How will Bushco downplay this?

[amp]

Military prepares for the type of event that happened 9/11.

see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

 

[amp]

Hughes check the link- it is a news report about the US having fighter jets practice for just what occurred on 9/11- it was before 9/11 long enough before so that Bushco claim of non-knowledge starts to appear weak and feeble. Unless of course they weren't sent invitations with date and time of exercise, in which case they can claim ignorance.

 

[hughes johnson]

Sorry. I was lazy, and it caught up with me.

 

[Zero]

Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.

 

[hughes johnson]

Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.

Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.

 

[russ_watters]

How will Bushco downplay this?

Military prepares for the type of event that happened 9/11.

Back up a sec: what is there to downplay? Ie, what is the significance of that report?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Back up a sec: what is there to downplay? Ie, what is the significance of that report?

Rice testified before Congress that although they were informed that Al Qaeda was about to hijack airplanes and plan a major terrorist attack against the world trade center, nobody could have possibly imagined that terrorists could have hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.

Even though it appears that not only did many people imagine it, the military planned for it. And in the past terrorists actually planned to fly a plane into the WH, and in the nineties some republican christian nutjob actually flew a plane into the WH, and the list goes on and on.

 

[amp]

Thanks Chemecalsuperfreak, I didn't think one had to spell it out. Now... about those orders to stand down when the hijackings were already known...the origin of those orders? >>> Sherlock would have fun with this!

 

[Zero]

Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.

Off-topic.

 

[studentx]

Military shoots down 4 passenger jets killing 500(?) civies. Somehow i don't think that would go down well with u guys

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nice philosophical point. Would it be legitimate to kill 500 people in order to save 3000?

 

[wasteofo2]

Wouldn't it be killing 500 civilians to save 2,500, since the people who died that were in the planes were counted in the total casualty count?

Even if the military was prepared for that, knew about the 4 hijacked planes and could have dispatched jets to stop them, what could they really have done? Shooting down passenger planes would get them enough ****, but shooting down a passanger plane in the middle of New York City? It would have been just as huge an explosion, but in some other place. Hell, if the plane exploded at the base of some large building, even more people could have died, since the building would likely collapse sooner (if not instantly), and no one could actually get out the bottom exits, since they'd be up in flames...

Quite a dillema the military would be in, the only thing they could really do would be try to somehow guide the plane off course, but what could they do to veer suicide bombers off course?

 

[GENIERE]

Originally Posted by Zero
Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.


hughes johnson

Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.

I thought Zero was paying a compliment to Condi, et.al.

 

[studentx]

the point i was making was not the dilemma of killing 500 to save 2500.
Shooting down the 4 planes would not result in the entire world believing that 2500 were saved, it would infuriate the globe. It would be hard to resist blaming it on Bush wouldn't it?

 

[amp]

Politically speaking- your saying it had to happen to get the emotional/volitional commitment required for pre-emptive measures. Shades of Star Trek, this point was examined though I think not the civil implications, as far as I remember. Might that be the reason the jets were ordered to stand down... to wait and see what happened? What the hijackers would do?

 

[studentx]

what I am saying is, no matter what decision the military or Bush made it would always be wrong according to certain peeps. I think that includes you amp.

 

[kat]

studentx- right on the nose.

 

[Adam]

Right on the nose if you're after another logical fallacy, sure.

 

[amp]

Unfortunately ,your wrong StudentX BTW Adam which fallacy- StudentX, I say unfortunately because I would have had the mil. jets following the planes in the shortest possible response time. Which I believe they were known to be hijacked no more than 20 mins after take off, I really need to know when or rather how long after they were hijacked it was reported to pertinent officials. Anyways, while following the hijacked jets the mil interceptors would have orders from me to force touch down of jets should they start to vector towards densely populated areas. As Prez I would have taken responsibility in that No-Win situation.

 

[Adam]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

In this case, the fallacy is that Studentx has asserted "They object to everything, therefore we can ignore their objection to this activity by Bush."

 

[studentx]

Its easy to say afterwards knowing what would happen. But the decision to take down 4 passenger jets is a tough one. The consequences of not taking them down would never be known and the intelligence data that led to the taking down of these 4 jets would not be known to the public beforehand. Afterwards during the hearings the whole thing will be surrounded by a few conspiracy theories , Bush wanted to destroy the jets because there was a muslim aboard, to assasinate someone random or to cause an economic crisis which he can fix just before elections. Something about oil too. The question will be why did these 4 planes ever lift off?

Now suppose you as Pres would have shot them down amp. Do you think that makes you less hated than Bush?

 

[amp]

Aside from your hypos. Yes, I think so, an answer that's knowable. Still I would have done just what I posted although I would likely have had in my possession the knowledge that there was intelligence that suggested that jets would or could be used as missiles. And I as PREZ would have taken full responsibility for that decision. Afterward through the investigations that followed, I would just do what needed to be done in presenting my reasons for the action. Thinking of Consp. thrys., if I as Prez considered the consequences before the attack while I had a chance to stop them and decided to let the planes hit to reap popular opinion after a trajedy for a illconceived action then I would be unworthy of the office.

 

[jimmy p]

Right on the nose if you're after another logical fallacy, sure.

How can that be so? You can't please everyone. His statement is didnt please you...

 

[amp]

And I stated a decision I could have suffered, maybe if Bush wasn't vacationing ...

 

[Zero]

Enough of the personal back-and-forth.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks Chemecalsuperfreak, I didn't think one had to spell it out.

Sorry, amp - I'm tired of the 'adam tactic.' If you have a point to make, make it. Anything less is bait. Its underhanded and I'll continue to demand you make your point.

Rice testified before Congress that although they were informed that Al Qaeda was about to hijack airplanes and plan a major terrorist attack against the world trade center, nobody could have possibly imagined that terrorists could have hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.

Even though it appears that not only did many people imagine it, the military planned for it. And in the past terrorists actually planned to fly a plane into the WH, and in the nineties some republican christian nutjob actually flew a plane into the WH, and the list goes on and on.

As it said in the article, even when carrying out these exercises - which, btw, were carried out before Bush was in office and he didn't know about them - they weren't taken that seriously. One was canceled for being "too unrealistic," for example.

Also, anyone who has read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor has "imagined" the possibility. Is that the same as taking it seriously enough to actively plan to defend against it? No.

Is not having a plan in place to deal with such a thing a failure of the Bush admin (or even the Clinton admin)? No.

There are a lot of failures and a lot of blame to spread around for not preventing 9/11. This isn't one of them.

amp, re this stand down order - I never heard of it. What I read was that the closest any of the jets came to being intercepted was still much too late. Do you have any info on that?

Philosophically, yeah - toughie. Pre- 9/11, not a chance in he-- a hijacked plane would be shot down. That day, if they could have? Maybe the 3rd and 4th planes. Today? Maybe, but they'd have to be damn sure.

amp - StudentX's point is quite valid. If not you, someone will always be there to second-guess what the president does. If nothing else, it sells newspapers.

Your framing of the hypothetical with lots of great assumptions about what you know or could do makes things a lot easier on you. Take it back to reality: what if you were dropped in Bush's shoes that morning and had all the information we know he personally had. The one assumption (you have already made) is that the 3rd and 4th planes at the very least could be intercepted. They are not answering the radio. Would you shoot them down? Yes or no.

 

[Zero]

This is a classic example of the "guilty" party redirecting the conversation away from the true problem, unfortunately.

This shouldn't be about fighter jets on that Tuesday morning...it should be about the preparation, or lack of it, in the months prior. They KNEW something like this was in the works; did they do anything to try to stop it?

 

[russ_watters]

This is a classic example of the "guilty" party redirecting the conversation away from the true problem, unfortunately.

This shouldn't be about fighter jets on that Tuesday morning...it should be about the preparation, or lack of it, in the months prior. They KNEW something like this was in the works; did they do anything to try to stop it?

Three lovely things here: First of course is "guilty party." In what country do you come from where guilt is assumed a priori? Thats not the way it is in mine. If you want to call someone "guilty" - first say who and what, then prove it.

Second: "Redirecting?" The thread is about exercises for intercepting hijacked planes. So how could any question possibly be more relevant than being about intercepting hijacked planes?

Third of course: Who precisely knew what and when? We already know the FBI dropped the ball. Are you saying Bush is connected to that? The famous memo maybe? Don't imply it - say it. Make your point.

 

[amp]

YES also There is an Air National Guard base @ Mcguire AFB in New Jersey. They have F-16s there and could have intercepted both NY bound hijacked planes in a matter of minutes. Anyone remember how long those planes were in the air after they took off, I think there was a time-line indicating takeoff time and the time when the planes impacted the WTC. If the time from takeoff to impact was greater than 20 - 30 minutes the jets could have been intercepted before they got very close to their target. I'm waiting for the rebuttal.

After reading your reply to Zero, I must add this. Someone knew, unless the reports are false about certain parties vacating (or not being there that day)the WTC on 9/11. The put options. Most notably Rumsfeld and other individuals either not flying or not using commercial airlines that day. BTW, I heard or read that the stand down was approx 45 minutes long before the fighter jets were allowed into the air. So, no doubt I'm just imagining the stench of some nefarious goings on.

 

[Zero]

Three lovely things here: First of course is "guilty party." In what country do you come from where guilt is assumed a priori? Thats not the way it is in mine. If you want to call someone "guilty" - first say who and what, then prove it.

Second: "Redirecting?" The thread is about exercises for intercepting hijacked planes. So how could any question possibly be more relevant than being about intercepting hijacked planes?

Third of course: Who precisely knew what and when? We already know the FBI dropped the ball. Are you saying Bush is connected to that? The famous memo maybe? Don't imply it - say it. Make your point.

Lovely? You are missing the point: the fighter jets shouldn't be a main issue to begin with! The fact that it is being brought up as a semi-major point of debate is the point I am addressing.

Here's a hypothetical that might shed some light on my thinking:

Say you are driving your infant to the doctor, and you are hit by a truck, throwing the child out of the car and killing her. We'll talk about the cause of the accident, whether it was your fault or the other driver's fault. We can discuss whether the speed limit was too high for that stretch of road, if there should have been a stop sign or not. Someone might suggest that you should have left earlier, or taken a different route. We can even get into the effectiveness of the brakes in both cars. But, we are missing the real issue, the one that cuts to the heart of the matter.

Some people won't see it, though...they'd prefer to discuss anti-lock systems and traffic patterns.

 

[studentx]

Zero you are referring to the lack of action against the 911 terrorist cell right? Yes that should be investigated but until there is proof we must give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt and looking at some of the threads here, some of us are kinda biased. Perhaps there was much more known about this terrorist cell, but we all know how the system has its flaws. Intelligence is lost and unused all the time, it doesn't have to be intentional. And letting 3000 civies and your economy die on purpose sounds kinda fantastical

Thinking of Consp. thrys., if I as Prez considered the consequences before the attack while I had a chance to stop them and decided to let the planes hit to reap popular opinion after a trajedy for a illconceived action then I would be unworthy of the office.

I don't think Bush is capable of reaping popular opinion even if he wanted to

 

[russ_watters]

YES also There is an Air National Guard base @ Mcguire AFB in New Jersey. They have F-16s there and could have intercepted both NY bound hijacked planes in a matter of minutes. Anyone remember how long those planes were in the air after they took off, I think there was a time-line indicating takeoff time and the time when the planes impacted the WTC. If the time from takeoff to impact was greater than 20 - 30 minutes the jets could have been intercepted before they got very close to their target. I'm waiting for the rebuttal.

You have hypotheticals and questions there: what kind of rebuttal are you looking for? You haven't argued anything!

Someone knew, unless the reports are false about certain parties vacating (or not being there that day)the WTC on 9/11. The put options. Most notably Rumsfeld and other individuals either not flying or not using commercial airlines that day. BTW, I heard or read that the stand down was approx 45 minutes long before the fighter jets were allowed into the air. So, no doubt I'm just imagining the stench of some nefarious goings on.

I'm sorry, I don't accept conspiracy theory. Give me facts. What stand down are you talking about? For a building with 50,000 people, can you show me that more people took off that day than other days? And Rumsfeld: he's VP, he doesn't fly commercial. Who are these "others?"

amp, what you are saying I've read a bunch of times on conspiracy theory websites. "I heard..." doesn't cut it and you shouldn't accept it either. If you can substantiate it, please do, but I think you're allowing yourself to be decieved because of how you want things to be.

You are missing the point:

Here's a hypothetical...

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but if you have a point, make it. I don't know what it is with you guys and beating around the bush, but the next sentence after "You are missing the point:" should contain your point in clear and sucinct wording.

The analogy, btw, is fine - just connect it to the argument.

 

[Nereid]

What 'put options'? Any evidence they were anything but normal trading? For example, futures market neophytes placing the orders?

 

[kat]

What 'put options'? Any evidence they were anything but normal trading? For example, futures market neophytes placing the orders?

actually, this is one of the few conspiracy theories he's put up that really does have provable truth to it.

Snopes.com has some info here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.htm

 

[Adam]

Sure, someone will always be unhappy with Bushy's decisions. Does that fact make Bush's decision right or wrong? Neither. It has absolutely zero to do with it. Implying that it is relevant is the logical fallacy.