"If you still don't agree, Darwyn, please IN DETAIL explain how the secret service would have got the President out of the school without exposing him to the threat of sniper fire"

My logic is sound. You are addressing other things...not my logic.

No...your..."logic"...states that he's safer in an unknown location than a known location, and sure. But...there's no option to move him to an unknown location. It's essentially the same as saying he'd be safer on the moon. Sure. But how are you going to get him there? You can't.

So you're building a straw man of "They didn't move him to an unknown location" and refusing to answer how, exactly, they could have done that.

Your logic is not sound. Look at the bigger picture, not just the little weird things you see in the school. Why have the terrorists be Saudis if the goal was to use some excuse to invade Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Surely they could pick the people if they could pull the rest off, and making them be unambiguously from one of the country's slated for invasion would cut out a lot of the headaches the administration got. Once again, why be at the school at all when he could have been in the Oval Office ready to give a speech and not have those minutes of embarrassing dithering to be played in a Michael Moore documentary? Why have four planes be hijacked when only one flown into the Empire State Building would have been a lot less risky and just as traumatic? Just imagine if the Pennsylvania plane had managed to make an emergency landing rather than a crash. That's a lot of people to keep quiet. Why even do this at all, when there has never been a reason to be in Afghanistan besides revenge and there would be much easier ways to invade Iraq (goading Saddam back to Kuwait, exaggerating some attack on the Kurds, etc)?

I could go on. As I said before, Darwyn, you are in the conspiracy theorist zone. Any little, little thing which could possibly be interpreted in a revisionist way is presented as incontrovertible proof of a plot, while anything which contradicts the theory (no matter how compelling, no matter how much evidence there is) is ignored. You're an idiot, and a pathetic one at that.

"Your logic is not sound. Look at the bigger picture..."

You're jumping ahead of yourself. You can look at the bigger picture just as soon as you understand the most basic of things...

For all anyone knows, an attack on the President is imminent. This is the correct conclusion. And no one could have any idea how or when it will to come. So, we can debate the how all you want...but nothing can be ruled out.

No one knows whats coming and they absolutely cannot be certain they are prepared to deal with it. Under these circumstances, staying is not an option. Period. End of story.

That leaves one option.

But that option was not exercised...because the Secret Service already knew he was safe right where he was.

The logic is sound.

It's not the logic you people have a problem with...it's the conclusion. :)

So, what are you saying then? The Secret Service was behind it all?

You have no logic. You have an agenda.

Centuries of assassinations show that the how and when is going to be as he exits. You move him, you almost certainly kill him. You keep him where he is, a place safe from most forms of attack including attack by airplanes which, as I stated, were already used in presidential assassination attempts, then you have about a 75-80% chance of success.

"Centuries of assassinations show..."

You don't get it.

"So, what are you saying then?"

What do *you* think I'm saying? I've laid it out...there's only one conclusion. And that is that at minimum, the Secret Service is complicit.

"You have no logic. You have an agenda. "

The logic is clear and it is simple. It's the conclusion you don't like. And my agenda was only to show how dreadfully easy it was to prove that 9-11 was, in part, an inside job.

This is a dark day for those of you in denial.

Perhaps, knowing this, you will view other events of 9-11 differently?

the logic is simple, and it shows that at the very least we have no idea the rationale, and most likely that you are dead wrong. You are the one that doesn't like the obvious conclusion.

Simple question:

You say exiting is the only safe move if they think he is under attack. The only guarantee of his safety.

How do you guarantee an exiting person who is a target is safe, especially keeping in mind that people get hit at that exact moment all the time?

No Darwyn. If your school-centric theory (which seems to be that the Secret Service did 9/11) doesn't fit into the wider narrative of what we know happened and how we can rationally assume these actors would have planned the attacks if they actually were in a position to do so then it deserves only one thing: to be discarded.

Take a good look at yourself and think about where it all went wrong.

There's a lot of stuff out there about 9/11 and frankly I don't know what to believe because there are more claims than just the suspiciousness about the school that haven't been adressed by anyone in the administration or government. at the end of the day, at this point you have to be agnostic...

"the logic is simple, and it shows that at the very least we have no idea the rationale"

The logic *is* the rationale.

"How do you guarantee an exiting person who is a target is safe, especially keeping in mind that people get hit at that exact moment all the time?"

This question is moot. It lies outside of my argument. Answering this does nothing to hinder or help my argument.

"No Darwyn. If your school-centric theory (which seems to be that the Secret Service did 9/11) doesn't fit into the wider narrative of what we know happened..."

It's not a theory. It's fact and logic. When presented with contrary facts, you must always change the "wider narrative". Never do you change or discard the facts to fit it. Fact and logic cannot be discarded just because you don't like it. This just proves your disdain for the conclusion like I rightly pointed out.

