No Darwyn, the point was *not* conceeded that he was a target. The point was conceeded that he may be a target and that we have to *assume* he is a target, not that he actually is. The assumption is we should act as if he were.

But then your logic fails further when you refuse to accept that satying *is* a valid choice.

Seeing as you *refuse* or *cannot* see that staying was a valid choice, we have nothing further to discuss.

You, sir, are an idiot. You are either intentionally trolling and being obtuse, or you are just so stupid you are blind to the possibility that staying is a perfectly acceptable alternative if the risk assessment shows that digging in is safer than running.

You also refuse to accept that there was intel on that day regarding the attacks. They didn't know when they were going to happen, but once the second tower got hit, they had a pretty good idea from their prior intel what the targets were going to be. That is what the 9/11 Commision found. We knew what and who, but not when *and* we didn't share intel well enough between agencies to help prevent it.

"Let me ask this...could anyone have known there wasn't a devastating attack on that school scheduled to hit after 9:06am?

No, they couldn't have. It was a surprise."

They could have calculated that it was highly unlikely given the proximity of the attack to the annpouncement of his attendance. They knew AQ was planning it, just not when. When it happened, they said "Holy FUCK! Well, at least we know the most likely targets and they can't change those at this late stage of the game." So, yes, they most likely did have a good idea the school wouldn't be targetted because they had intel said these attacks were coming, just not *when*.

So, in a sense, yes, the Secret Service pretty much knew he was safe. They knew from prior intel what the targets were likely to be once they determined it was an attack, and prior to that, all they knew was a plane of some sort hit the first tower. But that does not a Conspiracy make.

Holy fuck. Is this still being discussed?

Darwyn. You're a nut. You have a absurdly high affinity for bullshit theories. The only good thing about nuts like you is that you're so far very marginalized.

To everybody else: He's like a pimple. Ignore him, and he'll go away. It seems pretty obvious that he's decided the conclusion first, and has cobbled together his argument afterwards. Its not worth discussing anything rationally, because he's not a rational person.

He's a nut. Treat him like somebody who has major brain damage and is never going to get any better, and that would be fair.

"The point was conceeded that he may be a target and that we have to *assume* he is a target, not that he actually is."

For the sake of this argument, there's no difference here.

"But then your logic fails further when you refuse to accept that satying *is* a valid choice."

staying is not a valid option because at 9:06 he could be dead...the result of a successful attack on the school where everyone knew him to be.

You are welcome to point out where I went wrong, Jack.

The successful attack on the school would require more than one plane hitting different parts of the school. It's a big fucking school you fucktard! Oh and they better hit all at once or they would move him if he was in the undamaged section. That kind of coordination of *multiple* planes on *different parts* of the same target all at the same time would be difficult with highly trained pilots in empty planes. Done with barely trained hijacker pilots in planes taken over at different times would be nigh on impossible.

I'll point it out in one assumption.

You went wrong in assuming staying is not a valid option.

"The successful attack on the school would require more than one plane hitting different parts of the school."

A plane? who said anything about a plane?

"Oh and they better hit all at once or they would move him..."

lol...I'll let this one speak for itself. :D

Of course you could get into maybes as well, but here is the difference, for your conclusion you have to assert that staying isn't an option under any circumstances, so in order to rebute your conclusion it is only necessary to argue that there exist one scenario in which staying is an option.

And this is what people have done in earlier posts, but of course only under certain assumptions and maybes. If you concede the maybes you loose the argument, but the discussion of how plausible the assumptions are is outside the logical argument and most likely futile. This is why I think that it will not be possible to logically conclude that staying wasn't an option.

The Secret Service prepares plans for a variety of attacks that they catch wind of, and they had been informed, as had Bush, that terrorists were planning to use airliners as bombs. This is what is in one of the links you ignored.

So in your world, the second the planes hit the WTC, everyone should run in a circle and say, "Oh shit, we're fucked, what the hell, what's going on here, oh no!" In reality, their plans were predicated on the fact that they were aware that exactly this type of attack was being planned, but they didn't have enough information on the when to prevent it. So, it starts happening, and they are unsurprised because they had some info, not because they plotted it.

"for your conclusion you have to assert that staying isn't an option under any circumstances..."

There's only one circumstance that the logic is based. And that is that America is under attack.

"in order to rebute your conclusion it is only necessary to argue that there exist one scenario in which staying is an option"

Oh, there exists exactly one scenario in which staying is an option alright. But outside of that one, none of them can account for a devastating attack that could occur at 9:06am.

"they were aware that exactly this type of attack was being planned"

You couldn't have known that was the only type of attack.

"You couldn't have known that was the only type of attack. "

You couldn't have known that the ancilliary attacks weren't snipers waiting for him to exit.

No, I am sorry Darwyn, for me it always comes down to a weighing of what if's and maybes, and therefore I cannot logically rule out that staying wasn't an option.

Darwyn. Reactionary actions to possible other forms of attacks when only one has been demonstrated is called panicking. There had only been one type of attack. Therefore it is safe to assume that is the only type of attack there would be. Seeing as that type of attack required significant planning and they knew it was coming, just not when, it became safe to choose staying as a viable alternative.

"it always comes down to a weighing of what if's and maybes"

Fine...what if a devastating attack is about to hit at 9:06am?

"There had only been one type of attack. Therefore it is safe to assume that is the only type of attack there would be."

Here's another what if...planes hitting buildings were a diversion for the real attack that is scheduled to hit the school at 9:06am. It was *not* at all safe to assume anything. This has been my point all along!

Folks...the logic is sound. You people don't like the conclusion. As Pep mentioned "in order to rebute your conclusion it is only necessary to argue that there exist one scenario in which staying is an option"

that one scenario is already knowing the President was safe...because they knew the targets already. There are no other scenarios that justify the secret service staying...because it was a surprise...they couldn't have known the President wasn't a target.

"Seeing as that type of attack required significant planning and they knew it was coming, just not when, it became safe to choose staying as a viable alternative. "

Draug, you accepted the fact that no one could know the President wasn't a target, but here you are suggesting they *knew* he was perfectly safe.

"Folks...the logic is sound."

No it isn't. Answer SacredDigits' last comment.

"Answer SacredDigits' last comment. "

His comment changes nothing.

why is this thread still going on. We all know the assumptions he is making, and that his logic is fundamentally flawed. He can't address this fact and so makes the same assumption/logical leap each post, that hunkering up in the school was less safe than making a dash for it. We know this is an assumption. We know that the Secret Service was holding the president to consider options. He might even know. But even if he does think there was some mass conspiracy that the President, the whole hierarchy of the Secret Service, the military escort for the President his advisors, and aides what does it matter to us. Let the village idiot have his fun. Bottom line is let it die.

David Cameron organised the London riots here is my evidence (1) He was out of the country at the time thereby creating himself an alibi, your not fooling me David. (2) when london was experiencing the worst violence since the second world war they flew David from quiet Tuscany to violent London and he visited the affected areas. Why - they knew he was safe afterall he organised them. QED

@ Darwyn: "His comment changes nothing."

Explain why not.

"He can't address this fact and so makes the same assumption/logical leap each post, hunkering up in the school was less safe than making a dash for it"

hunkering up in the school was *zero* safe...not less than.

"Explain why not."

See above comment.

Let it die people.

you wish you could. :)

Darwyn is irredeemably stupid.

Invictus, you are welcome to tell me why I am so irredeemably stupid by pointing out the flaws in the argument. But you can't. So your words are empty.

I think I've covered just about everything. The argument is sound. And no one has come even close to knocking it down.

So, if no one has anything else to say, I will declare victory and proceed to tell you all what this means...