Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

Stephen...the Bush limo was equipped to receive TV.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2005 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

WE must then accept that Mr Bush is simply "Telling it like it is" & therefore did witness the first strike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why must WE accept that GBW statements mean he saw the actual plane strike the building? Are there any other acceptable meanings to his statements?

[Matthew Lewis]

WE must then accept that Mr Bush is simply "Telling it like it is" & therefore did witness the first strike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why must WE accept that GBW statements mean he saw the actual plane strike the building? Are there any other acceptable meanings to his statements?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point Craig. The addition of one word to his statement such as "I saw that a plane hit the tower" would completely change the supposed meaning. For all the times he's stumbled over his words before and been made fun of for it, is it really hard to believe that he said exactly what he meant to say this time? We know he's not the greatest orator, heck sometimes he's not even very good. Why should we assume he didn't flub his words this time?

(Edited once for my own spelling and grammer mistakes)

Edited May 9, 2005 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Perhaps some of the things to be considered are both the method of attack and the man himself.

Probably one of the most feared attacks that a US President would have is that of nuclear weapons.

Bush was told about planes hitting the WTC.

Perhaps he surmised that this would be either a single point of attack, or localised to major centres of significance.

Perhaps the Secret Service wanted him to leave immediately, and he decided that it would be better to remain calm in front of the children.

Perhaps he really is a dolt and just failed to grasp the significance of the attack.

Who knows?

It's easy to play, as you Americans say, "monday morning quarterback". Those people were there with a developing situation. They made decisions. As always expected, people question those decisions - right or wrong - with the benefit of hindsight.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

WE must then accept that Mr Bush is simply "Telling it like it is" & therefore did witness the first strike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why must WE accept that GBW statements mean he saw the actual plane strike the building? Are there any other acceptable meanings to his statements?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Craig, possibly because thats exactly what he said, on two seperate occasions,

weeks after the event? Are there any other meanings to his statements?

You tell me, I only know what he said,on two seperate occasions, weeks

after the event.I'll leave you to speculate. Do I take it that you now accept

that GWB was not under any stress when he made these coments,Given, as

they were weeks after the events?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Perhaps some of the things to be considered are both the method of attack and the man himself.

Probably one of the most feared attacks that a US President would have is that of nuclear weapons.

Bush was told about planes hitting the WTC.

Perhaps he surmised that this would be either a single point of attack, or localised to major centres of significance.

Perhaps the Secret Service wanted him to leave immediately, and he decided that it would be better to remain calm in front of the children.

Perhaps he really is a dolt and just failed to grasp the significance of the attack.

Who knows?

It's easy to play, as you Americans say, "monday morning quarterback".  Those people were there with a developing situation.  They made decisions.  As always expected, people question those decisions - right or wrong - with the benefit of hindsight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evan.

As always, I value your contribution. Unfortunately, hindsight is all we've got.

The problem with your point about the S/S is that their only job is to protect

the POTUS.Now by their admission they had no idea how many planes had been

"Jacked" Nor where they were. As GWB's plans for the day had been published

weeks in advance,why did they not feel that his life was in danger, after all what

better target than the president? In these circumstances GWB would have been

removed to a place of safety,and damn the childrens feelings. For all they knew

by remaining there they were endangering the kids.

Oh BTW im a pom not an American.

regards Steve..

[Guest Stephen Turner]

This is how these matters are dealt with in the REAL WORLD.

CAPITAL CLEARED IN PLANE ALERT...

Fighter jets yesterday fired warning flares at a small plane that entered restricted

airspace over Washington DC.Causing the White House, & Capitol biuldings to be

evacuated. White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the Cessna-150 had

passed within three miles of the White House.

The vice President Dick Cheney was evacuated to a secure location, along with

first lady, Laura Bush, Associated Press reported. people in the supreme court

were also ordered to seek safety. It was the second time in recent weeks that

key government biuldings in Washington have been evacuated....

Spot the difference???

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen wrote:

Oh BTW im a pom not an American.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, what is a "pom"?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen wrote:

Oh BTW im a pom not an American.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, what is a "pom"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim.

A Pom is what aussie's call the English, it's the same as the American "Limey"

Apparantly, after a few days in the Austrailian sun we resemble pomegranites.

Steve..

[Evan Burton]

Stephen,

The latest example is, of course, a post-9/11 world. Look what happen with Mattius Rust; I think the situation would have been very different after THAT Border Guards Day.

Personally, I don't see Bush's actions on that day as pointing one way or another. It can be argued it was right or it was wrong.

Perhaps someone can give me some more information about his school visit, and any risk associated with him remaining for the allotted length of time.

Was the school near any military bases, specifically an air base? A Combat Air Patrol (CAP) may have been activated to secure the airspace around the school. This might even be standard procedure.

I believe that the security forces around him are also equipped with shoulder-fired SAMs. Placed on an alert, this would have given additional security.

Is there a site that mentions the precautions that were enacted after they had word about the attacks?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen,

The latest example is, of course, a post-9/11 world.  Look what happen with Mattius Rust; I think the situation would have been very different after THAT Border Guards Day.

Personally, I don't see Bush's actions on that day as pointing one way or another.  It can be argued it was right or it was wrong.

Perhaps someone can give me some more information about his school visit, and any risk associated with him remaining for the allotted length of time.

Was the school near any military bases, specifically an air base?  A Combat Air Patrol (CAP) may have been activated to secure the airspace around the school.  This might even be standard procedure.

I believe that the security forces around him are also equipped with shoulder-fired SAMs.  Placed on an alert, this would have given additional security.

Is there a site that mentions the precautions that were enacted after they had word about the attacks?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evan.

A fair reply, The nearest Airport was just three miles away.

I will do some "digging" over the W/E as regards your other points, and get

back to you.

Steve, the Pom.

Edited to add a question.

Evan, how much use would those SAM's have been against a 747 travelling at

500 MPH, with only seconds to react? I only ask as I have no idea, i'm not a

military type like yourself. (ok I know your Navy,but thats close enough.)

Steve.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Evan Burton]

Evan, how much use would those SAM's have been against a 747 travelling at

500 MPH, with only seconds to react? I only ask as I have no idea, i'm not a

military type like yourself. (ok I know your Navy,but thats close enough.)

Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends on a few factors. Assuming the protective detail had modern, up-to-date SAMs, they would be very useful. Essentially, all they had to do was to be able to see the target. A 747 or any large airliner-type aircraft would not be carrying any ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) equipment, would present a large target (in both Radar Cross Section - RCS - and heat signature), and not be capable of 'jinking' or any other 'break-lock' manoeurves.

A smaller, fighter-style aircraft would have a better chance of success.

That being said, the SAM would most likely only disable the aircraft. It would probably hit the engine nacelles. A lucky shot might take out the cockpit. With high speed and an aircraft not designed for combat survivability, you might get catastrophic structural failure - hopefully the wing - which would spoil the "aim" of the aircraft. If it was hit during the terminal phase of an attack at close range, there would be significant danger from the debris of the aircraft breaking up.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[]

It depends on a few factors. Assuming the protective detail had modern, up-to-date SAMs, they would be very useful.

As were talking about the Presidents body gaurd, I guess its safe to assume

that any weaponry is likely to be bang up to date.( Very bad pun..)

The problem I still have however is once the threat was known,why not simply

remove the guy from danger?Any weapons would have been to deal with an

unknown danger,this was no longer the case once the second plane struck. The

threat was known, and to some degree quantifiable. BTW, I can find no mention

of a CAP presence that day, I think I will make one further post on this subject,

and try to pull all the evidence together, before I start repeating myself...

Edited May 16, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Evan Burton]

The problem I still have however is once the threat was known,why not simply

remove the guy from danger?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is why I find this particular issue debatable. You are quite correct is saying that he should have been moved to a "secure" area. Bush, however, may have decided that based on the available information he would finish his visit without incident. In that case, the security detail would take steps to ensure that the area was secure as possible. They may have spoken to the local air traffic control centre, and ensured there was no air traffic in the area and that none was to enter the area. They may have had further safeguards which were not apparent and have not been made public.

I just can't find these particular actions as 'suspicious'. They are arguable either way (stay / leave).

If you have any new information, or even just a summary of known events / data, I'd enjoy being able to look over it.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

This is why I find this particular issue debatable. You are quite correct is saying that he should have been moved to a "secure" area. Bush, however, may have decided that based on the available information he would finish his visit without incident. If you have any new information, or even just a summary of known events / data, I'd enjoy being able to look over it.

Evan.

The problem with your first point is, how did GWB decide it was safe. His only

source of information comes from Card, who tells him,"Mr President America is

under attack" Then leaves without waiting for further instruction. Nobody else

comes into the classroom for the time that GWB is there, & I'm not aware that

he was wearing a wire. So on what information did Bush decide that his life,& the

lives of the children,Teachers & his retinue were safe?

That said once again you make some good points. I will attempt to post a time

line of the day. using uncontested data.

Steve.