Creative Speculation

. .

(54 posts)

72. Let me get this straight.

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:01 PM

Oct 2012

Under a design that was specifically meant to pit a lack of reaction time against the preservation of life--using hijacked airliners as the method of destruction--you would put forth that a line of communication between the National Command Authority would be acceptably established AFTER the need was to present itself, and you would put this forth despite the fact such an arrangement could only increase the risk for death in an otherwise absolutely unnecessary manner.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

911: Window of Exposure [View all] . . Sep 2012 OP

Brilliantly LARED Sep 2012 #1

"Brilliantly ridiculous notion," eh wot? AlwaysQuestion Oct 2012 #76

. . . freshwest Sep 2012 #2

Link to where? . . Sep 2012 #3

Let's not forget the Politicalboi Sep 2012 #4

I don't expect much outcry when attempts are made to steal this election, either. dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #5

O.K. As requested by the OP, I am here at this gathering of loons. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #6

Please read the original post. . . Sep 2012 #7

So, your proof of conspiracy is that Rumsfeld adhered to a course of action that YOU determine MercutioATC Sep 2012 #8

MercutioATC, I asked you to . . Sep 2012 #9

MercutioATC, I asked you to please make sure you understand the post... . . Sep 2012 #10

"Acceptable"? By what standards? MercutioATC Sep 2012 #11

So by sharply increasing the probability for murder... . . Sep 2012 #12

You do realize that "murder" has a legal definition... MercutioATC Sep 2012 #13

So why do you suppose a person... . . Sep 2012 #14

. JosAle Sep 2012 #37

Bump for the ATC's answer JosAle Sep 2012 #38

Of course I know there were exercises that day. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #39

So why did you say that? JosAle Sep 2012 #40

Yep, when you look at Rumsfeld like this, it looks real bad JosAle Sep 2012 #41

Did you not read the body of my post? MercutioATC Sep 2012 #42

What does that have to do with Rumsfeld?? JosAle Sep 2012 #43

Absolutely nothing. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #44

You just proved my point. JosAle Sep 2012 #45

If your point is that we were unprepared, yes, I'm agreeing. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #46

My point is there were drills for hijacked planes into buildings JosAle Sep 2012 #47

As I said, you don't understand the mechanics of the system. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #48

Did they think the hijackers may take the passengers out to breakfast? JosAle Sep 2012 #49

4,500 other planes in the air at the time, roughly. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #50

You're only making the case stronger JosAle Sep 2012 #51

To be clear... . . Sep 2012 #15

Calling out William Seger: I am responding to your post, here. . . Sep 2012 #16

Debates with "truthers" usually devolve into pointless repetition William Seger Sep 2012 #17

So you cannot argue against it. There's a very good reason for that. . . Sep 2012 #18

But I did "argue against it" and all you could do was reassert the same dubious premise William Seger Sep 2012 #19

Please look upward in the thread. . . Sep 2012 #20

Why? William Seger Sep 2012 #21

Let's go... . . Sep 2012 #22

No, if you're just going to keep repeating the same faulty argument, let's stop William Seger Sep 2012 #23

If you're unable to argue, please say so. . . Sep 2012 #24

I'll take that as a "No" to both questions William Seger Sep 2012 #25

So once again, you're unable to argue . . Sep 2012 #26

But if I'm the last one to post, then I win? William Seger Sep 2012 #27

The record will stand, friend. Our words are here to be read. . . Sep 2012 #28

A variation of "affirming the consequent" William Seger Sep 2012 #29

So... . . Sep 2012 #31

You are one funny guy/girl. I appreciate the humor. nt LARED Sep 2012 #30

I too find this guy funny! zappaman Sep 2012 #32

So resume from where William Seger fled . . Sep 2012 #33

"Argumentum ad nauseam" William Seger Sep 2012 #34

"Argumentum ad nauseam" zappaman Sep 2012 #35

Seger fled? zappaman Sep 2012 #36

Every single point you raise is speculative, "I think this is what would have happened" stevenleser Oct 2012 #52

Please do the homework required to understand this subject . . Oct 2012 #53

Not only have I done the homework, I'm former military (US Air Force) I understand this a lot better stevenleser Oct 2012 #54

Our words are right here. Anyone may read them. . . Oct 2012 #55

No care necessary. All of my opinions are very public. Just google me. nt stevenleser Oct 2012 #56

Further notes... . . Oct 2012 #57

Looks like further nonsense William Seger Oct 2012 #58

Post 22 remains unanswered. . . Oct 2012 #59

LOL, post 23 remains unanswered William Seger Oct 2012 #60

and... . . Oct 2012 #61

Say what? William Seger Oct 2012 #62

And by the way... . . Oct 2012 #63

WTF? William Seger Oct 2012 #64

"had any impact whatsoever" was bolded... . . Oct 2012 #65

Are you even reading what I write? William Seger Oct 2012 #66

Yes, and it turns out we agree. . . Oct 2012 #67

You flatter yourself to claim this thread has a point, but... William Seger Oct 2012 #68

Come on... . . Oct 2012 #69

Once more round the Truther Merry-Go-Round William Seger Oct 2012 #70

Let me get this straight. . . Oct 2012 #72

"such an arrangement"? William Seger Oct 2012 #73

Specially for you: . . Oct 2012 #74

And your point is... ? (n/m) William Seger Oct 2012 #75

"The scope of possibility is exactly what it is. Logic will lead any person to the same conclusion." zappaman Oct 2012 #71