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.

 

I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

page: 21
63
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1
 





And as for a NORAD standown order I find it hard to believe that anyone can still be bringing this unsubstantiated rubbish up in 2012. There is evidence for a shootdown order :-


So you agree that Cheney violated the Constitution on 9/11 by issuing unauthorized orders to shoot down planes?


The allegation was that NORAD had been ordered to standown and now you are arguing about the legality of a shootdown order !

But, just as a matter of interest, what does the Constitution say about shooting down civilian airliners ?

Why don't you look it up before running your mouth




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1
 





And as for a NORAD standown order I find it hard to believe that anyone can still be bringing this unsubstantiated rubbish up in 2012. There is evidence for a shootdown order :-


So you agree that Cheney violated the Constitution on 9/11 by issuing unauthorized orders to shoot down planes?


The allegation was that NORAD had been ordered to standown and now you are arguing about the legality of a shootdown order !

But, just as a matter of interest, what does the Constitution say about shooting down civilian airliners ?

Why don't you look it up before running your mouth


Why should I care ? it is completely irrelevant to the issue of an alleged standown order.

Your response tends to make me think you don't have a clue on the constitutional matter though.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1
 





And as for a NORAD standown order I find it hard to believe that anyone can still be bringing this unsubstantiated rubbish up in 2012. There is evidence for a shootdown order :-


So you agree that Cheney violated the Constitution on 9/11 by issuing unauthorized orders to shoot down planes?


The allegation was that NORAD had been ordered to standown and now you are arguing about the legality of a shootdown order !

But, just as a matter of interest, what does the Constitution say about shooting down civilian airliners ?

Why don't you look it up before running your mouth


Why should I care ? it is completely irrelevant to the issue of an alleged standown order.

Your response tends to make me think you don't have a clue on the constitutional matter though.


Lol, Sure it's easier to argue about a stand down order than the real issues. You the man!

Hey why don’t you ask thedman? He's an expert in everything maybe he can give you a quick lesson on the Order of Presidential Succession. Lol

But its irrelevant anyway right? Lets debunk the stand down order instead!



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Issuing unauthorized orders to shoot down planes is a crime, isn't it?

Is it? Can you provide a reference to it in any law book?
Who issued the orders?
Are you sure they didn't have the required authorization?
Is it really a chargable offence since no plane was shot down?


I am not a lawyer but I see them on TV everyday. They would love nothing more than to get their name on the national news by hauling some government official into court over 911.
It's hard to buy that kind of name recognition. They could double or triple their rates even if they loose.
Everyone in the US see's the ads for these kind of lawyers many times a day. Auto sales, Accidental death, Viagra, all day everyday.

But since it's been 10 years and no charges have been filed it makes me think there is no chargable offence.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 





Issuing unauthorized orders to shoot down planes is a crime, isn't it?

Is it? Can you provide a reference to it in any law book?
Who issued the orders?
Are you sure they didn't have the required authorization?
Is it really a chargable offence since no plane was shot down?


I am not a lawyer but I see them on TV everyday. They would love nothing more than to get their name on the national news by hauling some government official into court over 911.
It's hard to buy that kind of name recognition. They could double or triple their rates even if they loose.
Everyone in the US see's the ads for these kind of lawyers many times a day. Auto sales, Accidental death, Viagra, all day everyday.

But since it's been 10 years and no charges have been filed it makes me think there is no chargable offence.


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol
edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Your bosses have conspired together for hundreds of years (actually thousands) towards achieving a lofty goal of planetary domination that is going up in smoke, right now, before their very eyes. And they're frantic about it. More and more people are no longer believing their crap, and even worse for your employers, the world is about to find out how the Power Elite have been butt-slamming them all along. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near your camp in the not-too-distant future.


Yeah and then maybe they'll ge some of those five guys who own all the media in front of a tribunal.

Oh, hang on...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol
edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol
edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...


It proves something else, wiseguy!



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Can somebody please explain to to me who the f*** are these debunkers?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps us "traitorous internet morons " are in fact better informed than you. The June 2001 memo you refer to was was the CJCSI no. 3610 of June 1st 2001. It dealt with aircraft hi-jacking and it freed up the procedure rather than restricting it. You are listening to too much Alex Jones.

And as for a NORAD standown order I find it hard to believe that anyone can still be bringing this unsubstantiated rubbish up in 2012. There is evidence for a shootdown order :-

zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com...


Nice try, but you're the one who's a out of date. You really should get all your facts straight. This "rubbish" that you think has been debunked has actually been "un-debunked" and Mineta's testimony is even more damaging than originally thought....

Mineta, Cheney and "the orders still stand" controversy:

Further evidence that Vice President Cheney=s order on 9/11 regarding Flight 77 was not a shoot-down order, but a stand down order - an order NOT to shoot the plane down.

May 1, 2007
by John C. Ekonomou
Attorney at Law
B.A. Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
J.D. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 






link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol

According to your own link.



Most striking of all is the revelation that an order by Vice President Dick Cheney was ignored by the military, which saw his order to shoot down aircraft as outside the chain of command.

Where's the crime? What law did he break? He can shout orders until he's blue in the face but that doesn't make it a crime.

Is it a crime for me to shout "Shoot the burgler!" to the police?

Also in the same link you provided.



Cheney's order was given at "about 10:15" a.m., according to the former VP's memoirs, but the 9/11 Commission Report shows United flight 93 going down at 10:06 a.m. Had the military followed Cheney's order, civilian aircraft scrambling to get out of the sky could have been shot down, exponentially amplifying the day's tragedy.

It says that the plane was on the ground 9 minutes before Cheney gave the order. But they go on to say it "could have been shot down". They can't even get the facts right.

Lastly clowns stand out from the crowd. Truthers also stand out from the crowd. Ergo truthers must be clowns.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





Is it a crime for me to shout "Shoot the burgler!" to the police?


I don’t know.. are you the chief of police?

He broke the chain of command and that is a crime. Why don’t you stop making excuses already? You make me sick.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Can somebody please explain to to me who the f*** are these debunkers?


If you mean people that disagree with some things that you post, when you say 'debunkers', I can only speak for one of them.

I can personally guarantee that this particular one is not paid by anyone for posting here, which you alluded to in an earlier post.
edit on 3-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 





If you mean people that disagree with some things that you post, when you say 'debunkers', I can only speak for one of them.


Do you disagree with my earlier post about Dick Cheney violating the Constitution on 9/11?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


That is a 5 year old article and does absolutely nothing to substantiate a "standown" order. Who issued it ? When ? to whom ?

Norman Mineta never for a second suggests there might have been a standown order. His testimony can be pretty much summed up in this exchange :

Mr Hamilton : " But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down "

Mr Mineta : "Subsequently I found that out."



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 
I have not researched the constitutional legality of it, so I sadly admit that my opinion on this is worth nothing.

I am thinking that anyone that wishes to can bark orders out, but it is up to the person hearing the orders spoken as to whether or not the orders are coming from a superior in their chain of command.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The June 2001 memo you refer to was was the CJCSI no. 3610 of June 1st 2001. It dealt with aircraft hi-jacking and it freed up the procedure rather than restricting it. You are listening to too much Alex Jones.


Wrong again..... nothing new here.....just another EPIC FAIL from the OS camp....

911review.com...

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.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maxella1
 
I have not researched the constitutional legality of it, so I sadly admit that my opinion on this is worth nothing.

I am thinking that anyone that wishes to can bark orders out, but it is up to the person hearing the orders spoken as to whether or not the orders are coming from a superior in their chain of command.



True but it doesn’t excuse Cheney from giving the unauthorized orders, or does it?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


That is a 5 year old article and does absolutely nothing to substantiate a "standown" order. Who issued it ? When ? to whom ?

Norman Mineta never for a second suggests there might have been a standown order. His testimony can be pretty much summed up in this exchange :

Mr Hamilton : " But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down "

Mr Mineta : "Subsequently I found that out."




You obviously have not read it further than this point....the author is an attorney well versed in the treacherous tactics used in cross-examination ... and Mr. Mineta held his ground. What he "found out" was only what he was TOLD happened, which is subsequently proven to be IMPOSSIBLE in the article.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, it's too long. You have to read it. Then you have to refrain from lying about whats in it.

Here it is again....

www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf

Geez, both you and Samkent might be on unemployment soon... I really hope you don;t have families to feed....

Aside from that. What difference does it make how old it is? Is there a statute of limitations?
edit on 3-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


That is a 5 year old article and does absolutely nothing to substantiate a "standown" order. Who issued it ? When ? to whom ?

Norman Mineta never for a second suggests there might have been a standown order. His testimony can be pretty much summed up in this exchange :



Not so fast Alfie.

Norman Mineta Testimony in the 9/11 investigation.

Norman gives an account about the "stand down" orders.



www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...




edit on 3-5-2012 by sunnybrae because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
63
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join