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.

 

U.S. Diplomat: NORAD jets scrambled to shoot down Flight 93

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Canadian General at NORAD sent fighter jets on Presidential orders to shoot down flight 93. This seems more in line with not only witness reports but the statement by Donald Rumsfeld that the plane was shot down.




Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93


Missile rejection perplexes U.S.

Canadian Press
By COLIN PERKEL AND BETH GORHAM

(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday.

However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.

Regardless, said Cellucci, Washington would press ahead with its plans.

"We will deploy. We will protect North America," he said.

"We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.

He refused to speculate on the effect a negative decision would have on relations between the two neighbours or whether it would cause a rift.

"We have a very solid basis of co-operation in many areas and we'll see how that sees us through," said Boucher.

A senior Canadian official who requested anonymity said Wednesday that Canada's decision was relayed at this week's NATO summit in Brussels attended by Martin and President George W. Bush.

But Canada's interest in Norad, the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command, remains paramount, said the official.

"The key for Canada is preserving the Norad relationship. It's such an important command that losing it would not be in Canada's best interests."

Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.

Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.

That's why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.

David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, agreed with Cellucci's assessment that Canada is giving up sovereignty.

"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made," said Biette.

"It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride."

However, like Cellucci, Biette said he didn't think the issue would ultimately hurt Canada-U.S. relations.

Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government.

There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.

Some U.S. analysts were shaking their heads at the intrigue and confusion stirred this week by Frank McKenna, who takes over as ambassador to the United States next week.

McKenna told a Commons committee Tuesday that Canada is effectively already part of the missile-defence program, given Norad's increased responsibility.

"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" he asked. "What does 'sign on' mean?"

Behind closed doors Wednesday, Martin indicated Canada hadn't joined the missile program and suggested McKenna erred by saying otherwise.

"Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps," is the way one Liberal described the prime minister's message at Wednesday's caucus meeting. Another Liberal confirmed the account.

Liberal MPs have also been sent speaking notes from party brass, urging them to get out and toe the government line on missile defence.

"Canada is obviously not participating in BMD," said a copy of Tuesday's Liberal Research Bureau message obtained by The Canadian Press.

"The government has not taken that decision yet and the ambassador never intended to leave the opposite impression."

U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense."

"It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
While I agree the article says jets were scrambled we can't forget the OS line is and probably will be in response to this post "Yeah but we didn't get to it in time."

I don't know what to believe either way. Every new piece of info I see makes me flip flop one way or the other.

Interesting article OP thanks for the post.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thebulldog
 


Thats what they want you to believe in my opinion. I remain open to other possibilities but, the evidence is looking more & more as 911 was not like the gov says it happened. And for that alone we must ask questions.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
This overly debunked topic has been debunked and covered exstensively for years and many times over here on Ats. HERE ARE THE LINKS.

Try the search option and you will see. Here is the threads you can research and continue www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


can't check the links out at the moment but I will, thanks for them.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I checked the links out. I don't believe that it has been debunked entirely but thats only one issue. The other is why he would state that in the first place. Coverup? perhaps. The real story? perhaps. Covering his own mistake(s) or that of NORADs? perhaps.

I don't know what you understand about the 911 report but what I understand it to say (in one part only after reading it many times over) is that they (911 panel) did not recieve the entire truth from NORAD on 911. They go on to say the story that the public got and the truth is very different. Thats where my opinion rests with the shoot down theory. But then again if one cannot or does not believe the OS then it's all suspect anyway.

Along with that I'm glad that we were able to come to some sort of understanding on your theory also because after looking more into it like I said I would early in your thread, I can see very clearly also, where the no crash or shoot down does indeed seem plausible.

I know we both can't be right but we can agree that things don't add up either way. Are one of our theorys more convincing than the other? Right now in all fairness, yours is looking moree convincing to me. But I still need to do more reading & research.



[edit on 26-1-2010 by mikelee]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join