to the left/liberal readers of this forum

Discussion in 'America Attacks!' started by james q, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    good

    could be. not sure. i think the guy believes what he's saying, it's just not a reality i've ever experienced.

    yes, that's why i found the idea so appealing.

    the place itself's in the theravada tradition but i practised a combination of vipassna and sedona method which was bloody hard yakka.


    of course they are. however consider this: there are standard operating procedures 4 exactly this kind of thing happening. we saw it a few years earlier with that guy in the plane, the golfer bloke. and we saw how the af responded to that emergency. so we've seen how standard operating procedures (sop) work in an unexpected emergency.

    yes that's q true. the gifted amateur is usually the trail blazer. which is why sop are so important: they are what the ungifted professional has to fall back on which make him a professional. they are fashioned on real life experience, albeit drills and wargames, over and over again until honed and polished into a ritual that's gone through high-level quality assurance from all directions. on this score the americans are the best (well maybe the british are, they invented 'prince'). soldiers are not trained at great expense to the state to just fall apart when things go wrong or get tough. the oppopsite is true actually: they are trained to excel under adversity. i can understand there being some guys who might react badly under pressure and fuck up. but i cannot understand a whole system failing. and then failing anther three times. u see the problem i have?

    only once in 1812 when u lot invaded and burnt down the white house. but yes, i get ur point and this is q true also. but think about this jim: the whole cold war was premised on the fear of a soviet attack. this is what propelled the us into a military state to begin with (for this we must thank harry truman). their national consciousness is seered deep with this fear, however realistic or not it is, so having strong defences was/is uppermost in the military's mind. we see this today with the 'purely defensive' star wars anti-missile thing: such popular sentiment provides succour for the very idea b/c fear of being attacked on their own soil is such a deeply held fear.

    yes, i understand that. but u must have a working prototype of the technology first be4 spin offs can occur. if the technology is faulty the spin offs will be untenable.


    right, that's what u or i would say b/c we're decent chaps. but i wonder what lt. calley, ollie north, the rosenbergs, the watergate burglars, or the seven mps charged over abu ghraib would have to say about the forgiving heart of the political/military state?


    ok. can i hear your 'more'?


    the russians were thought to be capable of it. the cubans also. remember the cuban missile crisis? north korea is a worry at the moment. china also 4 the same reason and into the future. there's no shortage of potential bogeymen and no doubt real threats. do u rememeber how the imagery that george bush used to sell the iraqi war to the public was mushroom clouds over manhattan? and it worked. why? b/c that fear is instilled into the american psyche. we're not americans so maybe it's hard 4 us to understand this but their flag and all the other patriotic stuff that goes with it is like a living entity. when they hear their national anthem it evokes an actual emotional, visceral response of intense pride and love. when i hear my national anthem i forget the words. if their country is under attack i expect these soldiers - so programmed through long years of civics instruction, cultural propaganda and so on - to get out there and seriously kick arse, not crumble in a little heap of incompetence and stage fright. someone, somewhere, was a soldier who would want to do his duty to his utmost and he would over-rule or cover for any such slip up and make sure his country did not go undefended for an hour and a half. there would have been one rambo that day amongst the many. one bruce willis who'd have got in the plane and shot the motherfuckers down. but none appeared.

    on this day they were. but in 1999 as i mentioned above they weren't shown to be so: in fact, sop worked pretty well and they were up with the guy in 20 minutes. also, do u remember when a helicopter landed in the white house when bill clinton was in office? [note: it was a small engine cessna not a copter. it crashed in the white house gardens in the early hours of september 12, 1994] did u see the response of the military/secret police that day? do u imagine for one minute they would have allowed three more a/c to fly over the white house?
     
  2. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    ok. pm me ur suggested reading list kevin
     
  3. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    they're the ones i'm trying to reach.

    yes

    the left is running dead on this issue. i speak their language and theirs is a world view i understand. if they subscribe to the orthodoxy then i'm inviting them to persaude me and the readers why their case is sound, but only if they wish to. if they present a sound case then i will change my opinion. what i'm hoping 4 is decent, intelligent debate. i'm not asking anyone to explain themselves, or justify themselves. this thread was started in the spirit of frank and open discussion of the issue i nominated which is the air force. i made it narrowly focused b/c i didnt want it spinning off in a hundred directions along usual lines.

    if u want to talk about other issues we can do that on another thread. i will respond if u do.

    marxist with strong anarchist tendencies. i also hold unusual metaphysical views so i call myself a uranian socialist. this is a term of my own invention and has no pedigree.

    as above
    yes. b/c that necessarily implies that the state organised its own terrorist atrocity. if u believe this then all your other views about society, change and revolution become undermined.
     
  4. txbarefooter

    txbarefooter Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,236
    Likes Received:
    47
    as far as air defense's in the US pre/day of 9-11, even IF they knew the highjacked a/c, at takeoff, were going to be flown into the WTC, it would have been impossible to have "loaded for bear" fighters intercept the a/c before they crashed into the WTC. why ? because there weren't standing orders to simply blow a highjacked a/c out of the sky.
     
  5. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    that's exactly right. there had been such standing orders to do exactly that: shoot it out of the sky, but these were revoked on the 1st of june 2001. all power was then transferred to donald rumsfeld personally. as u may know rumsfeld's exact movements on the morning of september 11 are still unclear.
     
  6. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    i did and guess where it led me? to the august edition of hustler magazine. it carries a fairly long interview with david ray griffin. larry flint, the hustler publisher, is keeping an open mind apparently but he wants to see more official investigative work carried out for the sake of the 2,800 ppl who died. it's on sale now i imagine (never having bought the mag in my life he says with a clear conscience) and is worth looking at to see what all the fuss is about. griffin's case is presented in a brisk, straightforward manner.

    u make your own mind up.

    http://911truth.org/docs/drgHfull.pdf
    the above site carries what it calls a scanned version of the hustler interview, in adobe format.
     
  7. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    Directive CJCSI 3610.01A June 1 2001
    ."Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects"
    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

    replaced the previous directive

    Directive CJCSI 3610.01, 31 July 1997
    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...3610_01.pdf+CJCSI+3610.01,+31+July+1997&hl=en

    in the new directive of june 1 2001 all requests for assistance to hijacked planes had to be approved by the secretary of defence himself before any assistance could be given. For example, if civil authorities needed a military escort this was now the procedure:

    c. Military Escort Aircraft
    (1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed
    in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking)
    emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate
    unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable
    aircraft are available and forward the request to the
    Secretary of Defense for approval
    in accordance with DODD
    3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

    in the 1997 directive it stated the following concerning immediate response:
    "4.7.1. Immediate Response.
    Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of
    immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military
    commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or
    mitigate great property damage under imminently serious
    conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The
    DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil
    authorities for support in an exigent emergency may
    initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately
    respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference
    (g))."

    (note: reference (g) is not available on the DoD website)

    this change of directives had the effect of transferring the authority to respond to a hijacking and make aeroplanes available for interception out of the hands of a 'component or command' (that had previously had the discretion to immediately respond if need be) and into the hands of the secretary of defense, personally.

    the secretary of defense was incommunicado all morning until after the pentagon had been hit.
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    By directing this at the left wing readers of the forum it stands to reason that that is the main direction of your thoughts.
    You claim that you “speak their language” and understand their world view. But so far that is a claim and to understand you and the thread I think we need to hear in your own words what are/were you left/liberal views?
    You see there are many shades of both left wing and liberal thinking, and it would be enlightening to the theme of this thread to understand yours.
    You say your views are marxist with strong anarchist tendencies and while this does show some knowledge of what you might think of as “their language” presumably you can express these views in more than just buzz words?
    “if u believe this then all your other views about society, change and revolution become undermined”
    Can you explain what you mean by this and why all you views have to change?
     
  9. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    i don't think it's fair to interrogate me about my beliefs like this balbus. u are personalising things and my aim with this thread is to avoid rancour. if u r interested in what i think u can read my previous threads on this forum. or u can start a new thread ('who are left/liberals?' or whatever) and as i said be4 i will respond. and u can ask me nicely. on this thread we are looking at why the air force failed to respond to the attacks. i have posted two directives that show on 1 june 2001 donald rumsfeld altered the standard oprating procedures so that in all future hijackings commanders in the field were not allowed to respond to hijacking emergencies without his personal approval and after they had gone through a bureaucratic chain of command. previously the commanders in the field could respond, even to imminent catastrophes, without such approval. this directive was issued at the height of warnings that came to the us that summer from intelligence agencies in many, many overseas countries that alqueda was about to strike.

    can u think of a good reason, given the knowledge that was around of an imminent attack on america, why rumsfeld would issue such a directive?
     
  10. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    to an extent that's true stoner bill. we all have our own preconceived ideas and prejudices about 'what really happened'. i hope i've made it clear that i'm not trying to entrap anyone into my way of thinking: i'm asking for intelligent and reasoned debate based on evidence. u can present ur evidence and see what holes it has got, if it stands up to analysis from critical eyes. if it doesn't i will reject that evidence. if it does stand up then i will seek further information that can explain events in a way that fits in with the evdience. in fact getting to the truth is an ongoing and self-correcting exercise. or it should be, don't u agree?
     
  11. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    at the start of this thread i asked the question 'why did the air force fail to prevent or respond to the attacks?'

    jim w has proposed that it was due to a combination of things such as faulty technology, unpreparedness, institutional complacency and general human fuck-up. pointbreak has proposed that it was a freak event which he likened to the teenager who landed a plane in red square. i've proposed that the reason the system broke down, and broke down repeatedly, was due - in part at least - to the fact that standard operating procedures concerning hijackings were altered on the first of june 2001. this new june directive must have had an inhibiting effect on the air force's ability to react to the hijackings: where once they could react immediately without seeking the approval of the secretary of defence, now they needed to go first through the nmcc who then passed on their request to the secretary.

    there is one caveat however: prior approval from rumsfeld must be sought 'with the exception of immediate responses as authorised by reference d' (4c).

    i wondered if 'reference d' (directive 3025.1, january 15 1993 'military support to civilian authorities' http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d30251p.pdf) modified rumsfeld's role and placed power to respond immediately back into the hands of commanders and components in the field. it seems, and i could be wrong if other directives have changed this, that it does but such power is limited to reacting to 'imminently serious conditions'. the guy in the field can react immediately to prevent loss of life, suffering and damage as it may be impossible to obtain prior authority from dod be4 death and destruction occur (e2.1.19).

    however that still doesn't explain why no jets were scrambled and no interceptions took place. ok the guy in the field can respond to imminently serious conditions but he still needs the secretary's approval to fly his plane up to intercept the a/c because that's not yet an imminently serious condition and so, as according to the new standard operating procedures, prior approval of the secretary of defence must first be obtained.

    does anyone have a view as to why rumsfeld would issue this directive at a time when it was known by many in the intelligence community that alqueda planned to attack america?
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    James

    “on this thread we are looking at why the air force failed to respond to the attacks”

    So why if you were only wanting to talk about the US air forces failure to respond to the attacks on the twin towers did you call the thread “to the left/liberal readers of this forum”? Would it not have been better to have a title about the US air force or the twin towers in the title? Or do you believe that left wingers and liberals have some type of expert knowledge in that field?

    Quiet frankly demand that a thread titled “to the left/liberal readers of this forum “ should not discuss anything to do with left-wingers and liberals seems pretty bizarre don’t you think?

    **

    “if u r interested in what i think u can read my previous threads”

    OK I went back over your last 50 posts and didn’t find much to go on, so lets say to narrow it down a bit can you give me your views on property, before and after your revelation.

    You can put the reply in another thread if you want.


    **
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    James

    So what if we just accept for atguements sake your view that Rumsfeld et al were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    How are we to use the information?

    What do you want us to do?
     
  14. RELAYER

    RELAYER mādhyamaka

    Messages:
    17,642
    Likes Received:
    7
    America was caught with its pants down. F-16 was sent to intercept the second plane headed for the twin towers, yet they were 8 minutes too late. Also, I have been told by a person who knew about the interceptons that one did shoot down the plane in PA, but i never doubted that in the first place. But the Pentagon? That one is a bit shady.
     
