CJCSI 3610.01A, the "truther stand down order"

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22I saw that box cutter and said to myself, how could that thing do the destruction we're expected to believe it did? I mean in essence, box cutters took down those towers. Isn't that what we're supposed to really believe?

SGT Obie Thompson, a Marine Corps reservist, purple heart from Vietnam, instructor at Kang Rhee's Tae Kwon Do studio in Memphis, Tennessee. Wee hours of the morning in the mid-1980's he was killed by a junkie armed with a "box-cutter". He was a cop, he was tough, he was my training SGT, but he turned his back on the wrong man.

Don't underestimate box-cutters.

edit on 26-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

You say you're a 'truther' but all you do is back up the OS with every post, why would you bother if you do not beleive the OS and are, as you say, seeking the truth? I smell BS, you are not really searching for any truth, you just post to defend the OS, that is pretty obvious, even if you proclaim otherwise.

So what if someone got killed by a boxcutter, doesn't mean 4 different sets of 'terrorists' can hijack 4 planes with them! If you look into the history of failed hijackings pre-9/11, you will see many people armed with knives were overpowered by staff and passengers, so by your logic, because that has happened in the past, then by the law of averages, some if not all the hijackers should have been overpowered.

I do feel that at least some of them should have been overpowered, dont underestimate people overpowering hijackers!

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
saw that box cutter and said to myself, how could that thing do the destruction we're expected to believe it did? I mean in essence, box cutters took down those towers. Isn't that what we're supposed to really believe?

Google Satomi Mitarai

www.google.com...

That's horrible but not pertinent.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22I saw that box cutter and said to myself, how could that thing do the destruction we're expected to believe it did? I mean in essence, box cutters took down those towers. Isn't that what we're supposed to really believe?

SGT Obie Thompson, a Marine Corps reservist, purple heart from Vietnam, instructor at Kang Rhee's Tae Kwon Do studio in Memphis, Tennessee. Wee hours of the morning in the mid-1980's he was killed by a junkie armed with a "box-cutter". He was a cop, he was tough, he was my training SGT, but he turned his back on the wrong man.

Don't underestimate box-cutters.

edit on 26-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Horrible but not pertinent to the conversation. May he rest in peace.

reply to post by Bilk22


Why are they not pertinent? It wasnt just one man trying to take the plane, but four or more. Four armed with boxcutters with seats closest to the cockpit, and some people were killed on the flights before the crashes. However, to the passengers, it was appearing to be a "routine" hijacking, that was going to end with the plane landing safely somewhere in exchange for ransom or negotiations until being stormed by Special Forces or surrendering. That was the SOP at the time, and how 99% of hijackings ended up. There have not been many instances of hijacked aircraft turning into kamikaze attacks against structures. If there were, they are obscure or stopped before happening. Also on some of the flights the hijackers announced they had bombs as well. Who was going to risk a fight back if there was a chance of a midair explosion??

reply to post by kidtwist


you missed the obvious too apparently. The beam is cut diagonally (the way they "walk" a building) - and not straight across which is the easiest obviously and least amount of work. Also, if it were cut for "cleanup" why cut it so high and make it needing another cut? I am guessing they have some excuse prepared for that question too.

magic fire, magic bullet ... again they have beaten the laws of man... but will answer to a higher power and pay the ultimate price.

There is no point in repeatedly posting the obvious as they will never admit to truth because all they know are lies.

don't be so shocked... it is their nature. They can continue to ignore the tiny bone fragments on rooftops that no 'pancake collapse" can ever explain.but they will try... they want to think they have a moral compass.

meh before they even try let me point out that even a pancake collapse would put the fires out (its called smothering) and not have molten pools of metal with satellite heat mapping showing hotspots.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by kidtwist

 

you missed the obvious too apparently. The beam is cut diagonally (the way they "walk" a building) - and not straight across which is the easiest obviously and least amount of work. Also, if it were cut for "cleanup" why cut it so high and make it needing another cut? I am guessing they have some excuse prepared for that question too.

magic fire, magic bullet ... again they have beaten the laws of man... but will answer to a higher power and pay the ultimate price.

There is no point in repeatedly posting the obvious as they will never admit to truth because all they know are lies.

don't be so shocked... it is their nature. They can continue to ignore the tiny bone fragments on rooftops that no 'pancake collapse" can ever explain.but they will try... they want to think they have a moral compass.

meh before they even try let me point out that even a pancake collapse would put the fires out (its called smothering) and not have molten pools of metal with satellite heat mapping showing hotspots.

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.

Originally posted by Kastogere
you cannot sit there and tell me a fire caused by jet fuel alone brought down those towers.

Plane impact + office fires started by the jet fuel DID, however.

reply to post by anoncoholic

you missed the obvious too apparently. The beam is cut diagonally (the way they "walk" a building) - and not straight across which is the easiest obviously and least amount of work. Also, if it were cut for "cleanup" why cut it so high and make it needing another cut? I am guessing they have some excuse prepared for that question too.

yeah excuses is something they have a lot of. But that is a very good question i wonder what is the excuse for this?

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.

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.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

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.

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)

That's too bad isn't it? It's about cut steel now.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


So what your saying is, a plane impact can cause a fire so hot that it would collapse a building at free fall speeds without making the building sway to the side on landing, and accumulate in a neat little pile from the top down as to cause less destruction to the buildings around it and surrounding areas. Regardless of the fact that the building was made to survive a plane impact?

Yea ok, Im sold....I can buy that.

reply to post 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.

I must have missed it.. Can you please debunk it again?

Well, the thread has been derailed primarily because no one has an answer and no one can refute the premise of the OP that there was no "stand down order" based upon any document revision. No Commander in NORAD needed or asked for Rumsfield's approval to launch Air Defense fighters. So in typical truther fashion switch the topic to something else you can argue about...

Truthers = Lose again! Another truther myth roasted and done!

Originally posted by Reheat
Well, the thread has been derailed primarily because no one has an answer and no one can refute the premise of the OP that there was no "stand down order" based upon any document revision. No Commander in NORAD needed or asked for Rumsfield's approval to launch Air Defense fighters. So in typical truther fashion switch the topic to something else you can argue about...

Truthers = Lose again! Another truther myth roasted and done!

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

yes, how easy it is to twist facts. No stand down order you say?

Funny the first shoot down order came after 10 am

Norad ignored Cheney

Instead of acknowledging the order to shoot down civilian aircraft and carrying it out, NORAD ordered fighters to confirm aircraft tail numbers first and report back for further instructions. 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. Source: Raw Story (s.tt...)

You probably don't remember that Cheney had taken control of SOP before 911 but regardless, if there was no stand down (until 10am roughly) then why were no planes shot down even though two 110 story smoking buildings could be seen for miles? (Because all the thievery hadn't played out yet.)
meh, lets get beyond this little point and delve deeper into the psyche of an OS'r . I can almost assuredly place a bet that at some time in all your debunking post history you used a particular word to describe it as I have seen the pattern over the years and its right out of your playbook. That word is credulity. That is a form of the word people just don't use in everyday speech. It is either incredible or credible or has credibility or is credulous or even has veracity but whoever wrote that book you lot follow to the letter has an unusual speech pattern that all you professional debunkers adopted.

See the mind of the liar tries to invoke a certain slant to others and by using the word credulity it attacks the character rather than the content.

but lets go beyond your playbook and get right down to common sense. See my post above, in fact, look at the pics and explain it. There is no signs of burning / charring/ blackening by soot, and yet the satellite thermal images had high temperatures beneath the ground and even molten pools.

Then explain why Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics lied and if all was as being told why the need to lie in the first place?

Go ahead, check your manual and see if you should ignore these questions again or if you should take it to your handlers first.. You all have a set guideline to follow and I am guessing you will ignore the facts you can't take issue with.

20,000 tiny bone fragments doesn't even phase you. Not all victims have even been identified by remains a decade later doesn't phase you.

bone fragments

Numbers tell the story in the decade of search and recovery of the remains of Sept. 11 victims -- a massive forensic investigation marked by a Supreme Court appeal of families who wanted a more thorough search, and discoveries years after the attacks of even more remains in manholes and on rooftops around ground zero. _ Tens of millions have been spent, including on the painstaking extraction of DNA from tiny bone fragments, using technology refined from a decade ago. _ Of 21,000 remains that have been recovered, nearly 9,000 are unidentified, because of the degraded condition they were found in. More than 1,100 victims have no identifiable remains. _ And the pace of the process is telling _ in five years, only 26 new identifications. Ernest James, a 40-year-old man who worked in the trade center's north tower, was the last identification, in late August. "I can't give a time frame of when an identification is going to be made, if at all," said Mark Desire, who heads the World Trade Center identification unit for the city medical examiner's office. "But we are working nonstop." Five scientists work seven days a week trying to make new identifications at a lab in an ultra-modern building on the east side of Manhattan. The unidentified remains are stored in climate-controlled conditions under a white tent blocks from the medical examiner's office. About 400 bone fragments are looked at and analyzed every month.

Bearing false witness is an act of collusion and makes you guilty after the fact. Maybe you can beat the laws of man, but like I said above, a higher power is judging you and your actions.

You should Pray

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by Reheat
Well, the thread has been derailed primarily because no one has an answer and no one can refute the premise of the OP that there was no "stand down order" based upon any document revision. No Commander in NORAD needed or asked for Rumsfield's approval to launch Air Defense fighters. So in typical truther fashion switch the topic to something else you can argue about...

Truthers = Lose again! Another truther myth roasted and done!

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

yes, how easy it is to twist facts. No stand down order you say?

You still haven't proven one, so yes......"no stand down order"

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Funny the first shoot down order came after 10 am

Pssst - You aren't going to convince anyone (except other "truthers") by using crackpot conspiracy theory sites as a source. Neither you or "they" haven't proven that NEADS or NORAD even knew about Cheney's "shoot down authorization".

Originally posted by anoncoholic
You probably don't remember that Cheney had taken control of SOP before 911 but regardless,

What is SOP? You've provided no proof of anything, just baseless assertions.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
if there was no stand down (until 10am roughly) then why were no planes shot down even though two 110 story smoking buildings could be seen for miles? (Because all the thievery hadn't played out yet.)

Apparently, it's news to you that NO ONE anywhere knew there was an attack until after the second strike in NYC. Even then, thank goodness we don't just "willy nilly" shoot down Commercial Airliners just because of suspicion.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
meh, lets get beyond this little point and delve deeper into the psyche of an OS'r . I can almost assuredly place a bet that at some time in all your debunking post history you used a particular word to describe it as I have seen the pattern over the years and its right out of your playbook. That word is credulity. That is a form of the word people just don't use in everyday speech. It is either incredible or credible or has credibility or is credulous or even has veracity but whoever wrote that book you lot follow to the letter has an unusual speech pattern that all you professional debunkers adopted.

See the mind of the liar tries to invoke a certain slant to others and by using the word credulity it attacks the character rather than the content.

Sure, I understand if you have no argument to make just invent a strawman instead.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
but lets go beyond your playbook and get right down to common sense. See my post above, in fact, look at the pics and explain it. There is no signs of burning / charring/ blackening by soot, and yet the satellite thermal images had high temperatures beneath the ground and even molten pools.

Then explain why Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics lied and if all was as being told why the need to lie in the first place?

Go ahead, check your manual and see if you should ignore these questions again or if you should take it to your handlers first.. You all have a set guideline to follow and I am guessing you will ignore the facts you can't take issue with.

20,000 tiny bone fragments doesn't even phase you. Not all victims have even been identified by remains a decade later doesn't phase you.

In who's playbook is changing the topic of the thread because you can't address the topic under discussion.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Bearing false witness is an act of collusion and makes you guilty after the fact. Maybe you can beat the laws of man, but like I said above, a higher power is

You should take your own advice.

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.

Newly published audio this week reveals that Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous Sept. 11, 2001 order to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft was ignored by military officials, who instead ordered pilots to only identify suspect aircraft. That revelation is one of many in newly released audio recordings compiled by investigators for the 9/11 Commission, published this week by The Rutgers Law Review. Featuring voices from employees at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and American Airlines, the newly released multimedia provides a glimpse at the chaos that emerged as the attack progressed. Source: Raw Story (s.tt...)

What is SOP? If you are of such limited intellect to not know what standard operating procedure is then I waste my time (which is obvious whenever truth deals with lies because while truth stands on its own, lies need to keep evolving to cover prior lies with. )

Apparently, it's news to you that NO ONE anywhere knew there was an attack until after the second strike in NYC. Even then, thank goodness we don't just "willy nilly" shoot down Commercial Airliners just because of suspicion.

Give it a rest. I knew from the first plane as did the government and all who subsequently lied about not foreseeing this event are in on it as are you.

ISBN 1-56171-269-8

printed in 1993, I knew from the first plane, how come you didn't? More importantly why was this information ignored since it was directly from the Head of the Republican task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare? Why wasn't it made public knowledge for all as the recommendation in the forward by Senator Bill McCollum laid out? Why did they all lie about not seeing it coming when they had a task force developing the story in the first place? Maybe because they were manufacturing 911 and didn't want to let an opportunity such as a pending attack go to waste? This leads to the stock puts, the trillions missing from the Pentragon, the destroyed SEC files, the missing billions in gold bullion (insurance covered naturally) the Insurance of the towers, the subsequent erosion of civil rights... yeah, we truthers made it all up because we like to risk our own lives/freedoms.

You keep trying to wiggle out of answering by saying it isn't the topic , answer my questions. Why the need to lie? Something to hide perhaps?

The truth is you can't answer because you got caught lying.

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.

Originally posted by Kastogere

So what your saying is, a plane impact can cause a fire so hot that it would collapse a building

the plane impact caused structural damage. It was worse in 2 cuz it was offcenter and at higher speed. This caused large unequal amounts of load distribution local to the impact point.

The impact also started the fires simultaneously over several floors, which is not typical for how an office fire starts. It usually starts at one spot. And even if the sprinkler system wasn't destroyed by the impacts, it still couldn't have put the fires out cuz they are typically sized - meaning the piping system for the water - to sprinkle only a small portion of a floor.

at free fall speeds

this is a debunked lie.

I almost feel sorry for you for making such a ludicrous statement.

without making the building sway to the side on landing,

huh?

and accumulate in a neat little pile

another lie.

from the top down as to cause less destruction to the buildings around it and surrounding areas.

so you don't even know truther talking points either, huh? a talking point from truthers is that debris hit the Winter Garden, which is 600' away.

Regardless of the fact that the building was made to survive a plane impact?

it wasn't designed to survive a plane impact. the design was examined and it was found that it wouldn't overturn in case of a plane impact. Which it didn't by the way. It was plane impact, loss of fire protection, and fires that caused the collapse.

Yea ok, Im sold....I can buy that.

You should.

Cuz it's the truth.

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

There is no restricted airspace over the Pentagon. In fact, there is a major airport (Reagon National) with aircraft that fly in and out of that airspace virtually every minute during busy periods.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
that has defensive capability and scrambles jets routinely for every accidental fly-over? Search for restricted airspace incursions.

What defensive capability do "they" have? Since when were jets scrambled for violating restricted airspace where none exists. BTW. I can find a few scrambles for violations of restricted airspace, but there won't be any for the area around the Pentagon.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
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.

No one can be sued for defamation unless it can be proven that the original information was correct. Neither you nor they can do that, so I'm not worried..

What is SOP?

Originally posted by anoncoholic
If you are of such limited intellect to not know what standard operating procedure is then I waste my time (which is obvious whenever truth deals with lies because while truth stands on its own, lies need to keep evolving to cover prior lies with. )

Oh, I know what standard operating procedures are quite well. However, since the Vice-President is not in the military chain of command how can he be in charge or control of military exercises? It is a violation of the Constitution, so how can this be SOP?

Apparently, it's news to you that NO ONE anywhere knew there was an attack until after the second strike in NYC. Even then, thank goodness we don't just "willy nilly" shoot down Commercial Airliners just because of suspicion.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
Give it a rest. I knew from the first plane as did the government and all who subsequently lied about not foreseeing this event are in on it as are you.

Wow, aren't you the clairvoyant one! Speaking of slander, I'm not a public figure and you've just committed slander by accusing me of being "in on it" with zero evidence. This is unlike the earlier accusation that you made as I can easily prove I wasn't even in the US on 9/11 and can account for all of my activities both prior to and after that time...

Originally posted by anoncoholic
printed in 1993, I knew from the first plane, how come you didn't? More importantly why was this information ignored since it was directly from the Head of the Republican task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare? Why wasn't it made public knowledge for all as the recommendation in the forward by Senator Bill McCollum laid out? Why did they all lie about not seeing it coming when they had a task force developing the story in the first place? Maybe because they were manufacturing 911 and didn't want to let an opportunity such as a pending attack go to waste? This leads to the stock puts, the trillions missing from the Pentragon, the destroyed SEC files, the missing billions in gold bullion (insurance covered naturally) the Insurance of the towers, the subsequent erosion of civil rights... yeah, we truthers made it all up because we like to risk our own lives/freedoms.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how something written in 1993 applied to the attack which occurred in 2001. Interesting that.....

Originally posted by anoncoholic
You keep trying to wiggle out of answering by saying it isn't the topic , answer my questions. Why the need to lie? Something to hide perhaps?

I have no clue what you're talking about. If you really want an answer, state the question and I'll answer if it's related to the topic. Somehow, I think you're confused (which is not unusual here)

Originally posted by anoncoholic
The truth is you can't answer because you got caught lying.

What was the question? You do know it's slander if you can't prove I have lied. It's also a violation of the rules here, so perhaps you may ought to tone down your obnoxious rhetoric and address the issues. Good luck.