My gosh you are a hard case! Plagiarize my azz, I will have you know I pulled all that off a google search which I had done prior to even coming on this forum. You try to come across as the know all but If someone disagrees you have to be sarcastic about it. Like in most things, everyone has their opinions but it doesn't mean they are all wrong. As in so many things to do with the government we can all arm chair qtr back but none of us really really know for sure and neither do you hot shot.
Your posts are word for word cut and pastes from that website. Your post retains the spelling errors. You even close with the same George Bush quote the website closes with. I'm sorry you spent so much time searching for this garbage. It took me less then 3 seconds to find it all packaged up in one webpage for you. What an ironic statement from someone trying to prove the President of the United States was an idiot using information obtained in hindsight. Now as for the content of your verbatim cut and paste plagiarism; all of the information contained in the quoted articles is old. The most recent article you cite is from May of 2002, just 8 months after the attack. For someone complaining of armchair quarterbacking you should at least use the most current information when you do it yourself. 1. On the topic of the hijacking warnings. There were multiple warnings from multiple points in the system. The FAA, for example, received 52 intelligence briefings that mentioned Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda from April to Sept of 2001. Did they act? No. Did anyone blow a whistle and say they were told not to act? No. Why is that? It's because the information was barely actionable. What was the administration supposed to do? Are you suggesting they should have gone to war with Afghanistan before 9/11 to stop Al-Qaeda? If you think that war was "uncalled for" after 9/11, what would you have thought about one launched before 9/11? Were they supposed to shutdown all domestic flights? How long? What about increased searches at airports? People (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about those now and that's AFTER 9/11. What would have happened had security been increased to post 9/11 levels prior to 9/11? Do you think that would have been acceptable to anyone? An intelligence report that includes the possibility that Al-Qaeda is training to hijack aircraft is hardly enough evidence to prevent a hijacking from taking place. Another thing to note is that this whole line of argument is a paradox for truthers. I really don't understand why they argue it. If the Bush administration ignored warnings of the attack they couldn't also have been the folks planning the attack. What great idiot would include systemic warnings that they could then ignore as part of their plan?
<SIGH> you posted the common distortion of what bush said taken out of context,and I posted what he really said,period.
Who said anything about sacrificing children? Odd that it is the first thing to jump to your mind. Were any children at the public school injured that day? No. Must have been safe there. Oh wait . . . that proves foreknowledge. Well, it doesn't but that's what you will say. But all that aside, tell me Mr. Presidential Security Expert, where should they have taken him and how should they have gotten him there? You seem to know so much about how the Secret Service should have acted on that day why don't you share with us what they should have done.
You people have post #41 safely buried but I can thwart you by reposting it. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/210272-cia-knew-911-coming-shut-up-about-5.html#post4579375
How can one prove that someone doesn't know something? Well you sure seem to think they did something wrong that day by not moving him.
If I ask you what 2+2= and you tell me you don't know, does that prove that you don't know? How do you know they did not "act"? Maybe the protocol when dealing with that many unknowns is to stay in a previously determined safe location. Or perhaps they thought it would be riskier to rush him out of there. Not to mention it would probably freak out all the school kids.
I'm disappointed. As is customary for truthers, Paladin109 came here with a bunch of outlandish claims that he pretend to be able to support. Instead, the obvious truth was that he was copying someone else's work, and ran away from its defense when challenged.
All the evidence points to an inside job. http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975 Having a discussion now based on the idea that the government knew it was going to happen and let it happen is simply silly. It's clear to any thinking person who's seen the evidence that you people don't even believe your own arguments and you're just trying to cause confusion in the truth movement.
amen to that.the fact that they keep posting the same old unproven drivel that has been debunked proves they are just trolling.
The US bureacracy is made up of hundreds of agencies. With several very large agencies commiting acts that were found to be unlawful. Even the office of the president of the United States. It seems that when you talk about the US government, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
