[Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed Work Raising Questions

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 17:17:17 PDT 2010


Of course, given we know what attack Bin Laden was determined to make on US
soil that resulted in 9/11, it is difficult to now make recommendations for
what Bush should have done prior, not influenced by this knowledge.  But the
August 6, 2001 briefing mentions the World Trade Center prior attacks as an
example of what Bin Laden intends, and that hijacking aircraft is a
potential tactic.  Thus it seems rather obvious that increasing airport
surveillance and screening for potential terrorist suspects, and increased
fortifications against unauthorized access to commercial aircraft cockpits,
including arming of pilot(s), are common sense responses, along with much
increased airspace security for important potential targets, including
(DUH!) the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, White House, all major US
population centers, along with dams, nuclear power plants, military
installations, et. al.

I recall being in Chicago just a few months before 9/11, and the Sears Tower
was easy to walk into and take an elevator to a high floor, for a free view
of the Chicago skyline, etc., with no one asking any questions.  Just a few
months after 9/11, the Sears Tower had a guarded security perimeter, etc.
and I did not even bother to go near it...

One of the main questions of 9/11 conspiracy theorists is how the hijacked
aircraft were allowed to veer off course for as long as they did, without
being confronted by military fighter jets, who could either force the
aircraft to land or if this was not possible, shoot the aircraft down to
prevent it's use as a weapon, especially if the aircraft were approaching
high risk critical targets.

According to this article from Popular Mechanics, which is focused on
refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories, they make the following claim:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48
states.

----------------------------
In reading this article, it appears that all possible measures,
including being ready to utilize US military aircraft to prevent a terrorist
attack using a hijacked commercial aircraft, were not in place.  For
example, commercial aircraft should broadcast identifying signals that
cannot be turned off by hijackers (DUH!), as was the case in the 9/11
hijackings, so they can be located by military aircraft in case of a
hijacking.

It is clear there were measures that could have been taken to lessen the
chances of a 9/11 style attack succeeding, or of lessening the damage and
loss of life, if such an attack were under way.

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:58 AM, <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:

> Andreas writes:
>
> "With the information Bush had before 9/11, I'm not sure what an
>  appropriate response would have been."
>
>
> For one thing, when Bush was told a plane crashed into the WTC, an
> appropriate response would be to become a competent commander in chief since
> there was warning of that type of strike.   You would assume he would have
> excused himself from reading to the classroom, instead of just sitting
> there.
>
> An inappropriate response was the invasion of Iraq.
>
> I think the PATRIOT Act was an inappropriate response, too.
>
> It does make you wonder about Bush's grasp of reality and motives.
>
> Garrett Clevenger
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100331/af84d2e5/attachment.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list