The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[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.

 

[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.