Report cites warnings before September 11, 2001...

[Vandar]

nonsense wrote:
> Vandar wrote:
>
>> nonsense wrote:
>>
>>> CRxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> "nonsense"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The Administration never realized that airplanes could be used as
>>>>>> weapons, as they were on 9/11. That's why they weren't able to
>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read about the Pacific War aspects of WW2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That might have been viewed as a diffrent context at the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which time, 1940's or 2001?
>>>
>>> In 2001 we had a clear history of enemies using an airplane
>>> as a bomb.
>>
>>
>>
>> When?
>
>
> Read the information already available
> to you above.

If you're referring to kamikaze pilots, that's a much different animal
than what happened on 9/11.

 

[CRxx]

"nonsense"

> Good grief, it surely was for anyone astute enough to
> notice.

You simple?!

Was the US just as much having an enemy view before 9/11 than after? You
really think so?

Doc! Get a straightjacket out please...

Christine!

 

[CRxx]

"Vandar"

> > Read the information already available
> > to you above.
>
> If you're referring to kamikaze pilots, that's a much different animal
> than what happened on 9/11.

You see? Nonsense?

I told you so. It was very much different.

Christine!

Puh!

 

[nonsense]

Vandar wrote:

> nonsense wrote:
>
>> Vandar wrote:
>>
>>> nonsense wrote:
>>>
>>>> CRxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "nonsense"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Administration never realized that airplanes could be used as
>>>>>>> weapons, as they were on 9/11. That's why they weren't able to
>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read about the Pacific War aspects of WW2.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That might have been viewed as a diffrent context at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which time, 1940's or 2001?
>>>>
>>>> In 2001 we had a clear history of enemies using an airplane
>>>> as a bomb.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When?
>>
>>
>>
>> Read the information already available
>> to you above.
>
>
> If you're referring to kamikaze pilots, that's a much different animal
> than what happened on 9/11.
>

Explain yourself then.

I'll save you some time.

Each was a one way mission sacrificing airplane
and whoever was aboard with the intention of
destroying a specified target by crashing into the
target and using thermo reactive chemicals. Everything
else in the details is merely incidental. The primary
missions were identical.

 

[nonsense]

CRxx wrote:

> "nonsense"
>
>
>>Good grief, it surely was for anyone astute enough to
>>notice.

> You simple?!

> Was the US just as much having an enemy view before 9/11 than after? You
> really think so?

It was there for all to see, but those charged with US
safety were obviously asleep at the switch (a US idiom
about the man being asleep at the railroad switch track
allowing two trains to collide head on.)

Yes, I really think so.

> Doc! Get a straightjacket out please...

I didn't think I had upset you enough to require
they put you in one!

 

[nonsense]

CRxx wrote:

> "Vandar"
>
>
>>>Read the information already available
>>>to you above.
>>
>>If you're referring to kamikaze pilots, that's a much different animal
>>than what happened on 9/11.
>
>
> You see? Nonsense?
>
> I told you so. It was very much different.

Self-serving.

 

[CRxx]

"nonsense"

> > Doc! Get a straightjacket out please...
>
> I didn't think I had upset you enough to require
> they put you in one!

You are witty sometimes...

Christine!

 

[nonsense]

CRxx wrote:

> "nonsense"
>
>
>>>Doc! Get a straightjacket out please...
>>
>>I didn't think I had upset you enough to require
>>they put you in one!
>
>
> You are witty sometimes...

It is truly difficult to keep up with you,
but sometimes I try.....

 

[CRxx]

"nonsense"

> It is truly difficult to keep up with you,
> but sometimes I try.....

You behind a walker?

Christine!

PS "a walker", not "the Walker".

PPS isn't australian for walker bush "walkabout"?

 

[nonsense]

CRxx wrote:
> "nonsense"
>
>
>>It is truly difficult to keep up with you,
>>but sometimes I try.....
>
>
> You behind a walker?

Sorry, I didn't realize you use one.

> Christine!

> PS "a walker", not "the Walker".

Are you familiar with a comic strip called
"The Phantom"?

> PPS isn't australian for walker bush "walkabout"?

There's a British royal one as well.

 

[CRxx]

"nonsense"

> > PPS isn't australian for walker bush "walkabout"?
>
> There's a British royal one as well.

That's Johnny. Right?

Christine, always sure to recognize royalty.