"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." George W Bush, 9-11-01

[Ghost in the Machine]

"207) 11:08 p.m.: Bush at the White House: 'We think it's Usama bin Laden'

After the meeting had ended and Bush had returned to the residence, he and his wife were awakened by Secret Service agents. The agents rushed them downstairs to the bunker because of a report of an unidentified plane in the area. Bush was in running shorts and a T-shirt as he made his way down the stairs, through the tunnel and into the bunker. It proved to be a false alarm, and the Bushes returned to the residence for the rest of the night.

Like his father, Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

"We think its Usama bin Laden." "We think there are other targets in the United States, but I have urged the country to go back to normal." "We cannot allow a terrorist thug to hold us hostage. My hope is that this will provide an opportunity for us to rally the world against terrorism."

http://www.911timeline.net/ (scroll almost to the bottom)

Hmmm... ties in well with PNAC's "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", wouldn't you say?

I just found this timeline site. Some interesting stuff on there. Why did the scrambled F-16s & F-15s only fly at 24 to 28% of their top speed?

Still more questions than answers...

[Bolo Boffin]

1. How much of the PNAC agenda as outlined in that paper has been put into action?

These questions aren't hard.

Oh, yes, assuming your 24% to 28% figure is correct, the scrambled jets flew as fast as possible in order to conserve enough fuel to actually, you know, do something once they got where they were going other than fall out of the sky. Faster speeds = exponentially more fuel loss.

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Well, wouldn't you think the BIGGEST part was their "new Pearl Harbor",

along with their destabilization of the Middle East?

Your "fuel conservation" argument is preposterous, bolo. Scrambling from 350 miles away, at the farthest, isn't much of an issue, is it? The F-15 has a top speed of 1875 mph.. they flew at roughly 500 mph. Wouldn't you think that protecting & saving citizens and/or government officials was more important than saving a little fuel?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. The new Pearl Harbor statement was a single dependent clause in a 90-page report.

No, I do not think it was the biggest part. It didn't even bear into their expressly laid out plan.

You've avoided the question. Which of the specific goals laid out in Rebuilding America's Defenses has been accomplished thanks to the 9/11 attacks? Which of the specific goals has been advanced at all thanks to the 9/11 attacks?

These questions aren't hard.

"Saving a little fuel" is important when you want to actually do something besides fall out of the sky when you get to where you're going. Gravity is not kind to an airplane that runs out of fuel.

[wildbilln864]

6. Didn't bear into their plan!?

Good fucking grief! It was required for their plan to get off the ground. Maybe you just haven't interpreted their plan correctly.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Baby steps, my friend... they have to take baby steps...

They'll have their day of awakening soon.. I'm confident of that...

:hi:

PEACE!

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

23. No. It did not. Time to read for comprehension.

They did not think the Pearl Harbor event would take place so they planned on it not taking place. READ.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. My answer must have been too hard for you to comprehend, huh?

It wasn't that hard to understand. Please familiarize yourself with Rebuilding America's Defenses, and make sure you understand it, before you respond again... I remember a couple of weeks ago you couldn't even *name* the document, so I'll try to cut you a little leeway on it. At least you're making the attempt to learn it and understand it. I also remember that you thought it was about " making the military aware of the necessity of transformation". Yeah, *that* was funny as hell. I still get a chuckle over it.... like I said though, at least you're attempting to learn more about it. Good on you!

Since the newamericancentury.org site is now gone, you can refresh your memory on the documents archived at http://www.pnac.info

The main gist of Rebuilding America's Defenses, and PNAC itself, is global domination through brute military force, destabilization of the Middle East, and One World Government, with the United States at the helm. You *did* read about their plan to invade 7 countries in five years, didn't you? Although they failed at this, as they thought Iraq was going to be a cake walk, they're still sabre rattling with Iran aren't they? Neocons aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, but they don't let that hold them back, do they?

Why would they want our military to be able to engage in multiple theaters at the same time, bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Your answer is nothing but tap-dancing around my very specific question.

I've got RAD, I've had it for quite a while, and I'm familiar enough with it to realize what you continue to desperately avoid. The paper makes a number of specific transformative goals. Indeed, that is what the paper is all about.

For example, in the Pearl Harbor paragraph, they mention a recommendation to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production. Let's say this happened because of 9/11 (although it didn't). The only thing that could be affected by 9/11 was the desire to suspend or terminate (although it survived intact). Turning production of something like that around doesn't happen on the fly. The ones in production have to be finished and delivered. The alternate must be tested and brought into place before the carriers can be decommissioned. Could a "new Pearl Harbor" accelerate this process? No. Making the military aware of the necessity of transformation is all a new Pearl Harbor could do, and 9/11 failed to do even that.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4638.shtml

Also in the Pearl Harbor paragraph, they mention the F-22, something that the paper advises the military to scale back severely. Even so, says the paper, the F-22 "will be in service inventories for decades to come," requiring maintenance, spare parts, etc. Military programs like this don't turn on a dime, no matter what happens in the world. And 9/11 failed to get this recommendation implemented as well.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/pressreleases/14543.html

So the paragraph concludes that a two-stage process of transition AND transformation be implemented. A Pearl Harbor event can only help accelerate the transition side of the equation, i.e., convince military leaders that a new direction is needed and encourage them to begin the necessary plans.

That is a single paragraph, and the litany of failure demonstrated in that paragraph, as well as the entire paper, shows even the casual observer exactly why the PNAC website isn't available anymore.

But you keep filling your head with chuckles.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. You're apparently too dense to comprehend anything

It's quite apparent because of your statement about "making the military aware of the need for transformation". If you were twice as smart as you *try* to be, you'd only be half as smart as you *think* you are, bolo. Take your silly ass and peddle your bullshit somewhere else because it's old, tired and played out with me. Do you understand that?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. I understand. You can't answer my question because I'm right and you're wrong

and I've now shown that and you can't accept that from me.

So you attack me. Instead of providing examples of how the 9/11 attacks helped persuade the military to make the specific, needed changes outlined in the RAD document, you attack me.

You can't answer the question because doing so honestly would be to admit you were wrong, and you cannot admit that I got it right and you were wrong. It would be too humiliating to you at this stage of your game. So you attack me.

I understand this perfectly. So continue blathering away.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. I answered your question, I can't help if you're too dense to understand it...

Now go peddle your bullshit to someone else, I'm not buying. Take your 3rd grade "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. No, you didn't. You provided no example at all. n/t

[jberryhill]

4. That really depends on what they are carrying, and whether they have external fuel tanks

It's not a question of "saving a little fuel" - it's a question of being able to stay in the air long enough to do anything useful.

Hell yes, if they detect a lock-on and have to outrun/maneuver an AA missile, they can do bursts of unbelievable speed. But you are not going to find accurate published speed/range curves for these aircraft.

So, whattya think? The pilots were pussies, they were told to drag their feet, and they are too cowardly to come out with the truth. Is that it?

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. I think the pilots were doing exactly as they were told... standing down..

I *could* be 100% wrong, too. Tell me, what is the range on a fully fueled F-15 or F-16? Maybe Sweet Pea could give us an answer on that, since he was a pilot.... or I guess we could google it, right?

Also, do you think they were even remotely worried about having to dodge an AA missile from a passenger jet?

Staying in the air long enough to do anything useful could mean *what*, exactly? Engaging, escorting & forcing the hijacked plane to land... or shooting it down... There were airports nearby that a forced landing could have taken place at, so much *real* worry was there about fuel?

[jberryhill]

12. And the pussies have kept quiet about it ever since....

...because when they were young, they volunteered and worked their asses off to become fighter pilots so that they could permit an attack on the US and keep their damned pussy mouths shut.

Also, do you think they were even remotely worried about having to dodge an AA missile from a passenger jet?

I don't think you got the point. Yes, a fighter plane can do short spurts of tremendous speed at an enormous cost of fuel.

Staying in the air long enough to do anything useful could mean *what*, exactly?

Which is a pertinent question indeed if you don't know how many potential bandits there are, where they might be coming from, or if the hi-jackings are a diversion for something else to come.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=daniel_nash

Tell me, what is the range on a fully fueled F-15 or F-16? Maybe Sweet Pea could give us an answer on that, since he was a pilot.... or I guess we could google it, right?

You will not find accurate public information on the exact capabilities of US fighter aircraft. There is a reason for that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Have you ever been in the military? I have. I wouldn't call *any* of them pussies..

I do, however, know what a chain of command is, and I also know and understand that troops 'take orders'. They don't choose their missions, nor do they *question* them. Troops follow orders. Period. If I was told to frag your ass, I'd frag your ass, no questions asked. If I was told to shoot down a plane, blow up a building or blow up a bridge.. and keep my mouth shut, that's exactly what would get done. Do you know anything about covert operations or classified operations. "Do this... but you didn't see nothing"...

[greyl]

14. "Troops follow orders. Period." ?

Speak for yourself, tough guy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. Did you ever refuse to follow an order? How'd *that* turn out for you?

:eyes:

[greyl]

16. Are you claiming to be totally ignorant that such a thing is possible?

Unbelievable.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Answer the questions... did you ever refuse to follow an order? If so, how did it work out for you?

I didn't ask you anything else, did I? Were the questions too hard?

Yes, I'm fully aware that someone can, and will, refuse to follow an order. What happens to them when they do?

Please try to follow along and keep up with the conversation...

Thanks

Ghost

[greyl]

18. Like I said, "speak for yourself, tough guy".

I asked for clarification from you and you provided more bullshit. Don't count on me following your orders to answer your questions.

