9/11

[blingbling8ball]

I've read somewhere that fighter jets were ordered to stay down on 9/11, does anyone have any info on this.

[ramblin_dave]

1. There has been speculation about this but

no one has been able to prove it. But there has been no credible explanation for why it took so long for fighter jets to be set up which was a big deviation from standard procedures.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

2. YES

GO TO
www.cooperativeresearch.org

on the left side, click the complete 911 timeline links...

if you havent seen this site, check it out..This guy uses all mainstream media sorces to lay out the case that the govt. knew about (and most likely allowed) 9-11

[lightbulb]

5. Agreed - that Timeline is excellent

Saw the webmaster Paul Thompson speak at the "International Inquiry into 9/11, Phase I" in San Francisco last weekend. Gave the impression of a very ernest and well informed guy.

[bobbieinok]

6. doesn't Paul Thompson post a lot in DU's 9-11 forum?????

[nostamj]

8. yes. and he's also credited

in Griffin's new book "The New Pearl Harbor"

[lightbulb]

3. standdown.net is a pretty good source for info

but it does have an editorial slant to it. Reading it with an open mind provides plenty of food for thought.

http://www.standdown.net/

[gandalf]

4. But the "slant" is clearly marked

and distinguished from the original sources.

[lightbulb]

9. By "slant" I was referring to

statements such as:

"...Do they immediately scramble the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts? Again, no they don’t, they sit on this most vital information of now two hijacked airliners. Stand Down."

The "stand down" conclusion is speculation by the author, but is not clearly distinguished as such.

[TNOE]

7. Things Might Be Heating Up Re The Stand Down

The first article puts it all together nicely: Basically looks like 9/11 was in the planning stages in June.

http://rense.com/general50/fromthesmokin.htm

Recent History:
Jerry Russell on Rense concerning the origin of the standown order on 9/11:

http://www.rense.com/general50/fdd.htm

Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "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." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

"This CJCSI states that "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."
"Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field."

Here's the March 25, 2003 transcript of Lehrer's PBS interview of Rumsfeld:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/rumsfeld_3-25.html

JIM LEHRER: And now to our newsmaker interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
DONALD RUMSFELD: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: At these 9/11 hearings yesterday, as I reported in the News Summary, and everybody knows now the counter terror, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, said to the families of the 9/11 victims, "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. I failed you." As secretary of defense, do you have any sense of failure concerning what happened on 9/11?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I hate to separate myself as secretary of defense. The Department of Defense, of course, is oriented to external threats. This was a domestic airplane that was operated by people who were in the United States against a United States target, which makes it a law enforcement, historically a law enforcement issue. The Department of Defense's task is one that deals with external threats coming into the United States, and that's what the department is organized, trained and equipped to do.

Indeed, the Posse Comitatus law has kept the Department of Defense away from law enforcement and policing-type activities. We don't do the borders. We don't do the coast lines, we have other organizations of government, but certainly as a citizen, when we suffer the worst attack in our history, your heart breaks for the friends and families of the loved ones of the people that were killed, and everybody involved in any position of responsibility for security has to search their soul and say what else might have been done, and is there anything.

And even more important for all of us is not only what might have been done then, which is what the commission is looking at, but what ought we to be doing today so that six months from now when another attack is attempted, and it will be attempted, we know that, I mean, terrorists can attack any time, any place, using any technique, and free people are vulnerable to those kinds of asymmetric attacks. So we have to be asking ourselves every day what can we do? How can we connect the dots before the fact without the benefit of those hearings?

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

[Elbowroom]

10. in the Brit Hume Interview

If my brain is working right today, I remember hearing Bush say something about giving or not giving orders to send the jets out to fire upon the hijacked planes.

Can anybody find the transcripts from the interview Brit Hume had with Mr. Bush? It was a primetime show that aired last year.

This is the same interview that Bush informed us that he doesn't read the papers.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Elbowroom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Jose Diablo]

11. Let me see if I got this right

On June 1, 2001 the rules for intercepting hijacked aircraft were changed to more or less state the Sec Def HAS to be the one to give an intercept order to NORAD before jets light-up. Then Rumsfield is holed-up in a meeting with Myers while the hijacking on 9-11 happens. Myers happens to in charge of NORAD.

THEN that SOB Rumsfield does some song and dance about Posse Comitatus
and how the military is not allowed to intercept hijacked aircraft in USA airspace because " The Department of Defense's task is one that deals with external threats coming into the United States, and that's what the department is organized, trained and equipped to do."

And furthermore, Rumsfield says, "This was a domestic airplane that was operated by people who were in the United States against a United States target, which makes it a law enforcement, historically a law enforcement issue." Absolute bullsheet.

OK, the rules where changed to disable the military, then Rumsfield prevaricates about the military's role in protecting USA airspace. *Bush, Cheney and Rice blow-off threat assessments from intelligence agencies of an impending attack by Al Qaeda using aircraft. Asscroft starts flying private charter in July meaning "they" got the message.

Furthermore, The FBI headquarters blows-off field reports from Arizona and Minnesota stating unusual events with foreign nationals at flight training schools. But none of them, NONE, do anything to prevent it.

This now becomes LIHOP and treason.

[TNOE]

12. 9/11 has Always Been About Murder, Treason, LIHOP and MIHOP

It's just now that Thank God, many more Americans are waking up to the idea. But Rumsfeld was right - it was NOT a threat EXTERNALLY to the US - he just doesn't say it was from right inside at the top.

Also - his words fall shallow, if this were a "law enforcement" matter, than Bush* had no right to go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq , nor detain over 600 civilians at Guatanamo, nor no reason for the Patriot Act, etc. - as usual, they seem to want it both ways. Obvioulsy June and July were the final planning months - and then off to vacation for Bush* & Cheney - so as to appear totally "taken aback" by the whole thing.

Lies, Lies, Lies - all of it. America will not be rid of this cancer until the truth is known by all - but it ain't going to come out with this 9/11 Commission. We are on our own.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Not exactly.

Meyers was cooling his heels in Max Clelands office. He was unavailable for pretty much the entire attack. He's also contradicted himself as to when the orders to intercept were given.

Rumsfield claims to have been in meetings that morning where he predicted attacks on US targets, and, after the WTC got hit, he predicted other attacks would occur. Quite a clairvoyant. He claims he spent a considerable amount of time doing triage after he Pentagon got hit, but Clarke says Rumsfield was involved in post attack meetings on the video teleconference.

[TNOE]

14. Worst Administration EVER -

the lot of them - they make fools and laugh at the stupidity of their own supporters...... but we all will pay.

[Columbia]

15. So which is it?

Jets never left the ground? They shot down Flight 93? They crashed into the Pentagon?

I have such a hard time keeping track. :shrug:

:tinfoilhat:

[TNOE]

16. Standard Procedure WAS NOT used on 9/11

Any diversion of aircraft - fighter plane UP immediately - that day - they did not go up until way after the fact... and then flew only at about a third of their maximum speed, if that. BUT a figher plane was following the Pennsylvania flight - per hundreds of witnesses.....

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. Why don't you use Google?

Why do you keep posting questions that you can find by using google or checking out the Links page on DU?