Why the Pentagon?

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Because they watched it approach as it was "50 miles, 30 miles and 10 miles out" and it wasnt shot down...

Obviously.

What's puzzling is why you keep insisting there was no shoot down order when it's irrefutably been established that there was very clearly an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

It seems to me your argument is based entirely upon their not being able to actually do it, which is spurious logic. This very same interview revealed that interceptors were on their way to engage the hijacked planes so the reason why they weren't shot down was simply because "the interceptors didn't reach them in time". Throughout the summer Olympic athletes strove to beat their opponents but were unable to do it. Is that supposed to mean the same thing as the athletes wanting their opponents to win? It's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you have concerns over whether they should have done a better job, or why there wasn't a better attack plan in place to deal with such situations, that's one thing, and in fact I'd almost certainly agree with you, but insisting there was no shoot down order AT ALL is being disingenuous. "Stand down order" doesn't mean the same thing as "does the order still stand" regardless of how you calculate it out.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

If this particular conversation referred to a shoot down order, the "plane" would have been shot down. In all likelihood, the person approaching the VP was confused as to why they were NOT shooting down the "plane" which would explain why he repeatedly approached Cheney.

Cheney confirms (the order we are referring to in this conversation) to NOT shoot down the "plane" or - it - would - have - been - shot - down.

I'm sorry, but this is not difficult to understand.

reply to post by exponent

In the context of the conversation, they are referring to and or tracking a "plane".

Beyond this, people are free to interpret or believe whatever they would like: whether it was a "return" or an actual plane, etc.

reply to post by hooper

In the context of the Mineta testimony, he is referring to an order and its relatively clear as to what that order must have been.

Not sure why someone would repeatedly approach the VP if theres nothing that could be done. Suppose you would need to research that further and or draw your own conclusions.

Sibel Edmonds proves the 9/11 conspiracy



Enough talk about "technical details"

Yes 9/11 was a conspiracy as an inside job by the U.S.

Opium for the CIA=Wall St.

Oil for the CIA - Wall St.

Fascism for the U.S.

Mass mind control for the U.S.

O.K. so today's NY Crimes has an op-ed about how the CIA warned Bush of the 9/11 attack but the NeoCons squashed it telling Bush that the 9/11 warning was fake to distract Bush from invading Iraq.

So then we have Sibel Edmonds proving the NeoCons were arming ISI Pakistan using CIA double agents -- illegally through Turkey and Israel.

Yep the NeoCons needed a New Pearl Harbor -- and now Trineday releases a new expose on PNAC as behind the 9/11 Conspiracy.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

If this particular conversation referred to a shoot down order, the "plane" would have been shot down. In all likelihood, the person approaching the VP was confused as to why they were NOT shooting down the "plane" which would explain why he repeatedly approached Cheney.

Cheney confirms (the order we are referring to in this conversation) to NOT shoot down the "plane" or - it - would - have - been - shot - down.

I'm sorry, but this is not difficult to understand.

edit on 11-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

Why the Pentagon? Because that was the plan all along.

gladtobehere, your take and interpretation/description of the Cheney exchange with the "young man" is very close to my own. I'm not so much into the smokescreen differences between two similar sounding phrases, for me it's more about the elephant in the PEOC. The incoming threat etc.

It's like "Hello, there's a plane coming into D.C., we know this because we're (apparently somebody) is tracking it..."

So Cheney never asks where it might be going? Where it might impact? He's not even a little curious?

It could, after all, be headed straight for the PEOC!! He doesn't even know. But why is he in the PEOC? Oh yeah, in New York, two planes hit a tower each with surgical precision!

But he doesn't even take any precautions either. Every important target in the area should've gotten an evacuation order. Someone could've called the Pentagon and told them, they could've had an impromptu fire drill and that building would've at least been on alert with some people evacuated. But was anything evacuated? Apparently not.

Now why not? Cheney dropped the ball.

Cheney is like the super of an apartment building who smells smoke and gets a report from a "young tenant" that the furnace in the basement has gone ablaze and the fire is making its way to the first floor, now the second floor, now the third floor... does Cheney run down the remaining floors banging on the doors to alert and arouse unaware people of the impending danger? Apparently not.

A bunch of people died at the Pentagon on 9/11 even though some other people (including Cheney it seems) knew something was coming, and knew with enough time to make a few calls and alert some people.

I mean, that's what it looks and sounds like to me anyway.

Why are we asking Mineta questions? He was not privy to the exchange between the "young man" and Cheney. Question the "young man". Find out who his superiors were and find out exactly what they knew. No one even got a name for this "young man"? Didn't think so.


Cheers

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

If this particular conversation referred to a shoot down order, the "plane" would have been shot down. In all likelihood, the person approaching the VP was confused as to why they were NOT shooting down the "plane" which would explain why he repeatedly approached Cheney.

Cheney confirms (the order we are referring to in this conversation) to NOT shoot down the "plane" or - it - would - have - been - shot - down.

I'm sorry, but this is not difficult to understand.

You're right, it isn't difficult to understand. Even you have to acknowledge it takes more than a Secret Service agent's sidearm to bring down a passenger jet, and it's a given that Cheney isn't a member of the Q Continuum so he can't make the plane disappear by simply commanding it away by executive order. Either there had to be antiaircraft batteries to shoot it down, or Washington needed to scramble interceptors locally to shoot it down, or interceptors had to be brought in from elsewhere to shoot it down. There ain't any magic option number 4.

It's already been documented there weren't any anti-aircraft batteries in Washington until after 9/11, and it's already been documented the local interceptors weren't armed and they didn't have enough time to bring the missiles in from another area of the base (I found that out myself from another poster here on ATS), so that left the interceptors that had to come in from somewhere else. You already know it's been documented they didn't get there in time so I won't repeat the obvious.

Honestly, guy, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. It says right in Mineta's testimony it was specifically referring to a shoot down order so where you're getting this alternative history from is beyond me.

The most likely reason why the aide kept asking if the order still stands is because he was relaying up to the minute info to the interceptors coming in from langely.
The guys in those interceptors wanted to make damn sure that they still had the ok to fire as they got closer and closer to D.C. and a possible hijacked civilian airliner. CYA.

reply to post by Tardacus


Yeah like "The orders still stand?" But NOTHING is happening?

Cheney: Of course nothing is happening -- now shut up already! aka Of course (the orders still stand but the plane will never actually get shot down).

Let the conspiracy continue.