"I'm astonished from how you go from you can't know he isn't a target to the only logical conclusion being that he is a target."

You may want to sit the rest of this out then.

Until now you have been very civil in your argument, Darwyn, but the last sentence was a condescending, even more so because SD astonishment is understandable. If 'you can't know [that] he isn't a target' then you know that he might be target. So there is no certainty that the president is a target nor that an attack is imminent. Of course the Secret Service may also act on a mere possibility of an attack, but as soon as you admit that an attack on the president was not an imminent certainty, but only one possibility of many, than you have to deal with all the arguments, reasonings and surmises presented earlier.

I don't know if logic is fully applicable to analyse the situation, but as I see it you have constructed an argument by contradiction from 2 statements;

1. The Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president is imminent.
2. If the Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president at his current location is imminent, they will always move the president immediately and under all circumstances.

If you assume these two statements to be true then it follows that the president has to be moved, which is in contradiction to the actual events, so one one of the statements has to be wrong. This is as far as the logic goes, which of the two statements is wrong is a matter of another debate.

You preference is for the first statement, but even this statement can be negated in several ways. One way, your way, is to say that the Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president is NOT imminent. Another way would be to say that the Secret Service doesn't know with certainty that an attack on the president is imminent.

"Until now you have been very civil in your argument, Darwyn, but the last sentence was a condescending, even more so because SD astonishment is understandable."

My apologies to SD...but really, I had covered this many pages back and I didn't think it was necessary to rehash this. If he had a problem with that conclusion, he was a little late to the table. I'd rather not be bogged down trying to present my argument multiple times.

"So there is no certainty that the president is a target nor that an attack is imminent."

In terms of what you know at 9:05, America is under attack. no one can safely rule out the president *not* being a target. What is left?

"1. The Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president is imminent."

All they know with certainty is that America is under attack and his whereabouts are known. they can't know an attack isn't coming at that very moment. What is left?

"2. If the Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president at his current location is imminent, they will always move the president immediately and under all circumstances."

Again, all that is certain is that they cannot know the President isn't a target and that America is under attack. I never said they will always move him...I said that staying is not an option.

"One way, your way, is to say that the Secret Service knows with certainty that an attack on the president is NOT imminent."

That's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying no one can safely conclude the president isn't a target. What is left?

"Another way would be to say that the Secret Service doesn't know with certainty that an attack on the president is imminent."

All they know is that they can't rule out that the President isn't a target. What is left?

"All they know is that they can't rule out that the President isn't a target. What is left?"

Here is what is left:

Intelligence profiling (at the time of the attacks) suggested the perpetrators were profiling high value targets / known high value locations (WTC x2 and Pentagon) therefore they are organized and planned in advance making the school a very unlikely target but Airforce One a potential high value target due to what it represents and who it regularly carries. No other locations in the area are cleared as secure safe bunkers, and the grounds surrounding the school beyond the immediate property have not been fully secured. Conclussion: moving the President carries a higher risk than reinforcing the grounds and building he is in because the odds were slim that the school was a target.

Draugnar - none of what you said you or anyone else could be sure of. You are making wild assumptions.

Intelligence profiling suggested the skies of America were safe. how'd that work out? Also, how is intelligence going to stop an attack at 9:06?

You are thinking too hard.

You aren't thinking hard enough. Your grandiose assumption is not logical because it hasn't analyzed more than two possibilities when there are many more.

I've explained just a few of the many more enough already. I'm done arguing it. Your deluded and fucked in the head and very typical of most Truthers.

Your logic is thus (put in simpler terms):

Big targets being hit by bombs.
Bush may be target.
Bush not moved.
Conclusion: Bush not target and Secret Service in on conspiracy.

Faulty premise based on lack of information required to draw a real conclusion. You drew a conclusion from two facts (something is happeneing and Bush wasn't moved) and an uncertainty (Bush may or may not be a target). This is not enough information for *anyone* to draw a conclussion of this nature. You assume a certainty out of an uncertainty based on actions that could have multiple motivations.

Epic. Fucking. Fail.

I am done with you now.

I'm simply done with you.

"I've explained just a few of the many more enough already"

This is your problem. Everytime you give me an if, could have, should have, or maybe, I can do the same.

Stick to what you can only know at 9:05. It was a surprise.

"You drew a conclusion from two facts (something is happeneing and Bush wasn't moved) and an uncertainty (Bush may or may not be a target)."

You still don't have it quite right...Here it is again...

America is under attack
Everyone knows where the President will be.

Based on these two facts...we can say that No one could safely assume the President wasn't a target.

"Intelligence profiling suggested the skies of America were safe."

I've already pointed out twice that this is an incorrect statement.

But here, I'll post information backing that up again, so you can choose not to read it again.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/us/crash-white-house-overview-unimpeded-intruder-crashes-plane-into-white-house.html

http://wanttoknow.info/020515post_memo_bush_white_house_bin_laden_attack_america_9-11

"I've already pointed out twice that this is an incorrect statement. "

I said that to illustrate that Draugnar use of "intelligence" was moot. Surprises tend to put a damper on things you previously knew.

America's skies were obviously *not* safe, were they?

Please, SD...address the meat of the argument. I refuse to get bogged down here. I've been trying my best to stay civil and stay on point. It's comments such as these that are proving you aren't even following the argument.

"so you can choose not to read it again. "

Excellent. We can move on to my actual argument then?

America is under attack
Everyone knows where the President will be.

Based on these two facts...we can say that No one could safely assume the President wasn't a target.

Who's not with me so far?

No one could safely aaume he wasn't a target. Agreed. The problem is in taking that non-assumption to the point of assuming that moving is safer. You are making a set of assumptions that are false. You do not have access to the full security intel at the time. You assume that he isn't being protected becasue they know he isn't a target, when the measure put in place and not released to the public may have made him more safe. Again, external ground forces, air forces, and eye in the sky recon *may* have made him safe.

My assumption is the Secret Service felt he was safer inside the building because of the measures put in place around and above Sarasota the mintue they knew the first tower wasn't an accident.

Your assumption is that some conspiracy on their part meant they knew he was safe all along.

All things being equal, which do you think is the *most likely* correct assumption?

I say mine. You say yours. On that we must disagree.

I'm with you so far, but I'd say that this is the basic assumption of the Secret Service.

"I'd say that this is the basic assumption of the Secret Service. "

Great...so no one can exclude the President from being a target.

Now, what is the next logical step here if your job is to ensure the Presidents safety? Is it to assume he *isn't* a target? Or is it to assume that he is (since you absolutely cannot rule it out)?

@Darwyn - everyone agrees with your first three statements as posted there. The problem is your illogical leap to "It's a conspiracy because they didn't move him". You assume they didn't move him because they knew he was safe, ignoring all the other possibilities and going to the most extremist and unlikely of possibilities as the only conclusion in your mind. Neither Sherlock nor Mycroft are you. You have not eliminated all the more likely possibilities. The simplest solution is the most likely solution. A great consipracy involving an entire branch of the Government (the Executive Branch) that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people from all over the world is far less likely than a decision made based on intel as yet unknown to the common US citizen.

I'm more likely to accept that JFK was setup and killed by the CIA and there was a second shooter (and we may learn more on this from Jackie O's tapes next month) than that our own Government orchestrated the deaths of thousands as an excuse to work up to a war in Iraq through the war in Afghanistan.

Assume he is. then do you make your false leap that the only way to protect him is to move him?

If you assume he is a target, then you gather all the intel you have and make a judgement call to reduce the risk. you don't jump up and rush out the door and riskj getting him killed.

This has a distinct Socratean feel about it. Can I go for 'assume that he might be a target?'

"Assume he is."

Great. So far so good.

We now have this:
America is under attack.
The President is a target.

The attack was a surprise. Correct?

If the attack was a surprise, no one could have known what was coming. As Draug previously mentioned: “Whether it be terrorists, another nation, or some internal element”.

If it was a surprise and you could not be sure what was coming, then staying does nothing to ensure the Presidents safety. You don't know what is coming and you are therefore unprepared (its a surprise) to deal with it.

Staying invites the attack that no one is prepared to deal with.

Where am I wrong here so far? Draug, we've covered intelligence and preparation and those are moot points because it was a surprise attack. No one could have known a devastating attack wasn't about to hit at 9:06...correct?

"Can I go for 'assume that he might be a target?' "

That wouldn't be dissimilar to assuming he might not be a target. he either is or isn't and because you don't know, you must assume he is, in order to ensure his safety.

"No one could have known a devastating attack wasn't about to hit at 9:06...correct? "

This is correct.

At that realization, staying ceases to be an option.

"because you don't know, you must assume he is, in order to ensure his safety. "

correction...this should read: because you don't know, you must assume he is, in the context of ensuring his safety.

If you only allow binary choices then you would have to assume that the President is always a target in order to assume his safety. And because no one can know that an attack isn't about to happen any time that the president has a public appearance, the President never should leave his safe place, wherever that may be.

Now, of course, this was over simplified, and I grant you that there were exceptional circumstances, which make seem an attack very likely, but I just think that the action taken by the Secret Service will always depend on the precise circumstance. If you admit that then staying in the school is an option, maybe not one that guarantees the safety of the President in all possible circumstances, but maybe one that was thought of as the best option at the time.

@ Darwyn: "America is under attack and the Presidents whereabouts are known, then you can't know he isn't a target. That means that the only logical conclusion is that he is a target."

No. Sorry. That is not the only logical conclusion. Your logic in the above statement is deeply flawed. That you have such a poor grasp of logic explains why we are having such difficulty getting through to you.

I give up.

Pep, this isn't just any ordinary day where I might agree with what you are saying.

America is under attack. On her own soil.

This is unprecedented.

"If you admit that then staying in the school is an option, maybe not one that guarantees the safety of the President in all possible circumstances, but maybe one that was thought of as the best option at the time. "

I could get into maybes as well. And that only proves that no one could know anything. In the context of securing the President, staying at that school where everyone knows him to be as a target of attack is not an option.

"No. Sorry. That is not the only logical conclusion."

That point has already been conceded...and it was conceded because it is logical.