[ninty]

[quote="TGB!":49975][color=indigo][b]Youre fishing - and you have the benefit of HINDSIGHT to say - "oh well these guys should have done so and so. . ." -

Theres nothing in the PDB that says an attack is imminent or that the WTC is a target (and of course being a SUPER BRAIN you know the WTC is NOT a "Federal Building").[/b][/color][/quote:49975]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_nm/security_attacks_pentagon_dc"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_ ... entagon_dc[/url]

Regardless, any information on an attack should ahve been handled with the upmost of concern, which I don't believe it was, and which I believe Short was trying to argue.

[TGB!]

You realize - that a "year before 9/11" - William Jefferson Clinton was the CIC - which certainly leads credence to the fact that CLINTON in his final months failed to act on taking out UBL.

[quote:5bb35]Regardless, any information on an attack should ahve been handled with the upmost of concern[/quote:5bb35]

Again - nothing in the PDB - on its own, which is what this article and the lil man is saying - provides any kind of ACTIONABLE evidence to do anything. It simply repeats what I'm sure many in the intel community already knew - that radical islamics were in the country, and they were intent on striking at the US. That's like someone writing a report saying the sky is blue - duh. We know that already. Based on the PDB - where exactly is the evidence that says they are going to attack the WTC?

[ninty]

Yeah, I'm sure Clinton could ahev done something as well. I'm not defending him. I don't really see a difference between democrat or republican here. We could go back and talk about the 93' WTC bombings also, or the cruise missile strike on the asprin factory, it's all the same whether it's Bush, Clinton or whoever.

All i'm saying is that multiple warnings were given, and I have seen no evidence of anyone doing anything to avert the attack whether it be Clinton, Bush, FBI, CIA, NSA, the Germans, or the Martians.

Naturally however, Bush was in office at the time, so I would place the priority of doing something with him.

[Madmartagen]

why do people blame clinton when bush hasnt done anything about him either?

[GordonHall]

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

why do people blame clinton when bush hasnt done anything about him either?

You answered your own question.

Why do people blame Bush when Clinton didn't do anything?

[Short Hand]

[quote=ninty][quote="TGB!":f09ee][color=indigo][b]Youre fishing - and you have the benefit of HINDSIGHT to say - "oh well these guys should have done so and so. . ." -

Theres nothing in the PDB that says an attack is imminent or that the WTC is a target (and of course being a SUPER BRAIN you know the WTC is NOT a "Federal Building").[/b][/color][/quote]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_nm/security_attacks_pentagon_dc"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_ ... entagon_dc[/url]

Regardless, any information on an attack should ahve been handled with the upmost of concern, which I don't believe it was, and which I believe Short was trying to argue.[/quote:f09ee]


yes.

[TGB!]

[quote:4cd10]Naturally however, Bush was in office at the time, so I would place the priority of doing something with him.[/quote:4cd10]

He did. He took out a state that sponsored his actions along with a major threat to the middle east. Created the Dept. of Homeland Security, and spearheaded the signing of the Patriot Act. WJC - while effective in being the Poster Boy for domestic economic progress. . .still failed miserably to act on the NUMEROUS opportunities to grab UBL.

[quote:4cd10]why do people blame clinton when bush hasnt done anything about him either?[/quote:4cd10]

The article posted referred to a period of time when GWB wasnt in office.

[ninty]

[quote="TGB!":7200a][color=indigo][b][quote:7200a]Naturally however, Bush was in office at the time, so I would place the priority of doing something with him.[/quote:7200a]

He did. He took out a state that sponsored his actions along with a major threat to the middle east. Created the Dept. of Homeland Security, and spearheaded the signing of the Patriot Act. WJC - while effective in being the Poster Boy for domestic economic progress. . .still failed miserably to act on the NUMEROUS opportunities to grab UBL.[/quote:7200a]

But we're talking about before 9/11. His actions were reactionary, not preventative. I I don't mean preventative like invading a country.

[CoMaToSe]

Originally Posted by ninty

He's the one who said it.

I suppose we could debate till the cows come home what he meant, but that's not going to get us anywhere. All we can do is analyze what he said, which is "pull it". Draw your own conclusions.

And who are you to say what "Pull It" means? In context, in seems much more likely he meant the team(s) of firefighters trying to stop the blaze that was melting the steel of the building and thereby threatening the structural integrity.

[CoMaToSe]

[quote="TGB!":7c489]You realize - that a "year before 9/11" - William Jefferson Clinton was the CIC - which certainly leads credence to the fact that CLINTON in his final months failed to act on taking out UBL.

[quote:7c489]Regardless, any information on an attack should ahve been handled with the upmost of concern[/quote:7c489]

Again - nothing in the PDB - on its own, which is what this article and the lil man is saying - provides any kind of ACTIONABLE evidence to do anything. It simply repeats what I'm sure many in the intel community already knew - that radical islamics were in the country, and they were intent on striking at the US. That's like someone writing a report saying the sky is blue - duh. We know that already. Based on the PDB - where exactly is the evidence that says they are going to attack the WTC?[/quote:7c489]
TGB's right, you have to realise: the FBI was getting as many as 400 similar tips A DAY after the attacks on the USS cole.

[ninty]

Originally Posted by CoMaToSe

And who are you to say what "Pull It" means? In context, in seems much more likely he meant the team(s) of firefighters trying to stop the blaze that was melting the steel of the building and thereby threatening the structural integrity.

Well, then he would have said, pull "them" because firefighters are no an "it". I refers to the building, and the term "pull it" is a term used by demolitions experts when collapsing a building. oOo:

And if you expect a fire to melt steel oOo: oOo: oOo:

Especially in the building in which a plane never crashed into, and there was no jet fuel.

Did you even read about the Madrid fires? The entire building was totally engulfed in flames, for a much longer period than any of the WTC towers and never fell.

[CoMaToSe]

Originally Posted by ninty

Well, then he would have said, pull "them" because firefighters are no an "it". I refers to the building, and the term "pull it" is a term used by demolitions experts when collapsing a building. oOo:

And if you expect a fire to melt steel oOo: oOo: oOo:

Especially in the building in which a plane never crashed into, and there was no jet fuel.

Did you even read about the Madrid fires? The entire building was totally engulfed in flames, for a much longer period than any of the WTC towers and never fell.

First of all, the guy ISNT a demolitions expert, hes the guy who owned the buildings. By "It" he likely meant the team or "pull the plug" in the sense that you abandon the building to the fire. Besides, he likely mispoke and meant "them".

And yes, fire does melt steel. Steel, like every other material, has something called a "melting point", the temperature at which a solid "melts" into a liquid state. "Fire" increases "temperature", which eventually reaches this "melting point". Fire can melt steel.

Please refrain from using derogatory comments.

-ninty

[ninty]

You are impossible to talk to. Again, I will edit out your derogatory comments for you. If you cannot discuss these topics in an ADULT manner, I would suggest that you leave.

[quote:b45f9]Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).[/quote:b45f9]
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

For a fire to reach this temperature by burning regular things like desks and paper would be unprecidented. Fires burning certain materials can only reach a certain temperature.

[quote:b45f9]fires have never caused a steel frame building to collapse, before or after September 11th.[/quote:b45f9]

Read:
http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

This will be my last post in response to your posts, because you obviously have done little research in preperation for the comments you make. Thus I will refrain from discussing future topic with you. If you come to the table with some research and valid thoughts, I will respond, like many others here do.

[TGB!]

[quote:88fb5]This will be my last post in response to your posts, because you obviously have done little research in preperation for the comments you make.[/quote:88fb5]

NINTY - your ENTIRE argument (the only one it seems your able to argue) centers around a SINGLE PHRASE the owner of the towers said during a moment of high tension and panick. This is more than a conspiracy theory - youre introducing elements into the argument to satisfy previous conditions -

If youve got to do that to prove a point, it might be that there isnt one to begin with.

Either the man MISPOKE. . .or he's part of a vast cabal of players that so far have not managed to reveal their part in this plot.

[ninty]

No, that was one point in a discussion that was dwelled upon for far too long.

I have provided an endless amount of information that raises questions.