There was no Shoot down order

Author Topic: There was no Shoot down order  (Read 14524 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
There was no Shoot down order
« on: December 14, 2009, 12:47:54 AM »
The famous document authorizing shoot down of planes dated 1 June 2001. It's been said this was changed just before 9/11, in June, to give the Sec of Defense authority to order shoot down aircraft. Actually it was updated from 1997 and hardly anything changed from the 1997 order but this is an important document nontheless..........

1. Purpose. This instruction provides guidance to the Deputy Director
for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and
operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or
request for destruction of derelict airborne objects.


NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.

(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to
determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the
Secretary of Defense for approval.


(2) Pursuant to reference j, the escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the NMCC.

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all
requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive
Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of
Defense for approval
in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7
(reference d).

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

So the proper procedure was the FAA hijack coordinator would contact the NMCC who would contact NORAD/Military and get authorization for orders from the Sec of Defense.

But the hijack coordinator is in Puerto Rico, the NMCC officer in charge decides he has better things to do during the attacks, and the Sec of Defense has deserted his post.

December 4, 2000: Special Forces Commander Appointed FAA Security Chief:
US Army Lieutenant General Michael A. Canavan is appointed associate administrator for civil aviation security at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a position that includes being the “hijack coordinator".[/
i]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan

(2) Pursuant to reference j, the escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the NMCC.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

However, the hijack coordinator, FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security Director Mike Canavan, is in Puerto Rico and claims to have missed out on “everything that transpired that day.” The 9/11 Commission fails to ask him if he had delegated that task to anyone else while he was gone.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan

The 9/11 Commission fails to ask him if he had delegated that task to anyone else while he was gone.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan

OK....no FAA Hijack coordinator, what about the Secretary of Defense?

“I was in my office with a CIA briefer and I was told that a second plane had hit the other tower.”
“In the meantime, he would get his daily intelligence briefing, which was already scheduled for nine thirty.” Di Rita and Clarke head off down the hallway to the ESC, while Rumsfeld stays in his office. Apparently Rumsfeld will not go to the ESC until around 10:15 a.m.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=donaldrumsfeld

So the 9/11 attacks were an act of war? Well, the Secretary of Defense locked himself in his office and deserted his post then didn't he? No shoot down order, or any orders will be coming from that guy.

And the officer in charge of the NMCC?

Major General Winfield served as the Deputy Director for Operations, J3, in the National Military Command Center, and was present as the General Officer-in-Charge during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Major General Winfield was nominated for and earned a position as a Senior Military Fellow at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, a national membership organization and "think tank" headquartered in New York City.
http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/command/MGWinfieldNew.htm

was present as the General Officer-in-Charge during the terrorist attacks of 9/11
http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/command/MGWinfieldNew.htm

not quite....

Captain Charles Leidig, the deputy for Command Center operations at the NMCC, takes over temporarily from Brigadier General Montague Winfield and is effectively in charge of NMCC during the 9/11 crisis. Winfield had requested the previous day that Leidig stand in for him on September 11. Leidig remains in charge from a few minutes before the 9/11 crisis begins until about 10:30 a.m., after the last hijacked plane crashes. He presides over an important crisis response teleconference that has a very slow start, not even beginning until 9:39 a.m.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=montague_winfield

Some questions for Gen M. Winfield from the 9/11 commission......

1) To your knowledge, was the Secretary notified of the second crash? Did the NMCC receive any directions from the Secretary of the Vice Chairman before the hit at the Pentagon?

2) What actions were taken in the NMCC between the second strike on WTC (0903) and the attack at the Pentagon (0937)?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274468/DH-B3-Gen-Winfield-Interview-Fdr-Questions-and-Withdrawal-Notice-Handwritten-Interview-Notes-Classified-088

Lots of other interesting questions as well......want to see his answers? Sorry...... for National Security reasons you can't........

"In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is restricted."[/i]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274468/DH-B3-Gen-Winfield-Interview-Fdr-Questions-and-Withdrawal-Notice-Handwritten-Interview-Notes-Classified-088

So the hijack coordinator is in Puerto Rico, the NMCC officer in charge decides he has better things to do during the attacks, and the Sec of Defense has deserted his post. How unfortunate.

So how will the FAA and military respond with these major players in the chain of command absent?

Well, it turns out we're not real sure. There was a lot of "false statements" being made. The "official story" changed after the 9/11 commission.

"During the course of our investigation, the staff of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States discovered evidence that certain public statements made by NORAD and FAA officials at a Commission hearing on May 23, 2003, and elsewhere, regarding the actions of NORAD and FAA officials in responding to the 9/11 attacks were not accurate."

On May 23, 2003, at the Commission's second public hearing, representatives of both the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the North American Aerospace Defense command ("NORAD") testified. Their testimony set forth the times at which the FAA became aware that each flight was hijacked on 9/11; the times at which the military was notified of the hijackings; and how the military responded. Representatives of both agencies have also testified about this subject before congressional committees. They have been interviewed numerous times for media accounts of the response on 9/11. The First Air Force has published an official history, Air War Over America, concerning the air defense effort on 9/11.

Timeline. At the May 23 hearing, retired Col. William Scott presented the Commission with a NORAD timeline of the operational facts of 9/11. This timeline reflected:

-FAA notice to the military of the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93 at 9:16 a.m. (forty-seven minutes prior to crash).

-FAA notice to the military of the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. (13 minutes prior to crash).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/911-Commission-Documents-on-Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD

According to John Farmer from his book The Ground Truth...

Northeast Air Defense Sector had eight minutes notice on one flight, five minutes notice on another, and was notified post-crash on the other two.  Page 241
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

back to the 9-11 commission notes...
-Both the timeline and Col. Scott's testimony indicated that the fighters at Langley Air Force Base were scrambled at 9:24, seemingly in response to the hijacking of American 77.

Objective. The timeline and Col. Scott's testimony indicated that the fighters were scrambled to meet the threat to Washington posed by American 77.

The representation that the Langley fighters were scrambled to meet the threat posed by American 77 prompted questions from Commissioners Lehman and Ben-Veniste about the details of the Langley scramble. Retired General Larry Arnold explained: "9:24 was the first time that we had been advised of American 77 as a possible hijacked airplane. Our focus you have got to remember that there's a lot of other things going on simultaneously here—was on United 93, which was being pointed out to us very aggressively I might say by the FAA.... We were advised [American 77] was possibly hijacked. And we had launched almost simultaneously with that, we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way." We believe each of the four sentences in this quotation was inaccurate.

Inaccurate Statement #1: The FAA notified the military at 9:16 that United 93 was hijacked.

The draft release listed the time 9:16 as the notification time for United 93.

Between the 9/16 draft and the 9/18 final release, that time was changed. In the final release on 9/18, the 0916 notification time for United 93 is deleted, and is replaced with "N/A." The release explains that the notification time is "N/A" because the FAA informed NORAD of the hijacking of United 93 while on an open line discussing American 77. The Public Affairs Director stated to Commission staff that he deleted the 0916 notification time because he "lost confidence" in its accuracy, although he could not remember why he lost confidence in the time.

Why was 9:16 reintroduced? Commission staff has obtained an email sent from Col. Robert Marr, the Battle Commander at NEADS, to retired Col. William Scott after the Commission's hearing, which sheds light on the subject. During the May 2003 hearing, Commissioner Lehman asked several questions about the path of the Langley fighters, which traveled directly east, over the ocean, and then north toward Baltimore, before heading west to Washington. Why, the Commissioner wanted to know, didn't the fighters head more directly to Washington, if they had been scrambled to respond to American 77, the plane that struck the Pentagon? Col. Marr addressed this question in his response to retired Col. Scott:

   "The answer on AA77 is not easy, nor is it pretty. At the time AA77 was
occurring we were focused on UAL93 which was the only confirmed hijack
that the FAA had identified to us. My records show UAL93 reported as
hijacked at 0916L, once we found it and identified it's [sic] westerly
heading, we scrambled Langley at 0924L just in case it turned around
toward DC, which it did later. At 0924L we also received a call from the
FAA about AA77 with a follow-up call at 0925 L. It is easiest to explain the
simultaneous scramble order with the AA77 notification as the scramble
being against AA77 - it takes a lot of time to explain to the public that
you're scrambling fighters against a plane heading away from the possible
target."


Col. Marr, in other words, attempted to explain the circuitous route of the Langley fighters in getting to Washington, D.C., by indicating that they were not in fact scrambled to respond to a report at 9:24 that American 77 was hijacked; they were scrambled in response to the earlier "report" that United 93 was hijacked. Thus, the reintroduction of the discredited 9:16 notification time enabled NORAD to explain to the Commission the odd route of the Langley fighters in reaching Washington.

There were two fundamental problems with the explanation. First, as at least some in the military have known since the week of 9/11, it is inaccurate. The plane had not been hijacked at 9:16; the hijacking did not occur until 9:28 after the Langley fighters were ordered scrambled—and NEADS was not notified until after the plane had crashed. NORAD informed Commission staff at the close of Commission interviews at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs that it now accepts that notification did not occur until after the plane had crashed. Second, as we will now discuss, NEADS was not notified that American 77 was hijacked at 9:24.

Inaccurate Statement #2: The FAA notified the military of the hijacking of American 77 at 9:24.

Although American 77 disappeared from radar and radio contact at 8:56, the first notification to NEADS that American 77 was missing (there is no mention of its having been hijacked at this point) came at 9:34, ten minutes after the scramble had already been ordered at Langley Air Force Base.

One to two minutes later, NEADS received notice that an unidentified plane was six miles southwest of the White House. American 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:45.

Thus, NEADS did not receive notice that American 77 was hijacked at 9:24. In fact, NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked at all, let alone at 9:24; it received reports (at 9:34) that American 77 was missing, and (at 9:35 or 9:36) that an unidentified plane was near the White House.

What notification did occur at 9:24? The Mission Crew Commander's staff at NEADS maintains a handwritten contemporaneous log of information received and actions taken (known as the "MCC/T Log"). The 9/11 entry in the log at 9:24 records: "American Airlines #N334AA hijacked." This tail number refers not to American 77 but to American 11, the first hijacked aircraft that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The subpoenaed tapes confirm that this time corresponds to NEADS's receipt of tail number information on American 11 and to reports that American 11 was still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C.

Inaccurate Statement #3: When the Langley fighters were scrambled, their objective was to respond to the reports at 9:16 that United 93 was hijacked and at 9:24 that American 77 was hijacked.

Contrary to testimony before the Commission, the Langley fighters were ordered scrambled not because of United 93, which had not been hijacked, nor because of American 77, which had not been reported to NEADS, but because of the mistaken report that American 11 —the first hijacked plane—had not hit the World Trade Center, but was heading south for Washington, D.C. The fighters were ordered scrambled initially toward New York, and then vectored toward Baltimore, in an effort to intercept that mistakenly reported aircraft. The best evidence for both this inaccurate report and the resulting scramble is the subpoenaed NEADS tape, which records that at approximately 9:21, the Mission Crew Commander spoke the following to the Battle Cab (where the Battle Commander, Colonel Marr, was located):

  "Okay. American Airlines is still airborne, 11, the first guy. He's headed towards Washington, okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now, and I'm going to - I'm going to take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him. Yeah. You sure? Okay. He's heading towards Langley, or I should say Washington. American 11, the original guy. He's still airborne ...."

But in October 2001, for instance, NORAD Commanding General Ralph Eberhart testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the sequence of events on 9/11. General Eberhart did not mention the mistaken report about American 11 as a cause for the Langley scramble. Instead, he provided a timeline chart and verbal testimony that listed 9:24 as the notification time for American 77 and implied that this notification prompted the scramble of the Langley fighters.

Inaccurate Statement #4: Officials were tracking United 93 and intended to intercept the aircraft if it approached Washington, D.C.

On September 15, 2001, General Paul Weaver, overall commander of the
Air National Guard which provided the fighters used to scramble Otis and Langley, told reporters that no fighters were scrambled or vectored to chase United 93: "There was no notification for us to launch airplanes. We weren't even close."
That same day, however, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated in a television interview that Defense Department officials had been "following" United 93 and were prepared to shoot it down if it approached Washington, D.C.


Furthermore, NORAD did not receive any form of shoot-down authority until 10:31. Even then, that instruction was not communicated to the pilots. There were Air National Guard pilots over Washington with rules of engagement allowing them to engage. But they had received their direction outside of the usual military chain of command and did not get into the skies over Washington until after 10:40. In short, the representation that the military had been following United 93 as it progressed, and was by virtue of this awareness in position to intercept the plane, was inaccurate.

The FAA's standard operating procedures for notification of hijackings were disregarded on 9/11. The notifications that did occur, moreover, gave the military no realistic chance to intercept the aircraft, and were sometimes mistaken. NORAD scrambled the Langley fighters in the wrong direction against a nonexistent target. NORAD was, moreover, completely unaware of United 93—the fourth plane—as the flight was heading for Washington.

The official USAF/NORAD account of 9/11, presented in testimony to the Commission, included in NORAD's official history, and apparently briefed and relied upon by the White House, was that NORAD scrambled its fighters from Langley AFB in order to respond to the hijacking of AA 77 (which hit the Pentagon), that they did not have time to intercept that aircraft, and that DOD subsequently tracked the approach of UA 93 toward
Washington, but the aircraft crashed before action needed to be taken.


The staff does not believe this account is true. Instead we have found, and are preparing to state publicly, that NORAD scrambled its fighters from Langley AFB in order to intercept an aircraft that no longer existed — AA 11 (which hit the WTC) — believing incorrectly that this aircraft might be headed toward Washington and sending fighters up the Eastern seaboard in order to meet AA 11. Further we have found that NORAD did not know about AA 77 until three minutes before it hit the Pentagon, and began diverting the already scrambled aircraft toward Washington against some target (which they did not know was AA 77) one minute before impact, much too late to make a difference. We have also found that NORAD was not tracking UA 93 and did not even know that aircraft had been hijacked until after it had crashed.

Team 8 has unearthed evidence strongly suggesting the possibility that a USAF officer, and possibly others at the USAF and FAA, must have known that the official story was false, yet persisted in telling it or did not correct the record, even after the Commission began following up with questions after its May 2003 hearing.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/911-Commission-Documents-on-Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD

I've served in two branches of the service (Air Force and Army) and I find it very hard to believe that the military would lie to cover up for the FAA. In fact I would suspect that not only would they not cover for the FAA but would be outraged that their own headquarters (pentagon) was attacked due to the FAA not informing them. And yet they seemed to have covered up the shoddy notifications and pretend the FAA did notify them of both air hijackings. The only way (in my eyes)that the military would cover up anything, would be to cover themselves.

However, the hijack coordinator, FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security Director Mike Canavan, is in Puerto Rico and claims to have missed out on “everything that transpired that day.” The 9/11 Commission fails to ask him if he had delegated that task to anyone else while he was gone.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan

So who was doing the "coordinating" between the FAA and military? The answer apparently lies in the statement of Acting Deputy Administrator of the FAA, Monte R. Belger.........

The Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon, Va. was our primary source of information about aircraft locations and reports of other unusual situations. Military personnel were assigned to the Command Center on an on-going basis and they became involved in coordinating actions with the military.  page 3
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing12/belger_statement.pdf

Air Traffic Control Transcript discussing flight 93.....

MR.: And this is Cleveland Center. Who's up?
MR.: It is the Command Center with about five or six people listening.
MR.:Okay. Mr {inaudible} the chief, just asked if we have any military up or not? Are we pursuing that? We'd like to be able to track this guy so we know what's going on, especially when we lose a transponder.
MR,: We have been in contact with the military cell here in the building and they're working the issue. I'm not sure where they are with--

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484922/911-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript

Northeast Air Defense Sector had eight minutes notice on one flight, five minutes notice on another, and was notified post-crash on the other two.  Page 241
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

The notifications that did occur, moreover, gave the military no realistic chance to intercept the aircraft, and were sometimes mistaken. NORAD scrambled the Langley fighters in the wrong direction against a nonexistent target. NORAD was, moreover, completely unaware of United 93—the fourth plane—as the flight was heading for Washington.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/911-Commission-Documents-on-Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD

Military personnel were assigned to the Command Center on an on-going basis and they became involved in coordinating actions with the military.  page 3
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing12/belger_statement.pdf

9-11 commission...
NORAD was, moreover, completely unaware of United 93—the fourth plane—as the flight was heading for Washington.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12962774/Referral-of-False-Statements-about-911-by-Government-Officials-to-FAA-and-Pentagon-Inspectors-General

FAA - NORAD tapes....

MR.: It is the Command Center with about five or six people listening.
MR,: We have been in contact with the military cell here in the building and they're working the issue. I'm not sure where they are with--

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13484922/911-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript

It looks like the fault of the FAA not giving the military time to intercept these planes and according to the 9/11 commission not informing the military at all of two of the planes..could be the fault not with the FAA but rather......

"Military personnel were assigned to the Command Center on an on-going basis and they became involved in coordinating actions with the military."  page 3
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing12/belger_statement.pdf

More on the military cells....

Military/FAA Relationships: There is a natural tension between the two entities because both desire the use of the same airspace for different reasons. As a result of the inherent tension and differing protocols and languages, military cells have been established in FAA to work day-day air space management issues. The New England Region has one such cell, a cell that also provides support to the Eastern Region in New York. Staff held a short discussion with the senior Navy officer in the cell. The cell has 2-3 person contingents from each of the three services and each reports separately to a different boss. The Army and Navy representatives report to their General Staffs at Headquarters US Army and US Navy, respectively. The Air Force Cell reports to the Air Force Liaison Officer at FAA Headquarters. All of the assigned military personnel are either flight or controller-trained and each cell exits to handle administrative matters only. There is no reason that they could have or should have been contacted or interjected themselves in the process on 9/11. The senior Navy officer put in succinctly from a military perspective. There are defined lines of communication and procedures to handle events like that and if he or his other service counterparts had gotten involved they would have just confounded the situation.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13883328/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Bob-Jones-Fdr-Handwritten-Notes-Jones-MFR-and-Alt-MFR-Re-Boston-Visit

It would make more sense, that they would lie to cover themselves rather than the FAA. Besides, no shoot down order ever reached any pilot......

The authorization to shoot down deviating and unresponsive aircraft was received from the vice president at 10:31 a.m., 15 minutes after NEADS learned that the last hijacked plane, United 93 had crashed. This order was never passed on to the scrambled pilots over New York and Washington. Page 241
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

So the attacks were going to happen. It shouldn't have even reached this stage. Saudi Intelligence knew of these hijackers.......

Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."

"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/

American Intelligence knew of these hijackers.....

Hamburg - The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had one of the September 11, 2001 terror pilots under surveillance as early as March 1999 after a tip from German security services, according to joint investigative reports in Germany.
http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/cf1134a97dbb4a9584f6b3f41ec0c59b/13-08-2003-10-38/CIA_tipped_off_on_911_pilot

"In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him.
Close surveillance of Mr. Shehhi in 1999 might have led investigators to other plot leaders, including Mohammed Atta, who was Mr. Shehhi's roommate.
Asked whether American intelligence officials gave sufficient attention to the information about Mr. Shehhi, Mr. Zelikow said, "We haven't reached any conclusions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5

"We had at that point the level of detail needed to watchlist al-Mihdhar- that is, to nominate him to the State Department for refusal of entry into the U.S. or deny him another visa. Our officers remained focused on the surveillance operation and did not do so." page 4/27
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/911project/jci-midhar-hazmi.pdf

July 2001 Phoenix FBI Agent Williams sends memo to Washington warning of UBL supporters going to flight schools......
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/129.pdf

Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent and whistleblower, to CIA director G Tenet....

You were also told that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui because of a visa overstay and that the CIA was working the case with the FBI. One of the documents given to you even had Bin Laden's picture on it! And the CIA held successive briefings about Moussaoui: August 27th, 2001, with the deputy director of operations; August 28th, 2001, with the executive director of the CIA; August 30, 2001 with the director of Central Intelligence; September 4th, with the executive director of the CIA; and September 10th, with the deputy director of operations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/how-will-you-look-yoursel_b_47897.html

These attacks were going to happen. It seems to be a fact, that after the first plane hit the WTC no shoot down orders were given. That after the second plane hit the WTC no shoot down orders were given, that after the pentagon had been hit, no shoot down orders were given, only after the attacks were over was a shoot down order given.

The authorization to shoot down deviating and unresponsive aircraft was received from the vice president at 10:31 a.m., 15 minutes after NEADS learned that the last hijacked plane, United 93 had crashed. This order was never passed on to the scrambled pilots over New York and Washington. Page 241
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Lots "false statements" being made. Here's a few from National Security Advisor Rice in 2002.....

Q And did you have any hunch at that point that it might be terrorism?

DR. RICE: It just didn't come to mind immediately that it might be terrorism. We knew a lot about al Qaeda. We knew that al Qaeda really coveted an attack against American interests, maybe even against the United States. We had gone through a summer in which we had heightened states of alert abroad for our embassies and for our forces, because we were getting a lot of chatter in terrorist channels. But most of it was pointing all of it was pointing abroad, that there was going to be some kind of attack abroad. And the human mind doesn't always put two and two together very quickly, and so, no, in that first attack, it didn't come together for me. When the second plane hit, though, it came together very, very quickly.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

"But most of it was pointing all of it was pointing abroad, that there was going to be some kind of attack abroad."

Just a reminder.....

A couple of months after this interview the report of the joint Inquiry by the House and Senate select committee on intelligence was released which made the following points....

REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Finding: During the spring and summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community experienced a significant increase in information indicating that Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida intended to strike against U.S. interests in the very near future.

Finding: Beginning in 1998 and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received a modest, but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States.

Finding: From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.

Community received reporting in May 2001 that Bin Ladin supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States to conduct terrorist operations and, in late summer 2001, that an al-Qa’ida associate was considering mounting terrorist attacks within the United States.

The FBI and CIA were also aware that convicted terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad and several others had discussed the possibility of crashing an airplane into CIA Headquarters as part of “the Bojinka Plot” in the Philippines, discussed later in this report.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

Community received reporting in May 2001 that Bin Ladin supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States to conduct terrorist operations and, in late summer 2001, that an al-Qa’ida associate was considering mounting terrorist attacks within the United States.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

"But most of it was pointing all of it was pointing abroad, that there was going to be some kind of attack abroad."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

Title of Aug 6 Memo Given to President Bush
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154

No, it seems she's not being honest. How honest will she be about a shootdown order?

Q At one point that morning, the President gave an order to the Combat Air Patrol pilots giving them permission to shoot down U.S. commercial airliners. How did that decision come about, and how did you take on board the gravity of that decision?

DR. RICE: The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly. And it was authority through channels by Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Vice President passed the request, the President said yes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

John Farmer exposes this false statement in his book "The Ground Truth"......

"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Wether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day.  page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

There was no shoot down order during the attacks of 9/11.
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2010, 11:05:01 PM »
Was a stand down order issued? That's in dispute. If Norm Mineta is correct
in his testimony, then yes, Dick Cheney ordered a stand down. But the 9-11
Commission claims (due to testimony from others) that Mineta is incorrect
in his timeline of events. However it seems very clear from the evidence
that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the
military until 10:31. Which means if an order was given before 10:20 there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down.

Testimony of Norman Mineta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

ABC News:

"October 3, 2002
Just after 9 a.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was in his West Wing office when two or three agents came in and told him "Sir, you have to come with us," according to David Bohrer, a White House photographer who was there."


"One of the agents "put his hand on the back of my belt, grabbed me by the shoulder and sort of propelled me down the hallway," Cheney said."

"They took him into an underground bunker known as PEOC, the President's Emergency Operations Center."
http://web.archive.org/web/20021003222152/http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_2.html

This would be after the second plane hit just minutes after 9 am. When that happened, everyone in the world(except Donald Rumsfeld evidently) knew America was under attack, so this would seem like a reasonable response.
But the 9-11 Commission will claim Cheney arrived at approx 10:00 am, so it took them almost an hour to get to the Bunker? That's not very believable. However, I am still gathering information to see who is saying what. This issue is rather muddied and frankly seems to be deliberately so, however I'm keeping an open mind in order to try and get to the truth of the matter.

In 2007 Mineta was still standing by his testimony....

"Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency
Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked
to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived
there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta
definitively contradicted."

See him answer yourself here...
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

Certain entities seem to want the issue "confusing"....
email from one of John Farmer's staffers to Front Office of 9-11 Commission:

From: Dana Hyde
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 12:02 PM
To: Front Office
Cc: John Farmer
Subject Status of WH "Day of" Investigation


"To a person, no one has any recollection of the circumstances and details
surrounding the authorization to shoot down commercial aircraft."

http://911myths.com/images/e/ea/Dana_Hyde_Email-Mar02_2004.pdf

Later in email....

"Our sense is that the White House will take the position that it is not possible to reconstruct- with any degree of accuracy or reliability - what went on that morning in the Situation Room and PEOC. While we disagree, a detailed reconstruction would require more time, resources and an approach different than that which is currently being pursued."
http://911myths.com/images/e/ea/Dana_Hyde_Email-Mar02_2004.pdf

I reccommend reading the entire email, it's rather interesting.

Shoot down or stand down?

MR. HAMILTON: In your timeline, why don't you put in there when you were
notified?
GEN. ARNOLD: Of which flight, sir?
MR. HAMILTON: Getting the notification from the President of the United
States that you had the authority to shoot a commercial aircraft down is a
pretty significant event. Why would that not be in your timeline?

GEN. ARNOLD: I don't know when that happened.
MR. HAMILTON: Had you ever received that kind of a notice before?
GEN. ARNOLD: Not to my knowledge.
MR. HAMILTON: So this is the first time in the history of the country that
such an order had ever been given, so far as you know?
GEN. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I'm sure there's a log that would tell us that, and I appreciate the question.
MR. HAMILTON: Maybe you could let us know that.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf

GEN. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I'm sure there's a log that would tell us that, and I
appreciate the question.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/911Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

Find that log yet Gen. Arnold? I bet he quit looking because it doesn't exist.
But I could be wrong, it's only been almost 9 years now.

John Farmer lead council for the 9-11 Commission has quit looking, he said
in his book......

....... prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated
by the records of the day.
 page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

And there would be a record. That is an incredibly historic event. And we know exactly when the President gave a shoot down order.

Now, I will admit there is conflicting testimony on when Cheney entered the PEOC, and when Mineta did. However, I see no evidence that any shoot down authority was granted until 10:20. The Commission clearly seems to be saying this.

9-11 Commission report
"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out." -  page 58/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

They have a different timeline than what Mineta describes.

"the military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Shoot down order or stand down?

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

If you were going to issue a shoot down order wouldn't you be telling the Secretary of Defense? I mean, that's who you would tell right?

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

The Secretary of Defense has just spoken to the President of the United
States moments after the first tower collapsed, after passenger jets had
flown into two skyscrapers and the nations military headquarters(the
Pentagon) and he didn't keep any notes of this conversation nor did the President, and neither one remembers what they talked about? Nope. Nothing suspicious about that....right?

Mineta testimony:

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on
the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the
airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf

were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the
airplane coming into the Pentagon.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf

Even if the 9-11 Commission is correct, when they claim he arrived at 10:07
(according to the White House) Mineta makes it clear the order was given before he got there. There was no shoot down order given before 10:07. The 9-11 Commission seems to admit this.

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Wether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day.  page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Yes, there would be records of an incredibly historic event as the president giving this shoot down order.

"but we do know that at 10:31, General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: "10:31 Vice President has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-59.html

The Vice President's military aide told us he believed the Vice President spoke to the President just after entering the conference room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him, remembered hearing him inform the President, "Sir, the CAPs are up. Sir, they're going to want to know what to do." Then she recalled hearing him say, "Yes sir." She believed this conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered the conference room.215
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

In order to know what the military aide "believed" they would have to talk with him. The person Mineta claimed said "do the orders still stand". Truthers have been asking for years, who is the young man Mineta is referring to? Well, I could be wrong, but I think he's a Navel Officer named Cochrane, and I'll tell you why shortly, but when the exchange is going on according to the 9-11 commission.......

"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out." -  page 58/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

MR. MINETA:  And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf

The authorization to shoot down deviating and unresponsive aircraft was received from the vice president at 10:31 a.m., 15 minutes after NEADS learned that the last hijacked plane, United 93 had crashed. This order was never passed on to the scrambled pilots over New York and Washington. Page 241
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1


Ok, so Bush issued a shoot down order huh? Well, if he did the Secretary of
Defense should know about that don't you think? Well, he was just off the
phone with the Secretary of Defense. And guess what?......

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed.  
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Check the footnote. Check the footnote for this and this information comes
from Ari Fleischer's notes, who was with the President and keeping track of
things as a good press secretary would. He knows exactly when the shootdown order came.

Ari Fleischer left in July 2003 just as the Valeri Plame fiasco was boiling, he was used by VP Cheneys office and ended up testifying against Scooter Libby. So give him some credit for having a limit on how much he will BS the American people. But mostly the guy is a scared little punk who will do anything to
stay out of jail. Yea he says things like ...

"Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to launch a limited investigation of Bush-era interrogations of terror suspects has sparked intense criticism from Republicans who say it's going too far -- and from progressives, who say it's not going nearly far enough.

"I think the decision is disgusting," Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush's first press secretary, told the Huffington Post. "It's amazing to me that the people who kept us safe may now become the people our government prosecutes. There are plenty of real criminals out there -- it would be nice if the Justice Department went after them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/24/fleischer-torture-investi_n_267437.html

He says stuff like..."It's amazing to me that the people who kept us safe may now become the people our government prosecutes. There are plenty of real criminals out there -- it would be nice if the Justice Department went after them."... because he's a scared little punk who if you lean on him just a bit
will crumble, just study the Scooter Libby case (Fleischer, got immunity to turn on Libby and testify
against him)BTW Ari, thank your bosses for keeping those at WTC so safe, and the folks at the pentagon
who were killed also owe you guys so much for keeping them safe. What a punk.

The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

So you want to know who the "young man" was that asked "do the orders still stand"? I could be wrong, but I don't think the "young man" was so young after all, although you have to remember Mineta was 70 years old at the time, and if he was fit and looking daper in his neatly pressed military uniform Mineta might describe him that way. I think the only person it could be is a navel person named Cochrane, and if it isn't him, he knows who it is.

The Vice President's military aide told us he believed the Vice President spoke to the President just after entering the conference room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him, remembered hearing him inform the President, "Sir, the CAPs are up. Sir, they're going to want to know what to do." Then she recalled hearing him say, "Yes sir." She believed this conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered the conference room.215
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Check the footnote.....

215. Douglas Cochrane meeting (Apr. 16, 2004); Condeleeza Rice meeting (Feb. 7, 2004). For Rice entering after the Vice President, see USSS report,“Executive Summary:U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11–October 3, 2001,” Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2; Carl Truscott interview (Apr. 15, 2004).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

We know who Rice is. Truscott is a member of the secret service because....
"interviews of the 3 USSS agents in proximity to the President (Eddie Marenzel) and VP (Truscott and Zotto) are still on hold."
http://911myths.com/images/e/ea/Dana_Hyde_Email-Mar02_2004.pdf

That leaves Cochrane. Also...

March 2, 2004
New Requests:
(2)VP Military Aide (I believe his last name is Cochrane): The person at the Vice President's side in the PEOC who should have been intimately involved in the military communications chain is his military aide.

http://911myths.com/images/e/ea/Dana_Hyde_Email-Mar02_2004.pdf

215. Douglas Cochrane meeting (Apr. 16, 2004);
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

He's not such a "young man" after all but maybe a 70 year old (Mineta) might think so, seeing him fit, and in a neatly pressed military uniform......

Cochrane was selected to serve as the Naval Aide to the Vice President in November of 2000 and served Vice President Richard B. Cheney until December 2002. He was commended by President George W. Bush for distinguished service as Naval Aide and Emergency Action Officer, on and about Sept. 11, 2001.
http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1146282991&page_url=%2f%2fwww.mayportmirror.com%2fstories%2f040705%2fmay_hsl44001.shtml&page_last_updated=10%2f4%2f2009+7%3a17%3a51+AM&firstName=Douglas&lastName=Cochrane

The notes from this interview....
215. Douglas Cochrane meeting (Apr. 16, 2004);
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

As far as I know the notes from this meeting have not been released yet, but I know people are working on that. It's unlikely he would admit to a stand down even if there was, but looking at this....
http://911myths.com/images/e/e4/DanaHyde_Box3_WhiteHouseTimelines.pdf
what they planed on talking with him about..... it should be interesting.
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2010, 05:37:21 PM »
We can prove no one authorized any shoot down of any aircraft on 9-11 until the attacks were over. Only then- 15 minutes after the last plane went down was a shoot down order issued. This can be proven. Now the object is to prove there was a stand down.

In this interview, Cheney reveals he refuses to discuss what went on in the PEOC(where the stand down order would have happened)and lies about his activities in the PEOC as being "classified". Exposes the fact that they used 9-11 to go after Iraq from day one. Admits the taliban were created by the ISI. Reveals that Israel is the main benefactor of a "War on Terror". Lies about "not enough evidence" to issue a warrant on Moussaoui.  Exposes the benefits of having most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia, and how Bandar is an Agent for U.S.(actually NWO) interests. (Bandar who was funneling money to the hijackers using lower level agents, and whose brother in law is the boss of Saudi Intelligence Agent and Provocateur extraordinaire Osama Bin Laden.)

This is a real interview, it's not satire. The "Senior Administration Official" is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Excerpts:(the full interview is 26 pages!)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Internal Transcript January 18, 2002
INTERVIEW OF A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
BY DAN BALZ AND BOB WOODWARD


1:19 P.M. EST

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, what are you guys up
to, as if I didn't know, huh?

Q As if you didn't know, right.

Q How can we get the most information from you?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let's do ground rules.
This is background, unless we specify otherwise. Anything you
want to use, you can use it, but not for attribution.

Q We're doing a narrative, as you may have seen.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If you want to quote me,
you've got to come back and clear the quote. And if I say off
the record at some point, obviously, then I'm going to want to do
that.

Q This will be really good.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know about that.

Q We'd like to start -- I know you have this long list.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I know I've been a tough
interview. I apologize for that.

Q  I mean, there's a designated list of people who, in an emergency
like that, are to go into the PEOC .

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In the PEOC, or evacuated
from the site to other locations.  

Q When the word came that there might be a plane heading
for the White House, itself, were there defensive measures
readied to protect the White House, in addition to protecting the
people, I mean, to do something about that plane?
We know there
were planes scrambled from Langley right after the --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You're getting into an area
now where we're obviously touching on classified capabilities,
that I really can't talk about. But I think it would be fair to
say, the prime defense against an incoming aircraft was the CAP,
the Combat Air Patrol.

Q I guess we wanted to kind of get this issue of Iraq straight. On the bottom
of page two, it's the afternoon  NSC meeting on the 12th. Rumsfeld asks about  the need to address Iraq, as well as bin Laden. Do you remember that? That  was the first time I think it came up.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You're on the 12th here now? I don't
remember that much of a discussion about it on the 12th. I can't say it wasn't. It was much more pronounced, I think that weekend up at Camp David. It's where we sort of really zeroed in on the question of Iraq. There were different-- it wasn't just focused on Iraq.

Q Paul Wolfowitz --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Still on background.

Q Yes, sir. This is all on background.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think they're -- a lot of us were interested in Iraq within the context of this latest threat. I think probably, and I guess I would describe it that there were..it was more a matter of timing, with some arguing that we ought to go after Iraq immediately, at the same time we went after the al Qaeda; and others arguing -- I suppose, probably at the other end of the spectrum would be somebody arguing, don't mess with Iraq, that we need a broad coalition, the way to get a broad coalition is to be  focused on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Afghanistan.  And I think for some, as I say, it really was a question of timing.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I talked about that I thought this was an opportunity,  as well, from the standpoint of our situation, our circumstances in the Middle East; that prior  to September llth, there were serious strains on the relationship between the United States  and some of our friends in the Arab world, in particular the Saudis, to some extent the Egyptians, that centered around the Israeli- Palestinian problems, the peace process, lack of progress, and that the relationship had, in fact, gotten seriously strained with the Saudis prior to that time, but that this offered the opportunity for us to rebuild some of those relationships, because  of what we were going to have to go do, in terms of taking on the terrorist threat.

Q That we've got task forces here, and we're investigating the flights and the hijackers and..

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We didn't know about Moussaoui yet, I don't think. What it looks like is Moussaoui was the 20th hijacker, and we had him in custody a month before the event.

Q What's your reaction to that? Honestly, on background.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Clearly, the mind-set at that stage was law enforcement, what kind of case do we have against him? You can't go look at his computer unless you've got a FISA (ph). You can't get a FISA unless you've got evidence that he's an agent of a foreign power.  But it's not just the Bureau's fault. That's the way the whole system's organized. It's prosecution, not prevention.

Q It's really pathetic, isn't it? You're a direct person. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if you line all that up, they had a case file on Moussaoui that thick ... I've seen it ..before 9/11. That -- we've both seen it. That thick. They were asking the Agency, the CIA and NSA to run phone traces on him, and so forth. They were trying to get into his computer, and they couldn't get this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And they didn't have enough information to get the warrant they needed to go do what needed to be done. And you know, as long as Moussaoui wasn't talking, it was going to be hard to find out about what was about to happen. But, viewed now with the benefit of hindsight, if we'd had a preventionist mind-set, instead of a prosecution mind-set, we might have done a better job of ferreting out what he was involved in now. And that's all I'll say, that's the benefit of hindsight.

Q Sir, back to Camp David. On the bottom of page 4 there, there is a point at which the President made the point that the biggest beneficiary of this war on terrorism will be Israel. Do you remember that, and reaction to that? Apparently, he has repeated that a number of times.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't recall that.

Q He has said it before, has he not?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, I think a lot of people felt that way.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can recall a session at one point maybe that we -- I remember being on the Truman balcony with the President and Bandar --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Friday, the day before Camp David.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And we asked Bandar about his assessment of the fundamentalists inside Pakistan. Was it a relatively large percentage of the population or a relatively small percentage of the population. And he was very confident it was fairly small, and he cited past election statistics and talked in terms of 8 to 10 percent as opposed to 30 or 40 percent.

Q But did you find that completely credible?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was different than what we were getting from a lot of other sources. And the concern was, in part, we were going to try to get Musharraf to sever his ties to the Taliban. The Taliban had been put in business -- certainly had been strongly supported by ISI --

Q Really created by ISI in a way, don't you think?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Pakistan government --Pakistan had a lot invested in the Taliban (inaudible) which he did. But one of the concerns was the extent to which this would make him vulnerable in his own country. And he took some steps to deal with that. He replaced the head of the ISI. He changed out some --

Q Why did he replace him?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know the details. He wanted his own man in there.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Actually, I think the Bandar meeting was later. I think it was Monday --

Q Yes, -- there is a picture we have of all of you smoking cigars except you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You're not going to run a picture of the cigar smokers, are you? (Laughter.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16539006/T3-B9-Hurley-Sources-for-Final-Report-Sec-92-3-of-3-Fdr-11802-Transcript-BalzWoodward-Interview-of-Sr-Admin-Offical-Cheney


The real masterminds of 9/11




Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2010, 05:39:43 PM »
Why was there wreckage at a lake six miles away in Pennsylvania?

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2010, 05:54:02 PM »
Why was there wreckage at a lake six miles away in Pennsylvania?
I understand that lots in the truth movement believe flight 93 was shot down. I also leaned that way myself, because it was preposterous that they could not get to it in time. However no one authorized any shoot down of any aircraft. If you can show me where they did, I'd love to see it. That means if it was shot down a pilot did it on his own. Without any authorization. I find it difficult to believe a pilot would shoot a commercial airliner with civilian passengers on it without approval. This is not likely. If the military did shoot down flight 93, they would be doing their job. They did nothing on 9/11. In regards to the debris field....

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm


A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.

More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.

State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair.

Investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow. The wind was blowing towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore at 9 knots. "According to the NTSB, it is not only possible that the debris is from the crash, it is probable," Crowley said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

Again, I understand the reasons for thinking flight 93 was shot down. But if it was, then somebody actually did their job. The military did nothing on 9/11. They were stood down. The planes were supposed to hit their targets. 3 out of 4 aint bad. I now believe the passengers did take the plane down. The only people that did their jobs on 9/11 were the lower ranking working class people. The airline attendants, the firefighters and so forth. The Boston ATC. The Bush Administration knew full well of the attacks and made sure they happened.
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2010, 06:29:51 PM »
Didn't have to be authorized.  Pilot could have taken initiative.  Rightly?  I believe he did, though he was countermanded by Cheney et al. whom he ignored.  Technically, Cheney and his minions may have been in the right legally, if not ethically.

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2010, 07:00:51 PM »
Didn't have to be authorized.

Yes, it did.

Quote
Pilot could have taken initiative.  Rightly?


Well, you can "believe" anything you want. But if you believe a pilot deliberately killed a plane full of civilians after being told by his superiors not to, I don't know what to say. The NORAD commanders were still saying this.....
At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

4 minutes after flight 93 went down. It's been recorded. BTW, this is evidence of a stand down...why you want to throw that away is beyond me, but there are lots that "truthers" do and "believe" that I "don't get"....

Quote
I believe he did, though he was countermanded by Cheney et al. whom he ignored.

Again, believe whatever you want. If you want to believe some pilot couldn't control himself and insisted on killing civilians despite being ordered not to by Cheney, go ahead. I'd rather gather real evidence to use against these traitors.

Quote
Technically, Cheney and his minions may have been in the right legally, if not ethically.

Cheney didn't order any shootdown until 10:31. No one was allowed to take out any aircraft until the 9/11 attacks were over.

"but we do know that at 10:31, General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: "10:31 Vice President has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-59.html

Flight 93 went down at 10:06
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2010, 07:21:34 PM »
In a way, that pilot may have been a hero.  He may have believed, quite rightly perhaps, that many more people would die if the plane reached its intended (unauthorized) destination/target.  If he took all initial actions (radio contact, warning shots) he might have believed he was doing what he had been trained to do regardless of the standing order at the time, an it is also possible the no-shoot down order (if there was one) was countermanded by hism immediate superiors.  I see no absloute proof against this scenario here, and there is a lot of evidence, which you have not addressed like the second wreckage site, to support this or similar scenarios, though I in no way claim to have proof positive that this is exactly what took place.

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2010, 02:06:06 AM »
testimony from a woman who was in the room during a war room conference call including Cheney.. look it up, the order was given and obeyed

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2010, 02:16:16 AM »
Wouldn't necessarily believe any underlings that were in the office with Cheney, but I believe he ordered that it not be shot down.  I don't think crashing in an empty field in Shanksville was part of the plan.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2010, 02:38:45 AM »
I'm with you Meus.  I don't claim to know the whole story per se.  However, there were engine parts (or an engine?!) six mile away.  That looks like a heat-seeking missile.  It would have honed in on an engine.  The plane then might have limped on for a few more miles, maybe spiralling out of control until it crashed seconds later.

Doesn't look like a simple accident where an unexperienced hijacker (the official conspiracy theory) crashed it into the ground all in one piece.  It was shot down.  By whom?  Why?  Those are good questions for a real 911 investigation, if there ever is one.

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2010, 08:11:37 PM »
I understand full well, the reasons for thinking flight 93 was shot down. Perhaps it was. I used to lean that was myself. I doubt it now for reasons already stated. However that wasn't the point of this thread. There is sub forum for flight 93 and shanksville. I'm not fighting you on this, if someone shot the flight down we all agree that's what they should have done. But that's not the story they're telling. I prefer to take their own story, wrap it around their necks and hang them with it. In order to do that one needs to know what exactly their story is. Most "truthers' think the 9-11 commission report is a pack of lies from cover to back. Most "truthers" haven't even read it. I would suggest they read it over and over. Become an expert on what their story is in order to counteract it. It's not all a pack of lies. It was a coverup. I agree with that. But more and more records are being released concerning it, that are frankly rather interesting. The real point of this thread was to prove there was no shoot down order given during the 9-11 attacks. Mineta's testimony seems to indicate a stand down. If there were no shoot down orders given, then what other conclusion can one come to? At this point I believe Mineta is correct in his testimony including his timeline. The 9-11 Commission disregarded his testimony and substituted a different timeline, but they agree a military aide came in and said the plane is 80 miles out...the plane is 60 miles out.....even if you use this possible phony timeline they seem to have a problem.......I can sum it up like this........

Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00,perhaps at 9:58.The Vice President recalled being told, just after his arrival, that the Air Force was trying to establish a combat air patrol over Washington.

The Vice President stated that he called the President to discuss the rules of engagement for the CAP. He recalled feeling that it did no good to establish the CAP unless the pilots had instructions on whether they were authorized to shoot if the plane would not divert. He said the President signed off on that concept. The President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot.The President emphasized to us that he had authorized the shootdown of hijacked aircraft.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out." -  page 58/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

MR. MINETA:  And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.

At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.  
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Wether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day.  page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

"but we do know that at 10:31, General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: "10:31 Vice President has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-59.html

Conclusions:
Even if you take Mineta's testimony of Arrival and throw it out and go by the timeline of the 9-11 commission, it still seems to show a stand down.

Questions:
"there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete." -- Why is there no evidence for this call? "relevant sources are incomplete"--does that mean someone wouldn't(or couldn't) turn over records that would prove this call?

"The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation."  -- why is this call logged and confirmed but not the other one?

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

"No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed." -- Bush and Cheney claim Bush Authorized a shoot down order when Cheney called him just after entering the PEOC Why would Sec of Defense not be made aware of a shoot down order? the WTC tower has just collapsed a plane flew into the WTC another flew into the WTC another flew into the pentagon and the Sec of Defense doesn't want to issue any shoot down orders, Cheney and Bush claim they did at 10:00 but no one let's the Sec of Defense in on that, and neither the Sec of Def nor the President remember anything about this call, nor did they take notes on it, but just know it was not about shoot down orders. WTF???
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2010, 08:22:17 PM »
OK, but JMD, why the second debris field, if it was not a shootdown?  The engine parts just happened to fall off prior to the crash?  What do you think?

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2010, 09:09:43 PM »
OK, but JMD, why the second debris field, if it was not a shootdown?  The engine parts just happened to fall off prior to the crash?  What do you think?

See this?...
I understand full well, the reasons for thinking flight 93 was shot down. I used to lean that was myself. Perhaps it was. I doubt it now for reasons already stated. However that wasn't the point of this thread. There is sub forum for flight 93 and shanksville. I'm not fighting you on this, if someone shot the flight down we all agree that's what they should have done.

Frankly I don't really care if it was shot down or not. Here's why. If it was. Then someone did what they were supposed to do. Actually, I think Cheney and the gang like the idea of us saying it was shot down.

Does shooting down flight 93 prove 9-11 was an inside job? No

Hypothetical conversation:
Truther: 9-11 was an inside job
man on the street: How so?
Truther: They shot down flight 93
man on the street: I thought the passengers revolted and they took it down?
truther: Nope, they shot it down, and lied about it.
Man on the street: Well, I can understand why they wouldn't be to gung ho about telling everyone they killed a bunch of civilians
truther: but they lied
man on the street: So they shouldn't have shot any planes down?
truther: no, they had to, but they lied, what else did they lie about?
man on the street: I don't know
truther: everything
man on the street: I don't blame them if they did shoot it down, and I can understand why they lied about it

You aren't going to get anywhere saying flight 93 was shot down
Proving a stand down was in effect is a different story and the point of this thread.

BTW, where are the witnesses that saw this shoot down? Here are some that didn't see it...

"I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down," said Leverknight, 36.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blur_in_the_sky__th.shtml

It can be argued either way and I do not see how it matters in the big scheme of things.

 



Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2010, 09:19:23 PM »
It does matter whether it was shot down, because it would be one more thing they lied about to justified their even more deadly wars in the Middle East, which continue to this day, because truth and justice have an intrinsic value (regardless of intention or political expediency), and because it would help to establish the real sequence of events on 911 so that all those truly cuplable might one day face the consequences of their action.

Let justice be done, though the heavens fall!

Your Machiavellian point-of-view looks a lot like the point-of-view of the likely perpetrators.

Bottom line, the official conspiracy theory of semi-competent "towelheads" with box-cutters needs to be debunked.  It is very important to establish the truth of 911 in the public mind -- what we know of it.  The plane in Shanksville was not necessarily simply flown (intentionally or unintentionally) into the ground.

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 06:44:09 AM »
Your Machiavellian point-of-view looks a lot like the point-of-view of the likely perpetrators.

Since you don't seem to "get" anything I am saying, I will go ahead and confess, ya got me. I'm an undercover operative.
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2010, 06:47:24 AM »
I don't think you are. I just think you share some of their 'ethics.'

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2010, 07:01:10 AM »
What I am saying is that sacrificing the truth to a political cause, even that of exposing the truth, or raising others' awareness of it, we are as guilty as those who seek to conceal it for their own ends.

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: There was no Shoot down order
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2010, 07:04:33 AM »
I don't think you are. I just think you share some of their 'ethics.'

And like I said. You don't "get" what the point is here. Wether flight 93 was shot down is a different subject than wether there was a stand down, and a whole sub forum exists to discuss it, that if you went there you would see posts made by myself defending your position that flight 93 was shot down. That is not the point I am trying to make here. I make that point on another part of this forum where it belongs, but since you outed me as sharing the ethics of the perps (I might be in on it, ya never know  ::))I don't see any need to waste my time discussing the issue with you (which I would have had no problem with in the proper sub forum) but you can't seem to understand any point I am trying to make. So I will just confess that I'm a 'bad guy" or covering for the perps or anything whatever else you want to imply.  ::)
Beliefs Always Trump Truth and Perception Always Trumps Reality