The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

Belz: *thwap* Mind OUT of the gutter, young man!

Sorry. Stupid hormones.

Bad Belz, bad!

Like YOU hadn't thought of it.

 

[Belz...]

September 1999: US Report Predicts Spectacular Attack on Washington

Also in September 1999, the moon leaves Earth's orbit.

Oh, sorry. Wrong show.

 

[Swing Dangler]

What should have been done, in your opinion, Swing?

Well first, I think there should have been immediate upgrades to airport security including those measures we have in place today.
Second, armed air marshals should have been placed on all flights.
Pilots should have went through mandatory firearm training and allowed to be armed with weapons.
The security measures recommended by The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) should have been implemented. You will find that some of those were recommended...by the 9/11 Commission.
Public warnings so private citizens could make informed decisions should have been issued in a timely fashion.

That is just a start I guess.

BillDave Read through the various timelines and you can see the dates of the publications.

The "specific" warning you cite was from a report published more than a year before Bush was elected. And this was evidence of his malfeasance/complicity?

Yes it was a year, however, I think Sabrina will agree that the entire IC is not shoved through a revolving door after an election.

Have a wonderful evening folks!

 

[HyJinX]

Why only airports? Why not also bus stations, train stations, extra police on the streets and in high profile places that attract masses of people, etc. The warnings you speak of mentioned a lot of scenarios...why focus solely on airports?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Ok all the bolded parts show why it is not specific

No mention of hijack

No mention of commercial airliner

No mention of WTC

No mention of New York

Mentions HE (not used 911)

Mentions CIA (not hit 911)

Mentions White House (not hit 911)

Mentions "several forms"

Mentions "whatever form"

Not really specific at all is it?

More so with hindsight though eh? Luxury we have now

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.

 

[Sabrina]

SD, I just got finished speaking with a gentleman who was part of the FAA's intelligence watch section when 9/11 happened, and before. I put to him the question regarding what he felt about the intelligence prior to 9/11, and also about the preventive measures you've mentioned. Both times he said that what you propose was not feasible at the time. He said that the intel he himself saw (and bear in mind, he'd get all the intel relating to the airliners, since he was in the FAA at the time) did not contain anything specific enough to warrant the cautionary measures you mention, and also points out that, at the time of 9/11, the FAA only REGULATED airport security; ultimately it was the responsibility of the AIRLINES to provide the security, and all security was done by hired contractors, so the measures would have to be agreed to by the airlines before they got implemented. The airlines would likely have not agreed to those measures on the strength of the vague warnings received by the IC.

 

[funk de fino]

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.

Sorry mate, if you are going to say lots of specific warnings then there has to be lots of specific warnings. Try googling the definition of specific, it was you who used it not me. As an ex military I know what is deemed specific enough to raise a threat level that would account for the kinds of actions you would liked to have seen and those aren't them

Not my nation or my leaders thankfully, but I do have a problem with it, but again that is with hindsight

Arrogance led them to put all the emphasis on an attack outside the US, this was the main issue IMO

 

[WildCat]

Sorry, but I'm not going to encourage laziness on your part.

Troofers always do this - they won't link to actual storys from the source, and then barrage you with a million "facts" that have no source linked. It's likely SD just copied and pasted it from somewhere else, and SD probably doesn't even know the source himself.

Could you just link to the one source you find most compelling to your case SD?

 

[WildCat]

July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

...you were saying?

Are you seriously going to compare guarding a convention center from attack with keeping the entire United States (if not the entire world) safe from an attack by plane?

 

[WildCat]

Well first, I think there should have been immediate upgrades to airport security including those measures we have in place today.
Second, armed air marshals should have been placed on all flights.
Pilots should have went through mandatory firearm training and allowed to be armed with weapons.
The security measures recommended by The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) should have been implemented. You will find that some of those were recommended...by the 9/11 Commission.
Public warnings so private citizens could make informed decisions should have been issued in a timely fashion.

That is just a start I guess.

Guess what SD, we are getting more threats every single day about a wide variety of attacks. What in your opinion should be done today to counter these threats? Should we ground all commercial aircraft, for example? Ban all truck traffic in cities? Outlaw parking garages inside highrises?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Yes it was a year, however, I think Sabrina will agree that the entire IC is not shoved through a revolving door after an election.

I think Sabrina will also agree that I neither said nor implied anything about "the entire IC (being) shoved through a revolving door after an election". That's called building a strawman.

At issue is whether there were "specific", actionable warnings that Bush ignored. You say yes, and cite an example from 1999.

Sorry, but it's ridiculous to claim that this report should have suddenly been considered "actionable" in 2001. (Not to mention that it's "specifics" clearly had to do with explosives-laden small planes; no mention of crashing hijacked airliners.)

 

[WildCat]

At issue is whether there were "specific", actionable warnings that Bush ignored. You say yes, and cite an example from 1999.

I've seen troofers who think that Clinton was in on it too. In fact, the whole government is except for Ron Paul.

 

[JonnyFive]

I've seen troofers who think that Clinton was in on it too. In fact, the whole government is except for Ron Paul.

What is it with them and Ron Paul? Every one of the anti-Fed conspiracy guys I talk to loves Ron Paul.

 

[WildCat]

What is it with them and Ron Paul? Every one of the anti-Fed conspiracy guys I talk to loves Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only member of Congress nutty enough to be anti-Fed, so therefore he is the only member of government who's not a made man in the NWO.

 

[mjd1982]

Ok all the bolded parts show why it is not specific

No mention of hijack

No mention of commercial airliner

No mention of WTC

No mention of New York

Mentions HE (not used 911)

Mentions CIA (not hit 911)

Mentions White House (not hit 911)

Mentions "several forms"

Mentions "whatever form"

Not really specific at all is it?

More so with hindsight though eh? Luxury we have now

I think that this post is perfectly symptomatic of the leading propensity of OTers when it comes to dealing with what are unbelievably simple issues. Muddy the issue. Because the administration did not know (supposedly) that 2 Utd and 2 AAplanes were going to be hijacked from the speciific airports, 2 flown into the TT's, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 wherever, that therefore they couldnt have done anything about it. Because things are always 20-20 in hindsight, eh?

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.

That last sentence makes my point well.

 

[HyJinX]

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

You should be more careful then. We don't want you to endanger yourself.

 

[WildCat]

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

And sensible people understand that because the knew in advance that hijacked airplanes would be flown into the WTC towers, were able to figure out exactly how the towers would collapse and exactly where the damage and fires would be in WTC 7. WTC 7 was important because that is where the kept their sooper-sekrit plans they needed to destroy, and the best way to destroy sooper-sekrit documents and hard drives is to incinerate them or smash them with a sledge hammer demolish the building. So since knew where the damage and fires would be, planted the bombs necessary to demolish the building ahead of time. also informed the FDNY of their sooper-sekrit plan so they could warn people away from WTC 7 before the bombs asploded.

It's really quite simple, intelligent people can figure it out.

Yes, the above narrative is what mjd1982 really believes.

 

[twinstead]

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything. Yea. That just MUST be it, right? I mean any idiot can see 911 was an inside job and CD brought down the towers.

Kind of like when mjd calls everybody who disagrees with him a sheep.

Do either of you have any different material?

 

[Parsman]

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything. Yea. That just MUST be it, right? I mean any idiot can see 911 was an inside job and CD brought down the towers.

Kind of like when mjd calls everybody who disagrees with him a sheep.

Do either of you have any different material?

Different material... hmmmm

"A No-planer, a CDer and a Space Beamer walk into a bar...."