US airports had warnings of 9/11

[cynical_bastard]

.....Of the 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April and 10 September 2001, 52 mentioned Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats".

eg no reason to think a domestic flight would be hijacked

 

[Streathamite]

<heroic attempt to drag thread back on-topic>
why were all those security alerts ignored? I'm betting one reason is that the USA never believed it would ever be attacked like that. They - state and people - had to break a whole mindset of invulnerability.
Look at it from their perspective; a decade back, their winning their cold war left them unchallenged as the planet's sole superpower. they could get the UN to do pretty much anything they wanted, simply by leaning on it hard enough. The Eastern Europrean states were crying out for US 'assistance'. No nation could challenge them. Furthermore, they shared a whole continent with an impoverished, demi-feudal client state to the south, and a wholly-owned subsidiary to the north. To their west, the world's biggest ocean. to their east the world's second biggest.
In those circs, most of us would feel 100% rock-solid safe.

 

[DexterTCN]

That's not what it means, actually.

Would you like some help on this because you're making yourself look awfully silly here.

Sure feel free...I have something along the lines of 'appeal to emotions (usually 'the crowd') rather than using fact or reason'...what do you have?

 

[cynical_bastard]

Ad hominem's an attack on a person rather than their arguments, like maybe accusing someone of being a CIA stooge for disagreeing with you.

 

[DexterTCN]

Grow up, idiot.

That lie is uncalled for and insulting.

It's not a lie it is an implication taken from the way I watched you reply on these threads...didn't I document it well enough for you?

It was not an insult, merely taken as one. And as has been said many times about you, not by me...the lady doth protest too much.

As to your personal abuse...well on you go. Married 20 years mate..water of a duck's back.

 

[DexterTCN]

Ad hominem's an attack on a person rather than their arguments, like maybe accusing someone of being a CIA stooge for disagreeing with you.

No. 'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.'

Dictionary.com

 

[neilh]

No. 'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.'

Dictionary.com

right, that's funny, gives a slightly different spin on the meaning than i had imagined - i thought it was just an attack on the person making the argument instead of the logic of the point itsself but from this definition it seems to suggest that it would be an ad hominem argument for example to make a viewpoint seem some way to appeal to someones personal ideas and prejudices, eg to make something look like more of a nationalistic or liberal or traditionalist viewpoint than it is if you knew the person you were talking to had an aversion to such strains of thought.

 

[editor]

It's not a lie it is an implication taken from the way I watched you reply on these threads...didn't I document it well enough for you?
.

I do not "sleep in a big stars and stripes blanket" so anyone who says that I do - or infers that I am some sort of pro-US fantatic - is a liar, pure and simple.

 

[neilh]

I do not "sleep in a big stars and stripes blanket" so anyone who says that I do - or infers that I am some sort of pro-US fantatic - is a liar, pure and simple.

i think there's a difference though in saying someone does something and saying you bet someone does something - that phrase suggests it's what he thinks you do; i still think it was an entirely unreasonable attack but wouldn't say it was a lie.

 

[editor]

No. 'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.'

No matter how you try and twist it around, the context in which you used the word was quite incorrect.

 

[editor]

i think there's a difference though in saying someone does something and saying you bet someone does something - that phrase suggests it's what he thinks you do; i still think it was an entirely unreasonable attack but wouldn't say it was a lie.

Ah. So it was an ad hominem then?

 

[neilh]

Ah. So it was an ad hominem then?

aye, an exceptional example of ad homineminal argument

 

[editor]

It was not an insult, merely taken as one. And as has been said many times about you, not by me...the lady doth protest too much.

Who else has said that I sleep in a big stars and stripes blanket?

And I'm not 'protesting', I'm merely correcting your ignorant and rather tiresome personal attacks.

 

[DexterTCN]

But that's the problem. Whenever the topic is brought up, it's almost always by the same handful of obsessed conspiraloon posters who are endlessly regurgitating their repeated revelations from the same dodgy websites.

And yes, they invariably have a UFO in there somewhere as well as the usual pile of books to flog.

The truth is that it is the conspiracy nuts who prevent any hope of a rational debate on the issue here.

Now who brought up UFOs, conspiraloons, dodgy websites and seems to be endlessly regurgitating?

And let's take a look at one of the sites that reopen911.org link to.

My first random click was on libertyforum.org. And - guess what - their forums are full of the usual ridiculous guff about UFOs!

Here's an example:

Do you believe in UFOs, Sparticus?

That was your post 5.

And as I have patiently pointed out zillions of times, I did not set these boards up to become a one-stop resource for a tiny handful of obsessed, attention-desperate conspiraloons to repeat their bonkers fantasies from UFO-tastic, dodgy book flogging websites...

That was your post 55, where you seem to be talking about yourself...seeing as how you introduced these subjects and seem to be going on about them again and again.

Case in point...you still refuse to debate the original topic. However as this all seems to be getting a bit personal, I am not discussing this line of debate anymore with you here.

 

[editor]

Case in point...you still refuse to debate the original topic.

I think you'll find the bin positively over-flowing with threads where I tried hard - very hard - to argue the case in point, hence my short thrift here. It gets a bit boring seeing the same thing repeated for the zillioneth time, you see.

Still, at least you've learnt what ad hominem means after supplying a mighty fine example yourself.

Next you'll be telling me that your waffle about sleeping in stars and stripes blankets and quotes from dictionary.com were an example of on topic debate too!

 

[editor]

Now who brought up UFOs, conspiraloons, dodgy websites and seems to be endlessly regurgitating?

Err, the poster originally linking to those UFO, conspiraloon dodgy sites at the beginning of this thread, perhaps?

 

[laptop]

<heroic attempt to drag thread back on-topic>
why were all those security alerts ignored? I'm betting one reason is that the USA never believed it would ever be attacked like that. They - state and people - had to break a whole mindset of invulnerability.

Yup. I'm betting that another reason is that there are so damn many alerts.

For comparison, I heard that the number of bomb threats in London during the IRA campaign was about 100/day; and that in the days after an actual bomb it rose sharply. Obviously, some were obvious nutters that could be ignored immediately (hey, I even had one on my answering machine).

Obviously, there were good reasons for not discussing them publicly (because that would itself lead to a spate of threats which might lead to a real warning not being acted on which could lead to deaths - uncomfortable to find myself agreeing with the Yard on that but there you go).

 

[DexterTCN]

Err, the poster originally linking to those UFO, conspiraloon dodgy sites at the beginning of this thread, perhaps?

Look...I don't want to appear thick...but it was you that linked to the dodgy UFO conspiraloon site!

Observe: post 5 (which I did mention before you know)

And let's take a look at one of the sites that reopen911.org link to.

My first random click was on libertyforum.org. And - guess what - their forums are full of the usual ridiculous guff about UFOs!

Here's an example:

Do you believe in UFOs, Sparticus?

So your man Sparticus there did link to the 911 site...but the UFO site, liberty...was linked to by you, Sparticus never mentioned it. Then you yapyapyapyap about UFO linking idiots.

Oh hold the fuckin phone...what's this?.....this 'first link you randomly clicked on'....was the 29th down in a list of 60? And it's not even on the homepage?

The homepage must have over 200 links on it and you have gone passed the homepage, halfway down a list of 60 or so on another page to conveniently find a UFO link?

In fact the liberty link on the 9/11 link mentions nothing about UFOs...it is only discussing 9/11 isn't it? You have come out of the linked thread and looked to see what else you could find on the site...yeah? What a dishonest thing to do.

Don't get me wrong....it doesn't look like the most reasonable if sites to me...but still....you ignored 259 or so links before finding one that did...if you looked around really hard on it....mention UFOs.....?

Could you explain to me how that is relevant? Could you explain to me how that is a reasonable extrapolation? Or how it is worthy of being used to derail a thread about intelligence failures? Apart of course from sounding like Bill O'Reilly that is.

Some may call me cynical,even though I have been extremely generous, lord knows the people here are wise enough to realise when something is slightly askew, and we know that the editor is a fair man...so why would he make such an extraneous link?...but I suggest to you that you have done dirty here...you looked pretty fucking hard for that 'first random click' and you have certainly given us a pretty tenuous account of how you got to it.

(see that last paragraph btw...that's an ad hominem)

hmmm...I feel like singing. oooh say can you seee.........

 

[bigfish]

Some may call me cynica...

Not me. I would have to say that you are absolutely bang on the fucking money. The name of the game is called discredit the messenger by any means necessary. hence the trawl through all the pages and links to find the vaguest mention of a dreaded UFO.

UFO = conspiraloon = obsessive

I particularly like the last link in the slander chain because when you check the facts then you discover that the editor is by far the most "obsessive" poster on any 9/11 related thread. Take this thread for example, the editor is way out in front with a mighty total of 31 fact light posts, next it's neith with a mere 10, then Dexter with 9, Dr J with 7 and then me with 6. Add all our posts together and we score just one more post than the editor.

Anyone looking for a text book example of vulgar projection in action need look no further.

 

[editor]

Some may call me cynical,even though I have been extremely generous, lord knows the people here are wise enough to realise when something is slightly askew, and we know that the editor is a fair man...so why would he make such an extraneous link?..

Let's rubbish your laughable slur, shall we?

Visit http://reopen911.org
CLICK ONE: links. Pick random page
Arrive at Libertyforum.org
Type in 'ufo'.
CLICK TWO
Rewarded with a LONG page stuffed full of UFO bonkers fruitloop garbage, just as I expected.
Time taken: 20 seconds.

Let's try again!
CLICK ONE: http://www.rumormillnews.com/
CLICK TWO: type in UFO and get rewarded with a over 600 pages stuffed full of UFO barking drivel.
Time taken: 20 seconds.

Unlike some of the obsessed dreamers here, I've got better things to do with my time than trawl through fruitloop sites stuffed full of lies for the terminally gullible, although it is fun ridiculing their 'credible' sources.

Do you believe in UFOs? Do you think a credible source would carry hundreds of stories of totally barking tales of "invisible UFOs" and "UFO activity on the Moon"?

 

[editor]

I particularly like the last link in the slander chain because when you check the facts then you discover that the editor is by far the most "obsessive" poster on any 9/11 related thread.

That'll be because it's my site and I have no intention of letting a tiny handful of obsessed fruitloops turn it intro the kind of laughable, zero-credibility conspiraloon sites that can be seen festering away on the web.

If you're so sure that you're right and have such a problem with my moderation, why don't you start up your own conspiraloon site?

But we both know the answer to that, don't we? No fucker would ever look at it and that's why you have to leech off the popularity of this site in your desperation to find an audience to your conspiracy fantasies.

And despite having an absolutely free hand to endlessly regurgitate your fantasies here, barely a soul believes a word you say! Why is that do you think?

Absolute proof of just how deluded and out of you touch you are can be seen with the woeful disaster that was Sparticus's "UK premiere" of his 9/11 film. Despite plugging it relentlessly here for weeks, his two 'premiere's attracted a laughable, paltry SIX people - despite admission being FREE!

 

[sparticus]

Editor

You seem to have time to endlessly thoughtpolice 9/11 threads dedicating considerable time to diversion and talking shite on them, anything but discussing the actual evidence and staying on topic. But you never quite find the time to read one chapter of an extremely well sourced book that links directly to its sources in the mainstream media such as the BBC, Times and Washington Post. If you're going to spend your life defending the indefensible, atleast check out the facts. I have on several occasions offered to send either DVDs or books

You are such lier. You have never debated this topic (the US prior knowledge of 9/11) honestly. Last time I started a thread on precisely this subject a year ago, you diverted and insulted continuously. As I remember it was some bollocks off subject questions about fake phone calls and similar distractions.

So instead of more personal insults, why not show me where in this link there are factual errors. http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

There are 133 sources. If this story is such conspiraloon bollocks, it shouldn't take too long

 

[editor]

Editor
You seem to have time to endlessly thoughtpolice 9/11 threads dedicating considerable time to diversion and talking shite on them, anything but discussing the actual evidence and staying on topic.

"Thoughtpolice"?!

Bless.

Hey, are you planning to smash the attendance of your last 9/11 screening and hoping to attract as many as two people?

Why do you think no one's interested in your barking theories, sparticus?

I mean, you've had endless opportunities to promote them here, but how come no one's even remotely interested!

 

[neilh]

Let's rubbish your laughable slur, shall we?

Visit http://reopen911.org
CLICK ONE: links. Pick random page
Arrive at Libertyforum.org
Type in 'ufo'.
CLICK TWO
Rewarded with a LONG page stuffed full of UFO bonkers fruitloop garbage, just as I expected.
Time taken: 20 seconds.

i thought i'd try what you suggested, eventually found the libertyforum link among all the links on the reopen911 page, went to their forum search and typed in ufo, as suggested, and was suprised to find no matches. so i looked back on the search page and found i had just searched in the past week, and on this fairly busy seeming forum there had been no mention in the past week anyway about ufo's. i then extended the search and searching for the past month found 3 threads, checked out the first one and found half the posts were saying it was nonsense stuff or a distraction from political stuff; so after taking significantly more than 20 seconds, i've followed a link among many from reopen911 to a forum which discusses many subjects and ufos come up now and again to be rubbished by some folk; doesn't exactly discredit the original website, does it? i checked a uk hiphop forum i sometimes frequent for a kind of test subject, and found in the last fortnight they've had more threads in the last fortnightin their forum for the search "ufo" so does that mean if i link to many pages on a site including ukhh.com anything on my site is discredited because of this. i think it's clutching at straws to rubbish a site for an external link to an open forum, but folk sometimes find what they want to find as theyve made up their mind beforehand.

 

[editor]

i thought i'd try what you suggested, eventually found the libertyforum link among all the links on the reopen911 page, went to their forum search and typed in ufo, as suggested, and was suprised to find no matches.

Eh? What are you on about? You're talking rubbish man!

Go to the libertyforum homepage (no clicking into sub pages needed). Type in UFO in the text box right up near the top on the left hand side.

Press 'Go' and you'll be IMMEDIATELY treated to a page STUFFED FULL of links to a lively discussion entitled Re: HENRY MAKOW: How UFO's Relate To The New World Order. The last post was on the 12th Feb.

Keep on clicking through the pages and pages of UFO search results and you'll find a thrilling debate about a "Centuries' Old UFO Coin" and other fascinating topics include: "Ernst Zundel, The Holocaust, and Nazi UFOs", "UFO Sighting and Strange Signals reported again in Indian Ocean – sub tectonic experiment", "THE SECRET CIA UFO FILES", "China And India Both Know About Underground UFO Base In The Himalayan Border", "UFO Explodes Over Iranian Nuclear Plant - Russia Joins Fight Against UFOs", "India may be the first country to explain to the world about extra-terrestrial and UFO contacts", "UFOs Over Iran: Gov't Issues Shoot-Down Order" etc etc etc - and that's just a tiny set of examples from the last eight weeks!

Do I want my boards to be filled up with bonkers drivel like this?

Not a chuffing chance!

 

[neilh]

Eh? What are you on about? You're talking rubbish man!

no, i'm not talking rubbish, i did EXACTLY what i said in my post and it's quite clear to anyone who reads my post what i'm on about;could you please explain how this is "rubbish"? i followed your instructions which brought me to a thread in the liberty forum, i then clicked on the search function, whic brought me to this
page, where if you type in ufo and hit submit, returns no matches, cos the default setting is any posts in the past week, in which time there has been
not one mention of ufo's. please, folks, try this out and check.

Go to the libertyforum homepage. Type in UFO in the text box right up near the top on the left hand side.

Press 'Go' and you'll be IMMEDIATELY treated to a page STUFFED FULL of links to a lively discussion entitled Re: HENRY MAKOW: How UFO's Relate To The New World Order. The last post was on the 12th Feb.

i feel it's getting a bit tabloidy with IMMEDIATELY in caps; i don't see how the speed of the search has such relevance - most searches do work fairly immediately. as the last post was on 12th february, 10 days ago, and there has been no mention of ufos in the intervening time, the forum search doesn't bring this up unless you change the settings. the front page box search thing does, but if someone followed the link from reopen911, it links directly into a post on the forum, so naturally when i searched i hit the search function on this page rather than heading to the sites home page first. As for stuffed full, to me it just seemed like a normal list linking to each post in a thread just 24 posts long (i don't know how lively folk judge a thread that length but 24 posts in 7 days doesn't seem too busy). and the first reply is one saying it's just a con to get folk to buy the book.

Keep on clicking through the pages and pages of UFO search results and you'll find a thrilling debate about a "Centuries' Old UFO Coin" and other fascinating topics include: "Ernst Zundel, The Holocaust, and Nazi UFOs", "UFO Sighting and Strange Signals reported again in Indian Ocean – sub tectonic experiment", "THE SECRET CIA UFO FILES", "China And India Both Know About Underground UFO Base In The Himalayan Border", "UFO Explodes Over Iranian Nuclear Plant - Russia Joins Fight Against UFOs", "India may be the first country to explain to the world about extra-terrestrial and UFO contacts", "UFOs Over Iran: Gov't Issues Shoot-Down Order" etc etc etc - and that's just a tiny set of examples from the last eight weeks!

well to me that doesn't seem like a tiny set of examples but actually seems like the majority of threads on ufo's in the past eight weeks. please others check this out yourself and dont go on either of our words on it.

Do I want my boards to be filled up with bonkers drivel like this?

Not a chuffing chance!

well considering in the last day there's been more than a hundred pages of posts, and in the last week (over which time if the last days been fairly average there must have been nearly 20 000 posts) theres been not one mention of ufo's, i dont reckon theyre too scared about being flled up with it.

 

[editor]

no, i'm not talking rubbish, i did EXACTLY what i said in my post and it's quite clear to anyone who reads my post what i'm on about;could you please explain how this is "rubbish"? i followed your instructions which brought me to a thread in the liberty forum, i then clicked on the search function, whic brought me to this
page,

You're going to the a forum search page. I'm referring to the actual website homepage.

Go to http://www.libertyforum.org/
Type in UFOs in the uppermost search box
Feast on endless pages about UFOs.

 

[editor]

Hey! Here's another great thread on that site this month!

"FLYING SAUCERS ARE A MOSSAD PLOT"

And how about this tasteful gem?
"Vastly greater Evidence for Flying Saucer than for Gas Chambers"

There is no way on earth I'd want to encourage these bonkers fruitcakes on to this site.

 

[neilh]

You're going to the a forum search page. I'm referring to the actual website homepage.

Go to http://www.libertyforum.org/
Type in UFOs in the uppermost search box
Feast on endless pages about UFOs.

yes, i'm aware of that, but the link from reopen911 doesn't go to the homepage but straight onto their forums, so anyone following the instruction s you gave would be likely to as i did go straight to the more advanced search on the forum itsself; so i'm not talking rubbish. as for the supposedly endless pages on ufos i think i covered that in my points in my last post - certainly i think most folk who genuinely check out the liberty forum to see what it's like won't come to the impression that it's full of stuff about ufos when ufo talk takes up such a small percentage of posts (ie significantly less than 0.1% of total posts). not that i agree with most of the stuff on the site, but to take such a small percentage of posts from a busy site and give folk the impression theyre typical of the site really gives folk a wrong impression - folk should look at the last few hundred posts and try and get an impression for themselves about the site rather than going by what folk here say, and then judge if its crazy enough for a website to be totally discredited just due to having a link to one thread on it among their many links. anyway, i'm away.

 

[fela fan]

Eh? What are you on about? You're talking rubbish man!

Would that be the word 'man' you're using there... man??! Hey, good to see you taking your cues off fela fan to upgrade and increase your lexical load.