No, it's exactly within your argument. Your argument is that the only safe thing was moving him, so not moving him showed they knew he wasn't a target. But you're not showing that moving him is a safe thing. So it can't be the only safe thing if you can't show that it's safe.

"No, it's exactly within your argument."

It isn't. The logical conclusion is not predicated on the safety of moving. It's predicated on the certainty of a devastating attack by staying.

There's no certainty of that.

"There's no certainty of that. "

At 9:05 there is.

Obviously planned and well-orchestrated attacks, at that moment the risk is taking him out of the building, which is where obviously planned and well-orchestrated attacks generally occur. As far as planes, they were already tracking all commercial airliners for deviances, I recall even as a civilian hearing about what was going on with the Pennsylvania plane and where it was exactly at all times.

"at that moment the risk is taking him out of the building"

You don't know this. All you know is that an attack at your current location is imminent.

"As far as planes..."

No one could have known that the attacks were limited to planes.

I've answered ALL criticism logically, thoughtfully and respectfully...

9-11 was, in part, an inside job. That is the truth no matter how much you don't like it.

You choose your ground and let the enemy come to you, that way you have the advantage. The ground was chosen. This is why forts, bunkers, trenches, fallout shelters, castles, et cetera have always been built: it's far easier to defend where you are than to take your defense mobile. The school was a defensible location with a team of people trained to defend places such as it in place. It had already been swept for explosives and such. That happens wherever the President goes. And access had already been limited and vetted. The number of ways to hit him in the building were very small. The number of ways to hit him outside of the building were very large. So they made the correct choice of preparing within the location until they could be reasonably sure moving him was safe.

@ Darwyn: "I've answered ALL criticism logically, thoughtfully and respectfully"

No. You. Have. Not.

1. "All you know is that an attack at your current location is imminent."

How do you know this?

"The logical conclusion is not predicated on the safety of moving. It's predicated on the certainty of a devastating attack by staying. "

Please demonstrate how an attack on the President, if he had remained in the school, would have had a 100% chance of success.

You. Are. Making. Shit. Up. To. Support. Your. Position. And. Treating. Your. Made-Up. Shit. As. Fact.

Please. Stop. Doing. This. You. Cunt.

" my agenda was only to show how dreadfully easy it was to prove that 9-11 was, in part, an inside job."

You have not proved this. Please present your evidence? All you have provided so far is groundless speculation which Draugnar and others have shot down - and to which you have failed to provide convincing responses to their rebuttals.

Finally, and most importantly:

ME: "If you still don't agree, Darwyn, please IN DETAIL explain how the secret service would have got the President out of the school without exposing him to the threat of sniper fire"

YOU: "My logic is sound. You are addressing other things...not my logic."

Bullshit. Bull. Shit.

I *am* addressing your logic. You have claimed that it is a *logial* fact that moving the President out of the school would, in all possible scenarios, have been safer than leaving him in the school. I once again challenge you to demonstrate that this is true.

You can't.

So fuck off.

LoL +1 Darwyn, you broke his brain.

"How do you know this?"

I'm not about to rehash 8 pages. You are more than welcome to look back and read. However..."moving the President out of the school would, in all possible scenarios, have been safer"...is not at all what I've said.

"So fuck off. "

No.

If you demean your children by calling them stupid your parenting should come under judgement. He is not a moron, though his arugment may be flawed and moronic. You are exhibiting judgement on the individual rather than the disease, which is the specific theory he happens to follow at this given point in time. You've done little but insult liberals with ad hominems, thus promoting an atmosphere I know the higher heads of this site do not appreciate or condone on a regular basis.

@that was meant for the inflammatory conservative, Krellin

@Darwyn

One final comment to prove how unsound your "logic" really is.

You say understand the most basic of things before looking at the big picture...

The most basic of things:
Basic fact #1: You can't get the President to a safe location without moving him.
Basic fact #2: The school is *much* bigger than any jet liner.
Basic fact #3: Even if the terrorists *could* redirect their attack, they could not aim the plane at a specific classroom nor know which classroom the President was in.
Basic fact #4: Moving someone out of a building (a requirement to fulfill your desired result) exposes them to sniper fire.
Basic fact #5: A brick school building is more defensible than a moving Presidential Limosine.
Basic fact #6: If the attackers know he is at the school, they can just as easily be monitoring the outside of the school for moment and follow the President wherever he may go.
Basic fact #7: You *always* look at the big picture before *acting* in any successful project.

I'm guessing you aren't a professional who deals with projects on a daily basis (Garbage man or school custodian maybe? No wait, you are the french fry guyat McD's...) Your implied statement that you don't look at the big picture before acting (I know you are going to say you didn't imply that, but you did) is bogus. You *always* look at the big picture. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. And the only way to plan is to look at the big picture.

OK, I'm done with this now.