>From: "Joseph Wanzala" <jwanzala at hotmail.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 13:39:50 -0700
>
>At this point, Andrews AFB is a red herring. The fact is that there were.
>at several Air Force bases "jet aircraft, fueled up, warmed up, ready to go
>at Andrews with fighter pilots sitting in a ready room ready to take off."
>
>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
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk