Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Dark Wizard

What really happened at the Pentagon?

Recommended Posts

But not because of a cover up but because there are inconsistencies in the real world.

 

1) He didn't choose an empty wing knowingly. I'm sure when he planned it and sent out the agents it was full.

2) He planned this for a long time, and their intel was outdated as to where things were.

3) He wasn't in contact during the flight with them, he couldn;t have. Taking control of an airplane is one thing. Hacking our flight radio mainframe is a completely different.

 

No, it is and that's why there were very few people involved and they planned so far ahead. It also enabled them to carryout the attacks without contacting anyone and betraying their intentions.

 

That is an American point of view. The UN was helping his country and he knew that. He knew that the afghans have votes in the UN. The WTC however was a group of private and public financial institutions that were actively causing problems in his country. At this point it wasn't nations, it was corporations and the United States. No other building was the same as the WTC though, it was a symbol of financial power to him. If he could hit that he could hit anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and oh wow you got them being hit by B-29's (Similar mass, same speed) didn't bring down the Empire state building.

 

The Empire State Building has a completely different design to it. The WTC was built using the tube design, while the Empire State Building is just a giant steel frame. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

note the tell tale wedge. that is where the first charges were detonated. that is industry standard so the building will drop on it's own foot print. also explosives make heat and shockwaves, and in some cases fire aswell.

 

Oh you and your conjectures and assertions. So you are saying that it is impossible that the two towers collapsing very near it did absolutely zero damage to the building? Keep in mind that WTC 7 was not the only building that was damaged from the collapse of the two towers.

 

^^ Sands casino demolition

 

Guessing there's plenty of pyros there. More of a fireworks display than a demolition I should think, considering it's in Vegas. Probably took almost a month to set up. Might watch it later.

 

 

Look if there was so much solidarity in their camp, why did a large consortium of Architecture and Engineering firms (Some of the most prestigious in the country) jump ship and set up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, them guys are trained professionals with degrees and many collective decades of schooling.

 

Because people are free to do as they please.

why are so many large demolition firms crying foul,

 

Are they taking in all the factors that may have lead to the collapse of the towers? Those include1:

  • Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
  • Which takes up a whole city block
  • And is a "Tube in a tube" design
  • Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
  • Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
  • And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
  • And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
All 7 of those. No? Didn't think so. On the off chance someone did, please give the source to it, as I would like to see for myself.

 

pointing out the obvious, even going to the extent of duplicating the collapse of WTC 7 on similar buildings, why did several demolition firms

start using WTC 7 as a template for precision jobs?

 

What?

Why are firefighters suing the government over long term illnesses induced by the attacks.

 

Who else are they going to sue? Iraq? Oh wait, except they're suing for public benefits that the government probably doesn't want to just give away. You know, sort of like the way they don't just give away to everyone who says that they are Vietnam veterans. They have have to prove things in order to get those benefits.

Why is there division within our academic community on the subject, students and faculty, major establishments like Yale, Harvard, MIT. the list goes on.

 

There's not so much a division as there is open academic discussion. That is the main purpose of the institutions after all.

even people in the military ask questions.

 

Who?

you know most of the government's support comes from NIST and the American public.

 

Supporting how? I know taxes support the government, but NIST is part of the government. This statement is kinda confusing. Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of your "Conspiracy theorists" are large consortiums of Engineering firms and Architecture firms, Academics, professors, demolition firms, people that do that sugar every day for a living and spotted the similarities, including the Architecture firm that designed the WTC and the sears towers.

 

Who?

people have combed the blueprints of that building, there is simply no way to duplicate that collapse using the visible means.

 

Citation needed.

also Bin Laden had our defenses bypassed,

 

How?

he had control of our airspace,

 

Incorrect.

why didn't he go full on,

 

Maybe he did?

launch a full salvo of hijacked aircraft and take down every iconic building in this country, go full anti personnel and max those casulaties, really make it hurt.

 

Maybe he couldn't?

He had control of our airspace,

 

Incorrect.

why did he only choose buildings that were financially detrimental to us?

 

Maybe he wanted to go for the biggest? Also, a large portion of the office space of those towers was for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a government agency.

Hell why didn't he hit the UN building 3 miles away from WTC, that would've made a better statement.

 

Probably doesn't stand out as much as two massive towers that look alike. Or one in the shape of a gigantic pentagon. Honestly, trying to maneuver a plane to hit a smaller building in the middle of New York would be very, very difficult. Not to mention guessing which of the smaller buildings is the one you want before going full-throttle. That would be near impossible without doing at least one pass over, then trying to figure out which one it was again at a different angle.

Why didn't he put a couple down at Fort Washington or Martha's Vinyard, see none of what happened that day made any sense, he hits the Pentagon, a part of the pentagon that was being renovated and went over budget, why didn't he hit the white house, the capitol, the supreme court building?

 

Why are red ales red?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he had control of our airspace.

 

Nope.

he had our defenses bypassed.

 

Nope. The US was just caught off-guard. Basically got lucky.

he could've really F***ed us up that day, he chose not to, why?

 

Who is to say there wasn't more planes that were going to be hijacked that day, but were forced to land before they were? Or that the ones going to hijack other planes chickened out?

 

 

 

 

Okay, now all that said, here is the penultimate question for those who think explosives were used: if there truly was explosives used at any of those sites, why has there been zero residue from explosives been found?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

The UN is one of the most unique buildings in New York and is in a relatively empty area. Why the WTC?

What I'm saying is there's worse ways he could've hurt us. he chose not to. Also our defensive response was a disaster,

NORAD radar was down due to maintenance, we were misvectoring fighters, one dude got directed out over the North Atlantic,

our airspace on that day was undefendable. he bypassed our defenses by using Airliners as cruise missiles.

His hijackers were the ones in control that day. He could've done tremendous damage to us.Yet he did not.

NIST are the ones that said fires brought the buildings down, no peer reviews by outside agencies were done,

no private firms were allowed in Ground zero to do a site assesment and gather evidence. testimony was excluded.

testimony that would've changed the official story drastically and would've forced a government confession aswell as resulting in

charges of crimes against humanity. Had outside firms been allowed in and had all witness testimony been included,

we'd be debating whether convening a tribunal and trying Bush, Bin Laden and others was the right things to do.

There would be no truth movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

None of these pictures show up.

 

I had to look it up separately, and a building that's only 155 meters tall would barely be noticeable from the air, no matter how unique it was. Still would require at least one pass over to locate even if the general area was known. The WTC towers were almost 4 times as tall, and can be picked out from the skyline quite easily from a very long distance away.

The UN is one of the most unique buildings in New York and is in a relatively empty area. Why the WTC?

 

I could just as easily argue that the WTC towers were two of the most unique and identifiable buildings in New York. Not to mention the tallest at the time.

What I'm saying is there's worse ways he could've hurt us.

 

Worse? How?

he chose not to.

 

How do you know?

Also our defensive response was a disaster,

 

It has never historically been good. See: Hurricane Katrina. Unless you think that's a government conspiracy/coverup too.

NORAD radar was down due to maintenance,

 

Which? All of them? Doubtful.

we were misvectoring fighters, one dude got directed out over the North Atlantic,

 

Crap happens. I'm sure that's not the worst misdirection that's ever happened, nor the first or last one.

our airspace on that day was undefendable.

 

Not true. Anything going near the White House would have been probably shot down.

he bypassed our defenses by using Airliners as cruise missiles.

His hijackers were the ones in control that day. He could've done tremendous damage to us.Yet he did not.

 

Are you saying no damage was done that day? That's what this part sounds like you're saying.

NIST are the ones that said fires brought the buildings down, no peer reviews by outside agencies were done,

no private firms were allowed in Ground zero to do a site assesment and gather evidence.

 

Mostly untrue. I can definitely see it being off-limits for a while while the government does its own investigation though, since that is true of any event ever. Not only that but the area was a safety hazard for the entirety of the cleanup, in much the same way as construction zones are a safety hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

testimony was excluded.

testimony that would've changed the official story drastically and would've forced a government confession aswell as resulting in

charges of crimes against humanity. Had outside firms been allowed in and had all witness testimony been included,

we'd be debating whether convening a tribunal and trying Bush, Bin Laden and others was the right things to do.

 

Which testimony?

There would be no truth movement.

 

Which movement is this? Is there membership? Am I able to join? How does it work? How large is this movement? Who is in charge of it? What does this movement seek to accomplish? Has it done anything? Will it do anything? When did it start? Has it already ended? Why have I not heard of it before today?

