Creative Speculation

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)

33. I've replied in the thread that you requested I view.

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:08 AM

Sep 2012

I don't think you'll like my response there, either, but understand that ATC IS the central issue here. Our procedures were the first (second, if you consider airport security) to fail on 9/11. Those failures were the result of the way the system was traditionally handled, nothing more.

Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush nor any other boogeyman you dredge up could have gotten past a myriad of other systems (including ATC) that worked. 9/11 was no conspiracy, it was a multi-system failure that happened because we had become complacent.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The best evidence against a 9/11 conspiracy? [View all] MercutioATC Sep 2012 OP

Maybe some Politicalboi Sep 2012 #1

Your question has a built-in premise that the Pentagon had defenses. Can you Flatulo Sep 2012 #7

What happened to all the gold?? Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #2

Duh. zappaman Sep 2012 #3

Short answer? Shagman Sep 2012 #4

Part of the problem towards a truth is dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #5

The issue is pretty simple, really Ace Acme Oct 2013 #39

That is evidence only that the powers that be have controlled information well enough . . . freedom fighter jh Sep 2012 #6

Clear to whom? William Seger Sep 2012 #8

A main problem of the "truth movement" is that it's.... Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #9

It would seem that the reason you can't accept the "official story" William Seger Sep 2012 #10

William Seger - Please come to the Window of Exposure thread . . Sep 2012 #11

Here will do William Seger Sep 2012 #12

So you're unwilling to enter "Window of Exposure"... . . Sep 2012 #13

Read the article William Seger Sep 2012 #14

Proof in a criminal case is not the same thing as proof in Mathematics. eomer Sep 2012 #15

There's only one standard for what constitutes a "valid" logical inference William Seger Sep 2012 #17

quote: "and it isn't necessary to put a name to the fallacy involved" . . Sep 2012 #21

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #22

I did William Seger Sep 2012 #36

But, of course, a valid logical inference is not the standard in a criminal case. eomer Sep 2012 #23

I think you've managed to convince... . . Sep 2012 #27

Say WHAT?!? What country do you live in? William Seger Sep 2012 #34

Less snarky response William Seger Sep 2012 #38

This person is a runner . . Sep 2012 #20

So... . . Sep 2012 #16

I'm "suggesting" exactly what I said William Seger Sep 2012 #18

Please help me understand . . Sep 2012 #19

Are you saying that you still don't understand William Seger Sep 2012 #35

But anyway, here's the dubious premise behind your faulty logic William Seger Sep 2012 #37

Reality Check (please read) . . Sep 2012 #24

I'm an air traffic controller of 21 years MercutioATC Sep 2012 #25

You are wrong. . . Sep 2012 #26

Actually, I have a lot more insight into the issue than you. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #28

MercutioATC, you said: "I know that it's fun to believe in faceless entities that control things... . . Sep 2012 #29

Funny how... . . Sep 2012 #30

I wasn't referring to any thread. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #31

If you had even glanced at the thread in question, . . Sep 2012 #32

I've replied in the thread that you requested I view. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #33

"The system was blinking red" but we were complacent Ace Acme Oct 2013 #40

Your asking for an explanation for incompetency? zappaman Oct 2013 #41

They seemed pretty competent to me. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #42