LowPhreak wrote:
See answer to Question #8.

LowPhreak wrote:
Well let's see...

According to Dr. Philip H. Melanson, in his book "The Secret Service" (ISBN 0-7867-1617-7), Secret Service advance teams spend weeks in preparation for a President's visit to locations outside the White House.  By the time that President Bush set foot inside that school, it was by far the most secure building in the area.  If I was protecting the President, I'd probably be inclined to take advantage of that secure location, and not rush out into the open without any plan of action.


A.  Leaving the building would have meant leaving the place where the secure communications equipment that was set up for the President's use.
B. George W. Bush has no known clairvoyant abilities, and was unable to predict events yet to happen.
C.  The US wasn't under attack from the Soviet Union.


Because no human being has proved to be clairvoyant, nobody could have predicted the future.

At the time, NORAD's job was to detect and challenge foreign warplanes and missiles approaching the US from abroad.  The idea of sending US warplanes to kill US civilians over US soil wasn't just unauthorized back then; it was unconscionable.

In reality, Boston ATC contacted NEADS, requesting an intercept, within 10 minutes of confirmation that Flight 11 was hijacked.  12 minutes after that, a flight of two F-16 interceptors were airborne from Otis Air National Guard Base.  They didn't have a target to vector to, and weren't informed that flight 11 had struck Tower 1.  They proceeded to a holding area off Long Island in time to look on helplessly as flight 175 hit Tower 2.

Approximately one second after the second plane struck, President Bush entered the classroom.

 romeotuma wrote:
Of course it's true, you read it on the internet!

It's not new, Clarke first made this speculation (which is what he admits it is—he has no evidence for it) in 2009.

If it were true it still wouldn't amount to anything like a LIHOP/MIHOP scenario, just a failure to share information. But don't let that stop you!

 oldslabsides wrote: 

 Servo wrote: 
Obviously, you have not the slightest rudimentary info on the Commission's make up. I suggest you do a bit of a web search before you insert your foot further into your mouth.

 Servo wrote: 
What? Here it's clear that you've gone completely insane. The records on SA/terrorist funding as above were redacted. It's a matter of official record.

You should quit and seek professional treatment, or tell your handlers that the ruse is not working.

LowPhreak wrote:
I'll need all their names, and all of the allegations of "conflict of interest" to answer this question.

 Servo wrote: 
It's a matter of record, but you can obfuscate all you'd like.

LowPhreak wrote:
Because it would violate the laws of nature.

I can do tomorrow's work today, but I can't live tomorrow's life today.

 Servo wrote: 
You're "told" that this person was never an FBI employee? That's hilarious.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

You are obviously a moron, and/or a shill.

LowPhreak wrote:
Who says he did?  Why would the FBI be involved in "investigating" sovereign nations or large families that aren't on US soil?

LowPhreak wrote:
I don't know that this person did give this alleged testimony.  I'm told that this person was never an FBI employee.  Her only relationship with the FBI was as an outside consultant, after 2001-09-11.  If she new something separate from this relationship, and about the 9-11 attacks, she should have disclosed that information immediately.

What judge issued this alleged gag order?  Why, if there is a gag order in place, does this person freely post conspiracy theories on the Web?

 Servo wrote: 
This has nothing to do with Truman or Manhattan Project. The results of discovery on Able Danger could have easily been made public, without endangering "state secrets", etc. Even if it did expose some classified info, the need for truthful evidence in this case far outweighed any excuse that "classified" info was exempt from exposure. It has happened many times on other investigations.

LowPhreak wrote:
Because it's illegal to leak highly classified information.

The first time that Harry Truman had the slightest clue about the Manhattan Project was after he became POTUS.  That should illustrate how seriously top secret information is treated.

 Servo wrote: 
Mind posting evidence that these were not real operations on 9/11? The truth is: on 9/11, all of these operations were occurring in real time, obviously as a diversion to airport controllers to confuse the whereabouts of the 4 flights that "crashed".

LowPhreak wrote:
VG was a computer simulation, so it didn't "draw" any USAF assets anywhere.

VW happened in 1994, so it didn't even apply that day.

NV was also mostly a computer simulation.  It did involve some aircraft, but it still was a simulation.  Because the aircraft involved were deployed over Canada and Alaska, it stands to reason that the bulk of the airborne assets were Canadian, and that any USAF assets were based in or near Alaska.  The only reason I can imagine to deploy assets from as far as the east coast would be in response to an actual shooting war, to replace assets that had been shot down.  I don't recall the USAF, Navy, Marines and numerous National Guard units losing most of their west coast assets (much less an all-out shooting war) that day.

Conclusion:  You're asking a loaded question.  Your error.

 Servo wrote: 

LowPhreak wrote: 
Betting that the price of a stock will drop is known as a short sale, or "shorting" for short.  Put options are something different.

American Airlines and United Airlines aren't publicly traded companies, BTW.

What do put options and/or short sales have to do with this alleged leased space?  It's not like their corporate headquarters were there!  Are you saying that someone conceived and executed the largest mass murder ever just so that they might make a small profit  because three companies lost a little office space?  That seems far-fetched.


They do?  How do you know?


By whom?  Why does no company of that name seem to exist?


Says who?


Well, the CIA is a political intelligence-gathering agency that does its spying only outside of the US.  Stock exchanges are financial, not political organs.  So without some prior evidence linking a political operation of interest to the CIA to these alleged trades in foreign markets (and I don't see any evidence that they were traded on foreign markets on 2001-09-11), it wouldn't fall under the CIA's charter.

The FBI wouldn't get involved unless there was some evidence of interstate criminal wrongdoing surrounding the alleged trades.  The SEC wouldn't get involved unless there was evidence of the companies themselves having illegal ties to these trades.

Because US markets were promptly closed on 2001-09-11, and remained closed for days, this alleged sale, if it was made in US markets, may well have fallen through as a result, meaning that the bet was lost and no crime was committed.


What person?  What prior knowledge?

The World Trade Center in NYC had thousands of tenants.  How does something involving only three of thousands translate into "prior knowledge"?