Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Stand Down Did Cheney Order?

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


No, 911Files did not throw anything out at all. He just demolished every point you had to make about Cheney and a "stand down". It's over, "truther" and you have lost.

Go find another hobby, you suck at this one!




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by esdad71
 


No we do not know that Cheney didn't order the complicated engagement order . Vice Admiral Fry supposedly ordered it and his Boss the Secretary of Defense put it into motion . But did that new order of operation come from Cheney ? Did that order facilitate the Pear Harbor . Yes! Did Dick Cheney take command of the operation that NORAD should have been running .? Yes ! Did that effectively stand down NORAD because of discontinued continuity caused by Cheney's interference ? Yes ! And there is more than a coincidence that Cheney chose to run the exercise on that day . Or was he out smarted ?


Yes we do. There is no one and no quote that says Cheney shouted "Stand down!!" Never happened. Supposedly does not count and there was a standing an order in place that Cheney had nothing to do with. Pearl Harbor means nothing to Cheney saying stand down and your next post will reference Northwoods I'm sure. NORAS did not stand down so again wrong. And when did the vice president decide when military operations would take place. I am pretty sure it was planned before they even took office.

Anything else to add that would prove the OP correct?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Who are you kidding ,? You are the OP ! You twisted every thing I said . Are you STUPID ?
I said that Cheney said and it's a matter of record that Cheney said America needs another Pearl Harbor . And I believe and so does most of America that he provided it for us .



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


No, Cheney did NOT say America needed a new Pearl Harbor. You are incorrectly quote mining a report by PNAC.....again.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by esdad71
 


Who are you kidding ,? You are the OP ! You twisted every thing I said . Are you STUPID ?
I said that Cheney said and it's a matter of record that Cheney said America needs another Pearl Harbor . And I believe and so does most of America that he provided it for us .


That is a blatant lie!

The quote was in a PNAC document and taken in context no one said anything at all about needing a new Pearl Habor. It merely was indicating that the rebuilding of America's Defenses after they were virtually raped by the Clinton Administration would be a long, slow process short of a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. Conspiracy theorists use this as evidence one was CREATED by cherry-picking this sentence. If one was created then show evidence other than wild speculation and accusations of a "false flag attack".

Here's the entire document for those who wish to read it:

www.newamericancentury.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by esdad71
 


Who are you kidding ,? You are the OP ! You twisted every thing I said . Are you STUPID ?
I said that Cheney said and it's a matter of record that Cheney said America needs another Pearl Harbor . And I believe and so does most of America that he provided it for us .


Where in your quote that I referenced did you say that? Calm down and don't call people stupid ok?

The quote is



Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions.


They are stating that if there was an event like a Pearl Harbor the build up of the weapons as described in the whole 93 page article. Read the whole thing.

www.webcitation.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I'll try to get the DCA audio for the BULLY response up by tomorrow. I am right now re-listening to that record. I have got to say this as respectfully as I can. Once you listen to this, along with the NEADS record in the OP, and still can say that someone ordered a "stand down", then you are hopelessly deluded. Considering the limited resources they had available (thank you Bill Clinton), these guys made me very proud on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


...And it still took our military aircraft a hell of a long time to engage the airspace where all the action took place! Supposedly we were having war games? so why were our jets not ready, apparently they were not prepared. You'd of thought on that day we'd of had jets already in the air doing practice runs, why were they even on the ground? Too strange? We were having war games , but weren't prepared, too un-logical! You'd also think we'd have the air space protected prior to all this in major cities if they were trying to protect us! Which no city had that going on!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This gives you an alternate view to 93. There was no stand down order but there was a shoot down order. This cannot be denied. It is fact.

So, where does it go from here?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSGrunt
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


...And it still took our military aircraft a hell of a long time to engage the airspace where all the action took place! Supposedly we were having war games? so why were our jets not ready, apparently they were not prepared. You'd of thought on that day we'd of had jets already in the air doing practice runs, why were they even on the ground? Too strange? We were having war games , but weren't prepared, too un-logical! You'd also think we'd have the air space protected prior to all this in major cities if they were trying to protect us! Which no city had that going on!


There were only 4 on stand-by which could respond, not sure what you don't get about that. They could ONLY respond to what the FAA told them about. The FAA did not tell them with enough time to respond to each individual plane. It takes time to get from point A to point B. War games had nothing to do with it. The gutting of our air defenses by the Clinton administration did. And any other questions about it you should ask Mineta. It was his agency that dropped the ball on AAL77. But no, you won't do that because Mineta is your hero.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSGrunt
 


EEEEExactly . What was a Vice President with no military experience doing running a military exercise that he was clearly not qualified to do ? And why was he afraid to testify before a Congressional panel under oath and with out Bush in his presence ? Was Bush going to let something out of the bag ? Why did bush seek the services of an attorney ?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 



I'm sure you have it all figured out for you . Have you ever looked at Agenda 21 ? Do you actually know what is happening behind the official scenes ? Do you live on the Snopes site ? Are you living in Canada also ? like kevenunknown ?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The official story did not include a shoot down did it ?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by ATSGrunt
 


EEEEExactly . What was a Vice President with no military experience doing running a military exercise that he was clearly not qualified to do ? And why was he afraid to testify before a Congressional panel under oath and with out Bush in his presence ? Was Bush going to let something out of the bag ? Why did bush seek the services of an attorney ?


OK, Simon Peter, make some sense. All you are doing is posing questions as statements. You talk as if you are not that educated as to what actually happened nor have any idea why or what was in place before this happened.

1. Cheney was not in charge of anything that day
2. If anything, it was a perfect opportunity to launch such an operation against the US to cause confusion(Sun Tzu)
3. Again, a shoot down order was in place and had nothing to do with Cheney. No stand down
4. Anyone before speaking before a congressional committee with have attorneys, if not you are an idiot
5. Cheney testified so your claim is moot.
6. Bush also testified

It is time to run along and try to troll another thread Simon as you are severely unequipped to continue a conversation here.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by 911files
 

I'm sure you have it all figured out for you .


Nope, just stating the historical record. Does not matter what I think or believe.


Originally posted by SimonPeter
Have you ever looked at Agenda 21 ?


Yep


Originally posted by SimonPeter
Do you actually know what is happening behind the official scenes ?


Nope. And neither do you unless you are there behind the scenes.


Originally posted by SimonPeter
Do you live on the Snopes site ?


What is a Snopes site?


Originally posted by SimonPeter
Are you living in Canada also ? like kevenunknown ?


Nope. I'm a good ole Southern boy from Memphis, Tennessee.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


The first thing you should know is that those in charge write the official news . There are always 2 stories to everything . You choose to support the one that you like of course without weighing the mitigating factors .
You have avoided my question about what do you make of Agenda 21 and the NWO .
It is a reasonable question dealing with the motive .



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by 911files
 


The first thing you should know is that those in charge write the official news .


Not sure what country you are from, but they don't in the US.


Originally posted by SimonPeter
There are always 2 stories to everything . You choose to support the one that you like of course without weighing the mitigating factors .


No I don't, I simply post the actual record, not the spin.


Originally posted by SimonPeter
You have avoided my question about what do you make of Agenda 21 and the NWO .
It is a reasonable question dealing with the motive .


No it's not. Has no bearing what-so-ever with what order Cheney gave. The historical record overwhelmingly supports a "shoot down" order and absolutely no evidence of a "stand down" order.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Yes it's a reasonable question . Are you afraid to elude to us your thoughts on the subject . You are anonymous and no one can find you except for your handler .
What are you afraid of ?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by 911files
 


Yes it's a reasonable question . Are you afraid to elude to us your thoughts on the subject . You are anonymous and no one can find you except for your handler .
What are you afraid of ?


No it's not. It is about as reasonable as asking what I thought space aliens had to do with 9/11. And no, unlike you I am not "anonymous". Anyone who has done any serious research on 9/11 knows who I am and I make no effort to hide my identity. If I was afraid of anyone or anything, then I might make an effort to be "anonymous", but I'm at that stage of life where I really don't give a #.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join