 

 

I have to ask: how come you're just spewing random conjectures and assertions instead of actually debating? You can just as easily ask questions of things I've stated if they are unclear. I mean that's why I'm asking you questions here, so I can get more information. Since you are not asking questions though, I have to assume you are either dodging what I've said or just completely ignoring what I've said. For someone who kept PMing me about how we have to question everything and such, you yourself have asked zero. If you're not going to even acknowledge anything I've said, I may as well not even post and leave you to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9/11 truth movement.

also if you want to be a god damned Sheeple and tow the party line and blindly believe NIST's bullshit biased report, a report that them and Bush fabricated, it's your loss. if you don't want to have an open mind and consider the possibility that them buildings were imploded using military grade explosives and try and prove/disprove the 9/11 truther's demolition theory which quite honestly

holds water better than NIST's lies.

you blindly believing Faux news and the Corrupt News Network and their lies is far worse than people believing the internet.

I'm willing to bet money that you never once approached it with an open mind and questioned the official story by researching

the possibility of it being a controlled demolition and an act of mass murder perpetrated by the United States Government as an excuse to colonize the middle east.

people like you is exactly why the people that brought them buildings down will never see the inside of a court room. They remain protected in their elected and appointed offices. Me and every other truther wants the people that ordered them buildings demolished and the people that carried out the act brought to justice and thrown in prison for their crimes. And no I'm not referring to Al Qaeda. I'm referring to the gentlemen that pulled them buildings.

You're not open to even the remotest possibility that our Government and news media lied. People like you prevent whistleblowers from coming forward.

Why does the thought of the United States pulling a Vendetta and attacking itself and framing Al Qaeda as an excuse to murder people in the middle east and steal their oil/resources instead of paying the market price (which makes Gasoline $10.00 a gallon) scare you so much c2t? Why?

What is preventing you from opening your mind and questioning them? instead you have to bend the laws of the universe to make their theory make sense when a controlled drop using shaping charges makes far more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, people, tone down on the ad hominem attacks and stay off name-calling.

 

EJ, I would urge you to reply C2's questions. It does appear that on top of dodging them, you are also spewing more and more baseless assertions and questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah chill out dude.

 

"Why does the thought of the United States pulling a Vendetta and attacking itself and framing Al Qaeda as an excuse to murder people in the middle east and steal their oil/resources instead of paying the market price (which makes Gasoline $10.00 a gallon) scare you so much c2t? Why?"

 

You don't need to purposely murder thousands of your own citizens to invade another country for a start. Flimsy CBs are easier and cheaper. I already pay $10.50 for a gallon. We will all simply pay more as developing countries consume more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EJ: First, gas in the US isn't 10.00 Dollars.

Second, again you are making assertions about the equivalent of treason by high level members of the Unite States Government, and you better have irrefutable proof. Not, random conjectures and assertions with only outside information, and no physical proof.

Third, while Fox news and CNN are biased to either point of view they still report facts, every now and then.

Fourth, I don't watch Fox or CNN. I watch BBC and Al Jezeera.

Fifth, haven't we already agreed that AQ did instigate this attack? Or are we deciding that Osama Bin Laden is just a stool pigeon?

Sixth, I'd like responses to my questions raised about your statements as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EJ: First, gas in the US isn't 10.00 Dollars.

 

No it isn't because we're over there, occupying their nations and stealing their oil, we're only paying them $80.00 or so per barrel for oil as opposed to the $200.00 - $500.00 a barrel that they want.

 

Second, again you are making assertions about the equivalent of treason by high level members of the Unite States Government, and you better have irrefutable proof. Not, random conjectures and assertions with only outside information, and no physical proof.

 

It's never happened before? Watergate, Pearl Harbor (The Pentagon gave Pearl stand down orders until the attack is well underway), Tonkin Gulf? It isn't so much what the government did do it is what they didn't do, the airforce failed in their obligation to defend this country from attack. 3,000 people died as a result, not so much as an inquiry was held. their actions were never questioned. the USSR would shoot airliners down for simply crossing into their airspace, there's a reason planes don't get hijacked in China. now the only reason the airforce would stand down like they did on 9/11 (not one shot was fired in our defense either by fighters or ground based artillery) is if they were ordered to do so. NORAD was also in stand down. No one made any attempt to defend our airspace. they allowed the attacks to happen. what other reason was there for our defenses being taken offline?

 

Third, while Fox news and CNN are biased to either point of view they still report facts, every now and then.

Fourth, I don't watch Fox or CNN. I watch BBC and Al Jezeera.

 

Add Iran state news, China state TV, the DPRK news agency and ITAR-TASS to that list and you have the news agencies I use.

 

Fifth, haven't we already agreed that AQ did instigate this attack? Or are we deciding that Osama Bin Laden is just a stool pigeon?

 

you all agreed, I on the other hand did not, I said Jets hit the towers, on the other hand I believe them were retired US gov 757-200's with paint jobs being flown by remote control, essentially giant drones. I believe the United States attacked itself

to get around the defensive war only clauses in the constitution and go to war. it is well known that in USA if you have high enough rank and position you can get away with anything. the public will blindly believe you. basically I have it being a "Wag the dog" scenario. I said we should've stayed out of the middle east for the sole reason the powers that be wouldn't be conjouring up reasons to commit resource theft, all acts of terror from that point on are defensive warfare being done by Al Qaeda. Murdering your own people so you can commit resource theft is just wrong. excusing it and blaming the other side and murdering more innocent people is the real tragedy.

 

Sixth, I'd like responses to my questions raised about your statements as well.

 

you mean your futile attempts to bait me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna withdraw from this thread, I don't view it as a defeat, getting ganged up on by Sheeple that chime the party line

and have a hive mentality isn't ever a defeat, a minor setback but never a defeat.

I must ask though, why is the idea of the US attacking itself in the name of global domination and resource theft such a far fetched idea?

that terrorism CB gives the US an open ticket to attack any nation in the world for simply harboring terrorists/promoting/funding terrorism, no other reason is required, basically a nation pisses us off or has something we want we can label them terrorists and take them out. not only that, the CB also gives us an excuse to impose oppressive legislation (Like the patriot acts and SPD 51) on our own people. how long until the world get's fed up and retaliates? would it be the better course to bring the people that caused this to justice and end this war? or would it be better to piss everybody and their brother off and face retaliation?Keep being blind and we'll dig ourselves in deeper. God help us if we piss off a nation that has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons.Think about it for awhile, think about the nightmare that awaits us on our current course. Just ask your self, do you love America enough to bring these criminals to Justice even if it is revealed that they are sitting members/officers of our own government? even then would you continue to pretend that someone else did it? is Apathy really patriotism? with that I'm leaving this thread, arguing with Sheeple is a losing proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few final comments before you leave.

So what about the terrorists that the people, civilians on the plane not connected to the government in any way subdued?

And, I never tried to bait you. I tried to present logical arguments in a fashion that I felt was appropriate and on the level of this debate. I never insulted you, personally. I never degraded your views and telling me that I don't look at the facts, or look at objectively fills no function. If your argument is valid then you need not resort to such logical fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it should've been handled

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9rd2zONck

 

The normal procedure that has been used by the NSA for almost 40 years.

when hijack is confirmed, fighters are scrambled, 2 for each aircraft, they

are ordered in on full afterburner, upon rondezveu they take a position, 1

off each wing, they attempt to establish contact either visual or radio,

mind you by this time they are weapons hot, if the aircraft starts erratic maneuvers

or starts a rapid decent before reaching an airport or over an urban area, the fighter pilots

engage the aircraft with either guns or missiles. if the aircraft lands safely, Commandos, stationed on the ground

launch an assault and retake the aircraft, the 9/11 aircraft weren't dealt with in this fashion.

we essentially stood down and let them hit. I'd have to find it, but there's a training video on youtube I believe

that trains pilots how to overtake a hijacked airliner. the pilot was in an F-18, he was near 300 miles behind

the target (a Airforce E-3B used for training, that was flying at full throttle) the pilot opened his throttles, engaged the afterburner,

he closed the distance in under 15 minutes at 1,300 MPH. Which is just about Mach 2. the USAF has the most powerful fighters in the world, most other nations' airforces couldn't pull it off but ours can, now 2 F-16's were scrambled from Andrews AFB when them hijackings happened, full afterburner they could've rendezveu'd with the hijacked aircraft within 10 minutes at 1,100 MPH, about 2 minutes after that they could have sweet lock and a missile kill over manhatten sound, end result we have 2 more WTC towers and 3,000 more population than we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they could have rv'd in time but

 

Who makes the descision in the chain of command to shoot down a civillian plane when the intent isn't known?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well after seeing 2 planes hit the WTC earlier that day don't you think when they saw it flying low and into the direction of an importnt building they would put 2 and 2 together....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well after seeing 2 planes hit the WTC earlier that day don't you think when they saw it flying low and into the direction of an importnt building they would put 2 and 2 together....

 

in that situation the President under the war powers act authorizes weapons hot.

you got Iraq (Desert storm veterans) manning them planes, people that were in dogfights against Iraqi migs.

You got airliners that are flying at the edge of their speed envelope, doing violent aeleron turns, power dives, high speed banking, S-turns to bleed airspeed, basically flying like fighter jets, your making the broad assumption that them seasoned air combat veterans aren't going to recognize we're under attack. Airliners don't normally fly like that Andy, it was obvious to the fighter pilots that they were in an airborne battle, they couldn't get authorization to open fire, they were only authorized to super cruise and tail the aircraft, Bush wouldn't authorize defensive fire.

flight 11 for instance was being chased by 2 F-18's the other flight had an F-16 on his ass, that guy's wing man got mis-vectored over the North Atlantic. nobody was on 93's tail. even if they didn't fire they could've made themselves visible to the cockpits of them airliners to back a passenger mutiny to retake the aircrafts.

if it came to fire, we could've forced them down in manhatten harbor. Hit the engines with gunfire and shut them down, the Avionics computer would failsafe and switch on the APU's they'd have enough forward motion to do a glide landing in the water. The NSA has also done mid air boarding in the past, that was an option aswell. I know mid air boarding was possible with 727's, idk about 757's. they had many options in their tool box, the problem is Bush wouldn't authorize anything.

 

Also I'm sorry Andy I didn't realize until I reread it that I hit Edit, I fixed things. Edit isn't a button on my display, it is a barely visible link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseless claims, conjecture, and assertions abound. Talking to a wall never got so dull.

 

Enjoy your confirmation and hindsight biases, for I shall hear no more of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseless claims, conjecture, and assertions abound. Talking to a wall never got so dull.

 

Enjoy your confirmation bias, for I shall hear no more of it.

 

If I'm in a fighter jet and I'm chasing a known hijacked airliner that is power diving at full throttle toward a major urban area, I'm gonna start firing. I'm not going to hesitate. I'm going to fall back on instincts. It's either fire or thousands of people die when that thing hits the deck. I would opt to fire. some wreckage falling is far less devastating than a cruise missile hitting a building. I'm the kind that would take the court martial rather than watch helplessly while thousands of people die. there's no confirmation bias about it, it's a difference in how we define an attack. It would be easier for me to come to grips with shooting down an aircraft with 200 or so people on board than it would be to watch helplessly while thousands of people die on the ground.

even if i didn't know that aircraft was going to hit, I'd still play it safe and open fire. Missiles, not guns, and I'd make sure I had a good missile lock.

 

Your forgetting c2t, 9/11 wasn't our first experience with Kamakazi pilots. our airforce has more experience in dealing with Kamakazi's than any airforce on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the descision making time is too short given the accepted timeline. Now the FAA, NORAD and the Tower at Reagan could also be in on a conspiracy. But that is probably another 200 people to pay off so unlikely.

 

Bear in mind Bush is still in the school at the start of this.

 

8:55: President George W. Bush is at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida as part of a scheduled visit to promote education when presidential advisor Karl Rove, who is with Bush, informs him that a small twin-engine plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Before entering the classroom, the President speaks to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who is at the White House. She first tells him it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding “that’s all we know right now, Mr. President.”[8]

 

9:05: After brief introductions to the Booker elementary students, President Bush is about to begin reading The Pet Goat with the students when Chief of Staff Andrew Card interrupts to whisper to the president, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."[12] The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.

 

9:24: The FAA notifies NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector about the suspected hijacking of Flight 77. The FAA and NORAD establish an open line to discuss Flight 77, and shortly thereafter Flight 93.

 

9:33 to 9:34: Tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport tells Secret Service operations center at the White House that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us," referring to Flight 77. The White House is about to be evacuated when the tower reports that Flight 77 has turned and is approaching Reagan National Airport.

 

9:35: The President's motorcade departs from the elementary school, bound for Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and Air Force One.

 

Firstly Bush will have a deluge of info pouring towards him from many different officials. Some of it right, some of it wrong. Given that the last known report was that 77 had turned towards the airport- all is well again. No decision is needed.

 

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel.

 

 

Put that against the background of the Iran Air Flight 655 shot down by the USS Vincennes when Bushes father was President.

I'd say that two minuites for Bush jr to make a decision wasn't enough. Sometiimes you have to let things run until you get a better view. Simple bad call.. which probably could have been sorted if he had his staff around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the descision making time is too short given the accepted timeline. Now the FAA, NORAD and the Tower at Reagan could also be in on a conspiracy. But that is probably another 200 people to pay off so unlikely.

 

Bear in mind Bush is still in the school at the start of this.

 

8:55: President George W. Bush is at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida as part of a scheduled visit to promote education when presidential advisor Karl Rove, who is with Bush, informs him that a small twin-engine plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Before entering the classroom, the President speaks to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who is at the White House. She first tells him it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding “that’s all we know right now, Mr. President.”[8]

 

9:05: After brief introductions to the Booker elementary students, President Bush is about to begin reading The Pet Goat with the students when Chief of Staff Andrew Card interrupts to whisper to the president, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."[12] The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.

 

9:24: The FAA notifies NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector about the suspected hijacking of Flight 77. The FAA and NORAD establish an open line to discuss Flight 77, and shortly thereafter Flight 93.

 

9:33 to 9:34: Tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport tells Secret Service operations center at the White House that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us," referring to Flight 77. The White House is about to be evacuated when the tower reports that Flight 77 has turned and is approaching Reagan National Airport.

 

9:35: The President's motorcade departs from the elementary school, bound for Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and Air Force One.

 

Firstly Bush will have a deluge of info pouring towards him from many different officials. Some of it right, some of it wrong. Given that the last known report was that 77 had turned towards the airport- all is well again. No decision is needed.

 

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel.

 

 

Put that against the background of the Iran Air Flight 655 shot down by the USS Vincennes when Bushes father was President.

I'd say that two minuites for Bush jr to make a decision wasn't enough. Sometiimes you have to let things run until you get a better view. Simple bad call.. which probably could have been sorted if he had his staff around him.

 

Remember both WTC towers were hit an hour before that, Bush spent 45 minutes of that reading to those kids, he knew we were being hit by Kamakazi pilots. 45 minutes was better spent launching fighters in a screening defense of the capitol. Reagan should've been shut down at that point, DC declared a no fly zone with orders to kill anything that entered DC's airspace. That would've forced the hijackers to hit their secondary targets and gave us time to down them over open country.

 

Losing 3,000 people is one thing, Losing 3,000 people while most of our airforce is on the ground and our president is having leisure time in a Grade school in Florida is simply inexcusable. Our president and Airforce should have been full in the fight. true Airliners don't have weapons, they're not armed aircraft, but on that day, when tower 1 got hit, every aircraft in the sky became a potential weapon. the planes themselves were weapons, the hijackers were in battle with the US airforce. the war was underway.

We trained our airforce during the 1980's for the possibility of the Soviet Union using commercial aircraft as drop planes and Missiles (Red Dawn scenario, the idea was proposed by the RAND corporation) we were aware of what was being employed on 9/11, our pilots were trained and rehearsed for such an attack, but for some reason when that training was put to the test, everything went wrong. My theory is either hesitation or it was deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. He only knew at 9:05 about the towers and made the decision to carry on.

 

Only small portions of the govt had 13 mins to deal with 77. No one had the whole picture.

 

Too little time. I'm afraid to break it to you EJ you are applying West Wing qualities to a Simpsons quality President. He didn't have the team or the time to sort things out. In hindsight of course it looks crazy.. sugar happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. He only knew at 9:05 about the towers and made the decision to carry on.

 

Only small portions of the govt had 13 mins to deal with 77. No one had the whole picture.

 

Too little time. I'm afraid to break it to you EJ you are applying West Wing qualities to a Simpsons quality President. He didn't have the team or the time to sort things out. In hindsight of course it looks crazy.. sugar happens.

 

in battle 13 minutes is a long time, that "Small portion" was the airforce, it don't take 13 minutes to return fire, I don't care if your homer simpson flying a P-47 it don't take that damn long.

 

The presidential blame game would also fall back on Clinton, a US sniper team had OBL in their sights, Clinton wouldn't give the order. had that order been given 9/11 couldn't have happened. none of the other AQ leadership had the ability to organize that kind of an attack, when the cole got hit OBL should've died. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. I lied. I'm going to rejoin this, but only to get answers. I'm going to keep this extremely simple and focused by only asking one question at a time. Note that me not asking about the other things does not preclude that I agree with any of it.

in battle 13 minutes is a long time, that "Small portion" was the airforce, it don't take 13 minutes to return fire, I don't care if your homer simpson flying a P-47 it don't take that damn long.

 

Which battle are you talking about? Was there a skirmish that was happening at the same time on the other side of the planet?

 

Edit: I forget, this isn't a chat room. I'll just focus on one subject instead of one question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×