Why is Chip Berlet not wondering why there was no response from the Air Force bases (other than Andrews AFB) that we know were combat ready?
Why is Chip Berlet attacking those who raise the question of government incompetence if not complicity in the 9-11 attacks? To be sure we have to endeavor to get out facts right, and dissident 9-11 reseachers have such debates all the time but do not, like Berlet, use these debates attack the overall validity of questioning the government story.
9-11 dissident researchers have been more right than they have been wrong in their deconstruction of government lies about the event.
Assuming it is true that there were no combat ready planes at Andrews AFB, why not?
Whose side is Chip Berlet on? Why has Chip Berlet not contributed anthing to interrogating the Bush administrations lies about 9-11?
The fact remains that on 11 September there were entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at several bases within reach of the hijacked planes. Their job was to protect the skies. They failed to do their job.
Joe W.
>From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Is Berlet Combat Ready?
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:00:46 -0700
>
>Joseph Wanzala quotes Chip:
>
> >> "Well, they are combat-ready. That means that unit of
> >> the military could be sent into combat -- somewhere
> >> between 24 and 72 hours. There is no evidence, and to
> >> this day there is no evidence that there were jet
> >> aircraft, fueled up, warmed up, ready to go at Andrews
> >> with fighter pilots sitting in a ready room ready to
> >> take off."
>
>And then misunderstands this article:
>
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5215957/
>
>... in particular:
>
>|> First, President Bush would have had to have ordered
>|> that any hijacked airliners be shot down; the military’s
>|> rules of engagement did not allow for that without such
>|> presidential intercession. Bush ultimately did make that
>|> call, but only after the Pentagon was hit.
>|>
>|> Second, NORAD’s F-16 Fighting Falcons at Langley Air Force
>|> Base, near Norfolk, Va., would have had to have been
>|> launched sooner.
>
>Note that Andrews Air Force Base was not one of the "ready alert" bases
>on 9/11 ...
>
>Chip makes this (correct) distinction because in an earlier post he
>wrote:
>
> >> Ruppert continues to plug the baseless story about a government
> >> conspiracy behind the jets not flying out of Andrews, written by
> >> Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel:
> >> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_911murder.html
>
>[ see
><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040301/005
>088.html> ]
>
>That article starts with this:
>
>:> Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10
>:> miles from the Pentagon.
>:>
>:> On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready
>:> fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over
>:> Washington D.C. They failed to do their job.
>
>Which is, as they say, crap in at least 3 ways.
>
>Regardless, Langley AFB is over 130 miles from the Pentagon.
>
>Chip: 1
>Joseph: 0
>
>/jordan
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk