Bush unprotected as he boarded Air Force One on 9/11

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Strawman.

For obvious reasons, I can not get into the specifics of what precautions are taken for a Presidential visit. What I CAN tell you that each and every visit takes WEEKS of preparations and THOUSANDS of dollars.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

That's the kind of response I expect when the other person knows they just got spanked.

The fact is that on 9/11, we were supposedly under a "surprise terrorist attack" and from the photo I posted you can clearly see that the secret service weren't too worried about the President boarding the plane since they left him all alone, exposed to a sniper shot, or other kind of attack method.

More evidence 9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by ATH911


Silly!

...secret service weren't too worried about the President boarding the plane since they left him all alone, exposed to a sniper shot, or other kind of attack method.

More evidence 9/11 was an inside job.

I suggest you go out and READ what is (unclassified public knowledge) about ACTUAL procedures involved....REGARDLESS, the security cordon that's in place is EXTENVSIVE, for all POTUS (and other VIP) movements.

Silly, silly....this 'attempt'!! And, most people realilze this, it isn't that hard.

Different time (2006), different day....SAME THREATS!!!! Worse threats, actually....POST invasion of Iraq!!!




[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ATH911
More evidence 9/11 was an inside job.

This is the statement made whenever a truther fails to understand something...

INSIDE JOB!!!!!!

Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Can you please think what "weeks of preparations" means. Think...could that mean that there are agents at each and every possible sniper point?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Different time (2006), different day....SAME THREATS!!!! Worse threats, actually....POST invasion of Iraq!!!

Was there a "surprise" terrorist attack going on when this photo was taken?

The White House tried to convey to the American people shortly after 9-11 an aire of calm and confidence. The White House wanted the American people to think it was on top of everything. It would be difficult to project this aire if the American people saw the President being constantly mobbed by a phalanx of Secret Service staff.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
This is the statement made whenever a truther fails to understand something...

So if some kind of attack was happening, yet you notice the security around the President was pretty relaxed considering, that wouldn't be the slightest bit suspicious to you?

INSIDE JOB!!!!!!

You did see where I said "More evidence 9/11 was an inside job" not "Proof 9/11 was an inside job!"? You do know the difference between the two, right?

Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Can you please think what "weeks of preparations" means. Think...could that mean that there are agents at each and every possible sniper point?

So if the area had 2,000 sniper points, you are saying they had 2,000 agents at each of them?!

You seem to think security details are perfect and would never make a mistake. Just ask the Pentagon how wrong they were on 9/11.

Originally posted by ATH911

So if some kind of attack was happening, yet you notice the security around the President was pretty relaxed considering, that wouldn't be the slightest bit suspicious to you?

No. And do you know why? I understand a lot of the the procedures that are in place to protect the President. I can assure you SS was FAR from "relaxed." Since you have ZERO knowledge in this, you haven't a clue as to what was going on.

You did see where I said "More evidence 9/11 was an inside job" not "Proof 9/11 was an inside job!"? You do know the difference between the two, right?

Yes, and so far you have shown neither of them.

So if the area had 2,000 sniper points, you are saying they had 2,000 agents at each of them?!

Yet another strawman. Hmmm... what would you do, Einstein?

You seem to think security details are perfect and would never make a mistake. Just ask the Pentagon how wrong they were on 9/11.

You are mistaken. I never implied any such thing. What I am trying to tell you is that the President is protected at all costs. This, however does not mean they are perfect.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Rafe_

Would you care to eleborate on that?

Since when was the area over NYC where these plaines flew and crashed not ever restriced?

Well, to my knowledge, the airspace over Manhattan is not restricted airspace.
Quick review of approach plates for JFK shows ground zero is not restricted today, so I doubt very much that it was back then.
(It´s controlled airspace, which is different from "restricted".)
Now, the only difference here would be the Pentagon area which is and probably was restricted.
However, there´s controlled commercial traffic also within this area.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
ATH911...

You obviously have never been part of the preparation of a Presidential visit. I have. I have worked hand in hand with the USSS on 4 occasions. Twice so far with the Obama administration.

How many times during a terrorist attack?

.

Strawman.

For obvious reasons, I can not get into the specifics of what precautions are taken for a Presidential visit. What I CAN tell you that each and every visit takes WEEKS of preparations and THOUSANDS of dollars.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

How does that anwser have even have the slightest bearing on the question asked?

i have seen so many evasions and distraction posts in here that that i did not even bother to repsond to.For instance how okmb dedicated a entire post pointing out that it was a story about a little goat instead of a sheep.


plus anyone can come in here claiming to be on the inside but throwing some comon info around followed by "i am not allowed to proof that i am a insider" cop-out.I am not impressed by the suggested credentials sigma since you have not posted anything that even in the slightest proofs that you know anything about the security details yourself.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Rafe_]

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by Rafe_

Would you care to eleborate on that?

Since when was the area over NYC where these plaines flew and crashed not ever restriced?

Well, to my knowledge, the airspace over Manhattan is not restricted airspace.
Quick review of approach plates for JFK shows ground zero is not restricted today, so I doubt very much that it was back then.
(It´s controlled airspace, which is different from "restricted".)
Now, the only difference here would be the Pentagon area which is and probably was restricted.
However, there´s controlled commercial traffic also within this area.

Restricted airspace (or any restricted area) is controlled airspace.Restricted does not mean that no one is allowed acces.It means that acces to it is "controlled".



No one is allowed acces to that area without clearance how is that not restricted.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by Rafe_]

reply to post by Rafe_


" For instance how okmb dedicated a entire post pointing out that it was a story about a little goat instead of a sheep. "


I beg your pardon ? I DID NOT dedicate an entire post pointing out that it was a story about a little goat . You should make sure you get your facts straight before making such accusations .

The poster I replied to , said that a "SS agent" whispered into Bush's ear . TWICE , he said this .

I pointed out that Andrew Card was not a Secret Service agent . As an afterthought , I pointed out it was a goat instead of a sheep .

I made that post to point out the fact that this poster does not even have the basic facts straight but , here he is trying to find a conspiracy related to an event that he does not even have a factual understanding of .

If you are going to partake in finger-pointing and tongue-wagging , please have your facts straight next time .

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Rafe_

 

Airforce one went without a squadron to protect it on that day wich is putting it lightly,odd enough. Add to that ,the fact that bush just sat there for almost half a hour after hearing about the second plane crashing into one of the WTC's and the fact that he lied about it a couple of days later claiming he saw the first plane hit live on TV while he was actually sitting in the class room that day for all to see.

Odd enough? Prior to 9/11, there was NEVER a "squadron" covering Air Force One. Nothing ODD about it in the slightest. Then you bring up the drivel that he sat there for a half hour after the second attack?

Do ANY of the "truthers" ever do any accurate research???

lol...in a word? No. Ignorance is the strongest catalyst for their coming up
with these "smoking guns". Why would they muddle their minds up with anything that would contradict their Bush Family Crime nefarious New World Order plans to run the world? Why would they care what the security situation actually was when Bush was boarding AF1? Why would they care about the facts of the aeronautical situation and why getting the aircraft off the ground at to altitude as soon as possible and not wait for any escort aircraft? Those GE engines can get that aircraft from a runway up at altitude, away from any possible MANPAD (Stinger or SA-7-type weapon) threat pretty darn fast, and with the air traffic control providing a hundred-mile or more buffer from any other aircraft flying, the safest place for the President at that particular time was at 45,000 feet.

But, let's crop a photo of the Prez walking alone up the stairs to his plane and claim that "Oh My! Smoking Gun! This is PROOF they knew what was going on because he doesn't have a phalanx of SS agents surrounding him! This is PROOF that it is an inside jobby-job!"

More fodder for the laugh track.


[edit on 7-6-2010 by trebor451]

Originally posted by ANOK
Funny but aren't you the one who seems to think there is a conspiracy to blame the 9-11 attacks on the US government?

Doesn't that make you a conspiracy person? I mean you are on a conspiracy forum trying to claim we're all in it together in a so called 'truther movement' to put blame for the attacks on Bush and co.

First, it's a given that in the context of, "conspiracy people" it's accepted that it refers to those of you who believe there's some secret, usually sinister alternative explanation to the 9/11 attack. I myself accept the findings that it was in fact pulled off by foreign Islamic fundamentalists, which makes it less of a conspiracy and more of an organized terrorist attack. I do agree there is still a lot more to the story that needs to come out, though.

Second, no, I don't believe you've all banded together to blame the gov't for staging 9/11. I can see right away that you are anything BUT banded together, becuase you're all but getting into fistfights amongst yourselves over what the secret conspiracy even is. This is becuase each individual conspiracy theorist is pursuing his/her own individual conspiracy, which in turn is being molded by his/her own individual angts. This person thinks it's the gov't. That person thinks it's the Jews. The person next to him thinks it's the Masons, while the guy way in back thinks it's the work of a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists. Scientologists supposedly think psychiatrists hypnotized innocent Muslims into hijacking the planes, and I've even heard tell of one crackpot claiming the attack was the work of shape shifting alien lizards as a science experiment to see how we humans react.

You conspiracy people keep repeating your frustrations that noone is listening to you. Be careful of what you wish for.

To me you seem more rabid and desperate than any of the 'truthers' to point fingers at people and claim they have ulterior motives.

Not all people, no. Just the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. The gigantic bulk of you conspiracy people are only victims in their con.

This is but one reason why you conspiracy people are so ridiculously fractured- you're all going to 500 different web sites and getting 500 different explanations, so this person thinks it's controlled demolitions, that person thinks there were nukes in the basement, the person next to him thinks therre were lasers from outer space, while the guy in back doesn't think there were any planes whatsoever. I'm just curious which website the OP got this bit from that Bush seemes unconcerned from those photos. I guarantee that notion didn't originally start with him.

You seem to live in this forum, you must have a very empty life to have so much time to spend here commenting on every post and spreading the lies of the OS.

I'm flipping stuck here at work on the weekend staring at the walls becuase the company VP asked me to come in and babysit the electricians installing motion sensors for the lights, so I post here to pass the time. Trust me, I wish that my life really was more empty.

OK. Here is another reason why this thread makes no sense.
If AQ or “any other” group behind the 9/11 attacks wanted to do something to GW it would be:
NOTHING.
The last thing “they” would have wanted would have been to make him a martyr.
They would want him very much alive, to look bad, and to have to give all the explanations.
On the other hand, if 9/11 had been an inside job, of course there would have been an attempt of an attack on GW, but a “failed one”. Isn´t this obvious?? This would have made him look a lot better to deal with any scenario that he pleased.

And start getting ready to deal with all the other CTs being discussed here like:
The “lack” of evidence at the Pentagon. The CIT investigation “findings” there.
The “lack” of evidence at Shanksville.
The “free fall” of buildings. Does fire weaken steel??
Molten steel or molten metal. (Are they the same thing??)
What did Larry Silverstein mean??
Steven Jones “amazing discoveries”.
The “money trail”.
The mysterious “white plane” over NYC.
“Voice morphing” and how many were “cell phone” calls?? Did the planes have seat back phones??
The “still alive” hijackers.
Etc, etc, etc...
This is happening on many active 9/11 threads. All these different CTs are being brought into the threads in an attempt to keep them going and going forever. Most of them having been debunked years ago. I guess the TM is constantly looking for “new blood” and the best way to get it is from the “new comers” who aren´t aware of the history of those CT´s.

Originally posted by Rafe_

Restricted airspace (or any restricted area) is controlled airspace.Restricted does not mean that no one is allowed acces.It means that acces to it is "controlled".

No one is allowed acces to that area without clearance how is that not restricted.

Well, if you want to say that controlled airspace is the same as restricted airspace, tell you what...
You´re correct. I won´t argue this with you as it is not the subject on this thread. But I would like it very much for you to open a thread discussing what kind of airspace the hijacked 9/11 planes flew through, how many restricted airspace areas the planes broke into, and for how long.
What were the measures taken in the different types of restricted or controlled airspace to deal with lost, off course, lost communications, or hijacked planes back then??
And just so that you get a little more familiar with the types of airspace:
Special use airspace:
Alert area. / Controlled firing area. / Military operations area. / Prohibited area. / Restricted area. / Warning area.
Besides these, there´s also different types of controlled airspace, basically A, B, C, D, and E.
In some places like Washington D.C. These types of airspace can overlap, be below, or above or inside one another.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by rush969]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The White House tried to convey to the American people shortly after 9-11 an aire of calm and confidence.

And how calm and confident would the American people be if their President got his head blown apart from a sniper's bullet because the Secret Service allowed him to board the plane unprotected during a terrorist attack?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
No. And do you know why? I understand a lot of the the procedures that are in place to protect the President. I can assure you SS was FAR from "relaxed." Since you have ZERO knowledge in this, you haven't a clue as to what was going on.

In all your preparations of President travels, were you ever part of an attack training scenario?

Yes, and so far you have shown neither of them.

I wouldn't expect a skeptic to say anything else.

what would you do, Einstein?

Cover the President if an attack was going on. It ain't rocket science.

This, however does not mean they are perfect.

EXACTLY. They are NOT perfect. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911

In all your preparations of President travels, were you ever part of an attack training scenario?

ABSOLUTELY! Again, don't attempt to bait me on specifics as I will not jeopardize my career proving a conspiracy theorist wrong in an internet forum. I suggest you do a google search as Weed suggested. Also, watch the movie "In the Line of Fire." The SS were pretty ticked off at the makers of this movie.

reply to post by Rafe_


And again, you show that you fail to do the research. When Air Force One became airborne that day, it did have an escort. You spoke as if it was supposed to be SOP.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Rafe_]


So then it would've been perfectly okey if President Bush ran right out of there scarring all those little kids? As for saying he saw the first plane hit the building? You've never made a mistake speaking?

1. Bush said in multiple different videos that he saw the first plane hit on the t.v. that was playing, he said he thought it was a bad airplane pilot, he also said he watched the first plane hit before entering the classroom. He lied.

Bush should have IMMEDIATELY left the classroom without even explaining why he was leaving. Bush stayed in the classroom to stall for time while his 911 plan carried out.