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

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 02:48 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

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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