nanook 1
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,466
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Well, if I had an hour or so of notice that 12 year olds were on the
>loose spraying anthrax I might just prepare myself for the attack.
Right. But if your warning was that someone might attack you in the next three days with an unusual weapon, you might still overlook that kid with the little pink bottle.
>In the case of the US military headquarters, I would expect that they would
>always be on guard even without the knowledge that hijacked planes had been
>used twice3 that morning as weapons against american landmarks an hour or so
>earlier.
I think it just caught so many people off guard that no one thought to defend the Pentagon. For people whose entire careers entail planning complex military operations overseas, reacting fast to an imminent local threat may be a lot tougher than someone who lives in a country that is attacked a lot (say, Iraq.)
>loose spraying anthrax I might just prepare myself for the attack.
Right. But if your warning was that someone might attack you in the next three days with an unusual weapon, you might still overlook that kid with the little pink bottle.
>In the case of the US military headquarters, I would expect that they would
>always be on guard even without the knowledge that hijacked planes had been
>used twice3 that morning as weapons against american landmarks an hour or so
>earlier.
I think it just caught so many people off guard that no one thought to defend the Pentagon. For people whose entire careers entail planning complex military operations overseas, reacting fast to an imminent local threat may be a lot tougher than someone who lives in a country that is attacked a lot (say, Iraq.)
Quote>
>In the case of the US military headquarters, I would expect that they would
>always be on guard even without the knowledge that hijacked planes had been
>used twice3 that morning as weapons against american landmarks an hour or so
>earlier.
I think it just caught so many people off guard that no one thought to defend the Pentagon. For people whose entire careers entail planning complex military operations overseas, reacting fast to an imminent local threat may be a lot tougher than someone who lives in a country that is attacked a lot (say, Iraq.)
So they knew the US was under attack (as indicated by Andy Card to President Bush) but no one considered defending the airspace over Washington D.C.?
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
billvon 2,466
>So they knew the US was under attack (as indicated by Andy Card to
>President Bush) but no one considered defending the airspace over Washington
>D.C.?
Obviously no one did.
>President Bush) but no one considered defending the airspace over Washington
>D.C.?
Obviously no one did.
Quote>So they knew the US was under attack (as indicated by Andy Card to
>President Bush) but no one considered defending the airspace over Washington
>D.C.?
Obviously no one did.
Or did they?
Here is an excerpt from the 911 commission report
"MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" "
So obviously they did consider taking down the plane. Was the standing order to take it down? If it was why didn't the military intercept it?
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
billvon 2,466
>Or did they?
No, they didn't. (To be more accurate, they may have well considered it, but they did not do it.)
No, they didn't. (To be more accurate, they may have well considered it, but they did not do it.)
Quote>Or did they?
No, they didn't. (To be more accurate, they may have well considered it, but they did not do it.)
Exactly the point of the thread.
"the finest fighting force" in the world and they stood down or were inept at defending their own head quarters.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
Quote"
We got hit in a way that was not considered. And we were arrogant. That's how.
"Not considered"?
Is that what you believe,lawrocket?
Search "vigilant guardian" and see if that changes your mind as to what type of attacks had been considered.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
Quote
No system is perfect. What suggestions do you have to defend it?
Let's see. I'd probably have jet fighters on alert at all times . Probably an automated missle system on the roof . Maybe a radar system in place to track all objects flying within say 500 miles of the country.
OH!!!! We had all that !!!! But even with a Presidential order which(according to the 911 commision report) "authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists" , the military just couldn't manage to take out a large slow commercial airliner.
Hmm.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
billvon 2,466
>the military just couldn't manage to take out a large slow commercial airliner.
Well, to be fair, deciding to shoot down a US airliner full of innocent civilians is a tough call even if you know what they're trying to do. Even tougher when you don't.
Well, to be fair, deciding to shoot down a US airliner full of innocent civilians is a tough call even if you know what they're trying to do. Even tougher when you don't.
Quote>the military just couldn't manage to take out a large slow commercial airliner.
Well, to be fair, deciding to shoot down a US airliner full of innocent civilians is a tough call even if you know what they're trying to do. Even tougher when you don't.
Yes, but according to the 9-11 commission report the Commander in Chief had already made that call.Infact he had given an order.
So where was the military?
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
billvon 2,466
>So where was the military?
Probably dicking around trying to figure out if they were really supposed to shoot down an airline full of innocent people over a very populated area of the US.
Probably dicking around trying to figure out if they were really supposed to shoot down an airline full of innocent people over a very populated area of the US.
Quote>So where was the military?
Probably dicking around trying to figure out if they were really supposed to shoot down an airline full of innocent people over a very populated area of the US.
So you think ,Bill, that the "finest fighting force " in the world were just "dicking around" when the nation was "under attack". That they were "trying to figure out" if the orders they had been given were for real.
Personally , I don't believe that.
I believe that our military is professional , well equipped , and certainly capable of the task of defending not only our nation, but certainly it's own headquarters.
Read the commision transcript again.
Was the vice presidents' order to the military to stand down?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" 2
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
fossg 0
Trade places with me for a day. Then critisize me.
QuoteQuote"
We got hit in a way that was not considered. And we were arrogant. That's how.
"Not considered"?
Is that what you believe,lawrocket?
Search "vigilant guardian" and see if that changes your mind as to what type of attacks had been considered.
Blues,
Cliff
Finite resources. We're in deep shit in the winter if, for example, some IED's end up at the Alaska pipeline or, say, some key peetroleum distribution pipelines in Houston that cuts off the supply of fuel oil.
Especially if that is followed by attacks on two or three electrical substations. Imagine that during, say, an ice storm. Tens of thousands WILL die.
So, take this big advanced defense force and defend the entirety of the oil pipeline infrastructure. Or defend every electrical substation in the eastern US.
These are events that have been considered. Resources being what they are we are sitting ducks.
Patrol every 50 yards of aqueducts? All it takes is a water bottle worth of botulin to take out most of Los Angeles.
Scary shit... We simply cannot prevent all of the thousands of ways to attack us.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteTrade places with me for a day. Then critisize me.
And where are you?
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
QuoteQuoteQuote"
Oh Bullshit,lawrocket.
You said the attacks on the Pentagon had never been considered.
Please tell us what you found out after searching "vigilant guardian".
Blues,
Cliff2muchTruth
Good point. "Considered" was a piss poor choice of words.
but how does one defend against that kind of thing? Tell me, ever been to the California Aqueduct? Yeah. Devote resources to protect it. Yep.
This isn't bullshit, cliff, these are choices to make.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
but how does one defend against that kind of thing? Tell me, ever been to the California Aqueduct? Yeah. Devote resources to protect it. Yep.
This isn't bullshit, cliff, these are choices to make.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
No system is perfect. What suggestions do you have to defend it?
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites