• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is this possible...

INRM

Philosopher
I
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
5,505
Is it possible that Bush deliberately allowed the planes to strike the Trade-Center?

Remember that golfer Payne Stewart? His plane didn't respond to ATC orders because the crew and passengers passed out. F-16's were on him in 21 minutes.

Allegedly, not sure here, that orders were given that countermanded orders to intercept those planes.

Or is this just nonsense spread by conspiracy theorists?

Let's use logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion...

-INRM
 
Let us for the exercise assume that Bush was evil and non-scrupulous (and idiotic) enough to do that.

So what should have happened was this:

1) Report goes up in the command chain: "Hijacked planes are heading for kamikaze attacks on diverse targets, request permission to intercept."

2) Presidential response: "No, let them fly as they please."

3) Already scrambled fighters are called back and return to base where pilots can watch the result of their non-interference on TV.

What is wrong with this scenario?

#1: Hijacked civilian planes had never before been used like this, so how exactly could it be guessed that this was the purpose?

#2: Even if some information indicated the kamikaze intent, or the president had some special information, the exact targets and consequences of such a nuncontrolled mission could not be know. Even for a chaotic evil person, this would be an insane gamble.

#3: Just how long would it take before one of the dozens of people that must be involved even in a highly classified command chain like this would leak information?

Conclusion: Pure fiction.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
?#2: Even if some information indicated the kamikaze intent, or the president had some special information, the exact targets and consequences of such a nuncontrolled mission could not be know. Even for a chaotic evil person, this would be an insane gamble.

Hans
Click to expand...


I always knew it was a plot by the Pope!!

sorry, hans, but that was just to good an opportunity to pass up.....:D ;)
 
MRC_Hans said:
Let us for the exercise assume that Bush was evil and non-scrupulous (and idiotic) enough to do that.

So what should have happened was this:

1) Report goes up in the command chain: "Hijacked planes are heading for kamikaze attacks on diverse targets, request permission to intercept."

2) Presidential response: "No, let them fly as they please."

3) Already scrambled fighters are called back and return to base where pilots can watch the result of their non-interference on TV.

What is wrong with this scenario?
Click to expand...

Also, this scenario requires President Bush to have given the order before he walked into the classroom. If he gave the order to permit the murder of thousands of civilians and was able to sit in the classroom with that look on his face, then he should be given a special Academy Award.

It is easy to see why some might put forth this story. It is difficult for many Americans to understand that the best equipped military in the world was unable to prevent a co-ordinated attack by 19 poorly-trained killers. They find it easier to believe a story where the military was ready to respond and the politicans prevented them from doing their jobs.
 
The ONLY explanation I find even remotely plausible for the president to avoid stopping the planes (and we know that did not happen, because he was elsewhere), is this:

The only way to stop the terrorists, once airborne, would have been be to order 4 civilian planes with passengers on board shot down. If that had been done, the conspiracy nuts would now be heard be claiming that there were no terrorists on board, or that their objective was not suicidal.

So, a president might choose the lesser evil, publicity wise, of being accused of passivity, rather than mass murder. Or, perhaps more likely, be waffling around so long that the situation resolved itself.

But we have no evidence whatsoever of that happening.

Hans
 
It's a case of damned if you do damned if you don't. Had Bush ordered the planes shot down he would have been damned, since this didn't happen he is still damned for not stopping it.

I don't blame Bush I blame the INS. They let the 9-11 hijackers into the country and it was the INS who ok'ed their "tourist" and "student" visas. Mohammed Atta was the ringleader of September 11th events AND a known member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, yet he still got through no questions asked.
 
Prior experience of terrorist hijacks would have suggested the best thing to do is talk nicely to them, encourage them to land somewhere closer than Entebbe and sit it out while trying to negotiate a settlement.

Even if it had occurred to them to shoot these planes down, I think they'd have easily spent too long agonising over the order.


Intelligence the world over must be spammed to the brim with rumours of one looney plot or another going to strike imminently. I don't envy their task of sorting wheat from chaff, especially when they appear to attract such fierce political flak for the odd false positive.

I've noticed the one about the pentagon not being hit by a plane is very popular round these parts, not that anyone has ever suggested any convincing evidence to me.
 
There is also the "practicalities" of shooting down a large aircraft over a city. A hijacked plane will hit one place, one point of impact, one area to deal with as an emergency.

Try and destroy it whilst in the air and you are faced with the prospect of the plane splitting into many, many pieces, each capable of devastating the area they hit, fuel tanks rupturing and showering huge areas with flammable fuel, suddenly instead of one area of impact, one emergency you've got many spread out over a large area of the city.

Even knowing a plane is hijacked, I'd have thought once over a city it is a very tough call to make if it actually makes sense to attempt to destroy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom