estebanana -> RE: AE911Truth (Jan. 31 2013 21:52:26)
|
quote:
t is said the Pentagon is the most heavily protected and secure building in the world and perhaps you will be able to confirm if this is wrong? I understand there's a flight exclusion zone, a missile defence system and full high security camera system. I mean that stands to reason doesn't it? I can't therefore, understand why video evidence has not been released showing the plane. I'm sure this could be done in a sensitive manor to respect crew and passengers and finally silence those who doubt the official story. Because the US does not have to justify events to foreign nationals who are conspiracy theorists. In addition, at the point at which the aircraft deviated from normal fight patters in a restricted zone it was noted. At some point is was clear to radar monitors that that the aircraft was on a trajectory that would impact the Pentagon. What were the choices? Shoot a civilian aircraft over the capital of the US in a heavily populated area where it could have killed many more people that it did and create more security risks? The protocol to shoot down a civilian aircraft means that chain of command has to reach the executive level for authorization. In general with the exception of a few psychotic people members of the US military take it as their ultimate duty to protect US civilians. They took the hit because it was their job to absorb it. It would be ludicrous to release national security information about alert systems around the nations capital. The positions of video cameras, emergency reaction times, fighter aircraft scrambling information etc. and myriad of other security issues could be gleaned from releasing information about the area around Washington D.C. The fact that you would even pose such a question shows how naive, uninformed and irrational these revisionist, so called truth, movements are. In fact, as you keep calling for, open more investigations, and look deeper and find that new investigations will substantiate the chain of events and that in truth the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft traveling 300 plus miles per hour. This should make rabid Anti Americanists happy I would think, because it shows the Pentagon is not an unattackable building. But the folly of anti American thinking in this vein is that it follows this irrational track that it was a self inflicted job to create a reason to go to war. First off I'll tell you we are a lot more creative and nasty than that. If factions the in the US government like the Neo-Con movement ( 'Chicken Hawks' as we like to call them) wanted to go to war they will war game it for years, read up on the late Norman Schwartzkopf and his childhood in the Middle east and years of planning for situations like Operation Desert Storm and you will understand the complexity of the planning and why it is in place. The errors in intelligence that allowed Colin Powell to stand up before the United Nations and claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is enough of a reason to formulate a declaration of war in the minds of the NeoCons. US never had to self inflict a wound to have any reason to start any conflicts. It's non logical anti Americanist argument. * It was stated up thread that Donald Rumsfeld commented on the situation at the Pentagon on the day before the 911 attacks as being departmentally in flux and the relationships between the various armed service branches were adversarial with one another. The implication being that the Pentagon has infighting between the services and it bombed itself so it could start war elsewhere. Ludicrous. The reason the Vietnam war was protracted was in part because of bureaucratic infighting within the Pentagon. There have been papers written about it, some real famous ones which were published in major US newspapers in the 1970s. This is not new information, it's all public. More homework needs to be done by those who naively posit such theories. I highly recommend Michael Herr's seminal book 'Dispatches' on the problems of the Vietnam War; he goes into very clear detail on the practical effects of US military infighting on how the war unfolded. A close reading of this book might provide some historical background to Rumsfelt's concerns. And for the record I voted against G.W. Bush, I loathe Donald Rumsfelt and all he represents vis a vis his world view and politic. The same goes for the rest of NeoCon lot and the Bush Doctrine. It's not the US I represent or want to project into the world. However I won't stand for unsubstantiated, self indulgent, and ridiculous theories about my country.
|
|
|
|