  15. Spaceduck

    Spaceduck Member

    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep. I spoke with a girl who was a FEMA dog handler at the crash site, and she said there was clear evidence that the fusilage had been destroyed prior to the crash. But it's best not to ask too many questions.
     
  16. RELAYER

    RELAYER mādhyamaka

    Messages:
    17,642
    Likes Received:
    7
    Got that right.
     
  17. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
  18. KBlaze

    KBlaze Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that Balbus doesn't consider certain things simply because he wouldn't know what to do with the info, and I find this rather odd.
    What about the NORAD standdown, Balbus; why do you think what happened happened?
    It seems you're throwing circumstantial facts away just because it's too big for you to handle, even when what might be the truth is in your face. You don't consider it because, "oh well."
    what sort of attitutde towards life is that?

    This isn't a stab at you, by the way.
     
  19. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    as i said at the start the purpose of this thread is to debate the evidence in a calm and reasoned way, sans acrimony. i have no secret agenda, balbus, other than what i stated. if by participating here u become uncertain about ur original point of view, or change it altogether, or go off and seek further information, or whatever, then that will be something entirely up to u. i won't be telling u what to do with the information once u accept is as being valid if that's what happens. we are all adults and i think we will probably all respond in different adult ways. some ppl want to go out and organise. others want to consume every bit of literature they can find about the subject and tell their friends and family about it. for some ppl i guess the idea is just too awful so they might shut down and refuse to hear another thing about it. i understand that if it happens. it was a great shock to me to accept this view and i'm not sure i'm over it yet. but my own preference is for continuing to find out more of the truth b/c i believe, corny as it sounds, that the truth will set us free. but that's just me. meanwhile, there are ppl reading this thread who haven't made their minds up about anything yet so out of deference to them i would like us to continue debating the evidence.
     
  20. james q

    james q Uranian

    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    7
    you'd have thought that is a good question the newspapers would like to ask donald rumsfeld: why did u alter the directives that made it much harder for the ppl in the field to respond to the hijackings? why did u do something that made it harder not easier to defend the country which in effect helped to leave the capital city and the country's biggest metropolis undefended?
    so far he hasn't been asked.

    the only official information concerning the air force's complete failure to act this day comes from three sources:
    - general myers's testimony to his confirmation hearing in congress on sept 13, 2001 in which he claimed that no air fighters were scrambled until after the pentagon had been hit.
    - a press release by norad with a timeline issued 18 september 2001 which claimed that several f-15 fighters had been scrambled but they arrived too late to do anything.
    - the 9/11 commission report released 22 july 2004 which presented a different timeline that blamed the faa for failing to alert the military in time.

    so, in effect there are three different stories: story one says we didn't know and therefore we didn't scramble (myers); story two says no, we did scramble but by then it was too late (norad timeline); and story three which says no, actually, it wasn't norad's fault it was the faa's fault b/c they failed to alert norad until it was too late (9/11 commission timeline).

    on the question of it being too late to do anything let's look at the response to the hijacked flight 11 to see if that's true.

    according to norad's timeline 2 otis f-15s were airborne at 8:52 and sent to new york (dispatched from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts). this was just 8 minutes after the first plane had crashed into wtc and 9 minutes before the second plane hit.

    the air base is 153 miles from new york city as the crow flies.
    f15s can reach a top speed of over 1800 mph (mach 2.5). (http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/ )
    according to norad the otis f-15s were 71 miles from nyc when the second tower was hit. (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/docs/norad_pr_s18.html).
    this means it took the jets nine minutes to travel 82 miles (153 miles-71 miles). by my calculation the jets were flying at a speed of 546 mph or over 1200 mph less than its top speed. this is when one of the hijacked planes had already hit the tower and another plane was known to be hijacked and heading towards nyc.

    someone out there must have a brother or a friend in the air force who may know why these f-15s did not go at top speed to intercept the second hijacked plane before it hit the wtc. i'd love to hear from them.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice