You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #65: Technical answer [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Technical answer
The official explanation for the failure to launch a plane to defend the capital before 9:29 is that they just didn't get round to it. I find this explanation unsatisfactory and had previously suspected that there might be some kind of malign intent in this.

However, having seen the interview with Gen. Winfield today (although it was originally broadcast 3.5 years ago - I'm a little slow, sorry - I posted it in the forum with a transcript) the warning light that starts flashing in my head when I've been promoting an argument that's going to turn out wrong has come on and I'm a little worried about this.

Suppose, for example, that other planes (on a training mission, that could be launched quickly even though not on alert) were sent to Washington, but sent after United 93 when it was hijacked (at 9:28, the FAA notified NORAD that it was the sort of plane that was likely to be hijacked about 10-15 minutes before it was actually hijacked). These planes then shot the damn thing down, so there has been a news blackout on them. This is just something that occurred to me today, so please don't place any great weight on it.

However, at 9:25 (or so) Richard Clarke (who was co-ordinating the response (this is on p. 5 of Against All Enemies by the way), asked General Myers whether NORAD had scrambled fighters and AWACS. General Myers replied "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but ... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now." He goes on to say that there should be combat air patrol over Washington in 15 minutes, i.e. before 9:45. The three dots are generally recognised as representing a redaction - a portion of the text deleted by the official censor. It is generally presumed that they represent a reference to some sensitive wargame that Clarke could not mention. However, looking at them again, it seems to me that they might also represent something like "we've diverted three fighters from a training exercise and". Would this solve our little problem?

"I just can't picture the idea that the explosives that resulted in the worst single day disaster in our country's history were put there because those who ordered it thought it would make us safer."
Why not? Try harder. They're incompetent. If you can picture explosives as part of a false-flag operation, then why not as a safety measure? With reference to the fact that there was no way to guarantee there would not be a repeat of the 1993 bombing, what other options were there? (That's not a rhetorical question, I expect you to suggest an answer).
Are you the sort of conspiracy theorist who beleives in little green men and that the moon landings were faked? (me neither) Yet you believe the WTC was demolished with explosives. (me too) How come? My answer is that the evidence is too much for us to disbelieve, even though we would quite like to. If it is so obvious that it is clear even to the likes of us (who generally don't go for conspiracy theories), then there must have been some kind of screw up and an explanation needs to be advanced. This is my explanation.

"It seems to me much more logical that our government had them put there, not for safety reasons, but to justify two wars that it badly wanted long before 9-11-01."
(1) I would argue that this is the wrong approach. The evidence should be followed wherever it leads, logic should not be used to prejudge the results. Logic doesn't dictate, evidence does. Logic is something that gets bolted on to evidence later.
(2)(a) Obviously, they wanted a war in Iraq, but, equally obviously, they didn't want a war in Afghanistan. They didn't send many troops there in the first place and they're all leaving now.
(b) The Bush administration was demonstrably developing other plans (for example havng a fighter shot down over Iraq, WMD, rehashing the ficticious link to Ramzi Yousef yet again) to give them a pretext to invade Iraq. if they knew 9/11 was coming, why did they bother with these plans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Flight 77, the Fake War on Terror, and the Dubai Port Deal Time for change  Feb-27-06 04:27 PM   #0 
  - An exceptional compilation. Nominated.  Just Me   Feb-27-06 04:34 PM   #1 
  - This is the new millenium version of JFK  EOO   Feb-27-06 04:37 PM   #2 
  - That's the big question I have...  KansDem   Feb-27-06 04:43 PM   #4 
  - That part of what happened on 9/11 is the most mind-boggling  EOO   Feb-27-06 04:50 PM   #6 
  - I think that the administration was complicit in the attacks  Time for change   Feb-27-06 06:12 PM   #11 
  - K&R... bookmarked  Canuckistanian   Feb-27-06 04:42 PM   #3 
  - Excellent, as always. Recommended. Bookmarked.  understandinglife   Feb-27-06 04:44 PM   #5 
  - really dumb  Bacchus39   Feb-27-06 04:50 PM   #7 
  - I'll try to address your concerns, but there's no need to call me dumb  Time for change   Feb-27-06 05:36 PM   #10 
  - The video is the biggest question to answer  IronLionZion   Feb-28-06 01:18 PM   #42 
  - your theory still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.  MrSammo1   Feb-27-06 06:57 PM   #17 
  - so glad you took the time to post...  Psyop Samurai   Feb-27-06 07:22 PM   #22 
  - ...still has not accounted for the plane and the passengers.  MrSammo1   Feb-28-06 01:41 PM   #46 
     - I think you meant this reply to post # 7, right? n/t  Time for change   Feb-28-06 02:06 PM   #47 
        - Well............Duh......on my part.......  MrSammo1   Feb-28-06 02:34 PM   #51 
  - Then why were all the video tapes confiscated.  drdtroit   Feb-28-06 02:19 PM   #49 
  - Neither Has Your Comments - Show Us the Video of Pentagon Crash  we can do it   Mar-01-06 11:25 AM   #60 
  - I'm SO sick of these threads getting locked and moved  RazzleDazzle   Feb-27-06 05:00 PM   #8 
  - That summary has a tremendous amount of information in it - thank you  Time for change   Feb-27-06 06:21 PM   #13 
  - Me Too - I Am Withholding Any Further Donation Until It Ceases  we can do it   Mar-01-06 11:29 AM   #62 
  - Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power  iconoclastNYC   Feb-27-06 05:18 PM   #9 
  - Wow, that's amazing  Time for change   Feb-27-06 07:02 PM   #18 
  - moved... okay... but I can't even recommend posts in here  BelgianMadCow   Feb-27-06 06:12 PM   #12 
  - I had seen some 9/11 posts on GD recently, so I thought it was ok  Time for change   Feb-27-06 08:54 PM   #26 
     - I think the problem may be that scattered within  greyl   Feb-28-06 08:13 AM   #31 
        - Thanks - please tell me what assertions you are referring to n/t  Time for change   Feb-28-06 09:09 AM   #33 
           - The entire middle section.  greyl   Feb-28-06 09:30 AM   #34 
              - Can you be more specific?  Time for change   Feb-28-06 10:46 AM   #36 
                 - Compare your post 35 with the related info from this link:  greyl   Feb-28-06 11:26 AM   #37 
                    - Burden of proof...  EOTE   Feb-28-06 12:40 PM   #38 
                    - Burden of proof indeed.  greyl   Feb-28-06 01:14 PM   #41 
                    - In other words, you're telling me to go find out myself  Time for change   Feb-28-06 01:11 PM   #40 
                       - Suit yourself, I'm easy.  greyl   Feb-28-06 01:32 PM   #45 
                          - I'm sorry that I sounded confrontational about this  Time for change   Feb-28-06 02:16 PM   #48 
                             - Sure, yes that's what I had in mind. :) nt  greyl   Feb-28-06 02:21 PM   #50 
                                - Collapse of the twin towers  Time for change   Mar-02-06 07:57 PM   #68 
                                   - Did you hit "post" before  greyl   Mar-03-06 05:25 PM   #75 
                                      - I don't know what happened  Time for change   Mar-03-06 05:45 PM   #76 
  - Here is an excellent video  sunnystarr   Feb-27-06 06:37 PM   #14 
  - Yes, that is excellent indeed  Time for change   Feb-27-06 08:05 PM   #25 
  - The 9/11 Commission Report is a Whitewash.  reprehensor   Feb-27-06 06:45 PM   #15 
  - It certainly was  Time for change   Feb-27-06 07:09 PM   #20 
  - No more recs...  hootinholler   Feb-27-06 06:46 PM   #16 
  - Thanks for trying  Time for change   Feb-28-06 07:34 AM   #29 
  - There is a logical reason the FAA delayed in contacting NORAD  Jose Diablo   Feb-27-06 07:07 PM   #19 
  - Yes, that's a pretty good explanation  Time for change   Feb-27-06 07:12 PM   #21 
     - I keep going over this stuff.  atomic-fly   Feb-27-06 07:40 PM   #23 
        - Of course they have the MSM to help keep the lid on this  Time for change   Feb-27-06 08:03 PM   #24 
  - Loose Change II Giving Away Plain-Wrapper Copies At Cost!  corbett   Feb-27-06 10:18 PM   #27 
  - Thank you -- I just viewed the video that Sunnystar supplied yesterday  Time for change   Feb-28-06 07:30 AM   #28 
  - No they aren't.  greyl   Feb-28-06 08:07 AM   #30 
  - It's out now, just watch it on Google video for free nt  IronLionZion   Feb-28-06 01:22 PM   #44 
  - Or just watch it for free on Google Video  IronLionZion   Feb-28-06 01:21 PM   #43 
  - Your cavalier disregard for the facts  Kevin Fenton   Feb-28-06 09:07 AM   #32 
  - My response to your criticisms  Time for change   Feb-28-06 10:42 AM   #35 
  - Griffin's method is poor  Kevin Fenton   Feb-28-06 02:36 PM   #52 
  - I prefer the www.911review.com position  MrSammo1   Feb-28-06 03:02 PM   #53 
  - I'd like to get down to the heart of the matter  Time for change   Feb-28-06 03:20 PM   #54 
     - The difference between incompetence and MIHOP  Kevin Fenton   Feb-28-06 04:11 PM   #55 
     - I'd like to see if I understand your position correctly  Time for change   Feb-28-06 05:44 PM   #56 
     - It's like this...  Kevin Fenton   Feb-28-06 11:54 PM   #58 
        - Collapse of the WTC buildings and military response to Flight 77  Time for change   Mar-01-06 09:40 AM   #59 
        - Lots  Kevin Fenton   Mar-01-06 11:27 AM   #61 
           - I'm very skeptical about all this  Time for change   Mar-01-06 12:38 PM   #64 
              - Technical answer  Kevin Fenton   Mar-01-06 01:48 PM   #65 
                 - I see four reasons to favor the theory that the Bush administration had  Time for change   Mar-02-06 07:27 PM   #67 
                    - Unocal, etc.  Kevin Fenton   Mar-03-06 04:09 AM   #69 
                       - They couldn't have gotten near the NYSE  dailykoff   Mar-03-06 04:57 AM   #70 
                       - Map  Kevin Fenton   Mar-03-06 06:02 AM   #71 
                          - 1) Too far, 2) No  dailykoff   Mar-03-06 08:06 AM   #73 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-03-06 05:19 PM   #74 
                          - Afghanistan, Cheney  Kevin Fenton   Mar-04-06 01:51 AM   #77 
                             - Response  Time for change   Mar-04-06 07:39 AM   #78 
        - I like this argument.  Bushwick Bill   Mar-01-06 12:06 PM   #63 
           - Thank you  Kevin Fenton   Mar-01-06 02:23 PM   #66 
     - but that the no-757 argument at the Pentagon is an absolute donkey that do  MrSammo1   Feb-28-06 07:23 PM   #57 
     - This may clear it up some  The Straight Story   Aug-20-06 04:45 PM   #81 
  - About the differences in Manifests  The Straight Story   Aug-20-06 04:39 PM   #80 
  - ah yes, the infamous smoke and water jet covered hole  rman   Mar-03-06 06:29 AM   #72 
  - You know what makes a nice round hole in a building?  IronLionZion   Feb-28-06 01:04 PM   #39 
  - Griffin's book will go down in history as the best account of 9/11  rverne8   Aug-20-06 03:19 PM   #79 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC