The New Pearl Harbor

September 11th was a New Pearl Harbor in the exact same way: the US Government was caught napping, taken by surprise that our enemies would do something so audacious.I want everyone to be clear on this. There is *NO*, repeat *NO* evidence that anyone in the US (or British, or Australian, etc.) decision-making process had the slightest inkling of an idea about a Japanese carrier attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. If you don't believe me, start a thread in the coffee house and we can discuss it in detail.It was in fact the result of excellent Japanese planning and execution, with a bit of luck and American incredulity.My expectation is that in a few decades, when a lot that is currently classified is declassified, it will turn out to be similar; excellent AQ work combined with a confused and disordered American intelligence effort.Chris

Could I have a source for this, CF? Because the 9/11 Commission Report contradicts you on this subject. (From Note 116 of Chapter 1, available at National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)"116. On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise,Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, 'it took about 30 seconds' to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004.We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004)." I think Ted Olsen would like to disagree with you on this point. From Chapter 1 of the Report: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60" Or they had a good plan, executed it well, and caught the US by surprise. It has happened before and will happen again. The US is not all-powerful and just as subject to surprise attacks as anyone else.This is probably not the appropriate thread for this discussion. Coffee House?Chris

Error (404) - The University of Sydneyhas a discussion (by a civil engineer at the University of Sydney, so proving that he is part of a US Government cover-up would be difficult) which explains the pictures of the collapse and discusses how the buildings went down.Now, of course, the disadvantage to having such a source is he has no physical access to the evidence. But we do have people who had physical access to the evidence, and they mostly agree with the conclusions of the unbiased observer looking at the television pictures.http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtmThat is the structural issues of the design. The failure of the American intelligence aparatus, the success of the AQ operation, and the actions of the first-response units is discussed in excellent detail (parts of it are better reads than any Clancy book) at National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United StatesYou can buy the report; much easier reading that way. The paperback cost me like 7 bucks when it came out and I found it fascinating.ChrisThis message has been edited by cmanteuf, 07-12-2005 11:40 AM