Even on Air America Radio, air force pilots have been calling in saying that there had to have been a stand down - the game is essentially over.
As to the complicity goalpost we shall see, I personally remain agnostic on this question, but I have seen a lot in the public record that suggests to me that there is more to the 9-11 story than mere collossal stupidity on the part of the national security state.
"Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth." — Gore Vidal, from "The Enemy Within", 27 Oct 2002
"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it." —Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.
>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 13:56:36 -0700
>
> > At this point, Andrews AFB is a red herring.
>
>Hey, you brought it up (incorrectly).
>
> > 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?
>
>In the article you forwarded a link to earlier today, we were told that
>there was a response from both Otis and Langley. We were told this
>within hours of the actual scrambling. I think Chip probably just has
>better things to do with his time than wonder about things that aren't
>true.
>
> > Why is Chip Berlet attacking those who raise the question
> > of government incompetence if not complicity in the 9-11
> > attacks?
>
>I wouldn't call this particular thing (out of all the things I've seen
>Chip do) an "attack" -- I'd use the word "debunk" ... but that's me. I
>for one am happy to see Chip's complaint, reproduced below:
>
> >> 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
>
>I've read that story, and it seems like a load of crap to me. What's in
>it for you to attack Chip saying that he thinks it's a load of crap?
>
>Tell me: do you not think that article is a load of crap?
>
> > 9-11 dissident researchers have been more right than they
> > have been wrong in their deconstruction of government lies
> > about the event.
>
>I haven't been keeping track. But your post this morning is clearly in
>the 'wrong' category. And it winds up, due to it's timing, depth of
>incorrectness, and narrow scope, looking like an attack on Chip under
>the guise of an appeal to let some people slide because (in your
>accounting) they are "more right than they have been wrong" ...
>
> > Assuming it is true that there were no combat ready planes
> > at Andrews AFB, why not?
>
>I think this question has been answered (to death) elsewhere, including
>in the breaking news story you posted this morning. Read it again for
>the full details. Short story: money. 10 bases had "ready alert"
>status; Langley was closest to DC, Otis was closest to NYC.
>
> > Whose side is Chip Berlet on?
>
>Are you now or have you ever been ...?
>
> > Why has Chip Berlet not contributed anthing to
> > interrogating the Bush administrations lies about 9-11?
>
>I think he's contributed quite a bit; you, on the other hand ...
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk