- #1
amp
Military prepares for the type of event that happened 9/11.
see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
Zero said:Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.
Back up a sec: what is there to downplay? Ie, what is the significance of that report?amp said:How will Bushco downplay this?
Military prepares for the type of event that happened 9/11.
russ_watters said:Back up a sec: what is there to downplay? Ie, what is the significance of that report?
Off-topic.hughes johnson said:Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.
Originally Posted by Zero
Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.
hughes johnson
Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.
Adam said:Right on the nose if you're after another logical fallacy, sure.
Sorry, amp - I'm tired of the 'adam tactic.' If you have a point to make, make it. Anything less is bait. Its underhanded and I'll continue to demand you make your point.amp said:Thanks Chemecalsuperfreak, I didn't think one had to spell it out.
As it said in the article, even when carrying out these exercises - which, btw, were carried out before Bush was in office and he didn't know about them - they weren't taken that seriously. One was canceled for being "too unrealistic," for example.Rice testified before Congress that although they were informed that Al Qaeda was about to hijack airplanes and plan a major terrorist attack against the world trade center, nobody could have possibly imagined that terrorists could have hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.
Even though it appears that not only did many people imagine it, the military planned for it. And in the past terrorists actually planned to fly a plane into the WH, and in the nineties some republican christian nutjob actually flew a plane into the WH, and the list goes on and on.
Three lovely things here: First of course is "guilty party." In what country do you come from where guilt is assumed a priori? Thats not the way it is in mine. If you want to call someone "guilty" - first say who and what, then prove it.Zero said:This is a classic example of the "guilty" party redirecting the conversation away from the true problem, unfortunately.
This shouldn't be about fighter jets on that Tuesday morning...it should be about the preparation, or lack of it, in the months prior. They KNEW something like this was in the works; did they do anything to try to stop it?
Lovely? You are missing the point: the fighter jets shouldn't be a main issue to begin with! The fact that it is being brought up as a semi-major point of debate is the point I am addressing.russ_watters said:Three lovely things here: First of course is "guilty party." In what country do you come from where guilt is assumed a priori? Thats not the way it is in mine. If you want to call someone "guilty" - first say who and what, then prove it.
Second: "Redirecting?" The thread is about exercises for intercepting hijacked planes. So how could any question possibly be more relevant than being about intercepting hijacked planes?
Third of course: Who precisely knew what and when? We already know the FBI dropped the ball. Are you saying Bush is connected to that? The famous memo maybe? Don't imply it - say it. Make your point.
amp said:Thinking of Consp. thrys., if I as Prez considered the consequences before the attack while I had a chance to stop them and decided to let the planes hit to reap popular opinion after a trajedy for a illconceived action then I would be unworthy of the office.
You have hypotheticals and questions there: what kind of rebuttal are you looking for? You haven't argued anything!amp said:YES also There is an Air National Guard base @ Mcguire AFB in New Jersey. They have F-16s there and could have intercepted both NY bound hijacked planes in a matter of minutes. Anyone remember how long those planes were in the air after they took off, I think there was a time-line indicating takeoff time and the time when the planes impacted the WTC. If the time from takeoff to impact was greater than 20 - 30 minutes the jets could have been intercepted before they got very close to their target. I'm waiting for the rebuttal.
I'm sorry, I don't accept conspiracy theory. Give me facts. What stand down are you talking about? For a building with 50,000 people, can you show me that more people took off that day than other days? And Rumsfeld: he's VP, he doesn't fly commercial. Who are these "others?"Someone knew, unless the reports are false about certain parties vacating (or not being there that day)the WTC on 9/11. The put options. Most notably Rumsfeld and other individuals either not flying or not using commercial airlines that day. BTW, I heard or read that the stand down was approx 45 minutes long before the fighter jets were allowed into the air. So, no doubt I'm just imagining the stench of some nefarious goings on.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but if you have a point, make it. I don't know what it is with you guys and beating around the bush, but the next sentence after "You are missing the point:" should contain your point in clear and sucinct wording.You are missing the point:
Here's a hypothetical...
Nereid said:What 'put options'? Any evidence they were anything but normal trading? For example, futures market neophytes placing the orders?