. I applaud you on this issue.
However, the only thing I see being ignored is the numerous IC warnings leading up to 9/11.
There still would not have been the justification. A few threats is not justification to the American public. It's not just the inconvenience, but the extra cost to pay for the unjustified security measures.Upwards of $100,000 per plane! Again. With no real justification, the companies won't want to go through the expense.
Thanks for the article however. It does demonstrate to Lapman that costs to the airlines is not a valid excuse for implementing procedures to try to prevent a hijacking as Congress and the American public covered the costs.

On September 11, 2001, the Air Marshal Program consisted of less than fifty armed marshals who, by statute, flew only on international flights flown by U.S. air carriers.
This shows the attitude I'm talking about.
It demonstrates to me that the warnings the IC were ignored as no Marhsals were placed on domestic flights.

[DavidJames]

Based on the evidence you provided of future terrorist attacks, I take it then that you believe those terrorists are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, correct?
Swing, I missed your response to this question.

[SDC]

I was wondering whether it was realistic to expect armed pilots to be much use. I'm sure many have had military training and could be presumed to know how to handle guns. (Though my father-in-law told me that they had bunches of Army Air Force guys dumped into infantry units after the losses of the Battle of the Bulge, and some in his unit had never fired rifles).

Isn't it also the case that a crowded airplane is not likely to be an ideal spot for a shootout?

Actually, I'd be more interested in armed stewardesses (remember the word?), though not necessarily guns. Whips, leather items...

[funk de fino]

One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)
of course he should...........hindsight again

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."
"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

The same warnings?

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."

No mention of planes in this one, targets for bombs attacks as previous attempts?

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".

detail, show me detail

Executive Order with a little help from Congressional friends. N'uff said. Instead of using the 'fear' of another attack to push through laws, you use the fear of responsibility for allowing the first attack to occur.

of course...hindsight again

Hmm. It doesn't take that long now does it?

And you know this how? Do you thonk there was a ready made supply odf these down the local Walmart? ground all planes till they were fitted?


How easy would have been for Congress to decide that cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots before 9/11? Pretty straightforward in my opinion.
FAA responsibilty at that time

No, numerous reports growing more specific as the attacks grew closer.
Do not mention specific as you have already proved you do not understand the word in this context

Let them in the cockpit and take control of the plane?
Combine armed pilots with reinforced doors and you get proactive response with a strong likely hood of preventing 9/11.
Thye did not know they were going to take control of the plane until it was too late or they were dead. Hindsight again

Granted after 9/11, but how difficult would have been to implement something like this prior to 9/11?
for what reason?

I will let you argue that point with the Congress. It is of no significance to this topic and a distraction at worse.

..............

Not a strawman, as you agree with proactive approaches.
At least we agree then the Administration should have done something proactive to prevent the terrorists attacks. I applaud you on this issue.
However, the only thing I see being ignored is the numerous IC warnings leading up to 9/11.

They did, they just did the wrong thing

Thanks for the article however. It does demonstrate to Lapman that costs to the airlines is not a valid excuse for implementing procedures to try to prevent a hijacking as Congress and the American public covered the costs.

Would they have covered the cost prior to 911?

It demonstrates to me that the warnings the IC were ignored as no Marhsals were placed on domestic flights.

Becuase the warnings pointed to an attack from outwith the counrtry not on domestic flights

You must try harder Mr Hindsight

[Spins]

One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".
But Swing all you've done here is cherry pick 3 reports over a 2 to 3 year period from a veritable sea of reports, there would have been literally hundreds and hundreds of other such vague reports of threats coming in against all sorts of targets, in all sorts of locations, using all sorts of methods.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's easy now to connect all the dots and say "it was obvious, they should have done more."

Yes George Tenet agreed but not as you think, the intelligence community had felt for some time prior to 9/11 that an attack was imminent, the system was indeed blinking red and it was only a question of time. After all Bin Laden had stated on many occasions in the years prior to 9/11 that he was determined to attack the US. But they had nothing tangible to go on, to say they knew an attack was coming in exactly the same way it happened on 9/11 is ridiculous.

Why would, prior to 9/11, all the reports of an attack using planes or specifically hijacked airplanes receive more validity than all the other reports?

[Belz...]

Swing, I get the impression that the crux of your argument is "we know, therefore we should have known."

Do you have anything else ?

[Belz...]

Why would, prior to 9/11, all the reports of an attack using planes or specifically hijacked airplanes receive more validity than all the other reports?

Because that's what happened, of course! :rolleyes:

My post may contain traces of nuts.

In the "quote" section, of course.

[Spins]

One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)

The funny thing is though when the government do take action against terrorist activity conspiracy theorists all scream "false flag", for example the 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot) plot to detonate liquid explosives on planes over the Atlantic.

So basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Ultimately most conspiracy theorists just have an anti-government agenda; everything they do is viewed with suspicion and should have been done a different way, you can't win.

[Spins]

Because that's what happened, of course! :rolleyes:

In the "quote" section, of course.
What are you talking about? Just in case you didn't understand what I meant...

I was posing a question to Swing asking why someone in the intelligence community prior to 9/11 would have viewed a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using planes with more validity than a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using explosives etc.

Basically he's using hindsight.

[Dave Rogers]

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."

Isn't it reasonable that the response in 2000 might have been "We got warned about this twice in 1998 and it never happened then, come back when you've got something definite"? The fact that there were multiple warnings of attacks which then never happened may tend to discredit, rather than reinforce, the subsequent warnings.

Dave

[Drudgewire]

What are you talking about? Just in case you didn't understand what I meant...

I was posing a question to Swing asking why someone in the intelligence community prior to 9/11 would have viewed a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using planes with more validity than a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using explosives etc.

Basically he's using hindsight.
It's the ultimate double-standard. If we'd had another attack in 2003, and we'd been aware of the existence of the people involved, can you imagine us saying "we wanted to take steps to track them, but we couldn't without breaking the law and listening in on their conversations."

The EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are crying about the Patriot Act would be the ones demanding to know why we didn't take these extra steps in order to save American lives and it shows that we're purposely letting these attacks happen.

[Swing Dangler]

I'm simply flabbergasted at the amount of apologist comments here.
You wanted specific examples, you just received them. You want to make excuses for the Administrations lack of action. Go for it. Cherrypicking? ROFL. The facts are plain and clear.
But Swing all you've done here is cherry pick 3 reports over a 2 to 3 year period from a veritable sea of reports, there would have been literally hundreds and hundreds of other such vague reports of threats coming in against all sorts of targets, in all sorts of locations, using all sorts of methods.

Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11...is that cherrypicking? Please move on. Vague? Please.

It is very simple: the Administration knew that the OBL and his cohorts were going to attempt to use hijacked planes and fly them into skyscrapers and other high profile targets. They knew it in '98 and they new leading up to 9/11.
It was a bold face lie by the Administration when they stated that "no one could imagine" which is why I suspect he used Executive Privilege to try to hamper the Congressional Inquiry.

You can read more about it at this source: Findlaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html)

The funny thing is though when the Gov. do take action against terrorist activity conspiracy theorists all scream "false flag", for example the 2006 plot to detonate liquid explosives on planes over the Atlantic.
So basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Ultimately most conspiracy theorists just have an anti-government agenda; everything they do is suspicious and should have been done a different way, you can't win.
HAAAACHOOOO...sorry...straw in the air again

The point of this particular part of the thread was that the Administration prior to 9/11did not take action. Move on Spin....
This isn't hindsight at all. This is what the Administration knew and what they either did or didn't do.

Swing, I get the impression that the crux of your argument is "we know, therefore we should have known."Do you have anything else ?
The crux is the Bush Administration knew and did nothing pro-actively to prevent the attacks. The point is all to obvious. No need to apologize. No need to blame nobody. No need to spin it off. No need to call hindsight. Now I'm waiting for MJD to move on to the next segment.
Based on the evidence you provided of future terrorist attacks, I take it then that you believe those terrorists are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, correct?
Swing, I missed your response to this question.
I think they played a role in the attacks, yes. How large or small of a role? I have no idea.

[Spins]

Swing I'm not questioning the validity of the reports you posted (they are real) but what I am saying is that it's easy in hindsight to connect all the dots and say it was obvious. None of these reports contained anything specific that could have lead to the apprehension of the terrorists. If it did they would have acted on that intelligence.

It's blatantly obvious many conspiracy theorists display an anti-government agenda, that's why virtually every major terrorist event, at some point, has been blamed on the government (OKC, 1993 WTC Bombing etc).

Move on Swing... :D

[beachnut]

I'm simply flabbergasted at the amount of apologist comments here.
You wanted specific examples, you just received them. You want to make excuses for the Administrations lack of action. Go for it. Cherrypicking? ROFL. The facts are plain and clear.

...
It is very simple: the Administration knew that the OBL and his cohorts were going to attempt to use hijacked planes and fly them into skyscrapers and other high profile targets. They knew it in '98 and they new leading up to 9/11.
So you blame Clinton for not doing something about the planes in 1998.
I blame you for not doing something. Someone with so much evidence, enough to get a Pulitzer Prize like you, who knows everything, did not warn me, did not warn the nation, did not make the security check better.

What is your problem, why did you keep this a secret if you know so much now? So did Clinton refuse with Bush to talk? Who do you blame? I blame you! You knew UBL was out to do these things, at least you say so now. In fact, by saying Clinton and Bush knew from 1998, you are saying you believe the UBL gang was the sole guy behind 9/11! You have messed up!

The true nut case truthers blame everyone. Who do you blame with all your non facts? (why you do not have a Pulitzer Prize, cause the only person who even comes close to 9/11 pre warning is Tom Clancy, but the terrorist in his book was a man, and bought his own airplane.)

You are blaming everyone in the country who could stop it? That is you too!

With out a lot of work, Swing has proven UBL did it by blaming Bush and Clinton. Good Job logical truther.

[DavidJames]

I think they played a role in the attacks, yes. How large or small of a role? I have no idea.Why not?
The warnings indicate the terrorists were going to attack.
You think the warnings you posted were sufficiently detailed enough for the government to take action to stop the attacks.
The attacks occurred.
Why won’t you take the obvious next step and say the terrorist performed the attack, what’s holding you back?

[Spins]

Yeah that's a good point beachnut … Swing since you are so good at filtering out all the valid threats received, amongst the hundreds received each year (possibly thousands), why don't you offer your services to the intelligence community so we can prevent these attacks from happening in the future instead of just sitting there at your keyboard and blaming people.

You are displaying the Hindsight is 20/20 "I know everything and would have seen it coming, it was obvious!" attitude that is common amongst conspiracy theorists.

:p

[Furcifer]

It was a bold face lie by the Administration when they stated that "no one could imagine" which is why I suspect he used Executive Privilege to try to hamper the Congressional Inquiry.


This is one of the things I've found interesting. The context of this statement. It certainly was imagined, to some extent. And I believe preventative measures were being taken. But how could they have known the exact nature of the threat in order to enact measures that would have prevented 9/11? As always, hindsight is 20/20. In the meant time I'm kinda glad I live in a World where the mere threat of an attack does not mean a complete shutdown of the entire system. In some ways it's as if the CT's are proponents of the Government enacting marshall law on the people at the mere threat of an attack. "The terrorists have threatened a chemical attack on LA, so everyone is to remain in their homes, we will be along shortly to issue everyone masks" "The terrorists have threatened to hijack planes, so we are shutting down the entire Eastern seaboard to domestic travel until the threat has been assessed" Isn't this what this amounts to?

[Billdave2]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20070906_Man_gunned_down_outside_hotel_near_airpor t.html

See just like I told you. Swing, do you accept your responsibility for this? I warned you yesterday that this would happen. Did you call the police? Did you even try to warn this man? You have just as much responsibility for this as the government did in 9/11.

[Belz...]

What are you talking about?

Simple.

We know that 9/11 occured.

We also know why and how.

Since we know NOW, we should've known THEN.

Simple.

Or at least it's simple in Swing's mind. I happen to think that hindsight is one of the stupidest ways to argue something.

[Belz...]

I'm simply flabbergasted at the amount of apologist comments here.

Yes, and I'm flabbergasted at the amount of paranoid comments.

Basically, my last post illustrates your entire argument.

Spins is incorrect. You're displaying 20/1 hindsight.

[HyJinX]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295943,00.html

Here ya go, Swing. This was just posted to the fox news website. Given the information in the story, you should have NO problem figuring out if this warning is legit, where it will happen, who will be involved, when it will happen, how it will happen and what will happen, in order for you to stop them. Don't worry about why it will happen...we already know that part.

Good luck and Godspeed.

[Spins]

Simple.

We know that 9/11 occured.

We also know why and how.

Since we know NOW, we should've known THEN.

Simple.

Or at least it's simple in Swing's mind. I happen to think that hindsight is one of the stupidest ways to argue something.
I know that, I was asking "what are you talking about" for clarification because it came across in the way you replied to me, by quoting my sig, that you was attacking me and what I'd posted not Swing. That's why I also clarified what I was asking Swing just in case you had misinterpreted it.

[Swing Dangler]

Yeah that's a good point beachnut … Swing since you are so good at filtering out all the valid threats received, amongst the hundreds received each year (possibly thousands), why don't you offer your services to the intelligence community so we can prevent these attacks from happening in the future instead of just sitting there at your keyboard and blaming people.

The intelligence community warned the Administration. It was up to the Administration to be proactive in their response. They weren't. They ignored the warnings. Hence, IMHO, the need to exert executive privilege to hamper the joint inquiry into discovering what they knew prior to 9/11 and why Rice lied about it. No need to apologize. This is what the Administration is known for.

You are displaying the 20/20 hindsight "I know everything and would have seen it coming, it was obvious!" attitude that is common amongst conspiracy theorists.

Hindsight? It is now a historical fact. It is an historical fact that the other than the color of their underwear, they knew OBL was planning on crashing airplanes into skyscrapers.
[QUOTE]
Swing I'm not questioning the validity of the reports you posted (they are real) but what I am saying is that it's easy in hindsight to connect all the dots and say it was obvious.Yes George Tenet agreed but not as you think, the intelligence community had felt for some time prior to 9/11 that an attack was imminent, the system was indeed blinking red and it was only a question of time. After all Bin Laden had stated on many occasions in the years prior to 9/11 that he was determined to attack the US. But they had nothing tangible to go on, to say they knew an attack was coming in exactly the same way it happened on 9/11 is ridiculous.
You have a great way of ignoring the historical record of warnings the IC gave to the president.

Someone with so much evidence, enough to get a Pulitzer Prize like you, who knows everything, did not warn me, did not warn the nation, did not make the security check better.What is your problem, why did you keep this a secret if you know so much now? So did Clinton refuse with Bush to talk? Who do you blame? I blame you! You knew UBL was out to do these things, at least you say so now.
Beach I'm only repeating what the Administration was told by the IC. You should be directing your frustration towards the Administration.
Who do you blame with all your non facts?
Please see the Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11 and the historical record for these non-facts.
You are blaming everyone in the country who could stop it?
:lolsign: Yeah that's what I'm doing Beach. All 300 million U.S. citizens. Head on back to your jet fuel that turns white at altitude.:seroflmao:

why you do not have a Pulitzer Prize, cause the only person who even comes close to 9/11 pre warning is Tom Clancy,
Are you calling George Tenet and the IC a bunch of liars? Never mind, I know the answer.
But how could they have known the exact nature of the threat in order to enact measures that would have prevented 9/11?
Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11 and the historical record for the exact nature of the threats. You may also want to examine John Dean, a White House counsel under Nixon analysis of the threats:here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html).

It's blatantly obvious many conspiracy theorists display an anti-government agenda, that's why virtually every major terrorist event, at some point, has been blamed on the government (OKC, 1993 WTC Bombing etc).

HAAAACHOOO!

[Swing Dangler]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295943,00.html

Here ya go, Swing. This was just posted to the fox news website. Given the information in the story, you should have NO problem figuring out if this warning is legit, where it will happen, who will be involved, when it will happen, how it will happen and what will happen, in order for you to stop them. Don't worry about why it will happen...we already know that part.

Good luck and Godspeed.

Proactive is much better than reactive, isn't it? ;)

[HyJinX]

Proactive is much better than reactive, isn't it? ;)

Let me know when you apprehend these terrorists.

[Spins]

You have a great way of ignoring the historical record of warnings the IC gave to the president.
I'm not ignoring anything Swing, show me the warning that was received prior to 9/11 that was ignored by the government and should have lead to the apprehension of the terrorists and prevented the attacks from taking place.

[Spins]

Swing, the very fact you know about these warnings is because they were not ignored by the intelligence agencies. At no point did they end up in the shredder.

They were all considered serious and looked into by the law enforcement agencies as best they could, given the information they had and the volume of reports coming in. At the time the August 6th memo was presented to President Bush there were approximately 70 ongoing Bin Laden related investigations underway at the FBI.

[Swing Dangler]

Since the topic has begun to drift into personal attacks and inneundos, I will accept:
1. You have no retort left, or
2. You feel that hindsight is an excuse for an Administration that did nothing. We can agree to disagree on that issue, or,
3. You have begun to realize the IC did provide specific warnings about the means and methods of OBL but for some reason can't bring yourself to accept that the Administration did nothing, and why they would choose to do nothing.

The best retort I've read is the Administration did do something but the wrong thing. The fact is the FBI and the CIA were already involved with investigations and surveillance although I'm unaware if these were ongoing prior to Bush taking office.. Then again, this is perhaps why this story was reported upon:
Supposedly, just after a CIA briefer presents President Bush the later infamous PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”(see August 6, 2001), Bush tells the briefer, “You’ve covered your ass, now.” This account is according to journalist Ron Suskind, whose 2006 book “The One Percent Doctrine”And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. ‘All right,’ he said. ‘You’ve covered your ass.

MJD1982, please move on to your next point.

[Swing Dangler]

[COLOR=black]Swing, the very fact you know about these warnings is because they were not ignored by the intelligence agencies. At no point did they end up in the shredder.

I never stated they were ignored by the intelligence agencies. No need to try to state otherwise.

You bring up an interesting point about the shredder though...perhaps that is why the Bush Administration wanted to keep them from the public eye via executive privilege.

[DGM]

Since the topic has begun to drift into personal attacks and inneundos, I will accept:
1. You have no retort left, or
2. You feel that hindsight is an excuse for an Administration that did nothing. We can agree to disagree on that issue, or,
3. You have begun to realize the IC did provide specific warnings about the means and methods of OBL but for some reason can't bring yourself to accept that the Administration did nothing, and why they would choose to do nothing.

The best retort I've read is the Administration did do something but the wrong thing. The fact is the FBI and the CIA were already involved with investigations and surveillance although I'm unaware if these were ongoing prior to Bush taking office.. Then again, this is perhaps why this story was reported upon:


MJD1982, please move on to your next point.
I will except that it's all hindsight on your part. Let's move on!

[HyJinX]

I will except that it's all hindsight on your part. Let's move on!

Seconded.

[Furcifer]

So then we are really back to the context of that quote then. It would appear that this would be part of the semantics of what was said. We didn't know exactly what was going to happen. We knew what could happen, out of the many, many, many possiblibilities, but we didn't know exactly what was going to happen. So yah, maybe Bush and Condi are sitting there with their pants down, you know, one of these "Well why did this have to happen on my watch?" kinda things. The question is, would that briefing has contained information and a plan to put into place inm August something to prevent 9/11? I don't think so. Was there a cover up of sorts in regards to this memo? Seems likely. Is there any way that this briefing would have stood out then in the same way it has since 9/11? Nope. So what's the point of this then? To try and point fingers after the fact. Damn straight. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but for all his failings this seems to minor in the grand scheme of things.

And to be fair, you and I know Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, so unless that briefing was a "POP UP" book, with pictures showing the Twins and planes flying into them (on those little slide tabs you pull back and forth) he wasn't going to understand it anyways.

[Billdave2]

Since the topic has begun to drift into personal attacks and inneundos, I will accept:
1. You have no retort left, or
2. You feel that hindsight is an excuse for an Administration that did nothing. We can agree to disagree on that issue, or,
3. You have begun to realize the IC did provide specific warnings about the means and methods of OBL but for some reason can't bring yourself to accept that the Administration did nothing, and why they would choose to do nothing.

The best retort I've read is the Administration did do something but the wrong thing. The fact is the FBI and the CIA were already involved with investigations and surveillance although I'm unaware if these were ongoing prior to Bush taking office.. Then again, this is perhaps why this story was reported upon:


MJD1982, please move on to your next point.

Once again you are using hindsight to prove your point. It is correct to say that the right things to do, to stop the attacks were not done. That is hindsight. The fact is there was no way to know what the "right" things were BEFORE the attacks. It is an out and out lie to say "nothing was done". We know that when he was briefed, Bush was told that there were 70 ongoing investigations into the matter. Many (if not most) people would have come to the same conclusion that this was sufficient, especially since these warnings had been going on for years without taking place. Once again, you have shown exactly one warning that combined hijacked planes and crashing them into buildings. There were also warnings about crashing explosive filled (presumably non-hijacked) planes into airports, but this didn't happen. We know now which of the two was accurate beacause of...say it with me...HINDSIGHT.

It is not an excuse. It is an explanation. All three of your points are incorrect.

By the way, you never did tell me the proactive steps you attempted to stop that murder last night. It happened just like I said it would. Did you do anything? You had a warning that was even more specific than the one you tout about 9/11 so why would you do chose to do nothing as you have accused the Bush administration?

[lapman]

SD, everyone is correct. You are basing your opinion purely on hindsight. Being proactive like you claim would have been next to impossible. The doors would not have been in place in time. It takes more than a week just to manufacture the door. Then there is delivery, distribution, pulling the aircraft out of service, installation and training. You have yet to provide any proof that the American public would have tolerated the inconvenience and expense of the added security measure purely based on a threat. The airlines would not have gone through the HUGE expense of installing the door and training the pilots because of a threat that may or most likely not happen. Of course, you're going to say it did happen. However, prior to 9/11 nothing like that had happened in the US. So there was no precedent or historical facts to support the likelihood of the threats being carried out. So your entire argument for proactive action is baseless.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]Once again you are using hindsight to prove your point. It is correct to say that the right things to do, to stop the attacks were not done. That is hindsight. The fact is there was no way to know what the "right" things were BEFORE the attacks.

Billdave, what did the Administration do to ensure the safety and security of the American public in the face of the increasing specific warnings provided to the President with regards to hijackings and aircraft used as weapons?

Or can you provide a statement or statments by the Administration explaining to the American public what he did to ensure the safety and security of the American people in regards to air travel?

Or can you provide me examples of the Administration lying about what they knew and covering up what they knew prior to the attacks?

Then feel free to speculate why they might want to keep this information from the public eye?



By the way, you never did tell me the proactive steps you attempted to stop that murder last night.
As a victim of murder, I would appreciate you ending this erroneous fallacy. If you chose not to, I will end civil discussion with you via the ignore button.

[DGM]

Swing:
What do you think? Should we have locked up everyone that could have been a threat? That would be proactive wouldn't it?

[Furcifer]

As a victim of murder, I would appreciate you ending this erroneous fallacy. If you chose not to, I will end civil discussion with you via the ignore button.

I suspect we all have, in some way or another Swing. While possibly in poor taste, you of all people should probably not play the victim here. But there is an "ignore" button, and this is a free internet, do as you please.

[Drudgewire]

As a victim of murder...

A GHOST!! :eek:

[Spins]

Since the topic has begun to drift into personal attacks and inneundos, I will accept:
1. You have no retort left, or
2. You feel that hindsight is an excuse for an Administration that did nothing. We can agree to disagree on that issue, or,
3. You have begun to realize the IC did provide specific warnings about the means and methods of OBL but for some reason can't bring yourself to accept that the Administration did nothing, and why they would choose to do nothing.
Swing everyone knows there were intelligence failings prior to 9/11, this has never been in doubt the attacks happened after all, but to switch this around, with a huge amount of hindsight bias, and say this proves the government knowingly let the attacks happen or were complicit is ridiculous.

There have been numerous internal and external reviews of the procedures and protocols in place at the intelligence agencies, since 9/11, to help prevent an attack as significant as this from happening again.

[Belz...]

I know that, I was asking "what are you talking about" for clarification because it came across in the way you replied to me, by quoting my sig, that you was attacking me and what I'd posted not Swing. That's why I also clarified what I was asking Swing just in case you had misinterpreted it.

I know. I was just clarifying so you wouldn't think I was attacking you. I was merely being sarcastic.

[Belz...]

Hindsight? It is now a historical fact.

Yeah, that's precisely we call it hindsight.

HAAAACHOOO!

If there's so much straw in the air, it may be because your own position is so ill-defined -- deliberately, I suppose -- that we can't pinpoint it.

[Swing Dangler]

A GHOST!! :eek:
Definition of victim:
a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.
Source: dictionary.com
You may want to re-examine your understanding of the term.


While possibly in poor taste, you of all people should probably not play the victim here.
I'm not playing the victim, I am a victim. Which is why I will ignore him if he wants to continue that line of illogical thought in regards to the topic at hand.

Swing:
What do you think? Should we have locked up everyone that could have been a threat? That would be proactive wouldn't it?
I think increased airline and airport security in the face of the warnings would have been proactive as I mentioned earlier.

[Belz...]

As a victim of murder, I would appreciate you ending this erroneous fallacy.

Not to be rude, but personal feelings shouldn't prevent you from seeing a point.

[Billdave2]

[QUOTE=Billdave2;2938563]

Billdave, what did the Administration do to ensure the safety and security of the American public in the face of the increasing specific warnings provided to the President with regards to hijackings and aircraft used as weapons?

Or can you provide a statement or statments by the Administration explaining to the American public what he did to ensure the safety and security of the American people in regards to air travel?

Or can you provide me examples of the Administration lying about what they knew and covering up what they knew prior to the attacks?

Then feel free to speculate why they might want to keep this information from the public eye?



As a victim of murder, I would appreciate you ending this erroneous fallacy. If you chose not to, I will end civil discussion with you via the ignore button.

There was one threat that combined hijacking and planes as weapons, while I will allow that one is an increase from zero, refering to the warnings as "increasing" implies that more than one was received.

As to statements to the public, I am not sure what you mean. Do you expect the government to report every single piece of intelligence they receive, no matter the source or credibility on the off chance that something happens and they can say "told you so"? How would that be proactive? What good would it have done? You do realize that most intelligence is kept secret so that the enemy doesn't know, that you know the information and to protect sources. So tell me why would we broadcast every single scrap of intelligence we receive.

As to my "erroneous fallacy" it is neither erroneous or false, but I will drop it since it could be construed as bad taste. I hope you do at least realize the irony in your complaint. I will switch to a less offensive argument.

I will give a new piece of information and it will be more detailed than any warning the government recieved about 9/11 and by being proactive it will even make you a very rich man. The NFL season starts tonight. I can tell you without a doubt that one of the teams playing in the NFL this season will win the Suberbowl next year. All you have to do is be proactive and bet on the right one. There are only 32 teams to chose from not like the thousands of different airports, skyscrapers and terrorists in the world. This is a piece of pie compared to stopping 9/11. So who is it going to be?

[chillzero]

Definition of victim:
a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.
Source: dictionary.com
You may want to re-examine your understanding of the term.


But a victim of murder is a dead person.

Surely?

:confused:

[Drudgewire]

But a victim of murder is a dead person.

Surely?

:confused:
Exactly. A cancer victim is the person with cancer. His or her family members are clearly affected by it, but they are not cancer victims.

[Spins]

I know. I was just clarifying so you wouldn't think I was attacking you. I was merely being sarcastic.
In that case ... I apologise for misinterpreting your post. :D

[Furcifer]

I'm not playing the victim, I am a victim. Which is why I will ignore him if he wants to continue that line of illogical thought in regards to the topic at hand.


Naw, yur playing the victim. When I am offended by something I see on TV, I turn it off. If I continue to watch then I am playing the victim, as I choose to continue being offended. Since you have the power to not be a victim, but continue to be a victim, I beleive the correct term is in fact "playing the victim". In much the same way you saying you are a victim of murder is incorrect as well. You are in fact a survivor of murder. I think that's the way they extend the term in cases to which you are apparently referring. I hope this clears that up.

[DGM]

I think increased airline and airport security in the face of the warnings would have been proactive as I mentioned earlier.

I think that would have taken too long and would not have been accepted well. Maybe a better plan would have been to lock up all pilots of middle eastern dissent. That would have been in keeping with the warnings and definitely stopped the attacks.

[mjd1982]

Since the topic has begun to drift into personal attacks and inneundos, I will accept:
1. You have no retort left, or
2. You feel that hindsight is an excuse for an Administration that did nothing. We can agree to disagree on that issue, or,
3. You have begun to realize the IC did provide specific warnings about the means and methods of OBL but for some reason can't bring yourself to accept that the Administration did nothing, and why they would choose to do nothing.

The best retort I've read is the Administration did do something but the wrong thing. The fact is the FBI and the CIA were already involved with investigations and surveillance although I'm unaware if these were ongoing prior to Bush taking office.. Then again, this is perhaps why this story was reported upon:


MJD1982, please move on to your next point.
Lol, it's Willie Rodriguez et al if your interested!

[mjd1982]

Once again you are using hindsight to prove your point. It is correct to say that the right things to do, to stop the attacks were not done. That is hindsight. The fact is there was no way to know what the "right" things were BEFORE the attacks. It is an out and out lie to say "nothing was done". We know that when he was briefed, Bush was told that there were 70 ongoing investigations into the matter. Many (if not most) people would have come to the same conclusion that this was sufficient, especially since these warnings had been going on for years without taking place. Once again, you have shown exactly one warning that combined hijacked planes and crashing them into buildings. There were also warnings about crashing explosive filled (presumably non-hijacked) planes into airports, but this didn't happen. We know now which of the two was accurate beacause of...say it with me...HINDSIGHT.

It is not an excuse. It is an explanation. All three of your points are incorrect.

By the way, you never did tell me the proactive steps you attempted to stop that murder last night. It happened just like I said it would. Did you do anything? You had a warning that was even more specific than the one you tout about 9/11 so why would you do chose to do nothing as you have accused the Bush administration?
I wouldnt be happy with 70 investigations if nothing was happening, and there was nothing forthcoming. I would order more. Further, since we are concentrating on Bush and Cheney, let's deal with what they did. This is very clear. It is unequivocal, according to Clarke, that these guys didnt care. They hardly wanted to know. Tenet's "hair was on fire". It was an "unprecedented threat". These guys didnt give a damn about the terror threat, according to the head of counter terrorism. They didnt even hold one meeting about it, until 4th Sept. Its not about hindsight- its about fact, and its about gross negligence.

[DGM]

Lol, it's Willie Rodriguez et al if your interested!
And all this time I thought you weren't a TT CD guy. Didn't you call them kooks?

[mjd1982]

SD, everyone is correct. You are basing your opinion purely on hindsight. Being proactive like you claim would have been next to impossible. The doors would not have been in place in time. It takes more than a week just to manufacture the door. Then there is delivery, distribution, pulling the aircraft out of service, installation and training. You have yet to provide any proof that the American public would have tolerated the inconvenience and expense of the added security measure purely based on a threat. The airlines would not have gone through the HUGE expense of installing the door and training the pilots because of a threat that may or most likely not happen. Of course, you're going to say it did happen. However, prior to 9/11 nothing like that had happened in the US. So there was no precedent or historical facts to support the likelihood of the threats being carried out. So your entire argument for proactive action is baseless.
The point is, as I have said too many times now, is that they didnt try!!! They could have put the effort in, been told where to go by the airlines, and then blame would have been on the airlines. This is not the case, so we know where blame lies.

[HyJinX]

Lol, it's Willie Rodriguez et al if your interested!

Snoooooooooze. :slp:

[mjd1982]

And all this time I thought you weren't a TT CD guy. Didn't you call them kooks?
Why do you think I am? Why are you so utterly incapable of making simple, logical inference?

[DGM]

Why do you think I am? Why are you so utterly incapable of making simple, logical inference?
Reported

Because Willie is. Really kind of simple

[SDC]

Why do you think I am? Why are you so utterly incapable of making simple, logical inference?

Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.

[SDC]

Have you no shame, sir?



For the young'uns out there, this is a reference to the "Army-McCarthy hearings" (1953 or 1954?) and counsel Joseph Welch, who was pushed over the edge by McCarthy's vicious, false attacks against all his opponents. McCarthy, like Mjd, also applied sophistry as his main method -- in the sense of purportedly sensible arguments which were actually fallacious.

The hearings were my first conscious memory -- my mother was watching them on TV and I remember asking her what was going on. Something to remember.

[mjd1982]

Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.
To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

[funk de fino]

I wouldnt be happy with 70 investigations if nothing was happening, and there was nothing forthcoming. I would order more. Further, since we are concentrating on Bush and Cheney, let's deal with what they did. This is very clear. It is unequivocal, according to Clarke, that these guys didnt care. They hardly wanted to know. Tenet's "hair was on fire". It was an "unprecedented threat". These guys didnt give a damn about the terror threat, according to the head of counter terrorism. They didnt even hold one meeting about it, until 4th Sept. Its not about hindsight- its about fact, and its about gross negligence.
So yu are admitting they did something then?

And those 70 were not the only operations were they, I believe they were only the FBI ones?

What about the disruption operations carried out abroad with the help of 20 other countries? Leading to arrests of AQ figures.

Is this doing nothing?

Do people dispute there was negligence?

[SDC]

To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

Maybe in your idiolect.

And no, I won't trust you on anything.

Please explain why you feel compelled to include so many insults, to so many different people, in your statements. Do you think it will help you to convince them? Or does it represent your attempts at intimidation? Early on, you often spoke as though you had at some time been trained in, or at least introduced to, the rules of formal debate; I doubt insults would have served you well there.

[MIKILLINI]

So then we are really back to the context of that quote then. It would appear that this would be part of the semantics of what was said. We didn't know exactly what was going to happen. We knew what could happen, out of the many, many, many possiblibilities, but we didn't know exactly what was going to happen. So yah, maybe Bush and Condi are sitting there with their pants down, you know, one of these "Well why did this have to happen on my watch?" kinda things. The question is, would that briefing has contained information and a plan to put into place inm August something to prevent 9/11? I don't think so. Was there a cover up of sorts in regards to this memo? Seems likely. Is there any way that this briefing would have stood out then in the same way it has since 9/11? Nope. So what's the point of this then? To try and point fingers after the fact. Damn straight. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but for all his failings this seems to minor in the grand scheme of things.

And to be fair, you and I know Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, so unless that briefing was a "POP UP" book, with pictures showing the Twins and planes flying into them (on those little slide tabs you pull back and forth) he wasn't going to understand it anyways.

Good point, 3 ....and adding just a bit to that point; How many times of getting briefed on imminent terrorist attacks, that didn't happen before 9/11, cause those within the administration to become lackadaisical in their approach to it after time? Next point, Mjd.

[Belz...]

In that case ... I apologise for misinterpreting your post. :D

No need. It's all good.

Carry on! :)

[Belz...]

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

I'll take that as a "no".

[JonnyFive]

To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?

[HyJinX]

Great...now the English language is a conspiracy.

[lapman]

The point is, as I have said too many times now, is that they didnt try!!! They could have put the effort in, been told where to go by the airlines, and then blame would have been on the airlines. This is not the case, so we know where blame lies.
Woa there. They were told by the airlines that Moussaoui was acting suspiciously. He was investigated and arrested. What info did they have on the rest of the hijackers to be able to arrest them? Several of the hijackers were question at the airports and were cleared. What more could they have done without real information?
However, the following statement sums it up perfectly:
March 22, 2006: Increased Airport Security May Have Thwarted 9/11 if Moussaoui Confessed During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (see also March 6-May 4, 2006), the prosecution claims that if Zacarias Moussaoui had not lied when arrested and questioned (see August 16, 2001) and had provided information about the plot (see August 16, 2001), the FAA could have altered its security procedures to deal with the suicide hijacker threat. Prosecution witness Robert Cammaroto, an aviation security officer, says that security measures in effect before 9/11 were designed to cope with different types of threats, such as “the homesick Cuban,” rather than suicide hijackings. He says that if the FAA had more information about Moussaoui, its three dozen air marshals could have been moved from international to domestic flights, security checkpoints could have been tightened to detect short knives like the ones Moussaoui had, and flight crews could have been instructed to resist rather than cooperate with hijackers. Most of these steps could have been implemented within a matter of hours. However, Cammarato admits that the FAA was aware before 9/11 that terrorists considered flying a plane into the Eiffel Tower and that al-Qaeda has performed suicide operations on land and sea.
This would have provided exact information that would have been required to justify the implemention greater security measures. The public would not have considered a threat of something that may happen as justification. However, having someone that says it is going to happen is another thing.

[Belz...]

You may have to trust me on this.

Not a chance.

[WildCat]

mjd1982, are you ever going to post the actual warning you say the French provided about the hijackers? Or should we just assume this is just more truther lies, deception, and propaganda?

And btw, the proven liar William Rodriquez claims there were bombs in WTC 1 and 2, do you believe this also?

[Slayhamlet]

"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?

The construction "make inference" does exist as a sort of compound verb, but it generally only shows up in technical jargon.

[JonnyFive]

The construction "make inference" does exist as a sort of compound verb, but it generally only shows up in technical jargon.

Too bad for mjd this doesn't extend to the phrase "to make simple inference," which doesn't exist. :)

ETA: Unless he's trying to show us his 1337 jargon skills.

[mjd1982]

"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?
No, since you have taken an example of nouns preceded by adjectives; and the nouns you have used are not abstract nouns, as inference is.

A more accurate example would be "to create misunderstanding", for instance.

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, are you ever going to post the actual warning you say the French provided about the hijackers? Or should we just assume this is just more truther lies, deception, and propaganda?

And btw, the proven liar William Rodriquez claims there were bombs in WTC 1 and 2, do you believe this also?
LMAO, this has been done d'uh. Read back.

[Unsecured Coins]

Dodge noted!

[DGM]

LMAO, this has been done d'uh. Read back.
You never produced the documents. Why must you lie?

[mjd1982]

Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.
I would like nothing more than civil discourse. Go have a look at my 1st ever post, #1 on this thread. Go and see the anatagonistic responses. This is the same for every CTer who comes on the forum- the d'uhs know that their position has no place in reason, so they choose to be truculent about their faith. This is absolutely fine for me- but I will give it back.

To take your example, you took comments I had made, blithely stated that they were something they werent, and then went on a rambling disquisition about something to do with the problem of something or other. I then pointed out the imbecilic error you had made, and you again refused to renege, instead repeating your accusation of something nonsensical. So I think you have renounced any claim to civility or to other people's patience, hence why you merit the tone I take with you.

[Unsecured Coins]

I would like nothing more than civil discourse. Go have a look at my 1st ever post, #1 on this thread. Go and see the anatagonistic responses. This is the same for every CTer who comes on the forum- the d'uhs know that their position has no place in reason, so they choose to be truculent about their faith. This is absolutely fine for me- but I will give it back.

To take your example, you took comments I had made, blithely stated that they were something they werent, and then went on a rambling disquisition about something to do with the problem of something or other. I then pointed out the imbecilic error you had made, and you again refused to renege, instead repeating your accusation of something nonsensical. So I think you have renounced any claim to civility or to other people's patience, hence why you merit the tone I take with you.

All I did was ask for documents you claimed existed, and you didn't show them. Is your rage and distaste for me embedded in the fact I called you out for saying Willy Rod recieved the Medal of Honor... in your very first post at the SLC forums?

[mjd1982]

All I did was ask for documents you claimed existed, and you didn't show them. Is your rage and distaste for me embedded in the fact I called you out for saying Willy Rod recieved the Medal of Honor... in your very first post at the SLC forums?
Hey sexy!

These documents are not online, and I believe Le Monde is currently being pursued/sued by the French gov for having exposed this. Le Monde are the NYT of France, and we can trust their reporting.

I made a mistake with the Wille comment- I apologised for this. 1 mistake in 4000 words aint bad, seeing that you usually fail to go 40 words without doing such.

[SDC]

I would like nothing more than civil discourse. Go have a look at my 1st ever post, #1 on this thread. Go and see the anatagonistic responses. This is the same for every CTer who comes on the forum- the d'uhs know that their position has no place in reason, so they choose to be truculent about their faith. This is absolutely fine for me- but I will give it back.

To take your example, you took comments I had made, blithely stated that they were something they werent, and then went on a rambling disquisition about something to do with the problem of something or other. I then pointed out the imbecilic error you had made, and you again refused to renege, instead repeating your accusation of something nonsensical. So I think you have renounced any claim to civility or to other people's patience, hence why you merit the tone I take with you.

The first paragraph is mere childishness. Everyone who is a parent recognizes the statement; "daddy/ mommy, he hit me first!" And sometimes we say, "try to rise above it." We roll our eyes with little hope that we will be listened to, but we try.

In general, though, I'm pleased. You obviously took some time with this. Your views are clear, though often awkwardly expressed, and you frequently use words wrongly. I'd advise checking a standard dictionary before you actually post.

Please avoid insults. "Imbecilic" does not belong in civilized discourse. Except when applied to a third party behind his or her back, of course.

You make too much use of awkward and pompous phrases. "Renounce any claim..." "Merit the tone..." These phrases slow your statements down and make them lumber across the landscape. They are correct, but they should generally be avoided. The same is true for a word like "blithely." It's a favorite of mine, too, but it should be used very rarely. "Truculent," too.

"No place in reason..." I'm sorry, that phrase does not make sense. In fact, you meant to say, I believe, that they are not at all reasonable. "No place in reason," while I understand what you are trying to say, just does not make sense as a construction.

"Werent..." In standard, written English, this is a contraction of two words, "were" and "not." As such, it should be written "weren't." You are correct that it is pronounced "werent" (or even "wernt"), but I hope all can agree that here the rules of written expression should apply.

"Rambling disquisition..." According to Webster's, a "disquisition" is an intense inquiry or investigation. Clearly, you didn't mean to say that. I think you meant to say "digression," which is taking a discussion off on a tangent. Anyone who knows me well will agree with you on that. I am prone to digressions -- god help me, I love the things -- often in languages other than English. But, you know, "Khata s krayu, nichevo nye znayu," "[My] hut is on the edge [of town], and I know nothing [about it]." I learned that as a Russian expression, though I most recently heard it from a Ukrainian speaker, so it may be common to both languages. They are closely related, of course.

"Renege..." I had my doubts, but I checked Webster's, and it can be used for "retract." (And I don't retract anything, by the way. If I was wrong in my comment, I will argue that your statements are often so confused and so lumbering, in part due to the tendencies outlined above, that I often have trouble following them.) But more frequently, "renege" is used to mean to go back on an agreement, deal, or break a promise. You probably shouldn't have used it in this instance.

In conclusion, please accept my thanks. I've had a very enjoyable morning romp with grammar and with Webster's. A fine way to begin a day.

[SDC]

So I think you have renounced any claim to civility or to other people's patience, hence why you merit the tone I take with you.

I meant to comment on this sentence structure as well. Read it through; you'll see that it consists of two weak clauses linked by "hence why." That connector doesn't work. You should have said simply "hence you;" actually, it would have been best to write "therefore, you..." Hmm... it's messier than I thought at first glance. Your use of both "So" and "hence" in that sentence is really best expressed by "Therefore" ("Therefore I think... therefore you..."). But that would be both redundant and extremely awkward. You should have broken it up into two sentences. Hemingway really did have a point, you know. Clarity and conciseness are our friends.

In general, as well, in other threads you clearly are choosing to continue a pattern of harsh insults in response to any criticism (or even to any response, it sometimes seems). Please avoid insulting your opponents; it does no good for your arguments -- and the arguments are the main thing, aren't they? Not just the chance to attack and insult?

What is your purpose? Are you trying to convince others? Please think about that point, and adjust your methods accordingly.

[chillzero]

The grammar lessons are interesting, however, it is not the thread topic. Please keep the thread on topic or it will be split out.

[WildCat]

Hey sexy!

These documents are not online,
So you are unable to support that claim.

and I believe Le Monde is currently being pursued/sued by the French gov for having exposed this.
Followed immediately by another unsupported claim... unbelievable! Actually, par for the course for you.

Le Monde are the NYT of France, and we can trust their reporting.
So why can't you post a link to the original article? Have you ever even read it?

I made a mistake with the Wille comment- I apologised for this. 1 mistake in 4000 words aint bad, seeing that you usually fail to go 40 words without doing such.
Actually, your first mistake was made in the OP, when you claimed to have some "conspiracy facts". You have yet to produce a single fact supporting a 9/11 conspiracy by the US government.

[Unsecured Coins]

Hey sexy!
Jealous, much? When your opinion starts to matter to me, you'll be the first to know.

These documents are not online, and I believe Le Monde is currently being pursued/sued by the French gov for having exposed this. Le Monde are the NYT of France, and we can trust their reporting.
You believe... well, unless you got something to back this up, know what you have? Speculation. Run along and go get your evidence, young one, and then get back to me, okay? Thanks.

I made a mistake with the Wille comment- I apologised for this. 1 mistake in 4000 words aint bad, seeing that you usually fail to go 40 words without doing such.
Actually you didn't make a mistake. You didn't even write it, you copied and pasted it from several other posts, which makes me come to the logical conclusion that you didn't actually read it either. Unlike you, I actually write all of my posts myself since having judicial punishment wrought upon me would not be propitious to policy.

[maccy]

Since I don't want to trouble the mods by asking for a load of posts to be moved, here's a discussion that's probably best continued in this thread, rather than the Poll one:

A fact that should be born in mind regarding these polls, scandalous though they are, is one tht is far more significant than any quibbles that have been brought up here.

A significant amount of people dont know the facts about 911. A significant amount of people. The truest poll would be one surveying people who know about the PNAC doc, who knew about the forewarnings, who knew about 7, who knew about Rodriguez et al's testimony (for and against), who knew about NORAD etc, and so on. If you refined the sample like that, you would have an overwhelmingly more astonishing poll result. Much more.

And that's what twoofers prey on. And that's why on youtube twoofer evidence looks so intriguing, and why when it's presented to people on here who actually know what they're talking about it's debunked without batting an eyelash.

I said "facts". Do u know what these are?

Yeah, that stuff you have none of. :p

Do you? You started a thread on 9/11 facts that is huge, yet you still haven't posted a single fact yet. If you restrict your polling to only people who know the facts about 9/11, you would eliminate the so called truth movement almost completly since they only seem to know lies and distortions.

Ok. As I have said to many of your fellow herd, you believe that the PNAC doc, which is a fact which I have posted, is indeed not a fact. In your eyes, this document is a fiction of one's imagination, and doesnt exist.

Therefore we can conclude that you live in la la land. Enjoy your time there- I hope you find it lasting!

No, PNAC definatly exists, but it has been shown to you numerous times that it has nothing to do with 9/11. You said you were going to present facts about 9/11. You still have failed to do so. I am begining to believe that you have none to present and are simply trolling. Please, present some 9/11 facts if you have them. Facts about unrelated topics should go in another thread.

LMAO

You are quite the clown. It has been shown oh too many times that PNAC does have to do with 9/11. As anyone with an iota of intelligence will know automatically, the statement regarding a ease a new PH , pre Oct 2001 would bring to military/strategic radicalisation, followed by a new PH pre Oct 2001, catalysing a military/strategic radicalisatin is important. Some people may not think this. This is because such people are groslly obtuse.

I have also posted a list of forewarnings related to AQ terror attacks against the US. You also believe these are not facts. Again, this would support, quite dramatically, a contention of gross obtuseness on the part of any proponent of such.

I will ignore your insult since it shows more about you than me.

You have beat that PNAC document to death and all you had were two references to a new PH that you have been shown don't mean what you think yhey mean. As for the warnings that have been discussed, you have been shown how it is only with hindsight that a handful of warnings out of thousands is obvipus.

So once again, and without childish insults if you can, please provide some kind of fact about 9/11 that you promised us.

[mjd1982]

The first paragraph is mere childishness. Everyone who is a parent recognizes the statement; "daddy/ mommy, he hit me first!" And sometimes we say, "try to rise above it." We roll our eyes with little hope that we will be listened to, but we try.

In general, though, I'm pleased. You obviously took some time with this. Your views are clear, though often awkwardly expressed, and you frequently use words wrongly. I'd advise checking a standard dictionary before you actually post.

Please avoid insults. "Imbecilic" does not belong in civilized discourse. Except when applied to a third party behind his or her back, of course.

You make too much use of awkward and pompous phrases. "Renounce any claim..." "Merit the tone..." These phrases slow your statements down and make them lumber across the landscape. They are correct, but they should generally be avoided. The same is true for a word like "blithely." It's a favorite of mine, too, but it should be used very rarely. "Truculent," too.

"No place in reason..." I'm sorry, that phrase does not make sense. In fact, you meant to say, I believe, that they are not at all reasonable. "No place in reason," while I understand what you are trying to say, just does not make sense as a construction.

"Werent..." In standard, written English, this is a contraction of two words, "were" and "not." As such, it should be written "weren't." You are correct that it is pronounced "werent" (or even "wernt"), but I hope all can agree that here the rules of written expression should apply.

"Rambling disquisition..." According to Webster's, a "disquisition" is an intense inquiry or investigation. Clearly, you didn't mean to say that. I think you meant to say "digression," which is taking a discussion off on a tangent. Anyone who knows me well will agree with you on that. I am prone to digressions -- god help me, I love the things -- often in languages other than English. But, you know, "Khata s krayu, nichevo nye znayu," "[My] hut is on the edge [of town], and I know nothing [about it]." I learned that as a Russian expression, though I most recently heard it from a Ukrainian speaker, so it may be common to both languages. They are closely related, of course.

"Renege..." I had my doubts, but I checked Webster's, and it can be used for "retract." (And I don't retract anything, by the way. If I was wrong in my comment, I will argue that your statements are often so confused and so lumbering, in part due to the tendencies outlined above, that I often have trouble following them.) But more frequently, "renege" is used to mean to go back on an agreement, deal, or break a promise. You probably shouldn't have used it in this instance.

In conclusion, please accept my thanks. I've had a very enjoyable morning romp with grammar and with Webster's. A fine way to begin a day.
You confuse the fact that it is you who is lumbering across the landscape with your deficitent comprehension. Lets have a look how:

1. "No place in reason" is a perfectly valid phrase. This is basic level english, please learn it.

2. "Werent" was written as such because I am typing quickly. Quibbling is reflective of desperation.

3. "Disquisition", used ironically, is defined;


a formal discourse or treatise in which a subject is examined and discussed


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disquisition

Once you improve your reading skills, you should improve your dictionary reading skills.


4. "Renege" means to retract, or go back on- hence it has been accurately used. This is basic english- I suggest you find yourself a tutor.

5. "Hence why" is perfectly correct english. Once again, your command of the language is dismal. www.tutorvista.com- this should help you.

[mjd1982]

So you are unable to support that claim.


Followed immediately by another unsupported claim... unbelievable! Actually, par for the course for you.


So why can't you post a link to the original article? Have you ever even read it?


Actually, your first mistake was made in the OP, when you claimed to have some "conspiracy facts". You have yet to produce a single fact supporting a 9/11 conspiracy by the US government.
You will find the article on my 911blogger blog.

The point about there not being facts in this thread is something that will eternally serve a s reminder to the unremitting capacity for gross stupidity of human beings.

[mjd1982]

Jealous, much? When your opinion starts to matter to me, you'll be the first to know.


You believe... well, unless you got something to back this up, know what you have? Speculation. Run along and go get your evidence, young one, and then get back to me, okay? Thanks.


Actually you didn't make a mistake. You didn't even write it, you copied and pasted it from several other posts, which makes me come to the logical conclusion that you didn't actually read it either. Unlike you, I actually write all of my posts myself since having judicial punishment wrought upon me would not be propitious to policy.
Lol, no dude, I wrote that all myself. And the PM OP too. I write all my own material. You see, I am more than a pretty face, whereas you, unfortately, woudl appear not to be. Oh well... here's something to console yourself with

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6W5ZH-JwSg

[Unsecured Coins]

Lol, no dude, I wrote that all myself. And the PM OP too. I write all my own material. You see, I am more than a pretty face, whereas you, unfortately, woudl appear not to be. Oh well... here's something to console yourself with

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6W5ZH-JwSg

This is drawn from another forum of sorts, so excuse the occasional incongruity with this environment. Nonetheless, to any deniers, I would love to know how, given the below (which leaves aside many other important issues), leads you to any conclusion other than that this was an inside job.


As you can clearly see, no where in that post does it say you wrote it. As it says you drew it from another forum, and the fact that you couldn't find the Medal Of Honor error in plain sight, one MUST come to the conclusion that you cut and pasted simply because it sounded good.

And by the way, why are you so infatuated with my looks?

[WildCat]

You will find the article on my 911blogger blog.
Sorry mjd1982, you've already made a name for yourself as a guy who sends us off on wild goose chases. Present the link to the article here, you claim it's on your blog so it should be quite easy for you to link to it. If you can't do that, it will just further add to your reputation as a master in the art of flinging bovine excrement through your teeth.

The point about there not being facts in this thread is something that will eternally serve a s reminder to the unremitting capacity for gross stupidity of human beings.
You've presented only innuendo, hearsay, speculation, and even some outright lies in your increasingly pathetic attempt to appear to be offering a fact. Do you have any actual facts?

[SDC]

You confuse the fact that it is you who is lumbering across the landscape with your deficitent comprehension. Lets have a look how:


3. "Disquisition", used ironically, is defined;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disquisition

Once you improve your reading skills, you should improve your dictionary reading skills.

5. "Hence why" is perfectly correct english. Once again, your command of the language is dismal. www.tutorvista.com- (http://www.tutorvista.com-) this should help you.

By jiminy, you are a saucy young whippersnapper! Just wait till I get my teeth out of the glass...

I'm still trying to decide about the word "deficitent." Perhaps that is a canvas construction which has gone bust.

About "disquisition" (sounds like a Mel Brooks Conspiracy) the obvious reading of your message was that I was making a digression, not a disquisition. Glad you looked it up, though. A day in which one has learned a new word, or another usage, is a good day. Again, sincere thanks for that.

I'm well aware that "hence why" is not automatically wrong, though it is awkward. It's your usage of it that gets in the way of your argument. My gosh'n'gollies, those weak clauses!

Of course, the mod told me/ us to cut the grammar stuff. I will state, as I'm (probably) dragged into the outer darkness, that the key point I was trying to make is that Mjd's "disquisitions" are so muddled, ungrammatical, confused, and chock-a-block with misused words that they are impossible to understand; his lack of skills at written expression prevent him from arguably sensibly, or at least are clear reflections of his muddled thought on the topic of 9/11.

Farewell. They are at the door. And I'd like my last statement to be, "Daddy/ mommy! He hit me first!" Or not. In the spirit of this conversation, as you please..

[SDC]

... his lack of skills at written expression prevent him from arguably sensibly, or at least are clear reflections of his muddled thought on the topic of 9/11.

Oh god... The furies of bad proofreading are circling around my home... Please! I meant to write "arguing sensibly!" but the cat jumped on my lap and my daughter is watching "Thunderbirds" on the TV!... Farewelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll....... ..............

[mjd1982]

As you can clearly see, no where in that post does it say you wrote it. As it says you drew it from another forum, and the fact that you couldn't find the Medal Of Honor error in plain sight, one MUST come to the conclusion that you cut and pasted simply because it sounded good.

And by the way, why are you so infatuated with my looks?
Cos I find you very sexy- whats wrong with that?

I cut and pasted it from my facebook profile/9/11 blogger account.

D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[mjd1982]

Sorry mjd1982, you've already made a name for yourself as a guy who sends us off on wild goose chases. Present the link to the article here, you claim it's on your blog so it should be quite easy for you to link to it. If you can't do that, it will just further add to your reputation as a master in the art of flinging bovine excrement through your teeth.


You've presented only innuendo, hearsay, speculation, and even some outright lies in your increasingly pathetic attempt to appear to be offering a fact. Do you have any actual facts?
Well researched, o seeker of truth!

http://www.911blogger.com/blog/2189

[Unsecured Coins]

Cos I find you very sexy- whats wrong with that?

I cut and pasted it from my facebook profile/9/11 blogger account.

D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

Reported. Harassment and derailing, trolling. YOu name it

[funk de fino]

the idea that 9/11 was an inside job may seem too ludicrous to be countenanced. So let me start by saying 3 things: firstly, it is an idea that is now believed by 50 % of the 9/11 victim’s families

this quote, from one of your blogs, which then links to PrisonPlanet, is exactly the type of dishonest claptrap you spout

you have nothing mate, absolutely, a big fat zero when it comes to evidence or facts actually support your theory

your very crude and snide use of insults actually show how little you have, if you had more you would not need the resort to this tactic as it is a certain sign of someone who cannot debate properly

inference, interpretation, quote mining, cherry picking, hand waving, ignoring and insults are all you have

[mjd1982]

this quote, from one of your blogs, which then links to PrisonPlanet, is exactly the type of dishonest claptrap you spout

you have nothing mate, absolutely, a big fat zero when it comes to evidence or facts actually support your theory

your very crude and snide use of insults actually show how little you have, if you had more you would not need the resort to this tactic as it is a certain sign of someone who cannot debate properly

inference, interpretation, quote mining, cherry picking, hand waving, ignoring and insults are all you have
That it links to prison planet is neither here nor there. It links to a quore from the head of the biggest victims family group. This is the point. Had you any skills of analysis, you would not need me to tell you this.

I am snide from time to time here. This is true. However, I think I am in my rights to , since this is the tone adopted by the OTers here to any CTer who appears. It is the tone of the mods as well, in my experience. You are just having a taste of your own medicine, and you dont like it. That is no ones problem but your own.

If people are willing to entertain civil discourse, then this is what will be prusued.

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

your very crude and snide use of insults actually show how little you have, if you had more you would not need the resort to this tactic as it is a certain sign of someone who cannot debate properly

inference, interpretation, quote mining, cherry picking, hand waving, ignoring and insults are all you have


QFE. This pretty well sums up every thread started by mjd here. Well put, funk.

[WildCat]

Well researched, o seeker of truth!

http://www.911blogger.com/blog/2189
No wonder you've been hiding this! Should I feign surprise that it doesn't claim what you say it did?


From January 2001, the administration within Al Qaeda was, nevertheless, pretty transparent to both the eyes and ears of French spies. The authors of the document even detail disagreements between the terrorists on the specificities of the hijacking they were envisaging. But they were never in any doubt regarding their intention. Provisionally, the Jihadists favoured capturing a plane going from Frankfurt to the USA.
Does your version of the conspiracy state that the 9/11 planes were actually hijacked in Frankfurt? If not, this doesn't support you at all.

They drew up a list of seven potential airline companies. 2 were finally chosen by the 9/11 criminals: American Airlines and United Airlines.
Perhaps that was because AA and UAL were the only American carriers flying out of Frankfurt?

I'm absolutely bewildered that you interpret anything the French knew as "19 hijackers would take 4 planes on the US east coast and fly them into the WTC and DC.

You claimed that the Freench gave specific, actionable info as to the 9/11 hijackings. It is now clear that you stretched the truth either out of ignorance or malice.

[Unsecured Coins]

but, as we know, Wildcat... it's irrelevant anyway...

[funk de fino]

That it links to prison planet is neither here nor there. It links to a quore from the head of the biggest victims family group. This is the point. Had you any skills of analysis, you would not need me to tell you this.

I am snide from time to time here. This is true. However, I think I am in my rights to , since this is the tone adopted by the OTers here to any CTer who appears. It is the tone of the mods as well, in my experience. You are just having a taste of your own medicine, and you dont like it. That is no ones problem but your own.

If people are willing to entertain civil discourse, then this is what will be prusued.

Again an insult. I could quite clearly read what was in the article.

A quote from one person. Was he speaking on behalf of all the members of his group and excatly how large is his group? I bet it is not 50% of all the family members like you state in your blog. You cannot simply expect to get away with making ludicrous claims like this. This means you are either mistaken and you will edit the blog or you are being deceitful on purpose.

You tell me which it is

You are snide most of the time and even when people are civil they are insulted by you for the crime of disagreeing with you, not for being uncivil to you. That you cannot see this is pretty sad IMO as you seem intelligent but lack the proper skills to push your agenda further by making yourself look pompous, insulting and rude instead of allowing the attacks and fighting them with your facts (sic) so that it is the other side who look childish

You use the very tactic derided by people in the TM when used by non TM members. It does you no favours at all, especially with lurkers and these are the most important people on this board, I think you will agree.

[chillzero]

OK People, please stop personalising this discussion. Stop bickering and passing insults back and forth, or further mod action will follow.

Either discuss the topic, or let the thread die.

[mjd1982]

No wonder you've been hiding this! Should I feign surprise that it doesn't claim what you say it did?


Does your version of the conspiracy state that the 9/11 planes were actually hijacked in Frankfurt? If not, this doesn't support you at all.


Perhaps that was because AA and UAL were the only American carriers flying out of Frankfurt?

I'm absolutely bewildered that you interpret anything the French knew as "19 hijackers would take 4 planes on the US east coast and fly them into the WTC and DC.

You claimed that the Freench gave specific, actionable info as to the 9/11 hijackings. It is now clear that you stretched the truth either out of ignorance or malice.
#1 Provisionally.

#2 They did have specific warnings. AQ were plotting to hijack AA and Utd airlines planes. Tell me what the gov did to warn these 2 airlines/their passengers of this.

[mjd1982]

OK People, please stop personalising this discussion. Stop bickering and passing insults back and forth, or further mod action will follow.

Either discuss the topic, or let the thread die.
I agree! Back to foreknowledge people! Start addressing some points!

[Pardalis]

How can they have foreknowledge of their own plot?

[sleahead]

#2 They did have specific warnings. AQ were plotting to hijack AA and Utd airlines planes. Tell me what the gov did to warn these 2 airlines/their passengers of this.

Tell me what the German government did about this.

[MIKILLINI]

How can they have foreknowledge of their own plot?

Confusing...isn't it? ;)

[applecorped]

:)

[DGM]

:)
Holly crap!!!!!!!!!!


Never resurrect what should never be spoken. (I felt this was important enough to break my silence)

SHAME ON YOU
Back to "test pattern" mode.

[WildCat]

Ah, mjd1982... came here so arrogant and full of himself, then ran away never to return.

[Redtail]

:)

:eye-poppi
Gunning for the mdc by necromancy?

[Quad4_72]

:)

Holy crap. mjd1982? I had gone to therapy just to get the name out of my head. I am afraid you are messing with the powers of stupidity that neither you or I can control...I really hope you have not resurrected a monster...

[applecorped]

Well, the Realistice thread was closed so this was the next best thing.:boxedin:

[Dave Rogers]

I still can't imagine why you thought it was propitious to resurrect this thread.

Dave

[applecorped]

Use your imagination then.

[tsig]

I still can't imagine why you thought it was propitious to resurrect this thread.

Dave

He should be beaten with 3" rebar while chained in a 4' center.:p

[Dave Rogers]

Use your imagination then.

Don't tell me you'd forgotten mjd1982's favourite word? It was to this thread what 'realistice' was to Christophera.

Dave

[applecorped]

Don't tell me you'd forgotten mjd1982's favourite word? It was to this thread what 'realistice' was to Christophera.

Dave

Doh!:o

[Dave Rogers]

Somewhere in the world, it's still Bump an Old Thread Day.

Dave

[DGM]

Somewhere in the world, it's still Bump an Old Thread Day.

Dave
And you had to pick this one?


There has to be some sort of chant to put this thread back.....

:covereyes

[Dave Rogers]

It's not entirely irrelevant to current threads in the forum. MJD1982 started out trying to prove LIHOP at the same time as trying to prove WTC7 was deliberately demolished, and never reached the realisation that the two theories are contradictory; if al-Qaeda was deliberately allowed to carry through its attacks, then there was no sense to a conspiracy to fake those attacks, and if the attacks were faked, then the neglect of al-Qaeda as a threat was perfectly justified because they weren't the ones carrying out the attack. The result was a self-contradictory mess, and it wasn't helped by the citing of evidence in favour of LIHOI as if it suggested complicity. And this is the road down which Childlike Empress appears to be heading in the Rumsfeld / WTC7 thread, but starting from a snippet that isn't evidence of anything except that Rumsfeld doesn't share the truthers' obsession with WTC7. It might be worth casting an eye over this thread, and noting that refusal to choose between incompatible alternative theories won't usually end well.

Dave

PS. I hope that fools Darat if he starts cracking down on Bump an Old Thread Day.