When you pull it out of context. Koko went on to explain what he meant, that is you can't excuse willfull misconduct and dereliction of duty by pretending it's "incompetence". And he's right. Your top military leaders KNEW their country was under attack and CHOSE to not effect any military response, find out what was going on or otherwise help coordinate a crisis response (that is, their job). This is not "incompetence".. You can't "accidentally" not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) that your country is under attack. You see the burning towers, you decide to tend to other matters instead, like a routine intelligence briefing or writing a speech, then you are choosing to let the attacks play out. Such willful neglect can't be construed as "incompetence". Even people with down's syndrome can recognize human peril and try to help when they see it.
This is an outright lie. There WAS a military response as the events unfolded. It is a common truthtard bull(*)(*)(*)(*) falacy to pretend the military can't do anything without permission from the top brass. The ONLY thing they needed at the time was shoot down orders, and they were given that permission once the nature of the attack was known. So what order could the top brass have given that would have made any difference whatsoever? Every available fighter jet that could be launched was launched. I look forward to your wiggling trying to get out of this one.
You obviously weren't reading very carefully. I clearly said that there was no response from the top leadership, not that there was no military response at all. Now to make it absolutely crystal clear, I am referring to the NCA, the CiC and SECDEF. Indeed there was a very confused and disoriented response where the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. That's what happens when leadership goes AWOL. The only fallacy is your strawman here. Nobody said they can't do anything.. Claiming that the leadership have a job to do AS WELL doesn't mean that nothing whatsoever can happen. Absolutely untrue.. What they desperatly needed was leadership and direction.. Particularly, coordination between the military and the relevant departments like the FAA.. The lack of which was basically the blamed culprit according to the official 9/11 commission report. What time was that? The nature of the attack was known by 9:03 a.m. when the second tower was struck.. Nobody ever said anything about shoot down orders so much as being discussed let alone granted by this time. You need to get your facts in order. Are the CiC and SECDEF psychic? Can they read the future? If not, I fail to see how your retrospective MMQBing has any relevance to what these people should be expected to do, at the time.. The truth is they wouldn't have known whether or not they could make a difference and yet it's their job to intervene. If firefighters stand there watching a building burn down, and they don't know if anyone's inside, but instead of going in they just sit outside and play cards, does this somehow become the normal and excusable behavior of firefighters if they later determined that nobody was inside? Nevertheless, there was stuff they could do.. Including protection of DC airspace in plenty of time to stop 77 if necessary as well as evacuation of non-essential personnel from the Pentagon, a known probable target at the time.. They couldn't have done much by that point for the WTC but lives at the Pentagon could have been saved. Once again you're dead wrong.. While Rumsfeld was off in his office having a routine chat with his CIA buddies, and while Bush was "projecting calm" to children and then writing his speech, ready fighters at Langley sat there. In fact, according to the official story, NEADS ultimatily gave the scramble order not until 9:24 a.m.. And they didn't even give orders to the pilots! So they were just left allowed to go East out to sea!!! Welcome back, Patriot911..I see your tone is as snide and arrogant as ever.
And of course, you're as incorrect as ever; " First you equated what Rumsfeld was doing to "playing cards" using the analogy of firefighters playing cards while a building burned down. Now you say, "While Rumsfeld was off in his office having a routine chat with his CIA buddies,". Actually he was on the ground tending to wounded. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop. Have you gotten your Christmas gift for KSM yet?
Way to prove your complete incompetence! So you agree there was nothing the "top brass" could have done, yet you claim they are guilty of not mounting an "effective defense". BTW, you're completely wrong about the military response. Are you seriously so ignorant about the response, or are you just playing stupid and hoping people don't notice? At 8:37 the fighters at Otis were put on alert. At 8:46 they were scrambled. This was BEFORE any plane hit any building. As for my tone, it is totally justified to be snide and arrogant when dealing with liars and (*)(*)(*)(*)heads who blatantly lie about the truth. Is there some reason I should be polite and nice to people who use the deaths of Americans to push a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agenda? BTW, thanks for proving my point that there WAS NO ORDER the "top brass" could have given that would have made a difference on 9/11.
Rumsfeld didn't go outside to help the wounded until after the Pentagon was struck. Which is, NOT his job. If you bothered reading, I was clearly referring to the time period before that, while the towers were burning and a plane was bearing for the Pentagon.
