The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[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.

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]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1510746decd6bd913a.gif[/qimg]

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

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]

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.