This is some f*cked up ◊◊◊◊:

[CFLarsen]

Re: To Hal:

Can and or should the Commander in Chief give order in front of kids?

If necessary, sure. But he could wait a few moments, couldn't he?

If there was a plane headed for the Capitol and the Pentagon, shouldn't he have beena ble to give the order to bring them down?

Nobody knew for sure where these planes were going at the time. So your point is moot.

Hey, I don't know everything about everything, but I know enoung to ask the right questions TO find out what I want to know. And right now, I want to know how ANYONE can look at the pictures and film we have of the President getting word, and then staying to finish the book about the goat, and still say "What evidence?"

Problem with you is, that you are extremely reluctant to admit that you are wrong. And you have this burning desire to be "in-the-know", even though what you know is wrong.

Having never served in the armed forces, I can only say I am underinformed, but not uninformed.

You are the most shining example of the validity of the phrase "A little knowledge is very dangerous".

 

[King of the Americas]

To 'the aggi':

I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had, how such a mistake could have been made. However, 'I' wouldn't say it was their fault. Failing to hail the call of duty...well that is anothing thing all together.

At least those men were at their posts to see and try to interpret the signal they were getting. THEY were actively seeking MORE information about the sighting, NOT ignoring what they had as it weren't important.

 

[ssibal]

Re: To RandFan:

Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them."

Got it.

Two planes crash into two buildings and you expect the president to immediately jump out of his seat and rush away to a bunker as if he was preparing for World War 3? To say that the president knew anything more than the fact that two planes had crashed into the WTC is nothing but speculation. I do not know what the president believed when he was told "we are under attack" but the only information he had was that two planes had crashed into two buildings. I do not mean to trivialize the attacks but that is not a good enough reason for the president to enter WW3/"I am a target" mode.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: To RandFan:

Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them."

NO! That is not my contention. Stop putting words in my mouth. I DON'T know what he was told. I would assume that he was told what we understood to be true at the time and that an act of terrorism had been perpetrated on the US. The extent of which was unknown.

He could have been told "It looks like the terrorism is limited to planes and specific targets. We are assesing the situation and will need a few more minutes to give you a complete picture."

The truth is I DON'T know. And you DON'T know. You are being an A$$h@le. If you choose to look at the facts and conclude that the president was incompetent that is your perogative.

I'll tell you what I do know. I know that events like this are often cloudy and full of confusion. The President needs accurate information to make decisions. He has an entire staff and the Pentagon to assess the situation so that he can make decisions.

You raise some valid questions and your thread is quite appropriate. But you want me to come to a conclusion based solely on incomplete information and dismiss the information that I do know and that was Bush's actions following the intial reports and confusion.

So that is it. I'm not going to respond again. If you want to be a prick and put words in my mouth that is fine. I wash my hands of you.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: To 'the aggi':

I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had...

Great. I was a radar operator in the Air Defense Artillery of the US Army. Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

I thought that was an interesting article that didn't deserve all the bashing it recieved here.

It was slightly less objective than it should have been - clearly the writer(s) express negative opinions of the President and his staff's behavior, which shouldn't be the case, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily illegitimate. Also, there were a couple of "side-note/FYIs" that only served to erect suspicion of conspiracy in the reader, which shouldn't have been done.

Here's my thing: Yes - it's important to know all the facts of history and the quotes and times, etc. But that's HISTORY not the present.. When something like that happens, and the government and president feel they have to lie about certain things to cover their mistakes, it's not always deceitful or evil.

I'm pretty sure people like you and me and probably everyone in the JREF community/Skeptic community is mature enough to handle every bit of truth in the world, but we are NOT mainstream America. If most of the folks in America thought for a second on 9/11 or the months and months afterwards, that George Bush was weak, or slow to act, or indifferent-seeming, or anything negative, it would've scared the crap out of everyone.

Everyone was scared, even the president, in fact probably more than most people...

I'm just glad there's plenty of sides to every story, even if some people go to far...

 

[aggle_rithm]

Re: To aggle_rithm:

It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

I had a little trouble following this post. Are you saying that the only possibilities were a radar glitch or an "attack of that size"?

There really isn't enough information here for me to make a reasoned response, but I would guess that the radar operators saw a large aircraft with no transponder signal and became confused. Lack of a transponder signal usually means a small private plane.

(I don't claim to be an expert on radar, but I did look into training for air traffic control a long time ago, and spent some time observing the controllers at work.)

 

[aggle_rithm]

Re: To Ike:

Moreover, my point is that when you take an Oath to protect and serve the Constitution and the People of the United States, and Duty calls you into action. If you cower in your foxhole, whole the rest of the Unit advances, you can and should be held accountable for your inaction. In some cases a 'dishonorable discharge' is even in order.

It is extremely reckless for a high-level military leader to put himself in harm's way by advancing with "the rest of the Unit". It is doubly reckless to do so when he does not even know who is attacking, or why.

The last President who actually "advanced with the troops" was George Washington, during the Whisky Rebellion. Does that make everyone who succeeded him a coward?

 

[King of the Americas]

What happened?

And when did it happen. The 9-11 Commission will be holding hearings on this today on C-Span, tune in for details.

---

RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact.

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed. No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period.

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything.

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls. How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?"

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of neccessary action that should have been taken.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion.

 

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

Do you have any idea how many potential targets there are in the US?

Do you have any idea what it takes to protect them all?

Do you have any idea how to do a little research before you go off on a half-baked crusade?

Do you have any idea how to understand the data you find?

What, precisely, is your gripe? That the President didn't act the way you wanted him to? That things did not go according to your wishes and fantasies?

Sorry to drag you back to Planet Earth. You have shown illusions of grandeur before, and you certainly haven't stopped.

 

[King of the Americas]

To CFLarsen:

Do you have any idea how many potential targets there are in the US?

*No. However, I am almost POSITIVE that 3 of the MOST important ones to protect would be The White House, Congress/the Senate, and the Penagon.

Do you have any idea what it takes to protect them all?

*Again, No. However, I AM almost positive, that knowing we were "...under attack.", it MIGHT have been a pretty good idea to send 'fighter' to investigate any other planes that were off course and had turned off their communication ports.

Do you have any idea how to do a little research before you go off on a half-baked crusade?

*Yes, and I am STILL doing research. Do YOU have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

Do you have any idea how to understand the data you find?

*Yes, and I am working on getting better at it.

What, precisely, is your gripe? That the President didn't act the way you wanted him to? That things did not go according to your wishes and fantasies?

*When you fell off the stupid truck yesterday, did it run over your head? MY GRIPE is that the President 'didn't act' when his Oath & Duty f*cking called him to! After hearing were were "...under attack.", you gotta put down the kiddie book and get to work. Wishes and fantasies...!? Pardon me, but will you please go back to SHUTING THE F*CK UP.

 

[CFLarsen]

*No. However, I am almost POSITIVE that 3 of the MOST important ones to protect would be The White House, Congress/the Senate, and the Penagon.

Let's see: You don't know how many potential targets there is, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't do enough (or so you claim) to protect them.

How should he have protected those targets?

*Again, No. However, I AM almost positive, that knowing we were "...under attack.", it MIGHT have been a pretty good idea to send 'fighter' to investigate any other planes that were off course and had turned off their communication ports.

Let's see: You don't know what it takes to protect them all, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't do enough (or so you claim) to protect them.

*Yes, and I am STILL doing research. Do YOU have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

Yes, actually. Can you? Look a little further down...

You're "still" doing research, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't "act" fast enough (for your liking)?

*Yes, and I am working on getting better at it.

Keep working, because you really suck at it.

*When you fell off the stupid truck yesterday, did it run over your head? MY GRIPE is that the President 'didn't act' when his Oath & Duty f*cking called him to! After hearing were were "...under attack.", you gotta put down the kiddie book and get to work. Wishes and fantasies...!? Pardon me, but will you please go back to SHUTING THE F*CK UP.

Do you have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

I think it is not only time for your nap, but also for your medication.

 

[Psiload]

Re: What happened?

And when did it happen. The 9-11 Commission will be holding hearings on this today on C-Span, tune in for details.

---

RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact.

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed. No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period.

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything.

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls. How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?"

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of neccessary action that should have been taken.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion.

Are you saying that the president had adequate time on 9/11 to assess the situation, and take action which would have prevented the attack on the Pentagon? Thirty minutes to hear and digest all of the details regarding the chaos and confusion of 9/11, and order the deaths of a plane load of innocent civilians? Thirty minutes?

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: What happened?

RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact.

You are not listening. I don't deny that the president was told that we are "under attack". Has anyone said that this was the ONLY thing that was told to the president?

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed.

Do you know that he wasn't told "we are getting everyone ready for a conference call and need about a half hour to get everything ready for a briefing"?

YOU DON'T KNOW!

No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period.

We were not being attacked in the traditional sense. You are putting meaning to the phrase and Bush may well have understood that it was a terrorist attack and that it was going to take a few minutes to prepare the plane and get things ready so that Bush could deal with the situation. Again, competent people were doing the preparatory work so that the president could make decisions.

AGAIN, YOU DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE PRESIDENT WAS BRIEFED!

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different.

The White House has not released all of the pertinent information for us to KNOW.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything.

You are assuming that the intelligence gathering apparatus was completely up to date and prepared to brief the president. Is it at all possible that the President was told "there is come confusion and we need about a half an hour to prepare to brief you"?

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat.

And you presume to know everything that the president was told. You presume to understand how the system works that it can be prepared to brief the president in 10 minutes.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls.

Briefed on what? Calls to who?

In such confusion it is easy for me to understand why it would take a half an hour to access the situation fully in order to prepare the president. 1/2 an hour to get the advisors and everyone together to properly brief the president is not out of line. Again, it was not a "traditional" attack. Planes being flown into towers is not bombs or missiles or troops coming ashore. I would think that it would take at least half an hour to prepare to brief the president.

How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?"

Not the presidents job.

You are using hindsight and making assumptions about things that you don't know.

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of necessary action that should have been taken.

That IS YOUR opinion. Thank god you are not the president.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion.

You presume much. I think it does raise some questions but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. We do not know what policies or contingencies the President had. You don't know that the President already knew that he had a half hour before he could do anything constructive and felt it necessary to let his subordinates do their jobs to best prepare him to do his.

You presume because your bias will not let you ask simple questions like, "are there any other possibilities?". Your bias will not allow anything other than the false dichotomy of "the president is incompetent" or there was a conspiracy. You lack the critical thinking skills to view the situation in an objective manner. I have conceded that the situation raises questions. I don't pretend to know that the president wasn't scared or overwhelmed.

I simply don't know.

 

[CFLarsen]

I get a feeling that KOA has most of his "knowledge" about how the Presidency is run from watching movies and TV.

He most certainly does not have it from actual, real information.

Oh, well....

 

[Kodiak]

Again...

I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had...

Great. I was a radar operator in the Air Defense Artillery of the US Army. Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

Phased Array?

 

[Kodiak]

I get a feeling that KOA has most of his "knowledge" about how the Presidency is run from watching movies and TV.

He most certainly does not have it from actual, real information.

Oh, well....

Same goes for his knowledge of radar, evidently...

 

[hal bidlack]

KoA,

I'll try one more time: the Air Force does not need to get a phone call from POTUS to launch fighters. I won't go into details, of course, but I assure you your entire basic premise is *wrong.* You have 'facts' that you yourself admited came from the Discovery Channel.

As a career AF officer, and as a former temp staffer on the NSC, I assure you, you are completely, fundamentally, and factually way off base.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Psiload:

You Wrote:

"Are you saying that the president had adequate time on 9/11 to assess the situation, and take action which would have prevented the attack on the Pentagon? Thirty minutes to hear and digest all of the details regarding the chaos and confusion of 9/11, and order the deaths of a plane load of innocent civilians? Thirty minutes?"

*What I am saying is 30 minutes is a BUNCH of time 'not' to be getting briefed on how many other planes were in the air, and off course while refusing communication attempts...

How fast CAN we get the right information into the right hands to make the right call...? Lots of varibles go into that answer, but given that the Agent had his radio turned off... I really don't know how to accurately characterize what the President did or DIDN'T do that day. All that I CAN say is that he wasn't getting any information, and wasn't asking any imporant questions.

He was reading a story about a goat...

 

[CFLarsen]

You have 'facts' that you yourself admited came from the Discovery Channel.

No?!? I didn't even catch that!! Dawg, I' psychic!!

As a career AF officer, and as a former temp staffer on the NSC, I assure you, you are completely, fundamentally, and factually way off base.

"Base". Haha. Get it!

What, you not a navy boy? With those legs, man, you could have been an admiral by now!

Oops....sorry for derailing the thread.