Your statement "Troops follow orders. Period." is a pathetic thing to see someone post on a progressive site.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. You asked for clarification? Who's the bullshitter now?

Like I asked... were the questions too hard?

Back to the bin of irrelevance you go, buddy... I'll just have to assume that your answer is "no", you never refused to follow an order. Maybe the hardest order you ever got was "add more salt to the potatoes"?

[greyl]

21. Yes. Remember "Are you claiming to be totally ignorant..." ?

It's right up there, in the same language that you might find a copy of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I suppose you have the same trouble comprehending that as you do PNAC and my above post that asked you to clarify your position. I don't hold out hope that you'd understand a transcript of the Nuremberg tribunals.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. I don't see how you could misconstrue a direct question to YOU to where you would think it meant

*anybody*. I think it was very specific:
Did *YOU* ever refuse to follow an order? How'd *that* turn out for *YOU*?

Did I ask "has *ANYONE* ever refused to follow an order? How did that work out for *THEM*"? No, I didn't, did I?

Once again, please try to follow along and keep up...

Just in case you're still not sure, *YOU* means exactly that... *YOU* (greyl) <~~~ that's *YOU*, in case you're not clear on that, either.

[HamdenRice]

29. greyl plays word games

That's all. Really, that's all he does. Nothing else. Nothing.

Don't get sucked in, it's not worth the minutes and seconds you will expend and never be able to get back.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. Yeah, I've had this one pegged for a while... but I was bored so I played with him for a bit..

I find it amusing sometimes. It was funny to watch him walk right into the pit all wide-eyed and full of piss & vinegar, just to have the walls close in around him. Couldn't even decipher and answer a simple, direct question, could he?

Fuck it, leave 'em twisting in the wind... they like to spin away, anyways, right?


:rofl:

[greyl]

31. "Troops follow orders. Period." - Ghost in the Machine

Do you see how your statement could mean that you don't understand a troop's duty to disobey unlawful orders? Do you see how it could mean that you don't think troops have ever disobeyed a commanding officer?
Do you see how often you try to change the subject from the one at hand to trying to personally ridicule your perceived opponents on this board instead? Do you see how that means you probably don't have a valid argument to offer?

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. Have *YOU* ever disobeyed an order?

Do *you* see how *you* are unable to answer, much less understand, a simple, direct question?

Yes, troops follow orders, period. When is the last time you heard of a soldier disobeying an order... and what happened to him/her?

Please just answer a very simple fucking question, without all your bullshit and distractions. Can you do that? I don't think so. Prove me wrong....

[greyl]

34. That's irrelevant to either proving or disproving your statement.

Please decide which side of your mouth to talk out of.

If you know what happens to someone who doesn't follow orders, then that means your statement "Troops follow orders. Period." is bullshit. You will have debunked yourself. Isn't that so?

If it's true that you are totally ignorant that soldiers can & do disobey orders, all I have to do is provide you with 1 example of a soldier disobeying an order and that will simultaneously debunk your statement & educate you, right?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

37. Non-semantic question for you

Your entire time-wasting thread seems to object to this sentence by Ghost:

"Troops follow orders. Period."

So if the sentence were:

"Troops follow legal orders that they perceive to be legal. Period."

Would that be correct?

Then, answer this: If a pilot were told (and I'm not saying they were and don't want to litigate this point), if a pilot were told NOT to fly somewhere on 9/11, is there any reason to believe he would perceive that order to be illegal? Wouldn't he follow those orders?

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. The *only* thing I told you to prove me wrong about was my thinking

that you couldn't answer a simple, direct question:

"Please just answer a very simple fucking question, without all your bullshit and distractions. Can you do that? I don't think so. Prove me wrong...."

It seems I was correct, huh? Please excuse yourself from any further discussion until you learn how to comprehend what you read..

Thanks,

Ghost

[HamdenRice]

40. What's that sound?!?! **chirp** **chirp** **chirp**

Crickets!

As always you've played your word games and not answered the non-semantic part of the question.

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. I think the sound of crickets lulled this thread to sleep.. n/t

[HamdenRice]

33. Silly word games

You do realize that the original question was about an order NOT TO FLY, right?

That's not, and would not under the circumstances be perceived to be, an illegal order.

Your points are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Your circular silly word games are as Ghost mentioned, from time to time, every so slightly amusing.

But they also consume precious seconds of life that can never be gotten back.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcadian]

5. Recieves warning upon warning leading up 9/11

Is not concerned, then on 9/11 he thinks the world should be concerned about terrorism? When he obviously was not. Bull shit. Everything about Bush screams lie and cover-up to me.

[wildbilln864]

7. Me too. Welcome to the dungeon btw. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Well said... and welcome to DU! n/t

[greyl]

19. I agree. nt

[leftofthedial]

39. "back to normal"

except for the part where we don't need the Constitution anymore.