I never said there was nothing they could have done.. I said hindsight evaluations of what they could have done have no relevance to how they acted at the time as they wouldn't have known that unless they are psychic. Try READING, again this is the second time I've had to ask you this..Read very carefully: "Nevertheless, there was stuff they could do.. Including protection of DC airspace in plenty of time to stop 77 if necessary as well as evacuation of non-essential personnel from the Pentagon, a known probable target at the time.. They couldn't have done much by that point for the WTC but lives at the Pentagon could have been saved." So I CLEARLY stated there were things they could have done, told you specifically what, and you have no rebuttal. And you interpret that to me agreeing with you there was nothing they could do, words I never said, which are the complete oppositte of what I did say. Yes the OTIS fighters.. I wasn't talking about those.. I was clearly talking about the Langley fighters. You claimed that ALL fighters were dispatched.. THIS was a lie.. The Langley fighters weren't dispatched until 9:24, which was too late, but could have been launched sooner and not out to sea. The only one lying between us is you. Why should you be polite? It's the forum guidelines. If all you have is lies about what I claim and strawmans, then spare it please.
My bad; Two questions: How much time lapsed between the report of 93 being hijacked to the impact of the Pentagon? Were other planes in the area landing at Reagan National?
For someone constantly whining about others not reading, you sure do a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor job. I didn't say you said there was nothing they could have done. Monday morning quarterbacking of the most ignorant kind. First off, those kinds of orders don't come from the top brass. Second, it would have been gross negligence to order fighters into the air before knowing where the threat was or that a threat exists. If you would actually find out what happened on 9/11, you would know that nobody knew about flight 77 because it was assumed crashed because Indiana ATC lost it off radar and could not raise it. They did not know about the events of 9/11. Boston ATC reported that they thought Flight 11 was heading towards DC. HEY! That is actionable intelligence, so guess what they did.... you got it! They launched the fighters out of Langley and had them head north. They didn't know about 77 until it was in Washington airspace. Sure I do. Read above. As I stated, those are NOT orders top brass give. The military doesn't work that way or it would be literally paralized waiting for orders to come down. If you get something so wrong that it is immaterial, you're all but admitting there was nothing they could have done. I see. So you selectively pick and choose WHICH military response you wish to pretend is relevant. Even then you're still wrong. The fighters were put on alert long before 9:24 so they would be ready to go as soon as they received orders. Monday morning quarterbacking again. First off, their standing orders is to go out to sea when they take off. Second, they were ordered north to intercept what Boston thought was Flight 11. They were not launched to intercept Flight 77 because nobody knew about flight 77. Some people don't deserve politeness. BTW, I didn't lie. That would be your lie. What a hypocrite! Still trying to give orders where you have no right to give orders? That's pretty funny! You know where you can stick your demands.
LMAO...What's this then? : They can easily come from top brass... In fact, secretary of defense is the go to guy for intercept approval during certain hijacking situations, and that is written directive.. Ordering an evacuation of nonessential personnel at the Pentagon is done easily by the leader of the Pentagon. In fact, there are NO military orders that canNOT be issued by the SECDEF or CiC.. They are the top they can issue ANY orders they want. They can even launch nukes. They knew a threat exists as there were other hijacked aircraft.. You don't have to know where the jet is to defend and patrol DC airspace, the most anticipated target. Yep... They were operating under the assumption that a hijacked plane was heading straight for DC.. STILL they didn't dispatch fighters towards DC to defend it. Those fighters headed EAST, out to sea.. Because the pilots weren't given orders and were just left to stick with their anti-Soviet training path. Try getting your facts in order. Nope.. Didn't see you explain how an evacuation was impossible. Nor did you address the lack of coordination between the military and FAA, the blamed culprit for the failures of that day, or explain how top brass could NOT provide such coordination. Uhh Hello... The military WAS paralyzed.. It was a frantic situation where the agencies didn't know what was going on and had no guidance or coordination between them. They were isolated headless chickens. Langley fighters sat ready chomping at the bit but NOT taking off.. That is paralyzed. So why didn't they receive orders until 9:24, if they knew DC was the target long before that? You said all the fighters were launched.. They weren't. The Langley fighters were OBVIOUSLY left idle for a good chunk of time before finally being launched at half nine. Hell you even said shoot down orders were there by the time they knew the nature of the attack (9:03). Why didn't they give them different orders than that? First of all candy claims ATC tracked 77 all the way to the Pentagon so is he wrong or you? I've pointed out your lies for all the readers to see. No problem if you don't see it. I asked you "please"... That means a request. If you can't help but be an allegedly grown man who speaks and behaves like a snotty teenager then by all means knock your socks off.
You not being intelligent enough to know I am not quoting you. Strawman. Nobody is saying the top brass CAN'T do that. The point is they DON'T HAVE TO and, in almost every instance SHOULDN'T do. The military has an entire set of protocols for what they are suppose to do when things happen. They don't have to wait for the top brass to issue orders. Wrong yet again. You DO need to know where the threat is coming from. Just launching the planes at the first sign of trouble will risk having the planes low on fuel when they finally ARE needed. And once they knew of a threat to Washington, they DID order the fighters launched. They were then re-directed back towards Washington once the threat of flight 77 was known. These are historical facts. Look them up. You're RIGHT! My GOD! Why would they fly towards DC and THEN turn north when it is so much easier to fly straight to the target. You don't go to what you are defending in the hopes of defending it. You try to meet the threat as far away as possible. It has nothing to do with anti-Soviet anything. The lead pilot figured it had to do with Soviets, but that isn't why they fly east. It has to do with noise ordinances. It was SOP to take off and head out over the water rather than turning over populated areas. Try to get your facts straight. That's pretty funny coming from someone who keeps getting things wrong. Where did I say evacuation was impossible? There you go lying again. Even after the Pentagon was hit it wasn't evacuated. Can you think of any reason why our military hub wouldn't evacuate while we are under attack? Any at all? Hmmmm? There were mistakes made on 9/11. So how is that a conspiracy or even malfeasance? And where is the lack of coordination? Whatever the FAA asked for, NEADS provided. The FAA reported at 9:24 that Flight 11 was on it's way south. The order to scramble was immediately given. As for top brass..... What kind of idiot thinks the top brass are going to have more information on what is going on than the front line people actually going through the event? Please explain to us just how the top brass are suppose to know more than anyone else in order to coordinate everything more effectively than the people who's JOB it is to coordinate everything? Wrong yet again. The military responded exactly as they were suppose to. Or are you now trying to claim the military should have broken protocol and blindly start shooting down planes they suspect might be hijacked? You still don't get the fact they need a target before taking off. They didn't. The FAA reported a plane (supposedly flight 11) heading towards Washington. That was at 9:24. That is when they had a target to attack vs. spending their time flying around wasting fuel and hoping they weren't so far out of position that there was nothing they could do. Now, if you have evidence the FAA and NEADS knew Washington was a target before 9:24, how about you present it. And I was right. All the fighters were launched. I didn't say all at once or all at the same time. That is YOUR lameassed assumption. Once the FAA requested fighter cover, they got it. Why are you asking me? According to transcripts, Langley was surprised they hadn't taken off to the north immediately. Both the FAA and the lead pilot assumed SOP 90 for 60 which means due east for 60 miles. I am surprised you don't know such a crucial part of 9/11. The ATC lost track of 77, but looking at the radar records, 77 was tracked all the way to Washington. Without a transponder, the primary radar image of 77 was removed from the ATC displays because the computers assumed the radar image was ground clutter. From the 9/11 commission report: Really? All I've seen is you stepping all over yourself and screwing up. You most certainly haven't shown I lied. But hey. If your fragile little ego feels better thinking others are liars too, go right ahead. Whatever. I know it must be frustrating for you to constantly have the wheels fall off your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies, especially when the one pointing out your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) doesn't pull punches.
I think it is an erroneous assumption to conclude 9/11 was an inside job because of the actions of the CiC VP and Sec of Def the morning of the attacks. Ultimately, bush, cheney and rumsfeld have almost no collective experience in managing an air defense network or combat air patrol operations. Directly involving any of those three in NEADS response that morning would likely have produced an even more ineffective response. People should be careful about judging NEADS actions as intercepting those highjacked flights would be a difficult task even if the FAA and NEADS had acted decisevely. It is important to note that there were only a handful of fighters at Otis and Langley that were combat ready at short notice. Additionally, providing an effective CAP requires that fighter assets are launched in a staggered fashion as you do not want all of your air assets running out of fuel simultaneously- an f-15 at full afterburner can use its 25,000 pound fuel load in less ten minutes. People should remember that 9/11 changed the air defense paradigm in which our forces operate. Our military had never prepared for such a well coordinated attack which would use civilian airliners as weapons. I do find the FAAs incompetence to be particularly obscene but does anybody really believe that gov't employs always competent people?
(*)(*)(*)(*)ed if I could find an insult in there unless we cant talk about politics sacastically. Like I said they are the highest paid people in the gubafia and they are hired to do the job they are entrusted. Failure to do so falls under breach of trust, criminal negligence, then covering it up collusion all of which would get anyone but the people in the gubafia a tour in the federal hotel. What possible good can come out of apologizing for the gubafia's criminal activities except allowing the perps to get away scot free? Hmm?
One first has to swallow the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim by you that the government is responsible for 9/11 before any of the rest of your rant even makes sense. Since your rambling and conflicting theories don't even come CLOSE to proving the government was even aware of 9/11 much less actively participating, the rest of your claims turn into just so much drivel.
I have no idea what screwed up definition you may have attached to the word "responsible" now do I. I dont have any theories, why are you trying to make one for me? Drivel? You want to do 20 rounds take your best shot! I have plenty of eggs! LMAO
I think the bush admin is among the worst in history and I am not apologizing for them. I just think that your interpretation of their actions on 9/11 does not implicate them in the attacks.
still smarting over that one huh.... LOL Here is your word for today's grammar lesson. It should help you with that one and in the future. what can I say man that is just the way words work.
You're giving people lessons in grammar? That's hilarious. There's at least 4 errors in that sentence alone.
