If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 350
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 10:33:59 AM

cc_rider: Dammit. I meant to type that Putin called Bush on 9-10-2001. The day before, you know...


to tell him something big was gonna happen?

Where? Using what?

Should we mobilize hazmat teams to every school? Is that where the attack will happen? What if we anticipate the wrong type of attack in the wrong place.....think of how incompetent the left will try to make the GOP look if they bring a water hose to a grease fire.
 
2012-09-11 10:34:14 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, why did Bush lie after the war and say there were no WMDs? Why does he continue to lie about it?


He was referring to the region of Iraq that resided under the couches in the oval office.
 
2012-09-11 10:35:08 AM

Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.
 
2012-09-11 10:36:20 AM

Giltric: ...think of how incompetent the left will try to make the GOP look if they bring a water hose to a grease fire.


Umm, let me guess, about the same as if they do nothing at all?
 
2012-09-11 10:37:01 AM

Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.


The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.

I bet the next occurance there will be tons of cell phone videos.....noone will bother to use the phone to call the police though. People have become risk averse.
 
2012-09-11 10:37:29 AM
 
2012-09-11 10:39:17 AM

Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.


Yes, as a matter of fact they did receive warnings. Passengers had phone conversations with relatives on the ground watching the coverage of the attacks.

Do you ever get anything right?
 
2012-09-11 10:39:30 AM

Pochas: Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.


So no belts, suspenders, shoelaces, yarn, floss, surgical tubing for a collostomy allowed on planes cause you can use them as a garrot?

Or do you have a different definition of "weapons" then me?
 
2012-09-11 10:40:17 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


Issued a warning to every airport in the US warning of a possible attack. Put military personnel, bomb-sniffing dogs in every airport, or even closed them down for a couple days until they could secure all airports, if they believed a threat was imminent.
 
2012-09-11 10:41:46 AM

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.

So no belts, suspenders, shoelaces, yarn, floss, surgical tubing for a collostomy allowed on planes cause you can use them as a garrot?

Or do you have a different definition of "weapons" then me?


The footage of the security shows them setting off a metal detector, the security guys didn't even bother to find out what they had that set it off. If it was a government agent informed of the danger, they'd have found it.
 
2012-09-11 10:42:22 AM

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.

The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.


ah so you're trolling here...
 
2012-09-11 10:46:18 AM

Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.


Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.
 
2012-09-11 10:46:22 AM

cc_rider: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

Issued a warning to every airport in the US warning of a possible attack. Put military personnel, bomb-sniffing dogs in every airport, or even closed them down for a couple days until they could secure all airports, if they believed a threat was imminent.



Not for nothing but most of the solutions to 9/11 are only in hindsight.....we know that 2 planes hit the WTC...so in hindsight the solution is to increase airport security.

We had nothing actionable. We didn;t know if there would be an attack at a mall, a school or a synygogue.
 
2012-09-11 10:51:46 AM

serial_crusher: Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.


he's trolling the thread dude... no point in responding after that
 
2012-09-11 10:55:21 AM
No. 3 out of 4 planes full of people thought that when their plane was highjacked that they would end up on a tamac somewhere waiting for the goverment or Chuck Norris to save them because the warnings of highjackers deliberately crashing said plane into a building were swept under the rug.
When people say "Well we had no idea they would do such a thing" they are refering to the general population. The government? not so much.
The response from most anyone I knew at the time when this was going down was "WTF Who would do such a thing?!?!?" Now we know.
 
2012-09-11 10:56:19 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


Yeah, but that costs money. And where did you think that money would come from, wise guy? Medicare?
 
2012-09-11 10:57:30 AM
And yes I post once once every other year or so and it was to feed the troll. Now I feel dirty.
 
2012-09-11 10:57:59 AM

pontechango: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

Yeah, but that costs money. And where did you think that money would come from, wise guy? Medicare?


Locks on cockpit doors is a hindsight solution.

The threat was that a terrorist attack was imminent....it didn't say how or where.
 
2012-09-11 11:00:56 AM

Tom_Thump: No. 3 out of 4 planes full of people thought that when their plane was highjacked that they would end up on a tamac somewhere waiting for the goverment or Chuck Norris to save them because the warnings of highjackers deliberately crashing said plane into a building were swept under the rug.
When people say "Well we had no idea they would do such a thing" they are refering to the general population. The government? not so much.
The response from most anyone I knew at the time when this was going down was "WTF Who would do such a thing?!?!?" Now we know.


What warning was swept under the rug....be specific. Include citations.
 
2012-09-11 11:01:25 AM

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


I took the liberty of reading quite a lot of stuff in the links that came from that result. None of that is usefully true. Most just reference each other, with Examiner linking to Townhall and so on. There was a PDF that Examnier posted, but it was a PDF THEY made (unless you think that US agencies use the examiner logo in their PDFs - and no, it wasn't just added to the PDF). And while maybe it was a verbatim duplicate, it concluded that the WMD found were ancient, in extreme disrepair, and hadn't been moved for years. ie, this is not the stockpile you're looking for.
 
2012-09-11 11:03:31 AM

Skleenar: /This goes to my pet theory that the problem with the GOP today is that they took the lessons learned in PR/Advertising and have seen them as the solutions in all realms of human activity.


Not quite. They learned it from years of being inculcated into religion. When you get immersed in a lifestyle and culture that says, "accept this 'fact' of an itinerant jew who dies and is resurrected in 3 days to cleanse the earth of sin..." you can immerse yourself into any other fabrication. In other words, religionists -- and christians in particular -- are raised in an environment of accepting self-contradictory falsehoods. They learn to accept a "fact" that they manufacture and discard all countervailing information.

Christianity is more egregious in this aspect than other religions because most other religions, including Catholicism, is mostly a prescriptive list of do's and do nots. It's from those archaic do's and do nots that weird conclusions are made. But Christianity, using the new testament, isn't so much a do and do not, but require the reader to fully embrace a ridiculous mythology about a person/god who dies for all of humanity's sins (but doesn't tell people about that, he had to have his disciples do that), but then gets a mulligan by being resurrected. I mean, he died for our sins, but then becomes alive. So do we get out sins back? Did he cheat on dying for our sins? If I jump on a grenade to save my unit and die from that, I'm a hero. But if I could miraculously resurrect myself, wouldn't that be a cheat, especially if I know I'm god? Wouldn't it have been better if I prevented the battled that allowed a grenade to be dropped in the unit's foxhole?

And what about Judas? He fingered Jesus to the romans and set in motion the whole crucifixion. Had he not fingered Jesus, none of that would have happened. So in a way, Christians should be praising Judas for doing a good, but unwitting deed. And, even though Judas screwed over Jesus, all of humanity supposedly got the good deal out of it and Jesus was resurrected so no harm, no foul, right? But no, Judas was killed in a most horrific way, had his entrails splattered all over the place. And all that just to enable the whole christian movement to get into first gear. It's as if Jesus didn't jump on the grenade, but Judas pushed him onto it. The unit was saved, Jesus miraculously doesn't die from the grenade, and everyone's blaming Judas for doing the push when a) Judas didn't know of the grenade and b) wasn't in position to do it himself, but his unintended act managed to save the unit nonetheless with no one, including Jesus the grenade jumper hurt.
 
2012-09-11 11:03:58 AM

TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?


They saw an opportunity to use the military in an ultra-cool crushing of a bad guy.
 
2012-09-11 11:07:19 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.
 
2012-09-11 11:08:32 AM
Strange, not a lot of "Miss Me Yet?" pics today. Can't help but wonder why...
 
2012-09-11 11:08:57 AM

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.

The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.

I bet the next occurance there will be tons of cell phone videos.....noone will bother to use the phone to call the police though. People have become risk averse.


Wow - I'm upgrading you to asshole. Probably not actually old enough to remember 9/11. Or so old, you don't remember 9/11.
 
2012-09-11 11:09:26 AM

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.


not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers
 
2012-09-11 11:11:03 AM

EyeballKid: Strange, not a lot of "Miss Me Yet?" pics today. Can't help but wonder why...


My proudest 'shop.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-09-11 11:12:25 AM

Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:44 AM

Headso: serial_crusher: Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.

he's trolling the thread dude... no point in responding after that


I refuse to be out-trolled.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:48 AM

Headso: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.

not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


That's true. But do you really think that it would have been the warning that was issued? No way. It would have had terrible impact on the airline industry, and everyone would have gone apeshiat and so on. The political costs would have been so high that only the most selfless politician would have done it. And I don't know if we've ever had a president so selfless since George Washington.
 
2012-09-11 11:13:27 AM

Headso: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.

not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


Only after the passengers had voted on it...like they did on flight 93.

like i said....risk averse.


risk aversion is why there are no specifics in the PDB.

noone wants to put their ass on the line for anything.
 
2012-09-11 11:17:46 AM

sprawl15: Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers

The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.


Exactly. When these kinds of things happened before, there was generally some kind of demands to be met. No one was trained for what was about to go down, because it was completely unprecedented.
 
2012-09-11 11:18:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?

Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.


The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)
 
2012-09-11 11:19:46 AM

serial_crusher: Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.



The CIA had tracked them all when entering the country, they had to apply for visas. You're not too bright. But this isn't a surprise, you're used to hearing that.
 
2012-09-11 11:22:00 AM

Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.



Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP
 
2012-09-11 11:22:25 AM

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well

Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?


And how many flight schools are there? How many with new students from terrorist sponsoring countries? Who are being paid for by suspect sources? Who have recently purchased tickets on planes they were training to fly?
 
2012-09-11 11:22:57 AM

Rashnu: Catch-22. He could only have stopped the attacks if liberals had already been cowed enough by the post-9/11 climate to have previously passed or allowed the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions and warrantless wire-taps.


Bullshiat. All the information gathered -- more than enough to have acted to preclude 9/11 -- was gathered perfectly legally under the purview of FISA -- a Carter act, that was later expanded under the Clinton administration.

The Patriot Act is, in essence, an expansion and extension of FISA. The Patriot Act added no "tools" to the intelligence community's arsenal they hadn't earlier, that would have worked to "stop" 9/11 -- because we already had the farking capability, and did not use it.
 
2012-09-11 11:23:12 AM
My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage. (Those amish aren't likely to have phones, much less cell towers.) Or did they use the onboard phones that one had to swipe a credit over to call on?
 
2012-09-11 11:29:58 AM

dericwater: The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil and the defense contracts. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)


The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing is concerned that the rest of the world will think that America has a small penis. They wage conflicts to prevent anyone from getting near our pants with any sort of measurement device. They wage conflicts halfway around the world (to avoid the possibility of blowback reaching our shores), with a fighting force nowhere near "overwhelming" (because a short, quick win is unsatisfying), but with lots of tech goodies (because AMERICA FARK YEAH WITH LAZORS).

// also, because John Bolton's mustache is actually a psychopathic weasel glued to his lip with its tendrils sunk deep into his amygdala
 
2012-09-11 11:30:17 AM

MartinD-35: Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.

I have an older sister who should be considered fairly smart (graduated magna cum laude, that's all A's from Pembroke U, the woman's part of Brown U). She's an accomplished author of several very fine books. Even though I was in my car on the Washington Blvd. access from 95 to the Memorial Bridge and SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, she still insists it was a cruise missile sent by the US military. It makes me really sad and I can't even talk about it with her.


appropriate Fark response: [citation needed]

or:

you seem to be a person in the know, so can you please tell me and everyone else how the only picture or video of that incident is from a guard shack and only has about 1 second (maybe less) of an object that may or may not be an airplane. on a building that probably has quite a few cameras around. maybe even more than a few, perhaps dozens and dozens of cameras.

if you have other photos / videos, please offer them.

/not trolling, just want to have a real conversation about it

thanks
 
2012-09-11 11:30:35 AM

sprawl15: Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers

The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.


I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.
 
2012-09-11 11:30:53 AM

sprawl15: Nobody expected it,


You are so full of it, it's coming out of your piehole.
 
2012-09-11 11:34:03 AM

inner ted: you seem to be a person in the know, so can you please tell me and everyone else how the only picture or video of that incident is from a guard shack and only has about 1 second (maybe less) of an object that may or may not be an airplane. on a building that probably has quite a few cameras around. maybe even more than a few, perhaps dozens and dozens of cameras.


Because the DoD's HQ is one of the most secured places on the planet, and they're not likely to even acknowledge the existence of cameras, let alone tell you where they are, where they look at or let you see footage from them.

If not for the smoking hole, they might not even have acknowledged they got hit.

// works 2 miles from the Pentagon
// accidentally entered their parking lot one night
// no response from security, though the lot is about a mile wide - if I'd gotten closer, I imagine I'd have had several intense conversations that night
 
2012-09-11 11:38:01 AM

intelligent comment below: Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.


Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP


Do you have citations for that?
 
2012-09-11 11:39:24 AM

Headso: I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.


A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on. On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.

inner ted: /not trolling, just want to have a real conversation about it


I would suggest you go look up some basic farking information about the event before trying to initiate a conversation about something you clearly know shiatall about.
 
2012-09-11 11:39:57 AM

dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.


This has always given me pause, too.
 
2012-09-11 11:44:56 AM

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Saying Bush wanted this is absolutely stupid. I agree. However, it wasn't about the administration doing things differently. It was about the administration doing any farking thing at all.

The president did not have a single meeting on the subject of terrorism at all. He basically didn't have the time of day for Richard Clark and terrorism was not something they thought was important.

Could they have stopped it? Who knows. Should they have tried? Of course. What do you expect from a guy who put a horse judge in charge of FEMA.
 
2012-09-11 11:46:59 AM

Giltric: Do you have citations for that?



what's the difference? You didn't bother to read the last ones posted that should have shut you up. But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance
 
2012-09-11 11:53:37 AM

sprawl15: Headso: I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.

A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on. On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.


You seem to be saying you know how all the people in the plane would react with prior knowledge of the possibility that they might be used as a suicide bomb. That's an opinion which I don't agree with...
 
2012-09-11 11:53:52 AM

intelligent comment below: But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance


To paraphrase something a great man once said; You don't go to war with the ignorance you want, you go to war with the ignorance you have.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report