9-11-01 Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill

[Max Power]

your posts speak for themselves. You've posted that about 4 times already yet you havent answered the questions.

The article states that the drill was a coincidence. It also states that the drill was not a counter terrorism drill. It merely was an accident training drill. You chose to draw a conclusion that needs further evidence to be substantiated. You havent provided this evidence. What do i need to prove to you then? Your article proves everything for me.

And what conclusion, pray tell, have I drawn?

 

[Mr. P]

And what conclusion, pray tell, have I drawn?

Mine is, yer just wasting space on the site.
Go play games at Yahoo or AOL.

 

[Gunny]

Hmmm, I post a news article from a reputable newspaper, that states that there were certain drills being performed on 9-11, you call it a "defunct conspiracy theory," offer NO evidence to back up that statement, and I'm the one who's trying to slip some bullshit in?

ROFL

Again, you are demanding evidence to prove a negative. Not the way the game is played .....honestly anyway.

 

[Said1]

Again, you are demanding evidence to prove a negative. Not the way the game is played .....honestly anyway.

I bet someone actually called 911 that day too. Or better, I bet someone had a dream, the night before, that a plane crashed into a building. When will you fools wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Max Power]

Again, you are demanding evidence to prove a negative. Not the way the game is played .....honestly anyway.

Look, it happened. There were drills on 9-11. There were PLENTY of people who have discussed this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-plane-drill-_x.htm

Insein claimed this was a defunct theory. I suppose I can say ANYTHING is defunct theory if I'm not required to "prove a negative."

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that USAToday was wrong, or that there were no drills. Lack of knowledge of such a drill doesn't prove anything on your part.

 

[Mr. P]

Look, it happened. There were drills on 9-11. .....

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that USAToday was wrong, or that there were no drills. Lack of knowledge of such a drill doesn't prove anything on your part.

And lack of knowledge there was a drill or drills proves nothing either.
So again, what is your point?

 

[Said1]

Look, it happened. There were drills on 9-11. There were PLENTY of people who have discussed this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-plane-drill-_x.htm

Insein claimed this was a defunct theory. I suppose I can say ANYTHING is defunct theory if I'm not required to "prove a negative."

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that USAToday was wrong, or that there were no drills. Lack of knowledge of such a drill doesn't prove anything on your part.

But what does that have to do with anything, those buildings are not that close to the pentagon. Or, their lack of knowledge pertaining to which buildings would be hit the actual point?

 

[Max Power]

But what does that have to do with anything, those buildings are not that close to the pentagon. Or, their lack of knowledge pertaining to which buildings would be hit the actual point?

Look, either it was a coincidence, or it wasn't.

I'm not trying to make up anyone elses mind... I'm just trying to share some information.

 

[Mr. P]

Look, either it was a coincidence, or it wasn't.

I'm not trying to make up anyone elses mind... I'm just trying to share some information.

Like this information wasn't out there already.
Again, what IS your point?

 

[Said1]

Look, either it was a coincidence, or it wasn't.

I'm not trying to make up anyone elses mind... I'm just trying to share some information.

That's mighty kind of ya! Keep up the good work.

 

[Max Power]

Like this information wasn't out there already.
Again, what IS your point?

Well, I suppose my point is that there are a LOT of unanswered questions about 9-11.

For example
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27609
From this thread

There was a 1998 memo reporting that Bin Laden was preparing to use civilian/commercial aircraft in terrorist plots, but the 9-11 commission made NO mention of the memo. Doesn't that sound KINDOF important? Why did they ignore that?

 

[Mr. P]

Well, I suppose my point is that there are a LOT of unanswered questions about 9-11.

For example
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27609
From this thread

There was a 1998 memo reporting that Bin Laden was preparing to use civilian/commercial aircraft in terrorist plots, but the 9-11 commission made NO mention of the memo. Doesn't that sound KINDOF important? Why did they ignore that?

So that was the point of the USA today article?
Why didn’t you just come out and say, “HEY, I’M A FUCKING LEFT WING LIBERAL CONSPIRACY THEORY MORON, LISTEN TO ME”? Just wondering.

 

[Mr. P]

So that was the point of the USA today article?
Why didn’t you just come out and say, “HEY, I’M A FUCKING LEFT WING LIBERAL CONSPIRACY THEORY MORON, LISTEN TO ME”? Just wondering.

While yer at it..take care of this one too...
Nov 22, 1963 Dallas, the grassy knoll, do you have ALL the answers on that one, yet? No? SHIT!

 

[Gunny]

Look, it happened. There were drills on 9-11. There were PLENTY of people who have discussed this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-plane-drill-_x.htm

Insein claimed this was a defunct theory. I suppose I can say ANYTHING is defunct theory if I'm not required to "prove a negative."

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that USAToday was wrong, or that there were no drills. Lack of knowledge of such a drill doesn't prove anything on your part.

BUT .... is there evidence to coroborate USA Today's assertion?

A problem I have with you lib-types is that you demand ten separate, verifiable sources and a note form our Mom's if we make an assertion; yet, you just "saying so" makes it so when you are the one making the assertion.

I have not questioned the validity/invalidity of your assertion yet. Certainly something of the magnitude you are claiming would be verifiable by more than one source. I'm asking that you provide it.

 

[Gunny]

While yer at it..take care of this one too...
Nov 22, 1963 Dallas, the grassy knoll, do you have ALL the answers on that one, yet? No? SHIT!

***I was on the grasy knoll ...but don't tell****

 

[Max Power]

BUT .... is there evidence to coroborate USA Today's assertion?

A problem I have with you lib-types is that you demand ten separate, verifiable sources and a note form our Mom's if we make an assertion; yet, you just "saying so" makes it so when you are the one making the assertion.

I have not questioned the validity/invalidity of your assertion yet. Certainly something of the magnitude you are claiming would be verifiable by more than one source. I'm asking that you provide it.

First of all, "just saying so," is not what I'm doing, because I did post an article.

I understand that you are asking for MORE evidence, so here is some.
On page 20 of the 9/11 commission report:
FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a
problem here.We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York,
and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s
or something up there, help us out.
NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

Evidence that there WAS an exercise going on at the time.
More info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001


And, in addition to USA Today, you have
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

The National Law Enforcement and Security Institute will be holding a conference called "Homeland Security: America's Leadership Challenge" in Chicago on 6 Sept 2002. The star speaker is Rudolph Giuliani. One of the other speakers is CIA man John Fulton. Here is the crucial sentence from the promotional literature for the conference:

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.

 

[dilloduck]

First of all, "just saying so," is not what I'm doing, because I did post an article.

I understand that you are asking for MORE evidence, so here is some.
On page 20 of the 9/11 commission report:
FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a
problem here.We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York,
and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s
or something up there, help us out.
NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

Evidence that there WAS an exercise going on at the time.
More info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001


And, in addition to USA Today, you have
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

Well its obvious that it was all a CIA plot--you convinced me!

 

[insein]

Well, I suppose my point is that there are a LOT of unanswered questions about 9-11.

For example
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27609
From this thread

There was a 1998 memo reporting that Bin Laden was preparing to use civilian/commercial aircraft in terrorist plots, but the 9-11 commission made NO mention of the memo. Doesn't that sound KINDOF important? Why did they ignore that?

As explained in the other thread, the memo specifically says that he was looking to target "military passenger aircraft" and the memo went on to say that as a precaution, civilian aircraft would beef up security as well. Start by reading what you post, then go from there.

 

[Max Power]

As explained in the other thread, the memo specifically says that he was looking to target "military passenger aircraft" and the memo went on to say that as a precaution, civilian aircraft would beef up security as well. Start by reading what you post, then go from there.

Aww gee, I guess it's a waste of space in the memo, where it says bin Laden, “might take the course of least resistance and turn to a civilian [aircraft] target.”

It's a good thing bin Laden didn't actually do that, right?
Oh wait!
:Rolleyes:

 

[Said1]

Aww gee, I guess it's a waste of space in the memo, where it says bin Laden, “might take the course of least resistance and turn to a civilian [aircraft] target.”

It's a good thing bin Laden didn't actually do that, right?
Oh wait!
:Rolleyes:

Did you insert the word "aircraft"? I'm really to lazy to read the memo.