From: * US *
Date: 8/14/2004 1:11 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:44:51 -0500, "Billy Preston"
wrote:

First of all, ATC is responsible for separation of aircraft, and airport
operations.

That's not relevant. Jets should have been scrambled promptly, but they
didn't do so, because standard procedures for US air defense were not
followed on 9/11.

You were citing a report about a nonexistant person. Pentagon has no ATCs. You
can't have it both ways. Either ATC is relevent or not.

Second of all, weapons controllers are the operators used for air defense
radar
operations.

That's not relevant, either. Bush was told there were going to be attacks
involving using aircraft as missiles on US landmarks. He didn't do anything
whatsoever to protect the victims. He did all he could to make sure they
died.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?


Third of all, these weapons controllers are either on AWACS, or in the
Regional center,
or in mobile radar deployments.

That's not relevant any sooner than your previous irrelevancies. Bush knew
that
Americans on US soil were going to be attacked and killed en masse, and he
just
cleared the way for it and went on vacation. Then he lied about it, at least
when
he wasn't joking about it. He's the principal beneficiary of those crimes.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?

Fourth of all, the Pentagon does not have an air defense operations center,
manned by
weapons controllers.

That's still not relevant. Apparently you have no idea what's being
discussed, here.
It's the fact that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, and that
Bush
took a series of measures to *thwart* defensive responses.

What "measures?" Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what
proof do you have?

To claim that ATC operators conduct air defense, is bogus information, by
someone
who has never been in the air defense business.

That's just your totally irrelevant straw man, however, and not pertinent to
the subject.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?


Are you saying that if you had been POTUS and had been told of imminent
attacks
using aircraft against landmarks in the USA, you'd have issued no public
warnings?

You still haven't proved he knew of an "imminent attack." It seems your entire
theory is supported by ONE article that has already been proved wrong.

Are you saying that you would tell pilots they couldn't carry sidearms and
air defense
pilots they couldn't scramble?

Side arms are not usually carried in peace time. Very few aircrews are in
position to "scramble" in peace time and the normal compliment was there on
9/11.

Would you have your cronies stop lying
commercial,
so they'd not be harmed, but let the public be unaware of this huge looming
threat?

Nope, but what you described never happened. If it did PROVE it and I don't
mean by citing the same bogus article.


Are you saying you'd go on vacation for longer than any other POTUS in US
history,

He wasn't on vacation at the time.

then sit and do nothing but play mindlessly with children as the attacks are
executed,

He didn't know the attacks were going to happen.

then try to claim afterward that you had no idea anything of the sort could
happen?

Prove he did. Don't expect us to do your research for you. You made the claim,
now PROVE it without using that report.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired