It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the USAF Help pull off 911?

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





Let’s see now, you want me to kick out every last Senator and Congressman and you want “just me” to replace them with people who don’t like to live in Washington?


Just you? No, not 'just you'. ALL of us need to work on throwing out the "ruling" class we currently have.

You want to know why the 9/11 Commission wasn't nearly as in depth as it could have been? Because it would have made Watergate look benign in comparision in terms of corruption and negligence. For over 30 years our elected representatives and their appointees played their games with our intelligence and military agencies. Cutting funding, placing impossibly restrictive rules, using various things as games of political gotcha to score points....

Neither party wanted to delve too deeply into their failures. They knew they had screwed up royally and wanted to get past it as painlessly as possible. Why else do you think people like Jamie Gorelick ended up as Commissioners when they should have been being grilled over their gross negligence?




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by rush969
 


I agree this is unbelievable when a congressional representative states I THINK the President gave the shoot down orders. You think, (I think) is a proven fact.
Tell you what, find me a video of George Bush saying he ordered the shoot down orders lets see and hear it from his mouth. Then I will believe you.


2.- The order had been given by President Bush.


Can you provide some proof that this is a true, verifiable, credible, fact because you have only shown Lee Hamilton saying I THINK the president gave the shoot down orders.


One more.- From the 9/11 Commission report:

United 93 and the Shootdown Order:

On the morning of 9/11, the President and Vice President stayed in contact not by an open line of communication but through a series of calls. The President told us he was frustrated with the poor communications that morning. He could not reach key officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, for a period of time. The line to the White House shelter conference room-and the Vice President-kept cutting off.212

The Vice President remembered placing a call to the President just after entering the shelter conference room. There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the 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.213

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.

Source.- govinfo.library.unt.edu...




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



The 9/11 Commission Doesn't Believe It: Why Do You?


The 9/11 Commission co-chairs don't believe the 9/11 Commission Report:


georgewashington.blogspot.com...




The 9/11 Commission co-chairs don't believe the 9/11 Commission Report:

* The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

* The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

* Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says “I’m upset that [the government] didn’t tell us the truth.”

* Co-chair Hamilton says of the CIA's cover up and destruction of tapes of interrogation of people allegedly connected with 9/11:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

* Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Many of the other 9/11 Commissioners don't buy it:

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . .

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

And many other key players in generating the Report don't believe it:

* One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005, "We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources."

* And the high-level attorney who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

They don't believe it. Why do you?

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, doesn't believe it either. Graham says there was a cover-up orchestrated by the White House:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .

* * *

The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

Postscript: David Ray Griffin sent me the following email after reading this post, clarifying the various stories about the conflicting timelines of the military's response to the hijacked flights (the first and last points cited above):

www.maya12-21-2012.com...

You have been shown ”proof” that so much evidences about the 911 commission report are lies, yet you continue to ignore everyone and arrogantly and ignorantly still defend a proven “white wash” government report. You have demonstrated the classic case of being in denial. There is no point in having a discussing with someone who refuses to listen to anyone else views, yet you cannot back up your own with credible evidence. Its fine to have opinions but, opinions are not facts are they?

I have read the 911 commission report and I threw mine in the garbage when I was done I would suggest doing the same.






[edit on 23-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You want to know why the 9/11 Commission wasn't nearly as in depth as it could have been? Because it would have made Watergate look benign in comparision in terms of corruption and negligence.


I believe what the 911 commissionaires did was criminal. They knew what they were doing, they where complicit in helping the Bush administration in covering up a treasonous crime of a false flag operation that was carried out on American soil.


Neither party wanted to delve too deeply into their failures. They knew they had screwed up royally and wanted to get past it as painlessly as possible. Why else do you think people like Jamie Gorelick ended up as Commissioners when they should have been being grilled over their gross negligence?


There was no failures in 911, it was aloud to happened no one did anything because, in my opinion it was order not to. Why do you think the government would not investigate anything that happened on 911. The government did not intend to investigate the events of 911, not until the Jersey Girls demanded the Bush administration to investigate to what really happen. These woman wanted answers to why their husbands were murdered in the WTC. Sadly, to this day, the Jersey Girls never got any answers.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You are impossible!!!
I´m trying to stay on topic here, and you go ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!
We are not discussing the 9/11 commission.
I´m giving you answers to some questions.
I´m giving you facts that were discussed and cleared by the commission.
OK. Some of the commissioners voiced disapointment with how some things were handled, but that doesn´t magicaly invalidate everything that was covered or reviewed by them.
Such as:
Where fighters scrambled?.......YES.
Was there an order given to shoot down hijacked airliners?.....YES.
Was this order given by President Bush?......YES.
Was there a "Stand down order" given?.......NO.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



You are impossible!!!


What, by telling the truth.


I´m trying to stay on topic here, and you go ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!


I am on topic, what’s your point?


We are not discussing the 9/11 commission.



What? Did you not write the below comment? That I was answering you from.



Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by impressme

The following is taken from the 9/11 Commission report:

The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, "vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft," where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path.105

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that:

1.- The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
2.- There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
3.- Hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...



[edit on 23-11-2009 by rush969]


[edit on 23-11-2009 by rush969]



I´m giving you answers to some questions.
I´m giving you facts that were discussed and cleared by the commission.


These facts where proven lies. Why do you continue to repeat them?



OK. Some of the commissioners voiced disapointment with how some things were handled, but that doesn´t magicaly invalidate everything that was covered or reviewed by them.


“Disappointments”, They came out and admitted they lied, the 911 commissionaires admitted the story they told us is NOT the story that the government told them. Enough said. Why support proven lies?



but that doesn´t magicaly invalidate everything that was covered or reviewed by them.
Such as:


Yes it does invalidate everything because, the pentagon lied to the 911 commissionaires about everything that much has been admitted already.



Where fighters scrambled?.......YES.


No proof to your opinions, where were the scrambled fighters? They had an entire hour to intercept those planes. Yet we got nothing.



Was there an order given to shoot down hijacked airliners?.....YES.
Was this order given by President Bush?......YES.


You and I went round and round on this early because I proved there was no orders giving didn’t I ? In fact, I asked you to present me a video of President Bush stating he gave the orders to shoot down those airplanes and you have not produce anything, nothing.



Was there a "Stand down order" given?.......NO.


Show your proof that there was “NO” stand down orders given? I am sure you have plenty of internet links and sources. Your opinions are not facts; perhaps you should do some real research into the 911 events.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


OK. Let me put this another way.
This thread is not about the 9/11 commission, or the report, or what some of the chairs in the commission might have said at one time or another that could be used to make the commission look bad or it´s members look bad, or take apart some statements made by some people in the commission that can be used to make them look bad.
!!!!!!!OK???????
Although one may agree or not to some of the commission work, some statements that you have taken out of context DO NOT invalidate many of the facts which were investigated, found and discussed by that commission, such as:
1.- Where fighters scrambled on 9/11?.......YES.
2.- Was an order issued to shoot down hijacked airliners on 9/11?.......YES.
3.- Was this order issued by President Bush?.......YES.
4.- Was there a “stand down order” given?.........NO.

Those are facts.
None of which you addressed in your “spin” about the 9/11 commission members statements taken completely out of context, and having nothing to do with the points above.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 




These facts where proven lies. Why do you continue to repeat them?

OK. Some of the commissioners voiced disapointment with how some things were handled, but that doesn´t magicaly invalidate everything that was covered or reviewed by them.



“Disappointments”, They came out and admitted they lied, the 911 commissionaires admitted the story they told us is NOT the story that the government told them. Enough said. Why support proven lies?

but that doesn´t magicaly invalidate everything that was covered or reviewed by them.
Such as:

Yes it does invalidate everything because, the pentagon lied to the 911 commissionaires about everything that much has been admitted already.


Where fighters scrambled?.......YES.

No proof to your opinions, where were the scrambled fighters? They had an entire hour to intercept those planes. Yet we got nothing.


Was there an order given to shoot down hijacked airliners?.....YES.
Was this order given by President Bush?......YES.

You and I went round and round on this early because I proved there was no orders giving didn’t I ? In fact, I asked you to present me a video of President Bush stating he gave the orders to shoot down those airplanes and you have not produce anything, nothing.


Was there a "Stand down order" given?.......NO.

Show your proof that there was “NO” stand down orders given? I am sure you have plenty of internet links and sources. Your opinions are not facts; perhaps you should do some real research into the 911 events.


How many times do I need to answer your questions? How many times are you going to keep asking the same questions with your own opinions as your answers?




Those are facts.
None of which you addressed in your “spin” about the 9/11 commission members statements taken completely out of context, and having nothing to do with the points above.



Spin? Please, demonstrate the Spin I have supposently done?



1.- Where fighters scrambled on 9/11?.......YES.
2.- Was an order issued to shoot down hijacked airliners on 9/11?.......YES.
3.- Was this order issued by President Bush?.......YES.
4.- Was there a “stand down order” given?.........NO.


Your answers are wrong.


Who are you trying to convince your nonsense to? I am only interested in facts not what “ YOU THINK ” or your opinions are not proven facts . So far, all you have done is parrot MSN and FOX News, do some real research.







[edit on 24-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


By 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States........

Is this a lie?

That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base ........

Is this a lie?

If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency......

How about this. Also a lie?

Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. At 8:28, Boston Center called the Command Center in Herndon to advise that it believed American 11 had been hijacked and was heading toward New York Center's airspace.......

Another lie?

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked......

How about this?

You know what???
You shouldn´t throw things in the trash without having tried to understand the use that they might have at a later time.

More to come....
For those interested, the source is the same:

govinfo.library.unt.edu...




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Just recently Northwest Flight 188 overshot Minneapolis airport by 150 miles and the FAA’s personnel didn’t follow standard procedure by raising an alert. And yet you think things should have gone perfectly on 9/11?

I still have one major question which everyone ignores – since the planning for 9/11 took two and a half years, was Bill Clinton complicit in this “conspiracy” as well?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



By 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States........

Is this a lie?


Perhaps, who is making this statement and whom do they work for? If one is to believe 911 was a false flag operation carried out by a rue enemy, using parts of our military who were experts in aviation and demolition, all very loyal to Dick Cheney and a small group in the Bush administration then one cannot trust any information coming from the power that be, don’t you think?


911 Commission co-chairs claim that they were misled, perhaps deliberately, by the Bush administration and Pentagon brass. Because 911 was an act of mass murder overtly covered up by the Bush administration, the many lies told amount to more than mere obstructions of justice or cover ups. They amount to high treason, a betrayal of the public trust, a mechanism by which this administration seized power unconstitutionally. Upon the 911 pretext, Bush deliberately subverted the legitimate institutions of our government! The lies told by Bush and brass amount to sedition and high treason.
Instead of making a big scene and dropping a bombshell so-to-speak, the commission 'compromised' and deferred to the justice department so that it could pursue criminal investigations.
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
As we are all well aware, criminal charges were never made and it looks like interest in pursuing 'justice' wasn't a top priority for the Department of Justice.
The panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

www.thepeoplesvoice.org...


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

www.washingtonpost.com...

You continue to parrot the OS like a broken record, read some of the information that I have provide you. If you cant even do that, then you are wasting your time having this discussion with me. You take the word of a corrupt government and military as the gospel truth, you really should try and think for yourself, and not let our government do your thinking for you. Frankly, I do not trust any of them any more, they have led this country down a dark path, a path of destruction, and you can thank George Bush and Dick Cheney for that.



You know what???
You shouldn´t throw things in the trash without having tried to understand the use that they might have at a later time.


The 911-commission report is now a proven lie it is garbage and that is a fact.
I will not keep nonsense like that lying around my home, because everyone knows it is as credible as the National Enquirer, that is a fact.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





I believe what the 911 commissionaires did was criminal. They knew what they were doing, they where complicit in helping the Bush administration in covering up a treasonous crime of a false flag operation that was carried out on American soil.


And you probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Does not change the fact that what happened on 9/11/01 was not because of a conscious plan by ANYONE in the US Government. It was end result of over 30 years of ignoring the threats and cutting the military.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


From.- www.9-11commission.gov...

The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes' notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.175This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.176 This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.177
In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well.

The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.


The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south,
The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south,
The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south,

So, once again:
Were fighters scrambled on 9/11?.........................YES.



[edit on 25-11-2009 by rush969]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Hi im new to ATS, but Regarding the 911 conspiracy i feel it goes a whole lot deeper. ( thats just my opinion). Sure as it happened i must confess i did believe what i saw and it wasnt until recently that my views had changed. From the moment the towers were hit it immediatly encited hatred towards those blamed. I then went on to assume that it was to do with oil? but im currently working through the possibility that there are oil wells in LA? Then i was workin my way through various pages and can quite clearly see the buildings were controlled in the way they fell, or were they? I strongly advise any reading this to study "hutchison effect" could this answer the questions regarding the fact that everything was vapourised? everything was turned to dust, there wasnt much of anything left. Also why did the bbc news team report that WTC 7 had collapsed when it was clearly behind her during the report? I know im probably boring you all but.... certain firms left the WTC`s prior to 911. Also 1 last thing, what is the connection between turner construction and 911? also its sub companies in pharmacuticals etc. Also is people aware that turner con then went on and is currently still building skyscrapers etc in kuwait, dubai etc worth billions of $$$



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


And you probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Does not change the fact that what happened on 9/11/01 was not because of a conscious plan by ANYONE in the US Government. It was end result of over 30 years of ignoring the threats and cutting the military.


If that’s what you want to believe in go for it, this is your opinion not a fact.

You have failed miserably to back your claims.


Care to call more names?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Some more info. About the events on 9/11.
From: govinfo.library.unt.edu...

(notes in parenthesis are mine.)

At 10:03, the conference received reports of more missing aircraft,"2 possibly 3 aloft," and learned of a combat air patrol over Washington. There was discussion of the need for rules of engagement. Clarke reported that they were asking the President for authority to shoot down aircraft. Confirmation of that authority came at 10:25, but the commands were already being conveyed in more direct contacts with the Pentagon.

Inside the National Military Command Center, (NMCC) the deputy director for operations immediately thought the second strike was a terrorist attack. The job of the NMCC in such an emergency is to gather the relevant parties and establish the chain of command between the National Command Authority-the president and the secretary of defense- and those who need to carry out their orders.

Inside the NMCC, the deputy director for operations called for an all-purpose "significant event" conference. It began at 9:29, with a brief recap: two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center, there was a confirmed hijacking of American 11, and Otis fighters had been scrambled. The FAA was asked to provide an update, but the line was silent because the FAA had not been added to the call. A minute later, the deputy director stated that it had just been confirmed that American 11 was still airborne and heading toward D.C. He directed the transition to an air threat conference call. NORAD confirmed that American 11 was airborne and heading toward Washington, relaying the erroneous FAA information already mentioned.
(NOTE.- Could this have been AA77?)

At 9:39, the NMCC's deputy director for operations, a military officer, opened the call from the Pentagon, which had just been hit. He began: "An air attack against North America may be in progress. NORAD, what's the situation?" NORAD said it had conflicting reports.

(NOTE.- At this time you will remember, three of the four hijacked aircraft had already crashed, and still NORAD had conflicting reports. After all the events is easy to cry.- “Why weren´t any of the hijacked airliners intercepted? But you have to try and see things as they were being seen on that morning. A lot of confusion, wrong information, gossip, and what not...)

At 9:48, a representative from the White House shelter asked if there were any indications of another hijacked aircraft. The deputy director for operations mentioned the Delta flight and concluded that "that would be the fourth possible hijack." At 9:49, the commander of NORAD directed all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed.

(NOTE.- That was Delta 1989. Fortunately that airplane was not shutdown.)

At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington,

(NOTE.- This is about 4 minutes before UA93 crashed.)

By 10:03, when United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, there had been no mention of its hijacking and the FAA had not yet been added to the tele-conference.

On the morning of 9/11, the President and Vice President stayed in contact not by an open line of communication but through a series of calls.

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.

Repeatedly between 10:14 and 10:19, a lieutenant colonel at the White House relayed to the NMCC that the Vice President had confirmed fighters were cleared to engage inbound aircraft if they could verify that the aircraft was hijacked.

The commander of NORAD, General Ralph Eberhart, was en route to the NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, when the shootdown order was communicated on the air threat conference call. He told us that by the time he arrived, the order had already been passed down NORAD's chain of command.

So. In the other points:

Was an order given to shoot down hijacked aircraft?..............YES.
Was this order given by President Bush?...............................YES.

Was there EVER a “stand down” order given?.........................NO.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by enca78
 


This is what I like to see people asking question. This tells me that you are open minded and at lease understand that we all don’t have all the answers yet but, clearly can see the OS is full of holes.

This is a breath of fresh air, you have asked a lot of good questions, and there are some answers and a lot of “opinions”. Watch out for the name calling Trolls, they are here to run you off, just put them on ignore.
I felt the same way as you did as well in the beginning. However, I watch a video some years later that peeked my curiosity, after that I began my research and find out that Americans were lied to by the media parroting what the White House and the Pentagon instructed them to say. The Bush administration and the Pentagon have been caught in a mountain of lies. Because our government has lied so much to the American people, most of us including me do not trust anything they say anymore.

It’s been proven that Bush administration and pentagon have shown deceptions in their tail of the OS. We know there is a cover up.

You have blind patriotic people who can’t see past their loyalty to the government and military to see they were lied to and you will find out quickly these GL will defend the Bush administration to their death no matter what creditable, scientific, evidences that proves our government told us lies. Having a debate with these people is a waste of time, because you are only talking to a “brick wall”.

The reason I started this thread because I am convinced that a very small group of men in our military in aviation and demolitions pulled of this false flag operation called 911. I believe these men were very loyal to Dick Cheney and we all have enough proof to know that Cheney was running the show on the morning of 911. It has become very clear that Cheney has not answers anyone questions to what happened on 911. Cheney was protected by the rest in the Bush administration.

After reading what other pilots had to say and how those planes were flown. It is their opinion that whoever was flying these hijacked planes had to have years of military combat flight experiences, not just a few lessons from a flight instructor on Cessna 172s, and couldn’t even pass the pilots exams much less take off and land a Cessna. The Bush administration really think the American people are complete idiots and cannot think for themselves. That was the arrogances of the Bush administration and the Pentagon.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



So. In the other points:

Was an order given to shoot down hijacked aircraft?..............YES.
Was this order given by President Bush?...............................YES.

Was there EVER a “stand down” order given?.........................NO.




Was an order given to shoot down hijacked aircraft?..............NO.
Was this order given by President Bush?...............................NO
Was there EVER a “stand down” order given?.........................YES.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme



It’s been proven that Bush administration and pentagon have shown deceptions in their tail of the OS. We know there is a cover up.


Could you please provide some of the evidence of this?
Please not from sites like P4T, Cage, Fetzer, Alex Jones, Steven Jones and the like...



The reason I started this thread because I am convinced that a very small group of men in our military in aviation and demolitions pulled of this false flag operation called 911.


Please, could you tell us how small the group of men in your military and aviation and demolitions you estimate would have been needed?
And if you are "convinced" of this. Can you give us some source or evidence of what convinced you?
Again, please from other sources than those mentioned above...



I believe these men were very loyal to Dick Cheney and we all have enough proof to know that Cheney was running the show on the morning of 911.


Can you give us a few NAMES, please?
And some evidence of Cheney "running the show"?
Please, where do you get that information from?

(However, I must say I would have to agree that with the president reading to a group of school children in Florida, the Vice President would be the logical leader to "run things", at least for a while.)



After reading what other pilots had to say and how those planes were flown. It is their opinion that whoever was flying these hijacked planes had to have years of military combat flight experiences,


I was under the impression that "opinions" were not fine by you...!!
And I must point out here that you are guilty of discrimination.
Because you have taken the opinion of a very few, pilots who have expressed that idea.
For your information, many many more pilots think differently. And that should also have some significance for you, don´t you think?



Not just a few lessons from a flight instructor on Cessna 172s, and couldn’t even pass the pilots exams much less take off and land a Cessna.


Where did you get this information from?
How can you be certain that this info. is reliable?
I understand some of them actually did have pilot´s licenses.
Could those terrorist pilots have been faking on those cessna flights, and be actually highly experienced military pilots?
Maybe they didn´t want to be discovered...

If not, what are you saying here?
1.- The pilots were highly experienced military, to fly like that?
2.- They were secret agents under Cheney´s orders?
3.- They hijacked the planes and commited suicide on those crashes?




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Was an order given to shoot down hijacked aircraft?..............NO.
Was this order given by President Bush?...............................NO
Was there EVER a “stand down” order given?.........................YES.



Could you please provide evidence of this?

I have shown evidence in official historical documents based on facts, to show my previous claims.
I expect the same from you.
Please use reliable sources, thank you.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join