The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Spins said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know. I was just clarifying so you wouldn't think I was attacking you. I was merely being sarcastic.
 
Drudgewire said:
A GHOST!! :eek:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
I think increased airline and airport security in the face of the warnings would have been proactive as I mentioned earlier.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Billdave2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

But a victim of murder is a dead person.

Surely?

:confused:
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Swing Dangler said:
I think increased airline and airport security in the face of the warnings would have been proactive as I mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lol, it's Willie Rodriguez et al if your interested!
 
Billdave2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom