CJCSI 3610.01A, the "truther stand down order"

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22

Here's another column with the same cut pattern. Also note the beams and girders on the left were not broken at the connection but instead "sheared" or "cut" at an equal distance from the supporting columns. If they sheared or broke from bending forces, the web and upper and lower flanges would have also been deformed where the moment of force was applied, such as the ones on the right. Not so here. The all "broke" in the same place. In the chaotic destruction of the building, how possible is that? The girders to the left have perfectly clean cuts. No sign of bending at all.

Also look at that strange "strap" on the girder section attached to the free standing column. Is that an unspent cutting charge? Looks rather odd. I tried enlarging this pic, but it pixilates and loses detail.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)


That looks like building 6.

You are telling us that they had building 6 rigged with explosives so that when parts of WTC1 fell towards it, they blew open a hole to let them through.

You do understand that is what you are telling us.

Do you remember when I said "OK kid show us what you got " , Well congratulations kid, your'e the winner.
edit on 27-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Have no idea what building it is. But you seem to know just from looking at the pic. I see. However it really doesn't matter what building. What matters is what I see, which I posted above. Explain the girders exhibiting no bending moment damage.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by Reheat
 


I hadn''t proven? Was a plane shot down before it penetrated restricted air space over the Pentagon that has defensive capability and scrambles jets routinely for every accidental fly-over? Search for restricted airspace incursions.

Crackpot conspiracy site? Rutgers Law Review must have a legal team to represent itself from defamation... perhaps tell them they are crackpots and see if they can stand up in court or not.


Airspace over the Pentagon isn't restricted, and it has never once been proven beyond "I know someone who went on the tour...." or "There's no way it doesn't....." that there are defenses at the Pentagon. Neither one of those makes any sense, as there is a very busy flight path that almost goes over one corner of the building on final approach to the airport.

www.911myths.com...

There are some great pictures on that page that show just how close the runway at Reagan National is to the Pentagon. You can almost reach out and touch the building as you go by.

911myths.com...

That is a map of the P-56 restricted airspace as of 2009.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Stop trying to derail this thread. The title is clearly stated as is the OP.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Stop trying to derail this thread. The title is clearly stated as is the OP.


That is all he's got. Sad really.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Explain the girders exhibiting no bending moment damage.


This photo answers your question, architect.

pcabling.com...

Notice the failed bolt splice holes.


Remember to say thank you.
edit on 27-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


on 911 the airspace over the entire US was shut down. After we were attacked sensitive targets would be the first protected and unless I missed it, the Pentagon got hit by "something" even though security was ramped up due to the first impact, then the second, and a third which in many peoples opinions shouldn't have happened.

How much time do you need to comprehend that being under attack warrants action and not complacency in letting the attack go further?

You still refused to answer my questions and played the duh card in not knowing the question.

Enough said, you have no answers otherwise you would have presented your "theory" as to why the need to lie in the first place.

No matter to me as my heart is in the right place and where my heart is, there too goes my soul. Do not worry about my being, even if the thugs eliminate me, comes a time we all got our dues to pay and God knows all hearts and minds.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


We did not understand until the second impact that we were under attack. And the third impact was a half hour later, too soon for us to have an effective defense.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by Reheat
 


on 911 the airspace over the entire US was shut down. After we were attacked sensitive targets would be the first protected and unless I missed it, the Pentagon got hit by "something" even though security was ramped up due to the first impact, then the second, and a third which in many peoples opinions shouldn't have happened.


Wait a minute. You said earlier that the Pentagon was in restricted airspace. You didn't mention partial Scatana. When was the airspace "shut down"? Do you think any of the terrorists pilots gave a hoot about the partial Scatana?

Of course, NONE of the attacks should have happened. To be honest you need to have a clue or two about what your trying to discuss instead of harping on issues you obviously have no clue about. You show that you have no clue at all.

BTW, the pentagon was struck by a B-757 owned by American Airlines (AA-77).


Originally posted by anoncoholic
How much time do you need to comprehend that being under attack warrants action and not complacency in letting the attack go further?


You're the one who thinks there was enough time to allow action to prevent it, so you tell me. Who was complacent once there was realization an attack was in progress? I don't know of anyone who was complacent once there was realization we were under attack. Do you have evidence of complacency or can you address the thread topic regarding a "stand down order". That's a rhetorical question because, of course you don't/can't. That's why you're merely whining and wailing about what's in your heart.


Originally posted by anoncoholic
You still refused to answer my questions and played the duh card in not knowing the question.


How can I answer what you refuse to ask? Do you have a secret? Are you hiding something?


Originally posted by anoncoholic
No matter to me as my heart is in the right place and where my heart is, there too goes my soul. Do not worry about my being, even if the thugs eliminate me, comes a time we all got our dues to pay and God knows all hearts and minds.


I truly have no clue how this sermon relates to either the OP or 9/11. Seems to me you should be over in religion, but I doubt there are any conspiracies there.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Oh, BTW I forgot to mention earlier. The Rutger's Law Review did not write the crap you posted at all. How dishonest of you to imply that they did. The fraudulent misleading story was written by an author working for "Raw Story" supposedly based on audio tapes he obtained from Rutger's Law Review.

If you are interested in pursuing this how 'bout you obtain the Audio Tapes and post a link here to support the fraudulent story you were gullible enough to believe.

There is no evidence on audio tape or elsewhere that NORAD even knew about Cheney's "shoot down" order, but even if they did it very likely was not a legal order until he obtained Presidential approval, which he eventually did. In fact, if this supports anything it further shows that Cheney did not order a "stand down", which is the point of this thread.

Based on this you are the one who lied by proxy for posting information you read from an alternative news? site which you did not verify as true. In other words you simply copied false and fraudulent information and perpetuated it here.

Then you subsequently accused me of slander for calling bull# on what you had posted and also then accused me of being in on the conspiracy because I called your hand on this....

The "men in black" will be visiting you soon, so check under your bed and lock your doors at night. I'm glad you're heart is in the right place....



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


This is the second time I've asked you to STOP derailing this thread. It is not about buildings, it's about a "a document which "truthers" contend was a defacto "stand down" order.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

That picture has no context.


As I said building 6, And it PERFECTLY explains your question.

It is in fact one of the parts you have circled.

pcabling.com...

You forgot to say thank you.



You know I'm from NYC


The coordinates in your signature lead me to a courthouse in Brooklyn 1.7 miles from the towers. Did you hear any explosives just before the collapse ?



My friend Sal was one of six people who survived the collapse of the buildings while still inside.


Did Sal suffer any overpressure injuries from being near explosives powerful enough to bring down a building ?

Sorry for the OT Reheat,
edit on 27-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

“For the past 50 years, NORAD has had the duty of protecting US airspace from attack, and has always been under the direct command of select US Military Generals. Three months before the attack of 9-11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9-11. He did not exercise that power, and consequently, the Pentagon, WTC2 and WTC7 were left unprotected, and then destroyed, resulting in the death of thousands of innocents. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to militaryoperation.” (1)


source

might be too inconvenient for you but regardless it is in the historical record.

As far as which question I asked, take your pick as you refused to answer any of them.

As far as Rutgers Law Review they are the source for the info I am now posting redundantly and this thread isn't worth my time nor are you

Norad ignores Cheney

audio tapes of 911

It is pointless to keep going round and round with you when it is apparent you are not being intellectually honest with any here. The info was posted, I asked you questions, you act like there weren't any questions asked... need I say more?

No need to reply as I am done playing semantics with you when every time info is posted you try to discredit the source in a shoot the messenger meme.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
when every time info is posted you try to discredit the source in a shoot the messenger meme

source




Dude your source has a picture of a Jewish Octopus attacking the Capitol Building. That is not a good sign.
edit on 27-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 




source

might be too inconvenient for you but regardless it is in the historical record.


Seriously??? Your source for refuting Reheat's claim is some anonymous dude's blog with a link to a video featuring the world's biggest lying gasbag ever???

If that's the best you can do, I'm not a bit surprised that the 9/11 truth movement is a complete and utter failure.

Anyway, at least the video contained something pertinent. It contains the exact same Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A that Reheat already linked in OP. He has already proven that it does not mean what Alex Jones and 95% of other truthers believe it does. Try again.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You quote and source a freaking blog as a source for anything, let alone what you call the "Historical Record". And you really expect anyone to take anything you say seriously.

No, the Rutgers Law Review is NOT the source of your false information at all.. You apparently are too dumb to realize the article was written by:

Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.

Source: Raw Story (s.tt...)


The audio tapes source you posted still does not show that NORAD ignored any "shoot down" authorization. The time stamp on the pertinent audio file was 10:32 by which time Cheney had consulted with President Bush and had proper "shoot down" authorization at that time. The attack was over by then... Cheney had issued a "shoot down" authorization via the Secret Service at about 10:15 which by all reports NORAD never received.

You're right about wasting my time on your posts.

I'm convinced you have some sort of secret that you won't ask the question or questions that you have accused me of lying about. It's very suspicious that you won't do that...

But, based on the other posts you've made I'm not at all surprised. You need to run along and allow the grown-ups to discuss these issues. You obviously don't have a clue about much of anything...
edit on 27-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

“For the past 50 years, NORAD has had the duty of protecting US airspace from attack, and has always been under the direct command of select US Military Generals. Three months before the attack of 9-11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9-11. He did not exercise that power, and consequently, the Pentagon, WTC2 and WTC7 were left unprotected, and then destroyed, resulting in the death of thousands of innocents. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to militaryoperation.” (1)


source

might be too inconvenient for you but regardless it is in the historical record.

As far as which question I asked, take your pick as you refused to answer any of them.

As far as Rutgers Law Review they are the source for the info I am now posting redundantly and this thread isn't worth my time nor are you

Norad ignores Cheney

audio tapes of 911

It is pointless to keep going round and round with you when it is apparent you are not being intellectually honest with any here. The info was posted, I asked you questions, you act like there weren't any questions asked... need I say more?

No need to reply as I am done playing semantics with you when every time info is posted you try to discredit the source in a shoot the messenger meme.



The obvious bad source I won't comment on, but the NYT article I will. Written in September, 2011 quoting "newly released" audios by Rutgers. When the article starts off with such a misleading statement, it really fails to have much credibility. Those audios have been around much longer than that, but ignored by the "media". They are lazy like that.

Beyond that, you established that the "military" ignored the order, thereby establishing the premise of the OP, that the order issued was a "shoot down" order, not a "stand down" order. Yet, Andrews AFB did not ignore the order. They were ready to do what they had to do.

Again, in case you missed it.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22


I heard from all of them, their opinions at the time and through the years, and I didn't want to believe them. It took all these years for me to finally see I was wrong. That's why I'm here posting. What's your reason for doing so?


So, are you saying that Sal D'Agostino believes that the towers collapsing were due to a controlled demolitions?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I am probably conversing with a pseudo skeptic, but it's time to interject some truth.

The Rules of Engagement -- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A changed by Vice Admiral Scott Fry on June 1, 2001 to coincide with Amalgam Virgo '01 held June 1st to 2nd, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Amalgam Virgo '01 (Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF found here: ratical.org...) was the dry run for the Boeing of Ottawa, Canada's "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking demonstration:

Amalgam: a combination of diverse elements; a mixture. A mixture of Aluminum Oxide and Iron Oxide took down the Towers.

Virgo: 9/11 occurred under the astrological sign of Virgo -- August 23 - September 22.

According to page 18 of Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF, Chief of the Defence Staff J.M.G. Baril, General, Canadian Forces and General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a treaty -- Canada-United States Basic Security Document MCC 100-35 -- dated August 20, 1999 to turn over command of NORAD to French speaking Baril. Maurice had control of Blue Air for 30 hours on June 1 to June 2, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida as referenced on page 16 of the 35 page document.

The same scenario of Amalgam Virgo '01 played out from 3:00pm September 10 to 9:00pm September 11, 2001 where Quebec born French Canadian General Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril of the Canadian Forces stationed at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado had command of NORAD Blue Air for thirty hours.

Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Ottawa, Canada demonstrated its "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the United States during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.





edit on 29-6-2012 by OperationMockingbird because: Spelling mistake



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

This thread is about a non existent stand-down order. Not about the cut beams. This is 2012, folks. The cut beam conspiracy was debunked in 2006.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



You do realise that when you 'debunk' something, it's only debunked by opinion. So if say someone 'thinks' they have 'debunked' something, they have only convinced themselves that it's a bunk, but in reality it's just one opinion.

No one has officially addressed that beam, and has not been backed up by official and independent investiugations, and until that happens then it cannot be officially debunked by anyone. When someone thinks they have 'debunked' something on a forum, all that is doing is saying either, I've got a massive ego and what I say is final, or it's saying, leave the subject alone because you are getting too close to the truth.

That beam was not cut by any of the people removing the debris, it happeend before the building fell, and as you say, this is not the thread for it, otherwise I'd write you a nice lengthy comment explaining it, but even then, you'd still claim you debunked it because you have an agenda.

As for this thread, it's one of the most pointless threads I have come across, and any threads that you or your 'debunker' buddies start are to me and others, and obvious ploy to put your own spin on part of 9/11 to distort the truth. Disinfo in action. Every time you or one of your buddies makes a thread, I laugh, I think hello, what disinfo are they spreading today, what real truth are they trying to obscure this time!

Keep the threads and comments coming, because with every one of you and your colleagues threads/comments, you reveal a little bit more of the real truth amongst your disinfo. Basically, anything you discredit, is getting warm and close to the truth! If you put your spin on something, then the opposite is generally true! Way too easy to see your tactics! It's entertaining all the same!





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join