There's that patented gambit triple two-step shuffle again...
The claim (proved above) was that the US pays the tyrant Mubarak $2 billion/year to play nice with Israel and suppress his own people's voice.
What it 'proved' is that if it was so easy to ply the ME despots with money to play nice with US and their neighbors, the entire region would have been under our rule by now. The fact that Egypt has her own interests cannot be ignored. Once again, the exaggeration of America in the ME and the minimalization, if not outright denial, of culpability by the region's despots is consistent. The tap-dancing by you is entertaining.
Ah yes, another display of your psychic powers combined with the inevitable mooooslims rant to veer off-topic again.
In your fantasy world you are a champion of truth debating the entire mooooslim world in front of 'the readership'. In reality, you are just some guy who throws racist tantrums when he loses a point.
A 'muslim' is an adherent to a set of moralities. There is no race called 'muslim'.
Fine, we can focus on whether it was malice or stupidy. The point is that you admitted the behavior was worthy of rolling heads.
Since you already admitted that heads need to roll, we can move on.
Just repeating your fantasy will not make it reality. Both I and the 9/11 commission talked about a request and you already admitted that the USAF response was worthy of rolling heads.
Yes we can move on...On to showing how you are debunked...
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
MR. LEHMAN: Secret Service has told us that they had repeatedly before 9/11 requested alert aircraft to protect the Capitol, particularly at Andrews Air Force Base, and other air defense, that this was never acted on by the Pentagon, was there a reason why?
GEN. MYERS: That never came to my attention. I was never -- as the vice chairman at the time, and I started in 1 March of 2000, from the time I was the vice chairman, I was never aware, or even as NORAD, I was never aware of a request from the Secret Service for that kind of service.
MR. LEHMAN: But when you were NORAD commander, there had already been a private aircraft that crashed into the White House grounds. There were repeated and written worries about the potential for private aircraft to make suicide attacks, and there were 11 separate intelligence reports circulating broadly through the intelligence community that al Qaeda had planned to use aircraft as weapons, although the focus was overseas. Didn't anybody at NORAD try to connect the dots and say that this is something we've got to worry about, that it's a target in the Capitol area, that we'd better get ready for it? But, instead, when even NORAD's own planning staff proposed to include in exercises the dealing with hijacked suicide aircraft, it was rejected by NORAD as by the NORAD commander, I think it was after your time, as something to be exercised and planned for.
GEN. MYERS: I think it was rejected, and General Eberhart can be clearer on this, I don't think it was by the commander, I think it was by the planning group that was meeting because it did not fit the scenario at the time. But, the use of aircraft as a weapon, as a missile, other than World War II and the Kamikaze situation, I'm not aware, and I've tried to research this, and the best information I get, I am not aware that an aircraft has ever been used as a weapon. Now, there have been landings on the White House lawn, there was a landing in Red Square, there have been lots of stupid things. There was talk about crashing airplanes into the CIA. But, in most of that threat reporting leading up to 9/11, it was hijacking an airplane and in the normal hijack mode, not in the mode of a weapon.
Now, there were some talks about in post hijack situations where they talked to about people over the demands were made that they were going to crash, one instance, into the Eiffel Tower, but even the work that was done and the hijackings that were planned for the Philippines, which is a well-known plot, they planned to hijack the airplanes and blow them up primarily.
So, no, the threat perception, there was not -- the intelligence did not point to this kind of threat, and I think that explains our posture.
I doubt that prior to Sept 11, 2001, not even the 'mighty' Pakistani Air Force contemplated that hijacked airliners
WOULD, not could, be used as weapons. Before 9/11, hijacked airliners were usually used as negotiation leverages for various political grievances. If someone wanted to use an aircraft as a suicide weapon, we, including the 'mighty' Pakistani Air Force, would have thought of someone flying his own aircraft,
NOT expending time, resources and increased manpower to take over an airliner and use it as that suicide weapon.
GEN. EBERHART: Sir, I'd like to answer that question. And, first of all, there's no scheme here or plot to spin this story to try to cover or take a bullet for anyone. And I for one, from the day after 9/11 to today, do not get into FAA bashing, because as I can imagine being on those screens that morning, as I can imagine being in their shoes, and the confusion that existed that morning -- obviously we know we could have done it better. We know today that we're doing it better. And, most importantly, we know tomorrow we must do it even better. But there is no spin here for us to cover. We wish we had done things much like as outlined by the Commissioners that we now do because of what happened on 9/11. But I can assure you that there was -- we didn't get together and decide that we were going to cover for anybody or take a bullet for anybody.
<snipped>
MR. BELGER: Yes, sir, very briefly, if I could. And I will be very brief.
You've introduced the four of us, and we will do our best to try to put in perspective our thoughts about the FAA's performance on 9/11. As you said, September 11, I was the Acting Deputy Administrator of the FAA. I was on duty that day in my office, and was obviously very much involved on that day.
On the morning of 9/11, it became clear that the historical procedures, the protocols, and the communication links were not adequate. The FAA and other agencies were reacting to a scenario that had not been practiced or modeled. Decision-makers, including myself, were reacting quickly and, in my opinion professionally, but in an untested environment. I think the staff's description of improvisation is accurate, and I absolutely take no exception to that. We were, in my view, in a reaction mode in an environment in which we had not been in before.
The entire testimony before the US Congress by the US military and the FAA is filled with our admissions of institutional weaknesses, bureaucratic layers that resulted in delays, and assorted operational flaws. No country, not even the 'mighty' Pakistani Air Force is immuned from those issues. But in way do those things mean there was a 'conspiracy'.
An 'order' is valid only if the issuer is part of the chain of command and that the action requested commensurate with the rank and authority of the issuer. So even if the Secret Service agent actually yelled out: 'Get airborne. Now.' To Andrews' wing commander, that still would be a request, not an 'order' because the law does not include the Secret Service in that chain. The larger issue is not 'Can the Secret Service be in that chain of military command?' but rather '
SHOULD the Secret Service be in that chain?' The moment we start down this path where the Praetorian Guards has command over the military, we are on the road to a dictatorship. In a country where civilian authority over the military is the norm, we want a diffusion, not concentration, of military power among the civilian leadership structure. I know that this diffusion of military power is difficult for you to comprehend but try anyway.
Should we expect the loony lot of you to read the posted testimony in its entirety? Absolutely not. We should not expect you to be that intellectual honest.
Given that you have acknowledged my point about unacceptable delay by USAF, I am sitting pretty. All that remains now is to decide between malice and incompetence.
Hmmm...You have no direct experience with military affairs and aviation, you have been proven technically wrong on a couple of points, you have nothing but baseless
***ssumptions and conjectures. I say you are sitting pretty ugly, buddy.
Ah yes, the evil mooooslims again. At least you are admitting your penchant for off-topic rants.
Nope...The ones with the penchant for off-topic rants are the muslims themselves what with inserting Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel into just about every subject.
No dishonesty involved. I omitted the parts that were irrelevant. The Andrews broadcast warns all aircraft monitoring that frequency to remain clear of DC -- whether it be a Su-35, Boeing 747, Cessna-150 or a helium ballon.
Then you truly have problems reading plain English. The 9/11 commission report states that, at 10:18AM on 9/11/2001, lethal force was authorized to shoot down any aircraft that defied the warning.
Of course it was dishonest. Here is
YOUR original claim again...
Washington DC is a class B no-fly zone with a standing order to shoot down.
Heck...You even underlined the word 'is' to deceitfully insinuate that lethal force is authorized as the default action over Washington DC. Now that you are busted with the true meaning of 'Class B' airspace restriction, you are trying to weasel your way of out of this.
The truth is that, at 10:18AM on 9/11/2001, Washington DC was different than Islamabad as far as air traffic control goes.
Fine...But since you, someone with neither direct military nor aviation experience, criticize US for an extraordinary event that no country could have anticipated, we have good reason to demand how Pakistan could have done better. In that, you must show how Pakistan arrayed air defense resources around Islamabad. Get to it.
No, you are assuming Andrews was issuing an empty threat and then using your own assumption to 'debunk'.
No assumption on my part. Andrews AFB is an airlift wing and even if there are fighters hosted, that does not mean those fighters are specifically tasked to NORAD, as you have deceitfully tried to insinuate.
Exactly! The warning should have weeded out all legitimate aircraft that had not yet complied with the FAA grounding directive issued at 9:45AM. This would have made AA77 stand out like a sore thumb.
Debunked by my explanation of how civil aviation are monitored by airport radars. See post 33 back on pge 6. Even so, once the few F-16s were airborne, the pilots recalled intercepting several general aviation aircrafts that either did not know of the order to land or were trying to land. This is just another consistent exaggeration of capabilities in trying to make this loony conspiracy theory sticks. You are insinuating that once the FAA ordered all flights to land, all flyers heard the order, the sky was immediately cleared, there were no confusion by anyone as to fuel status if he can make it to the nearest airport, and that there were no long lines in the sky by aircrafts waiting to land.
Once again, you make a logical fallacy. Just because the US military release some information about their activities doesn't mean that they release all information.
No logical fallacy on my part. I made no such claim about 'all' information. On the other hand, it is
YOU who insinuated that the US military keep secret all exercises. Here is that insinuation...
So the training and exercise schedule for military airbases is open to the general 'society', eh?
Clear enough?
This is one mountain of a coincidence.
Only in your mind.
How can I be debunked when you yourself conceded the first half of my argument? That the USAF response was unacceptable.
So what if the USAF's response was unacceptable? How does this proved there was a 'conspiracy'? If you acknowledge that there were institutional flaws, bureaucratic delays, and operational flaws, then you have effectively debunked yourself.
The point is that they resigned to protest the 'genocide', not corruption.
What they protested does not negate the fact that the OFFP was corrupt and said corruption tainted the Office of the UN SecGen itself. And that corruption contributed to the 'genocide', if we are going to strain that word.
Irrelevant. We were discussing the mechanics of cults, not their manifestos.
For al-Qaeda, its manifesto is more important than how Christian cults behave. The fact that any muslim can become an al-Qaeda associate is too uncomfortable for you, eh?
If they use words like 'dhimmi' then they are extremist. But we all know you didn't hear it at any mosque, but on your couch watching Faux News.
You know nothing about me other than what I chose to reveal on this forum. For our neighborhood, we are glad that there is an 'extremist' mosque nearby.
Man, you
really need to give that psychic brain of yours some rest. It is working in overdrive and starting to sputter...
I will spell it out in small sentences for you since this is not radar science:
- OBL attacked WTC in 1993 with some bombs. What his intentions were, other than to cause maximum damage, only he knows.
- The US retaliated with missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan.
- OBL attacked WTC in 2001 with planes. Again,
we don't know what he expected to achieve with these 'bombs'. Presumably more damage than in 1993, else why bother?
- Any logical person would know that if you cause more damage to your enemy, his response will be that much greater. Even those of us without your psychic abilities can figure this much out.
- Conclusion: OBL would have been prepared for a sterner US response.
But you did claimed to know. Here it is again...
The US response to WTC attacks in 1993 was not timid. OBL would have known what the consequences would be if he actually felled the towers.
The question is: Did Osama bin Laden believed that the US would not respond anymore aggressive than previous responses? You said: '
OBL would have known what the consequences would be if he actually felled the towers.' He 'would have known'. The 'maximum damage' for the 1993 WTC underground parking lot bomb attempt was not to damage some cars or cause people to flee in terror. Ramzi Yousef built that bomb assembly and he wanted WTC 1 to collapse
INTO tower 2. That was supposed to be the 'maximum damage'.
But since the attempt failed and the American response was no more aggressive than before, meaning nothing that affected bin Laden and al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan, bin Laden decided to escalate and unfortunately for him, the Taliban, and finally Afghanistan, B43 decided to take it personally, as he rightly he should, and the US responded with disproportionate force. Most people believe bin Laden underestimated US.
90 minutes to launch planes is not reasonable. And you already admitted it.
No problems. There are plenty of things the USAF do that they admit is 'not reasonable'. Now how does this proved there was a 'conspiracy theory'?
OK, let's cut to the chase here. You are asserting that the airspace over DC is not 'the most heavily guarded' in the world.
Yes.
Guess what? it doesn't matter since the salient point was that the USAF response was inadequate and, after your acknowledgement, we have agreement on that.
But it does matter because without that airspace being 'the most heavily guarded' you are left with the truth that it was 19 muslims, not Zionists in cahoots with the CIA under orders from the Freemasons in association with the Illuminati, who attacked US on Sept 11, 2001. You have been proven wrong over and over about this and the only thing you got left is to mock the US military for failure on an attack method that
NO ONE, not even Pakistan, could have anticipated.
Never mind the straining of reality here.
This is from someone who believe that there was supposed to be some 'reasonable' response time on an event that no country ever faced before.
