Reply #35: likely....

[wiggs]

Re my last post I should make the sarcasm a little stronger I guess...

snip from post above:

<WASHINGTON (AP) — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. >

The report makes a point to say that the excercises were not in anticipation of terrorism....that the drill supposed an "accident" would cause a plane to strike, coincidentally, a CIA tower. This seems an unlikely supposition. Although, maybe they also drill for an accidenal dropping of a bomb on the CIA...or an accidental suicide car bombing at the front gate....an accidental anthrax attack.....an accidental drive by shooting....

If the drill wasn't for an "accidental" plane strike, then the possible reason for stressing that the excercises were not terrorist related is puzzling. On the one hand, the administration has stated in public that the notion of hijacked planes being used as missles was not foreseeable. Clearly, the conducting of drills on precisely this eventuality would undermine this statement. On the other, such excersises would give the appearance that the administration was on top of the threat, preparing for suspected attacks.

Who knows....and that is the point.

wiggs