Had Arnold the right to shoot down without approval of Rumsfeld?

[bio]

Is following statement right?

Larry Arnold, Commanding general of NORAD's Continental Region regarding the hijacked planes on 9/11:

I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under emergency condition.
Filson, 2003, S. 75

On the one hand side, on 9/11 the secretary of defense retained its approval authority for support concerning "event with the potential for confrontation" on the other hand side, "nothing (...) prevents a commander from exercising his oder her immediate (...) response authority (...)."
Aren´t these both statements contradicting each other?

4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or goups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997

According to the 911-commission, neither Arnold nor another commander would had the right just to scramble planes without the approval of the secretary of defense:

"If there was approval, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD´s chain of command (...)."
http://www.9-11commission/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_hearing_2004-06-17.pdf

Another position has the 1st Air Force.

According to them, the secretary of defense would had to approve the use of military assets to assist in a hijacking, but on the other side ...

"The 1st Air Force’s official history of the response to the 9/11 attacks will later suggest that Boston Center is not following normal procedures when it makes this call to NEADS. It states: “If normal procedures had taken place… Powell (NEADS) probably wouldn’t have taken that phone call. Normally, the FAA would have contacted officials at the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center who would have contacted the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The secretary of defense would have had to approve the use of military assets to assist in a hijacking, always considered a law enforcement issue.” The only explanation it gives for this departure from protocol is that “nothing was normal on Sept. 11, 2001, and many say the traditional chain of command went by the wayside to get the job done.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 51

... on the other side, according to the 1st Air Force book, the sector commander would have authority to scramble airplanes.

Yet, according to the 1st Air Force’s own book about 9/11, the “sector commander [at NEADS] would have authority to scramble the airplanes.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 50-52

Another question:
DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)) Where is reference g? I cannot find it in that reference g in the directive.:boxedin:

Thanks for your posts.

[funk de fino]

Military targets and hijacked plane are two different things.

[Cheap Shot]

Under FAA Order 7610.4H at the time it was covered under chapter 6 excort of hijacked aircraft, intercepts were covered under chapter 4. They are not the same. There are conflicting orders out there regarding whether the Sector Commander had the authority to launch fighters for hijack escort. I beleive he had the authority I don't beleive Col. Marr beleived he did. I would have to beleive that what ever he says, he was the expert on any other military orders that may have giuded him in his decisions. As far as the FAA not following the chain of command we did, we contacted the our Regional Operation Center and were in contact with the Command Center, we just chose to call NEADS and Otis directly to speed up what would be the inevitable decision, to launch fighters. I really beleive if we waited for the proper chain of command we would have not launched until some time after 10:15.

I was around for the previous hijack the Lufthansa and I beleive we did the same thing. Someone called NEADS directly along with the proper chain of command, but in that occurrence we had time to preplan for it

[gumboot]

I would say that no, military personnel do not have authority to engage a civilian target in the US without approval from US government.

The only exception is that the commander of NORAD (which was not Arnold) can declare an Air Defense Emergency. At that point NORAD can pretty much shoot whoever it wants.

[gumboot]

Under FAA Order 7610.4H at the time it was covered under chapter 6 excort of hijacked aircraft, intercepts were covered under chapter 4. They are not the same. There are conflicting orders out there regarding whether the Sector Commander had the authority to launch fighters for hijack escort. I beleive he had the authority I don't beleive Col. Marr beleived he did.



No conflict. NORAD regulations regarding the use of military aircraft for a hijacking escort are pretty clear. Cannot happen without prior request from Transport Canada or the FAA, and approval from SecDef. As per standing orders on 9/11 - NORAD Regulation 55-7 "Airborne Surveillance of Hijacked Aircraft".

[Cheap Shot]

Look at a copy of Appendix 16 in the 7610.4H I may be pushing the authority issue here, but my interpretation was that the SOCC could launch without a direct call from NORAD, that NORAD had issued them that authority under Appendix 16.

[gumboot]

Look at a copy of Appendix 16 in the 7610.4H I may be pushing the authority issue here, but my interpretation was that the SOCC could launch without a direct call from NORAD, that NORAD had issued them that authority under Appendix 16.


The correct order is 7610.4J, but I imagine it's much the same. That's the FAA's authorisation for NORAD to conduct interceptor operations, under their specific conditions. However the conditions under which NORAD can operate are contained in NORAD Regulations, not FAA Regulations.

Basically, Appendix 16 gives NEADS, SEADS, WADS and AADS permission to operate interceptor aircraft within FAA airspace, but that's all it does.

The conditions under which this may happen, and how it happens, are determined by the NORAD Regulations for the various types of mission.

So:

FAA to NEADS: You can operate fighters in our airspace
NORAD to NEADS: You can't escort hijacked airliners unless the FAA asks you to and the Secretary of Defense approves it

[bio]

No conflict. NORAD regulations regarding the use of military aircraft for a hijacking escort are pretty clear. Cannot happen without prior request from Transport Canada or the FAA, and approval from SecDef. As per standing orders on 9/11 - NORAD Regulation 55-7 "Airborne Surveillance of Hijacked Aircraft".

This document does not state, that NORAD need the approval of SecDef.

Why do you say, that the SecDef. approval is necessary, when the law says "Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."?

Thanks.

[bio]

Under FAA Order 7610.4H at the time it was covered under chapter 6 excort of hijacked aircraft, intercepts were covered under chapter 4. They are not the same. There are conflicting orders out there regarding whether the Sector Commander had the authority to launch fighters for hijack escort. I beleive he had the authority I don't beleive Col. Marr beleived he did. I would have to beleive that what ever he says, he was the expert on any other military orders that may have giuded him in his decisions. As far as the FAA not following the chain of command we did, we contacted the our Regional Operation Center and were in contact with the Command Center, we just chose to call NEADS and Otis directly to speed up what would be the inevitable decision, to launch fighters. I really beleive if we waited for the proper chain of command we would have not launched until some time after 10:15.

I was around for the previous hijack the Lufthansa and I beleive we did the same thing. Someone called NEADS directly along with the proper chain of command, but in that occurrence we had time to preplan for it

Mister Bruno reacted very good, but unconventional. Did he really say "I am not the FAA Headquarter, but I am the FAA"?

[Brainster]

It has been argued by Philip Shenon in The Commission, that even Dick Cheney did not have authority to shoot down a plane and indeed, notes taken at the time indicate that WH staff tried to get Bush's confirmation on the order. Hence the Marine who continually asked Cheney if the orders still stood.

[Oystein]

Does the VP have any constitutional powers at all? Except for his role in Senate?

[SpitfireIX]

Does the VP have any constitutional powers at all? Except for his role in Senate?


Only in the event that the President is incapacitated.

25th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am25)


1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

5. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. [bolding mine]

[Oystein]

Only in the event that the President is incapacitated.

25th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am25)

Which Dubya wasn't ;) (at least not more so than usual :D)

[bio]

It has been argued by Philip Shenon in The Commission, that even Dick Cheney did not have authority to shoot down a plane and indeed, notes taken at the time indicate that WH staff tried to get Bush's confirmation on the order. Hence the Marine who continually asked Cheney if the orders still stood.

yes - because Flight 93 was 10 miles out of D.C. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

yes - because Flight 93 was 10 miles out of D.C. :rolleyes:

Yet again you display ignorance of a subject from 911.

[Oystein]

yes - because Flight 93 was 10 miles out of D.C. :rolleyes:

No, it wasn't.

[bio]

gumboot has right, all scrambles on 911 were against the law.

[Oystein]

gumboot has right, all scrambles on 911 were against the law.

I don't think that's what gumboot wrote, and I don't think it's correct.

[bio]

I don't think that's what gumboot wrote, and I don't think it's correct.

there could not be an approval of Rumsfeld, because nobody could find him until around 10:00! no joke.

[bio]

What did Mr. Sliney say around 09:49?

“I said something like, ‘That’s incredible. There’s only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know.’ We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information. What was the military response?”
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006

My theory is, that Mister Sliney did not mean somebody missing in the FAA, but somebody in the Pentagon.

[T.A.M.]

there could not be an approval of Rumsfeld, because nobody could find him until around 10:00! no joke.

Yes I believe that is because he was actually trying to help people at the Pentagon after the crash, IIRC.

TAM:)

[fess]

yes - because Flight 93 was 10 miles out of D.C. :rolleyes:

Without my handy E-6B calculator in front of me, that would put Flt 93 less than two minutes out of DC... right? Looking at my sectional, I see that Shanksville is way more than 10 miles from DC. Are you confused again?

[funk de fino]

What did Mr. Sliney say around 09:49?

“I said something like, ‘That’s incredible. There’s only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know.’ We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information. What was the military response?”
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006

My theory is, that Mister Sliney did not mean somebody missing in the FAA, but somebody in the Pentagon.

Your theory is balls.

[Macgyver1968]

yes - because Flight 93 was 10 miles out of D.C. :rolleyes:

Huh? Flight 93 took off from NY, and flew to Cleveland, then turned SE and crashed in Shanksville. That's the closest it got to DC. Shanksville is approx. 150 miles from DC.

[cyclonic]

==0930 AM, approximately > The FAA’s command center is compiling a list of planes suspected of having been hijacked, which will include seven untouched planes in addition to the four genuine hijack victims. Until about 1100 AM, FAA managers are facing the nightmarish prospect of a long series of hijacked flights, which might have to be shot down. [ust.Aug.13.2002]

==0930 AM > The Director of the Secret Service urges that President Bush be prevented from immediately returning to the capital. Richard Clarke passes the request on to Cheney and Rice by about 0940 AM, and also asks that the Air Force be given authorization to shoot down threatening aircraft. Soon afterwards, Clarke requests combat air patrols over every major American city. [clarke]

==0949 AM > NORAD orders all combat aircraft to battle stations, fully armed. [911cm]

==0949 AM > The two F-16s scrambled from Langley arrive over Washington, reinforced an hour later by three fighters from Andrews AFB. The planes from Andrews have little or no ammunition, but all three pilots later state that if necessary they were prepared to ram an incoming aircraft. [avw.Jun.03+Sep.09.2002 / cnn.Sep.17.2001]

==1003:11 AM > Flight 93 crashes in rural Pennsylvania, near Shanksville, after witnesses observe it flying erratically at high speed. Evidently, the frantic hijackers deliberately crashed the plane just as the passengers were about to break into the cockpit. Horrified personnel at the United Airlines crisis center "watched it until the end of the radar track ... and then, poof. We didn't have time to cry." News reports of the crash begin circulating about a half hour later. [911cm / wsj.Oct.15.2001]
=Since the fighters patrolling over Washington at this time had no shootdown orders (see 1010-1015), it is likely that Flight 93 would have hit its intended target - probably the Capitol Building - if it hadn't been brought down by the passenger revolt. [911cm]


==1010-1015 AM > During this time frame Cheney orders the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93, unaware that the plane has already crashed. Cheney later claimed that he had gotten Bush's consent for the order about five minutes earlier, but 911 Commission investigators reportedly concluded that the Vice President acted without authorization. Unknown to Cheney, his shootdown order is inoperative since he didn’t send it through the regular chain of command. The order generates a great deal of confusion and is not communicated to the pilots patrolling over New York and Washington until later, if at all. [911cm / nwwk.Feb.27.2006]

==1052 AM > There are false news reports that there are five hijacked planes still in the air. [bro&c.Aug.26.2002]

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

[twinstead]

I'm still confused about what the heck this all means re a "911 conspiracy theory".

[bio]

Huh? Flight 93 took off from NY, and flew to Cleveland, then turned SE and crashed in Shanksville. That's the closest it got to DC. Shanksville is approx. 150 miles from DC.

you are right, it could not be Flight 93 only Flight 77.

[bio]

==0930 AM, approximately > The FAA’s command center is compiling a list of planes suspected of having been hijacked, which will include seven untouched planes in addition to the four genuine hijack victims. Until about 1100 AM, FAA managers are facing the nightmarish prospect of a long series of hijacked flights, which might have to be shot down. [ust.Aug.13.2002]

==0930 AM > The Director of the Secret Service urges that President Bush be prevented from immediately returning to the capital. Richard Clarke passes the request on to Cheney and Rice by about 0940 AM, and also asks that the Air Force be given authorization to shoot down threatening aircraft. Soon afterwards, Clarke requests combat air patrols over every major American city. [clarke]

==0949 AM > NORAD orders all combat aircraft to battle stations, fully armed. [911cm]

==0949 AM > The two F-16s scrambled from Langley arrive over Washington, reinforced an hour later by three fighters from Andrews AFB. The planes from Andrews have little or no ammunition, but all three pilots later state that if necessary they were prepared to ram an incoming aircraft. [avw.Jun.03+Sep.09.2002 / cnn.Sep.17.2001]

==1003:11 AM > Flight 93 crashes in rural Pennsylvania, near Shanksville, after witnesses observe it flying erratically at high speed. Evidently, the frantic hijackers deliberately crashed the plane just as the passengers were about to break into the cockpit. Horrified personnel at the United Airlines crisis center "watched it until the end of the radar track ... and then, poof. We didn't have time to cry." News reports of the crash begin circulating about a half hour later. [911cm / wsj.Oct.15.2001]
=Since the fighters patrolling over Washington at this time had no shootdown orders (see 1010-1015), it is likely that Flight 93 would have hit its intended target - probably the Capitol Building - if it hadn't been brought down by the passenger revolt. [911cm]


==1010-1015 AM > During this time frame Cheney orders the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93, unaware that the plane has already crashed. Cheney later claimed that he had gotten Bush's consent for the order about five minutes earlier, but 911 Commission investigators reportedly concluded that the Vice President acted without authorization. Unknown to Cheney, his shootdown order is inoperative since he didn’t send it through the regular chain of command. The order generates a great deal of confusion and is not communicated to the pilots patrolling over New York and Washington until later, if at all. [911cm / nwwk.Feb.27.2006]

==1052 AM > There are false news reports that there are five hijacked planes still in the air. [bro&c.Aug.26.2002]

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

According to Richard Clarke, he got the shoot-down order from Bush around 09:50.

According to his own account, counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke is informed that President Bush has authorized the military to shoot down threatening aircraft. Clarke had requested that this authorization be given at around 9:36 (see (Between 9:30 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). In his 2004 book Against all Enemies he will state that he receives a response shortly after the time people begin rapidly evacuating from the White House, and while Air Force One is getting ready to take off. This would therefore be sometime between 9:45 and 9:56. He gets a phone call from the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House, where Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice are located. On the other end is Army Major Mike Fenzel. Fenzel tells Clarke: “Air Force One is getting ready to take off, with some press still on board. He’ll divert to an air base. Fighter escort is authorized. And… tell the Pentagon they have authority from the president to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.” Clarke replies, “Roger that.” In his recollection of this call, Clarke comments, “I was amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney and, through him, from Bush.” Clarke then gets the attention of those on the video conference screen for the Pentagon, and informs them, “the president has ordered the use of force against aircraft deemed to be hostile.”
CNN, 9/12/2001; Clarke, 2004, pp. 7-8

[Brainster]

Huh? Flight 93 took off from NY, and flew to Cleveland, then turned SE and crashed in Shanksville. That's the closest it got to DC. Shanksville is approx. 150 miles from DC.

What our Troofer friend is trying to do is claim that Cheney's order (per Norm Mineta) was about Flight 77. Of course, Flight 93 did not get within 10 miles of DC, but Cheney and company did not know that at the time, and they were estimating its proximity to the capital based on last known location and time elapsed.

Troofers! Is there anything they don't get wrong about 9-11 aside from the date?

[gumboot]

This document does not state, that NORAD need the approval of SecDef.

Quite true, they required the approval of JCS on behalf of SecDef. As per the regulation.

b. Escort missions are requested by the FAA or TC. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) or Canadian Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) may task NORAD to escort aircraft in the event of a hijacking.



Why do you say, that the SecDef. approval is necessary, when the law says "Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."?

Let's take a look at DODD 3025.1 shall we?

4.5. Immediate Response

4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as "Immediate Response."


Well that certainly looks promising, although I've bolded a pertinent point; NORAD regulations trump this DOD Directive. Shall we read on?

4.5.2. While Immediate Response should be provided to civil agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis if possible, it should not be delayed or denied because of the inability or unwillingness of the requester to make a commitment to reimburse the Department of Defense.

4.5.3. Any commander or official acting under the Immediate Response
authority of this Directive shall advise the DoD Executive Agent through command channels, by the most expeditious means available, and shall seek approval or additional authorizations, as needed.

Nothing particularly noteworthy there. What is the nature of this immediate response though? Read on...

4.5.4. Immediate Response may include DoD assistance to civil agencies in meeting the following types of need:

Ah! Here we go...

4.5.4.1. Rescue, evacuation, and emergency medical treatment of casualties, maintenance or restoration of emergency medical capabilities, and safeguarding the public health.

4.5.4.2. Emergency restoration of essential public services (including firefighting, water, communications, transportation, power, and fuel).

4.5.4.3. Emergency clearance of debris, rubble, and explosive ordnance from public facilities and other areas to permit rescue or movement of people and restoration of essential services.

4.5.4.4. Recovery, identification, registration, and disposal of the dead.

4.5.4.5. Monitoring and decontaminating radiological, chemical, and biological effects; controlling contaminated areas; and reporting through national warning and hazard control systems.

4.5.4.6. Roadway movement control and planning.

4.5.4.7. Safeguarding, collecting, and distributing food, essential supplies, and materiel on the basis of critical priorities.

4.5.4.8. Damage assessment.

4.5.4.9. Interim emergency communications.

4.5.4.10. Facilitating the reestablishment of civil government functions.

That's weird. I was expecting:

4.5.4.11. Intercepting and shooting down hijacked airliners full of American civilians.

I guess they forgot to add that bit.

[gumboot]

gumboot has right, all scrambles on 911 were against the law.

They were in breach of standing military orders. What's your point?

[gumboot]

What did Mr. Sliney say around 09:49?

“I said something like, ‘That’s incredible. There’s only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know.’ We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information. What was the military response?”
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006

My theory is, that Mister Sliney did not mean somebody missing in the FAA, but somebody in the Pentagon.



My theory is you're not a very good researcher.

FAA headquarters officials were supposed to notify the military but staff members there were recorded dithering about the hijacked United flight.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: They're pulling Jeff away to talk about United 93.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, God, I don't know.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.

Apparently, there was only one person at FAA headquarters who was authorized to call in the military. Ben Sliney was told that no one could find that person, "I said something like that's incredible. There's only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know. We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information. What was the military response?"

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline9.html)

[PhantomWolf]

Troofers! Is there anything they don't get wrong about 9-11 aside from the date?

As has been noted previously, some have even managed that.

[PhantomWolf]

you are right, it could not be Flight 93 only Flight 77.

Except that the incident happened after 9:50am and 77 had already crashed by then so it can't have been 77. Oops.

[bio]

My theory is you're not a very good researcher.

do you know the meaning of the word "apparently"? ;)

The journalists speculates and connect these two statements of Doug Davis and Sliney by his own - as I do with Sliney statement and Rumsfelds disappearance.

... but what do we know?

1. The person, who could give orders to scramble, Rumsfeld could not be found at this time around 09:50.
2. The hijack-net was run inside the ACC by Mike Wickert, the supervisor was Mister Longmire. They told us nothing in their interviews, that all the people in the ACC "just left the room".
3. When we see the statement of Sliney, he spoke about orders and the military, not about the FAA.

It has much more probability, that Sliney meant Rumsfeld and not the persons running the hijack-net.

[bio]

Quite true, they required the approval of JCS on behalf of SecDef. As per the regulation.
Let's take a look at DODD 3025.1 shall we?
Well that certainly looks promising, although I've bolded a pertinent point; NORAD regulations trump this DOD Directive. Shall we read on?
Nothing particularly noteworthy there. What is the nature of this immediate response though? Read on...
Ah! Here we go...
That's weird. I was expecting:
I guess they forgot to add that bit.

Thank you!

[bio]

What our Troofer friend is trying to do is claim that Cheney's order (per Norm Mineta) was about Flight 77. Of course, Flight 93 did not get within 10 miles of DC, but Cheney and company did not know that at the time, and they were estimating its proximity to the capital based on last known location and time elapsed.
(...)



You are really claiming, that although Cheney´s team recognized the plane disappearance on radar, could not follow its track anymore, therefore they "were estimating" the course of the "phantom" into DC and asked him, weather the orders would still stand. Wow. :eek:

source for that one please.

[funk de fino]

do you know the meaning of the word "apparently"? ;)

The journalists speculates and connect these two statements of Doug Davis and Sliney by his own - as I do with Sliney statement and Rumsfelds disappearance.

What was happening at the Pentagon at this time?

[funk de fino]

You are really claiming, that Cheneys team recognized the plane disappearance on radar, so could not follow its track anymore, so they "were estimating" the possible course of the "phantom" in DC. Wow. :eek:

source for that one please.


The track was an estimated track from 93. When this was happening 77 had already crashed. The controllers saw it crash and so did the C130 pilot. Cheney saw smoke from the pentagon while he was in the corridor waiting to go into the PEOC.

[bio]

What was happening at the Pentagon at this time?

Mister Rumsfeld helped injured people until 10:00 as the NMCC wanted to have their commander in their teleconference. no joke.

[beachnut]

gumboot has right, all scrambles on 911 were against the law.
No, they were not covered in the directives and instructions the military have. (who reads the rules, it is like reading instructions or getting directions!)

...the military takes and oath that covers the good idea better take action; and civilians always come up with cool plans...

The Passengers of Flight 93 took action and understood 911 in minutes; something you can't do! Is it against the law for you to understand 911?

bio, you are one of a fringe few who can't figure out 911! Why do you sit by the door waiting to get in, it is open, but you think it is locked...

[funk de fino]

Mister Rumsfeld helped injured people until 10:00 as the NMCC wanted to have their commander in their teleconference. no joke.

There is only one joke around here. You being ignorant about 911. Should he have deserted those people?

[aggle-rithm]

There is only one joke around here. You being ignorant about 911. Should he have deserted those people?

bio is still upset that HE wasn't made Secretary of Defense. HE would have known what to do!

[beachnut]

Mister Rumsfeld helped injured people until 10:00 as the NMCC wanted to have their commander in their teleconference. no joke.
Commander without a weapon. Looks like Rumsfeld was more like Caesar helping with the immediate needs, not chasing the surprise attackers all dead shortly after 10:00. There is nothing you can do in a surprise attack but expect everyone to step up to the plate and take action. There is nothing the President, SecDEF, or JCS can do in the short time it took to surprise the USA with cutting throats and crashing planes.

The FAA grounded the entire country, which cleared the sky for possible action. It looks like the enemy only had 19 suckers who were dumb enough (like 911 truth) to fall for dirt dumb scam by UBL.

The truth is Rumsfeld knows the fact there is nothing he can do if the first few hours, and if he has done his job, he only has to sit back and watch his staff and those in the DoD do their job.

What did you do to save the day on 911? Looks like the only people who figured out 911 in time to take action and did, were the Passengers on Flight 93. Why can't you figure out 911; they did?

If I was airborne on 911 with a fighter I could take action to stop the terrorists, I would do so if I had the knowledge; like the Passengers on Flight 93 did without permission. This is what Americans do, they think and act; are you an American who can think and act? What actions have you taken on your delusions about 911? Oops, that would be stupid to take actions on delusions. Never-mind.

What would you do on 911 if you were Rumsfeld? A fighter pilot? What did you do on 911 to save everyone? What could you do? Did you suspect terrorists would run to the cockpit and cut the pilots throats in seconds? Why did you fail to tell the world? Too bad pilots are strapped in and facing forward with a neck an easy target to cut the artery and stop the pilot from taking any action at all. How long can you survive a throat cutting?

[bynmdsue]

Has the identity of mineta's "do the orders still stand" young man ever been established?

Also were those shoot down orders or to not shoot down orders?

[Oystein]

There is only one joke around here. You being ignorant about 911. Should he have deserted those people?

There is always something fishy about politicians knee-deep in high-profile rescue missions. The Pentagon is a building full of people who have gone through some sort of civil emergency training drill at some time, there certainly was no shortage of amateur responders you could have ordered to the crash site. However, a public service professional like Rumsfeld should know better than most that such situations are best handled by professional emergency responders.
I do think it was a poor decision by Rumsfeld to be (seen) in the parking lot, where his particular skills would be much less helpful than in his office, with all his special communication devices in place. I think it could have been very valuable to the morale of those in the military ranks who had to take immediate, difficult and novel decisions if they knew that Rumsfeld was in position and ready to have their back.

[Mongrel]

There is always something fishy about politicians knee-deep in high-profile rescue missions. The Pentagon is a building full of people who have gone through some sort of civil emergency training drill at some time, there certainly was no shortage of amateur responders you could have ordered to the crash site. However, a public service professional like Rumsfeld should know better than most that such situations are best handled by professional emergency responders.
I do think it was a poor decision by Rumsfeld to be (seen) in the parking lot, where his particular skills would be much less helpful than in his office, with all his special communication devices in place. I think it could have been very valuable to the morale of those in the military ranks who had to take immediate, difficult and novel decisions if they knew that Rumsfeld was in position and ready to have their back.

But if he had gone his office he'd be slammed for "ignoring the wounded". Sometimes humanity trumps "what would have been best"

[aggle-rithm]

Has the identity of mineta's "do the orders still stand" young man ever been established?

Also were those shoot down orders or to not shoot down orders?

I don't see how any of this makes any difference. Truthers believe that three of the planes were not shot down as part of a conspiracy, and the fourth WAS shot down as part of a conspiracy.

Were there two conspiracies, or just one that had two contradictory goals?

And since when is acting outside of one's authority during a crisis evidence of conspiracy? We would have lost at Normandy in 1944 if many people hadn't done exactly that.

[gumboot]

do you know the meaning of the word "apparently"? ;)

The journalists speculates and connect these two statements of Doug Davis and Sliney by his own - as I do with Sliney statement and Rumsfelds disappearance.

... but what do we know?

1. The person, who could give orders to scramble, Rumsfeld could not be found at this time around 09:50.

Rumsfeld's location is irrelevant because...

and pay attention to this...

FAA Headquarters never made any request to the NMCC for a scramble

Got that? The whole chain never got any further than FAA HQ. The military were never involved. That is how we know Sliney is talking about the Hijack Coordinator who we already know was absent. And we already know that no one else at FAA HQ really knew what to do in a hijacking.



3. When we see the statement of Sliney, he spoke about orders and the military, not about the FAA.

It has much more probability, that Sliney meant Rumsfeld and not the persons running the hijack-net.

Wrong. Sliney is talking about the Hijack Coordinator at FAA HQ, whose the only person who really knew what to do, and who was away on holiday without anyone having been appointed as replacement.

[Bell]

There is always something fishy about politicians knee-deep in high-profile rescue missions. The Pentagon is a building full of people who have gone through some sort of civil emergency training drill at some time, there certainly was no shortage of amateur responders you could have ordered to the crash site. However, a public service professional like Rumsfeld should know better than most that such situations are best handled by professional emergency responders.
I do think it was a poor decision by Rumsfeld to be (seen) in the parking lot, where his particular skills would be much less helpful than in his office, with all his special communication devices in place. I think it could have been very valuable to the morale of those in the military ranks who had to take immediate, difficult and novel decisions if they knew that Rumsfeld was in position and ready to have their back.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Rumsfeld did the right thing. He helped his fellow humans.

[funk de fino]

There is always something fishy about politicians knee-deep in high-profile rescue missions. The Pentagon is a building full of people who have gone through some sort of civil emergency training drill at some time, there certainly was no shortage of amateur responders you could have ordered to the crash site. However, a public service professional like Rumsfeld should know better than most that such situations are best handled by professional emergency responders.
I do think it was a poor decision by Rumsfeld to be (seen) in the parking lot, where his particular skills would be much less helpful than in his office, with all his special communication devices in place. I think it could have been very valuable to the morale of those in the military ranks who had to take immediate, difficult and novel decisions if they knew that Rumsfeld was in position and ready to have their back.

Ho ho ho. You have never served have you?

[Sam.I.Am]

There is always something fishy about politicians knee-deep in high-profile rescue missions. The Pentagon is a building full of people who have gone through some sort of civil emergency training drill at some time, there certainly was no shortage of amateur responders you could have ordered to the crash site. However, a public service professional like Rumsfeld should know better than most that such situations are best handled by professional emergency responders.
I do think it was a poor decision by Rumsfeld to be (seen) in the parking lot, where his particular skills would be much less helpful than in his office, with all his special communication devices in place. I think it could have been very valuable to the morale of those in the military ranks who had to take immediate, difficult and novel decisions if they knew that Rumsfeld was in position and ready to have their back.

First of all, in a crisis situation where there is an attack in progress it doesn't take an order to do something from the SECDEF, that would be very retarded. What if he was one of the dead or injured? Do you think that there would've been no response if he was? There were and still are set procedures already in place and people authorized to implement them on watch 24/7, and almost all of them are not in the Pentagon or even in Washington DC. I'm willing to bet that at about the same time as Bush was being told that "We are under attack." in front of a bunch of kids that FLASH traffic was being sent out to immediately implement those procedures to every TYCOM who then did the same to everyone under their command. In other words, by the time that the Pentagon was hit all of the orders that could be given in the short term were already being implemented.

Second of all, leadership isn't just about making decisions and giving orders, it's also about caring about your own people and showing it. Rumsfeld did that in spades that morning. His people needed any and all of the help that they could get right now and he recognized that need and made the decision to let the military do what it was already ordered to do and instead help his people who desperately needed it. I see no problem with that decision and I commend him for it.

Finally, his office was located in a building that had just been attacked and might be hit again at anytime. Everyone, with a few exceptions, was ordered to evacuate the building. Where exactly was he supposed to go to? Who was he going to give his orders to, what were they and how were they going to be relayed to the correct people? Until you can answer those basic questions without sounding like you don't have a clue about the how the command, communication and control structure of the military is set up then you don't really have a right to criticize Rumsfeld on his actions that morning.

[gumboot]

Given that the entire Pentagon was evacuated, Rumsfeld couldn't have been in his office, even if he wanted to be. Since he had to hang around at the assembly points like everyone else, he might as well have done something useful, and he did.

[Oystein]

But if he had gone his office he'd be slammed for "ignoring the wounded". Sometimes humanity trumps "what would have been best"

Yeah, typical case of "Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"

Hey folks, I was voicing an opinion. Not going to draw conclusions from them. I understand that there is very little any government civilian could do to help ongoing military operations. In any case, whatever he ends up doing is a symbolic act, and in my view, a Secretary belongs in his center of power when a crisis emerges. Helping the wounded is noble, sure enough, I only argue that one SecDef more or less on the scene would not make very much of a difference.

[Oystein]

Ho ho ho. You have never served have you?

Assumption.
And wrong.
What's your point again?

I did mandatory military service in 1993, with little enthusiasm and not much of a military frame of mind, but dutifully and well. My compound (NATO base) was visited by german SecDef Volker Rühe one day, and yeah, I couldn't care less if he was there or anywhere else, it didn't affect my job operations or morale.

[funk de fino]

Assumption.
And wrong.
What's your point again?

I did mandatory military service in 1993, with little enthusiasm and not much of a military frame of mind, but dutifully and well. My compound (NATO base) was visited by german SecDef Volker Rühe one day, and yeah, I couldn't care less if he was there or anywhere else, it didn't affect my job operations or morale.

Next to no-one cares about the politicians. They care about their fellow troops. The UK defence minister did nothing for our morale. The part I bolded in your post was poppycock. And you've just more or less admitted it.

[bio]

Given that the entire Pentagon was evacuated, Rumsfeld couldn't have been in his office, even if he wanted to be. Since he had to hang around at the assembly points like everyone else, he might as well have done something useful, and he did.

... was the nmcc evacuated?:eek:

[bio]

First of all, in a crisis situation where there is an attack in progress it doesn't take an order to do something from the SECDEF, that would be very retarded. What if he was one of the dead or injured? Do you think that there would've been no response if he was? There were and still are set procedures already in place and people authorized to implement them on watch 24/7, and almost all of them are not in the Pentagon or even in Washington DC. I'm willing to bet that at about the same time as Bush was being told that "We are under attack." in front of a bunch of kids that FLASH traffic was being sent out to immediately implement those procedures to every TYCOM who then did the same to everyone under their command. In other words, by the time that the Pentagon was hit all of the orders that could be given in the short term were already being implemented.

Second of all, leadership isn't just about making decisions and giving orders, it's also about caring about your own people and showing it. Rumsfeld did that in spades that morning. His people needed any and all of the help that they could get right now and he recognized that need and made the decision to let the military do what it was already ordered to do and instead help his people who desperately needed it. I see no problem with that decision and I commend him for it.

Finally, his office was located in a building that had just been attacked and might be hit again at anytime. Everyone, with a few exceptions, was ordered to evacuate the building. Where exactly was he supposed to go to? Who was he going to give his orders to, what were they and how were they going to be relayed to the correct people? Until you can answer those basic questions without sounding like you don't have a clue about the how the command, communication and control structure of the military is set up then you don't really have a right to criticize Rumsfeld on his actions that morning.

...did Rumsfeld approve the scramble of fighters, did he approve the shoot-down of an hijacked airplane?

I have nothing against it, that Rumsfeld helped injured.

[beachnut]

...did Rumsfeld approve the scramble of fighters, did he approve the shoot-down of an hijacked airplane?

I have nothing against it, that Rumsfeld helped injured.
Rumsfeld job is not directing the response to the terrorist attacks, his job is to field a military which is prepared to meet the goals.

Rumsfeld does not have to scramble fighters or approve a shoot-down. Did the passengers on Flight 93 ask permission to attack terrorists?

When did Rumsfeld know it was Flight 77? It takes time to do DNA and investigate.

When did Rumsfeld know 19 dolts were murderers and making a 4 aircraft attack?

When did you know? Why did you fail to take action? Gee, flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes, you can't do the same given 8 years. Failure or lack of knowledge on your part?

[bio]

Rumsfeld job is not directing the response to the terrorist attacks, his job is to field a military which is prepared to meet the goals.

Rumsfeld does not have to scramble fighters or approve a shoot-down. Did the passengers on Flight 93 ask permission to attack terrorists?

When did Rumsfeld know it was Flight 77? It takes time to do DNA and investigate.

When did Rumsfeld know 19 dolts were murderers and making a 4 aircraft attack?

When did you know? Why did you fail to take action? Gee, flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes, you can't do the same given 8 years. Failure or lack of knowledge on your part?

wrong.

talk with gumboot and read his posts here.

[gumboot]

...did Rumsfeld approve the scramble of fighters

Was he asked to?


did he approve the shoot-down of an hijacked airplane?

He has no authority to approve such an action, so his activities with regard to the question of a shoot-down are irrelevant.

Technically speaking, if one is to consult the relevant military orders, the only person who can approve a shoot-down of an airliner hijacked by terrorists is the Attorney-General.

Of course if you instead go for the "emergency, we're under attack" approach, the buck stops at CINC NORAD, who has absolute authority to order a shoot-down. He has to declare an Air Defense Emergency first though, and he chose not to do this until 1100hrs, for very good reason.

[gumboot]

... was the nmcc evacuated?:eek:


No, but Rumsfeld wasn't in the NMCC. It did, apparently, get quite smokey however.

[bio]

Was he asked to?

He has no authority to approve such an action, so his activities with regard to the question of a shoot-down are irrelevant.

Technically speaking, if one is to consult the relevant military orders, the only person who can approve a shoot-down of an airliner hijacked by terrorists is the Attorney-General.

Of course if you instead go for the "emergency, we're under attack" approach, the buck stops at CINC NORAD, who has absolute authority to order a shoot-down. He has to declare an Air Defense Emergency first though, and he chose not to do this until 1100hrs, for very good reason.

It is difficult to ask somebody, when he is not there, the same with the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Was he really trinking tea until 09:37 in the Capitol with Senator Cleland, afterwards disappeared until around 10:00, when he finally showed up in the NMCC?

Myers was needed!

"4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman shall evaluate each request to use Combatant
Command forces or equipment to determine if there is a significant issue requiring
Secretary of Defense approval. Orders providing assistance to civil authorities that are
approved by the Secretary of Defense involving the use of Combatant Command forces
or equipment shall be issued through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Where was Myers as acting Chairman?

09:46 am
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's office, and acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Myers' office, report to the NMCC teleconference that they are still trying to track down Rumsfeld and Myers, respectively, and bring them into the conference.
9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004

Rumsfeld had according to following law, the shoot-down authority or not?

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

[funk de fino]

It has never been proven by anyone (much less Red Ibis) that Myers was interrupted and told that the second plane had hit. If no-one tells him how can he react.

Myers said he saw the fire from the first hit and thought it was an accident. If you can prove someone broke the meeting and informed him what was happening you will be better than anyone so far.

[bio]

It has never been proven by anyone (much less Red Ibis) that Myers was interrupted and told that the second plane had hit. If no-one tells him how can he react.

Myers said he saw the fire from the first hit and thought it was an accident. If you can prove someone broke the meeting and informed him what was happening you will be better than anyone so far.

:D anyone but Myers himself proved it

Similarly, in his 2009 memoirs, Myers will write that Cleland "had started preparing a pot of tea, but we hadn't taken a sip when a staff person came in from the outer office and informed us that the second tower had been hit. We both knew the interview was over and started out to the TV to see the South Tower erupting with smoke and flame."
Myers, 2009, pp. 8e

nevertheless this third version, where he was, was challenged by the account of richard clarke. clarke saw him around 09:10 in teleconference and talked with him around 09:28.

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

America was under attack, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was drinking tea in the Capitol and looking television.

[beachnut]

It is difficult to ask somebody, when he is not there, the same with the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Was he really trinking tea until 09:37 in the Capitol with Senator Cleland, afterwards disappeared until around 10:00, when he finally showed up in the NMCC?

Myers was needed!

"4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently ... ...through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Where was Myers as acting Chairman?

09:46 am
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's office, and acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Myers' office, report to the NMCC teleconference that they are still trying to track down Rumsfeld and Myers, respectively, and bring them into the conference.
9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004

Rumsfeld had according to following law, the shoot-down authority or not?

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

With the exception of immediate responses (you posted your own rebuttal)

I love to read instructions, and DoD directives; the exception gives me great power! with great power comes great responsibility -

Flight 93 Passengers too action and understood 911 in minutes, you have wasted 8 years and don't have a clue.

911 truth is self-debunking.

What was wrong with this response.
Was he asked to?


He has no authority to approve such an action, so his activities with regard to the question of a shoot-down are irrelevant.

Technically speaking, if one is to consult the relevant military orders, the only person who can approve a shoot-down of an airliner hijacked by terrorists is the Attorney-General.

Of course if you instead go for the "emergency, we're under attack" approach, the buck stops at CINC NORAD, who has absolute authority to order a shoot-down. He has to declare an Air Defense Emergency first though, and he chose not to do this until 1100hrs, for very good reason. gumboot will be the NWO Secretary of War and Peace...

[bio]

With the exception of immediate responses (you posted your own rebuttal) (...)

see post 30 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5842752&postcount=30) of gumboot

[beachnut]

...
Rumsfeld had according to following law, the shoot-down authority or not?

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

You can't figure out 911 after 8 years...

This is not going well, you are calling an "instruction" a law. Using an aircraft as a weapon does not fall under the "INSTRUCTION" not a law, titled AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT
AIRBORNE OBJECTS.

The Instruction, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A, DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001, AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS, does not do much for terrorist acts. You picked an Instruction for events that have time for coordination which is alluded to by the instruction when it says, "Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts."

Sorry, your inability to understand "Instructions" would leave you unprepared to act in a terrorist attack; you would fail as you interpret "Instructions" to be law, and picked the wrong instruction! The best military mentors teach judgment, you must use the Instructions with judgment; this is why we have people in the military not robots, so they can adapt and use judgment based on knowledge.

[bio]

You can't figure out 911 after 8 years...

This is not going well, you are calling an "instruction" a law. Using an aircraft as a weapon does not fall under the "INSTRUCTION" not a law, titled AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT
AIRBORNE OBJECTS.

The Instruction, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A, DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001, AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS, does not do much for terrorist acts. You picked an Instruction for events that have time for coordination which is alluded to by the instruction when it says, "Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts."

Sorry, your inability to understand "Instructions" would leave you unprepared to act in a terrorist attack; you would fail as you interpret "Instructions" to be law, and picked the wrong instruction! The best military mentors teach judgment, you must use the Instructions with judgment; this is why we have people in the military not robots, so they can adapt and use judgment based on knowledge.

the instruction says, that a hijacked plan can be shoot down after the approval of the Secretary of Defense. This is especially the case, when the plane is used as a weapon. It is straight forward instruction.

[beachnut]

the instruction says, that a hijacked plan can be shoot down after the approval of the Secretary of Defense. This is especially the case, when the plane is used as a weapon. It is straight forward instruction.
No, the instruction does not say you can shoot down a hijacked aircraft. You might have problems figuring out 911 with failed logic exposed in this thread.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Wrong! The instruction prohibits the use of force. You picked the wrong instruction.



Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.

Wrong Instruction, and 8 years of failure.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11RIF.gif

[bio]

Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.

source?

[DGM]

source?
He gave the source. It's 3-a under general. Didn't you read the instruction that you commented on?

By the way can you show me where in that instruction it says they can shoot down civilian aircraft?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by beachnut http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5862705#post5862705)
Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.


source?
lol

You.

...
Rumsfeld had according to following law, the shoot-down authority or not?

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)
... read the Instructions before making up lies and delusions.

The "destruction" refers to and is limited to !!!!!


2. Policy. This instruction provides guidance for the destruction of derelict objects (e.g., unmanned free balloons, moored balloons, kites, unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, UAV or ROV) over United States or international airspace.

And this "policy" leaves open the wild-card of Judgment! It make you a leader when you do good, a goat when you do bad. I have no great command of the English language, but I understand the Instruction; what is your excuse?



...

[bio]

He gave the source. It's 3-a under general. Didn't you read the instruction that you commented on?

By the way can you show me where in that instruction it says they can shoot down civilian aircraft?

yes - I read it, and beachnut is right here.

a. General
. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or
other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension
of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter)
or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons
against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be
provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national
security or military preparedness.

So the shoot-down order of Bush around 10 am was against the instruction?

[gumboot]

I see that unfathomable stupidity is still alive and well in the Truth Movement.

[gumboot]

So the shoot-down order of Bush around 10 am was against the instruction?


I'm pretty sure a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief trumps a CJCS instruction. ;)

[gumboot]

It is difficult to ask somebody, when he is not there, the same with the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Entirely irrelevant given that no one ever made any attempt to request anything from him. If a request had been made (requests are made to the NMCC, which is manned at all times), and had there been an issue getting approval for the request, you'd have a point. Since no request was made, you have no point.


Was he really trinking tea until 09:37 in the Capitol with Senator Cleland, afterwards disappeared until around 10:00, when he finally showed up in the NMCC?

Richard Myers' movements on 9/11 are well documented. He was in a meeting with Senator Cleland until about the time the Pentagon was hit. Upon learning of the situation, he made contact with NORAD to ascertain what the situation was. He then travelled to the Pentagon, and arrived as it was being evacuated. He then made his way to the NMCC. He was never "missing".


Myers was needed!

"4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman shall evaluate each request to use Combatant
Command forces or equipment to determine if there is a significant issue requiring
Secretary of Defense approval. Orders providing assistance to civil authorities that are
approved by the Secretary of Defense involving the use of Combatant Command forces
or equipment shall be issued through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."


There's really nothing at all Myers could have offered. He has no authority to issue command and control orders such as a shootdown order. His area of responsibility is management of military resources for training purposes.


Rumsfeld had according to following law, the shoot-down authority or not?

c. If destruction is required, the DDO, NMCC will, forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate OSD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

You've already been well-schooled on the foolishness of not reading a resource before citing it as evidence. I won't cover the same ground again.

[bio]

I'm pretty sure a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief trumps a CJCS instruction. ;)

the question is, weather Rumsfeld had this authority, too.

[beachnut]

the question is, weather Rumsfeld had this authority, too. What kind of weather is Rumsfeld weather?

Anyone in the military who had the big picture on 911 could take action; civilians took action on 911 to stop the terrorists.

The President gave me the authority to take action on 911, he did it May 10th 1974.

yes - ..., and beachnut is right ... ...

[Reheat]

the question is, weather Rumsfeld had this authority, too.

No, the question is weather sic you are going to continue to make a fool of yourself. Rumsfeld did not issue a shoot down authorization, so, it's an irrelevant question just as is the other CRAP you've brought up.

You need to go buy some clues before you post again, you're out.

[bio]

What kind of weather is Rumsfeld weather?

Anyone in the military who had the big picture on 911 could take action; civilians took action on 911 to stop the terrorists.

The President gave me the authority to take action on 911, he did it May 10th 1974.

...

I meant whether...


According to journalist and author Andrew Cockburn, since the Cold War, “In an age when an enemy attack might allow only a few minutes for detection and reaction, control of American military power became vested in the National Command Authority, which consists of the president and the secretary of defense. Collectively, the NCA is the ultimate source of military orders, uniquely empowered, among other things, to order the use of nuclear weapons. In time of war, therefore, Rumsfeld was effectively the president’s partner, the direct link to the fighting forces, and all orders had to go through him. Such orders were supposed to be transmitted from… the National Military Command Center.” Cockburn adds that the NMCC is “the operational center for any and every crisis, from nuclear war to hijacked airliners.” Yet, rather than join the NMCC conference, Rumsfeld has already gone out of the Pentagon to see the crash site, without telling any of his command staff where he was going, and remains out of contact for some time (see Between 9:38 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. September 11, 2001). Therefore, a few minutes after Leidig makes his request, Rumsfeld’s office will report back that he is nowhere to be found. Cockburn concludes, “The chain of command was broken.”
Cockburn, 2007, pp. 4-5;
Democracy Now!, 3/7/2007

[bio]

Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Both had to order the shoot down order.

I assume, that the Secretary of Defense could have done it, too, when the president was not available.

National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the United States military and United States government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

[gumboot]

Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm


I don't think that was "understood" at all. It's not something anyone would have actually thought about. And as I already mentioned, DOD standing orders clearly indicate that the Attorney-General is responsible for authorising the use of military force in a major terrorist incident - because it's a criminal and therefore Department of Justice matter. The NCA is explicitly forbidden from doing any such thing under the Posse Comitatus Act.

It was NORAD who, on 9/11, made the determination that they would require approval from the President to perform a shootdown. That's a decision Robert Marr and Kevin Nasypany made on their own, and it's not really a decision that reflects any existing law. It's more of a "I'm not going to feel comfortable doing this unless the President says its okay".



Both had to order the shoot down order.

Well that's just outright stupid. The duel order requirement is strictly for the deployment of nuclear weapons.

[bio]

I don't think that was "understood" at all. It's not something anyone would have actually thought about. And as I already mentioned, DOD standing orders clearly indicate that the Attorney-General is responsible for authorising the use of military force in a major terrorist incident - because it's a criminal and therefore Department of Justice matter. The NCA is explicitly forbidden from doing any such thing under the Posse Comitatus Act.

It was NORAD who, on 9/11, made the determination that they would require approval from the President to perform a shootdown. That's a decision Robert Marr and Kevin Nasypany made on their own, and it's not really a decision that reflects any existing law. It's more of a "I'm not going to feel comfortable doing this unless the President says its okay".
Well that's just outright stupid. The duel order requirement is strictly for the deployment of nuclear weapons.

source?

I doubt, what you write here, because ...

... National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the United States military and United States government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

[funk de fino]

:D anyone but Myers himself proved it

Similarly, in his 2009 memoirs, Myers will write that Cleland "had started preparing a pot of tea, but we hadn't taken a sip when a staff person came in from the outer office and informed us that the second tower had been hit. We both knew the interview was over and started out to the TV to see the South Tower erupting with smoke and flame."
Myers, 2009, pp. 8e

This is brilliant. You have just proved that Myers left the tea party as soon as he saw that the second tower had been hit. He then went to his post and got involved as per your statement below. Red Ibis will not be happy with you.

nevertheless this third version, where he was, was challenged by the account of richard clarke. clarke saw him around 09:10 in teleconference and talked with him around 09:28.

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

America was under attack, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was drinking tea in the Capitol and looking television.

Great debunking effort. You just debunked yourself.

[bio]

This is brilliant. You have just proved that Myers left the tea party as soon as he saw that the second tower had been hit. He then went to his post and got involved as per your statement below. Red Ibis will not be happy with you.



Great debunking effort. You just debunked yourself.

It is unclear exactly when this meeting ended. But Myers says he first learns of the Pentagon attack (which occurs at 9:37) around the time he is leaving the building for the drive back to the Pentagon. In an early interview, he says he hears somebody say the Pentagon has been hit just after he comes out of his meeting with Cleland.
Armed Forces Radio And Television Service, 10/17/2001

[bio]

No, the instruction does not say you can shoot down a hijacked aircraft. You might have problems figuring out 911 with failed logic exposed in this thread.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

"a. General
. Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.

On the one hand side, it is forbidden to use force against a hijacked plane, on the other side, the Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for confrontation, which "will result in the use of lethal force."

4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or goups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997

:confused:

[twinstead]

It is unclear exactly when this meeting ended. But Myers says he first learns of the Pentagon attack (which occurs at 9:37) around the time he is leaving the building for the drive back to the Pentagon. In an early interview, he says he hears somebody say the Pentagon has been hit just after he comes out of his meeting with Cleland.
Armed Forces Radio And Television Service, 10/17/2001

Yea, let's argue semantics for 50 pages. The redibus school of debate ROCKS!

That's what this forum needs. Is there a point to this thread at all? How, for example, does it go an inch toward your delightful "it was an inside job" theory?

[DGM]

On the one hand side, it is forbidden to use force against a hijacked plane, on the other side, the Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for confrontation, which "will result in the use of lethal force."

4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or goups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997

:confused:
Could I ask that you copy the link to where you copy your posts from? It would make it easier to reference your posts. In other words, after you copy and paste right click on the address bar and post the address to the page you just copied. If it's from a PDF just let us know the page number.

Thanks

[bio]

Could I ask that you copy the link to where you copy your posts from? It would make it easier to reference your posts. In other words, after you copy and paste right click on the address bar and post the address to the page you just copied. If it's from a PDF just let us know the page number.

Thanks

I am sorry,:o I overtook the wrong source from a page called "911review", link: http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

The right source is 3025.15. There it stands.

I see a problem:

Directive 3610.01 from 1. Juni 2001, forbids the military the shoot down of a hijacked aircraft.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

On the other side, the directive 3025.15 from 18. February gives the Secretary of Defense the authority for the use of "lethal force."
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

[DGM]

I am sorry,:o I overtook the wrong source from a page called "911review", link: http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

The right source is 3025.15. There it stands.

I see a problem:

Directive 3610.01 from 1. Juni 2001, forbids the military the shoot down of a hijacked aircraft.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

On the other side, the directive 3025.15 from 18. February gives the Secretary of Defense the authority for the use of "lethal force."
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf
Thanks.

I'm not an authority on these matters but what I understand is the latter always supersedes the earlier directive. If this is true then there is no confusion.

Right?

[beachnut]

I am sorry,:o I overtook the wrong source from a page called "911review", link: http://911review.com/means/standdown.html .. (http://911review.com/means/standdown.html ..)
That source is delusional, making up lies by an idiot or meth addict.

There was no stand down order, I was on duty on 911 and received no stand down order and the Passengers on Flight 93 took action, so there was no stand down order. Flight 93 Passengers "stood up" and took action. Something you have failed to do in your quest for the truth. Do you have a goal or purpose with your failed attempt to figure out 911?

The source you provided failed to figure out the change did not support the fantasy "stand down" made up in their delusional mind. It looks like the source is a drug induced fantasy.


Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority
Make a stand down order impossible.


With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions,
The regulations, instructions, etc, all make a stand down order impossible because the military are expected to act in emergencies using judgment. 911 truth fails due to stupidity like the source you posted where a drugged up dolt makes up delusions. Or the author is an insane dolt who thinks thermite chips were planted with radio controlled detonators in the WTC tower ceiling tiles.

[funk de fino]

It is unclear exactly when this meeting ended. But Myers says he first learns of the Pentagon attack (which occurs at 9:37) around the time he is leaving the building for the drive back to the Pentagon. In an early interview, he says he hears somebody say the Pentagon has been hit just after he comes out of his meeting with Cleland.
Armed Forces Radio And Television Service, 10/17/2001

So? He was only aware of the first attack (crash) when he went into the meeting and left when the second attack happened. He was not drinking tea when he should have been doing his job.

Not everyone remember to the minute exactly what happened that day. he say "around". Do you know what that means?

[gumboot]

source?

I doubt, what you write here, because ...

... National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the United States military and United States government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority



Actually, the US Constitution is the ultimate lawful source of military orders.

I was mistaken however, DODD 3025.12 indicates that only the Attorney-General can request DOD assistance in a major terrorist incident.

[gumboot]

I am sorry,:o I overtook the wrong source from a page called "911review", link: http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

The right source is 3025.15. There it stands.

I see a problem:

Directive 3610.01 from 1. Juni 2001, forbids the military the shoot down of a hijacked aircraft.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

On the other side, the directive 3025.15 from 18. February gives the Secretary of Defense the authority for the use of "lethal force."
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf



It's a bit more complicated than that. 3025.15 is a blanket directive that directs the way action under other directives should be conducted:

2.2. Governs all DoD military assistance provided to civil authorities within the 50 States, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. possessions and territories, or any political subdivision thereof, including sensitive support requests under reference (d), civil disturbances under DoD Directive 3025.12, protection of key assets under DoD Directive 5160.54, DoD responses to civil emergencies under DoD Directive 3025.1, acts or threats of terrorism under DoD Directive 2000.12, and requests for aid to civil law enforcement authorities under DoD Directive 5525.5 (references (e) through (i)).

The directive we're interested in here is DODD 3025.12; Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS). (DODD 2000.12 relates to Anti-Terrorism Force Protection and is not relevant to 9/11).

3025.12 states;

2.5. Shall not include responsibility for response to aircraft piracy or counterdrug operations that are governed by other legal authorities and DoD Directives.
Responsibilities of the DoD Components for aircraft piracy and counterdrug operations shall be communicated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Secretary of Defense under authorities other than this Directive.


The last paragraph refers, of course, to CJCSI3610.01A.

In other words, DODD.3025.15 dictates what should happen when a request for lethal assistance is made under a variety or DOD Directives. The referenced DOD Directive relevant for terrorism (3025.12) explicitly excludes aircraft piracy, and indicates other specific directives would apply to this.

The specific instruction that applies in the event of aircraft piracy explicitly forbids the use of gunfire against hijackers or hijacked aircraft.

Therefore, while it is true that 3025.15 indicates that the SecDef must approve requests for lethal assistance to civil authorities, other military orders indicate that in the specific event of an aircraft hijacking no such request can legally be made.

Further, 3025.15 also mentions something else that Bio has ignored:

4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counterterrorism Operations. The employment of U.S. military forces in response to acts or threats of domestic terrorism may be requested only by the President (or in accordance with Presidential Decision Directives) and must be authorized by the President. All requests for assistance in responding to acts or threats of domestic terrorism must also be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

We're back to square one.

[gumboot]

It is unclear exactly when this meeting ended. But Myers says he first learns of the Pentagon attack (which occurs at 9:37) around the time he is leaving the building for the drive back to the Pentagon. In an early interview, he says he hears somebody say the Pentagon has been hit just after he comes out of his meeting with Cleland.
Armed Forces Radio And Television Service, 10/17/2001


There's no contradiction there. Clearly after he left the meeting he was intending to return to the Pentagon. Thus "just after leaving the meeting" is the same as "around the time he is leaving the building".

What's the issue?

[gumboot]

Thanks.

I'm not an authority on these matters but what I understand is the latter always supersedes the earlier directive. If this is true then there is no confusion.

Right?


It doesn't really work like that. The Directives will always specify on the first page which orders are canceled or superseded by the current one.

What Bio is missing is that just because the SecDef has to approve lethal force doesn't mean he is allowed to approve it (or even that such a request can legally be made) in all circumstances. What it means is when a legal request is made the SecDef has to approve it.

For example if the Major of New York asked the military to carpet bomb some protesters, even though the SecDef has legal authority to authorise lethal operations, in this instance he would not legally be allowed to approve such a request. Obviously.

The question, then, is whether a shootdown request is legal.

In the case of aircraft hijacking, other orders clearly indicate that lethal force is not an option, ergo the SecDef's approval is irrelevant.

Finally, and this hasn't actually been raised, all of these orders related only to assistance to civilian authorities and law enforcement. Obviously they therefore require an initial request from civilian authorities or law enforcement.

It's the same problem as Katrina. The division of authority in the US is such that the Federal Government, or the Military, can't just decide that someone else needs their help.

It's for answering requests for assistance. No request, no answer.

Given that at no time on 9/11 did civilian authorities request a shootdown, the entire exercise becomes pointless. That's why I keep hammering Bio on the point that the SecDef's location is irrelevant because the FAA never asked for a scramble to intercept the hijacked aircraft.

Without those requests there's nothing formerly and legally that the military can do. That they responded anyway is a testament to their instinct, their quick thinking, and their willingness to deviate from protocol when events render protocol nonfunctional.

If NORAD had, for example, followed the letter of the law, when Boston ARTCC requested a fighter scramble they would have replied;

"I'm sorry, hijacking escort requests have to be made to the NMCC, we can't do that without orders from them."

[bio]

It's a bit more complicated than that. 3025.15 is a blanket directive that directs the way action under other directives should be conducted:



The directive we're interested in here is DODD 3025.12; Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS). (DODD 2000.12 relates to Anti-Terrorism Force Protection and is not relevant to 9/11).

3025.12 states;



The last paragraph refers, of course, to CJCSI3610.01A.

In other words, DODD.3025.15 dictates what should happen when a request for lethal assistance is made under a variety or DOD Directives. The referenced DOD Directive relevant for terrorism (3025.12) explicitly excludes aircraft piracy, and indicates other specific directives would apply to this.

The specific instruction that applies in the event of aircraft piracy explicitly forbids the use of gunfire against hijackers or hijacked aircraft.

Therefore, while it is true that 3025.15 indicates that the SecDef must approve requests for lethal assistance to civil authorities, other military orders indicate that in the specific event of an aircraft hijacking no such request can legally be made.

Further, 3025.15 also mentions something else that Bio has ignored:



We're back to square one.

Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman:

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat.

Jet fighters approaching a suspicious plane might radio the pilot, tip their wings or simply identify the aircraft and break off, Martin said. No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html

What does that mean? It seems, that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority.

[beachnut]

Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman:

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat.

Jet fighters approaching a suspicious plane might radio the pilot, tip their wings or simply identify the aircraft and break off, Martin said. No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html

What does that mean? It seems, that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority.
LOL - the three intercepts on planes near DC and CD, were after 911 and due to the fact we had CAP over the cities and new tactics to make it possible.

The 462 times is after 911, the 67 times were before 911. The 67 times before 911 were over the water. After 911 there were tactics to intercept over the continental US, but before there was not way to quickly intercept civilian aircraft over cities.

You have a news source; you are discussing a news article. Over 7 years old news article.

The article is proof before 911 an intercept of a hijacked aircraft over the land in the US was not usual. This is funny, as you try to figure out who can shoot down an aircraft that may try to destroy property, you are proving nothing was fishy about the military response on 911.

[bio]

LOL - the three intercepts on planes near DC and CD, were after 911 and due to the fact we had CAP over the cities and new tactics to make it possible.

The 462 times is after 911, the 67 times were before 911. The 67 times before 911 were over the water. After 911 there were tactics to intercept over the continental US, but before there was not way to quickly intercept civilian aircraft over cities.

You have a news source; you are discussing a news article. Over 7 years old news article.

The article is proof before 911 an intercept of a hijacked aircraft over the land in the US was not usual. This is funny, as you try to figure out who can shoot down an aircraft that may try to destroy property, you are proving nothing was fishy about the military response on 911.

well - you could say as a defense for Rumsfeld, that he got the authority just after 9/11.:rolleyes:

[Oystein]

bio,

since you are in Germany (and German, I suppose?), you are probably aware of former Minister of the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble's effort to push through a law that establish the right to shoot down a civilian airliner if it was determined that it might be used 9/11-fashion.
And you are certainly aware that this law was summarily sacked by the supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), right? Because it violated Article 1 of our constitution? The very basic foundation of our entire legal system and state?

Do or did you agree with the BVG that a government should NEVER have the authority to direct acts of war against its own citizens, and hence never, under no circumstances, must shoot down airliners?

If you do agree - why are you trying to find fault with the US military's failure to shoot civilians out of the sky?

If you do not agree - please elaborate!

[bio]

bio,

since you are in Germany (and German, I suppose?), you are probably aware of former Minister of the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble's effort to push through a law that establish the right to shoot down a civilian airliner if it was determined that it might be used 9/11-fashion.
And you are certainly aware that this law was summarily sacked by the supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), right? Because it violated Article 1 of our constitution? The very basic foundation of our entire legal system and state?

Do or did you agree with the BVG that a government should NEVER have the authority to direct acts of war against its own citizens, and hence never, under no circumstances, must shoot down airliners?

If you do agree - why are you trying to find fault with the US military's failure to shoot civilians out of the sky?

If you do not agree - please elaborate!

Our supreme court also sacked the ban of the right extreme National Party Germany (NPD), because in this party are working german agents (BND).

[Oystein]

Our supreme court also sacked the ban of the right extreme National Party Germany (NPD), because in this party are working german agents (BND).

You know that this is not an argument, and dodging the question.

But lets forget about the courts. Do YOU think your government should have the authority to shoot down the plane you are on?

[Dave Rogers]

Jet fighters approaching a suspicious plane might radio the pilot, tip their wings or simply identify the aircraft and break off, Martin said. No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html

What does that mean? It seems, that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority.

Authority to shoot down what, exactly? There's a big difference between 'a suspicious plane', which is what this article is talking about, and a plane that is known to be a civilian airliner. And, of course, this article describes the situation post-9/11; it should be fairly clear that NORAD's priorities changed as a result of the attacks, and one would suspect that procedures would need to change to reflect them. So the statement "It seems that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority" is completely unfounded if it's intended to mean "had a shoot-down authority on September 11th 2001", and it's far from clear whether, even now, he has the authority to order a shoot-down of an American / United Airlines plane on an internal flight as opposed to, say, an unidentified plane whose origin is unknown.

Dave

[bio]

Authority to shoot down what, exactly? There's a big difference between 'a suspicious plane', which is what this article is talking about, and a plane that is known to be a civilian airliner. And, of course, this article describes the situation post-9/11; it should be fairly clear that NORAD's priorities changed as a result of the attacks, and one would suspect that procedures would need to change to reflect them. So the statement "It seems that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority" is completely unfounded if it's intended to mean "had a shoot-down authority on September 11th 2001", and it's far from clear whether, even now, he has the authority to order a shoot-down of an American / United Airlines plane on an internal flight as opposed to, say, an unidentified plane whose origin is unknown.

Dave

It would be interesting, if that change included the shoot-down authority for the secretary of defense. If not, then this authority existed before and on 9/11.

[Dave Rogers]

It would be interesting, if that change included the shoot-down authority for the secretary of defense. If not, then this authority existed before and on 9/11.

Can you read? I just pointed out that the quote does not establish that Rumsfeld had authority to order the shoot-down of an identified civilian airliner even post-9/11. All it does establish is that no suspicious plane could be shot down without Rumsfeld's or the President's authorisation, and implies that he has the authority to order shoot-downs of suspicious aircraft in some circumstances - not necessarily all. There's nothing to suggest that the subset of circumstances in which Rumsfeld can order a shoot-down intersects the subset of circumstances in which an identified commercial airliner with passengers aboard can be shot down. I can draw you a Venn diagram if it makes it clearer.

Dave

[bio]

Can you read? I just pointed out that the quote does not establish that Rumsfeld had authority to order the shoot-down of an identified civilian airliner even post-9/11. All it does establish is that no suspicious plane could be shot down without Rumsfeld's or the President's authorisation, and implies that he has the authority to order shoot-downs of suspicious aircraft in some circumstances - not necessarily all. There's nothing to suggest that the subset of circumstances in which Rumsfeld can order a shoot-down intersects the subset of circumstances in which an identified commercial airliner with passengers aboard can be shot down. I can draw you a Venn diagram if it makes it clearer.

Dave

a suspicious plane cannot be a "identified civilian airliner"?:rolleyes:

"There is nothing to suggest that (...) Rumsfeld can order a shoot down", but the statement of NORAD, that "an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.""

[Dave Rogers]

a suspicious plane cannot be a "identified civilian airliner"?:rolleyes:

I may actually need to draw that Venn diagram. I'm arguing that a suspicious plane can be many things, including but not limited to an identified civilian airliner. For example, it could be an incoming Russian bomber, a light aircraft that's strayed off course, a smuggler's plane that's taken off from a private airstrip in Florida, a luminous self-levitating doughnut from the planet Xargx, or something that may be any one of the above but hasn't been identified yet. Nobody has demonstrated that, in the specific instance that it is known to be a civilian airliner, Rumsfeld ever had authority to order it shot down.

"There is nothing to suggest that (...) Rumsfeld can order a shoot down", but the statement of NORAD, that "an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.""

Again, let me try and explain this a little more slowly.

Martin is saying that, before NORAD can shoot down a suspicious plane, an order must come from President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld. This is equivalent to saying that, without an order from Bush or Rumsfeld, NORAD cannot shoot down a suspicious plane.

Martin is not saying that Rumsfeld is necessarily authorised to issue an order to shoot down a suspicious plane in any specific circumstances.

Let's construct a scenario. I'll change the names so as to make it clear that this is hypothetical. Suppose, hypothetically, President Anderson is the only person with the authority to authorise the shooting down of a civilian airliner, but Defense Secretary Brown has the authority to relay that order to NORAD. President Anderson therefore orders Secretary Brown to forward the order to NORAD that an airliner is to be shot down, and Secretary Brown does so. NORAD is now authorised to shoot down the plane, having (as far as it's concerned) received its orders from Secretary Brown only. However, Secretary Brown has not acted on his own authority.

Going back to reality, we can conclude, therefore, that it cannot be determined, from the fact that NORAD may not shoot down an airliner without orders from the President or the Defense Secretary, that the Defense Secretary may issue such an order on his own authority.

This is elementary logic, and requires no understanding of specific procedures. I really think you should be able to work this out for yourself.

Dave

[Oystein]

Order by President or SecDef is a neccessary condition ("must come from NCA").

It is not a sufficient condition ("whatever the NCA orders is legal").


And I still would like to know if YOU even WANT to give authority to the Pres or the SecFef - or Mrs. Merkel or Mr. zu Guttenberg for that matter - to shoot down the civilian airliner that you or your mother boarded en route to your wedding and thus direct an act of war against their own civilians?

There are, at least in Germany, mighty legal principles ("dignity of man"; "Geneva Convention") that weigh heavily against such authority.
Isn't the trigger-happiness of American presidents one of the things we always like to protest against?

[bio]

I may actually need to draw that Venn diagram. I'm arguing that a suspicious plane can be many things, including but not limited to an identified civilian airliner. For example, it could be an incoming Russian bomber, a light aircraft that's strayed off course, a smuggler's plane that's taken off from a private airstrip in Florida, a luminous self-levitating doughnut from the planet Xargx, or something that may be any one of the above but hasn't been identified yet. Nobody has demonstrated that, in the specific instance that it is known to be a civilian airliner, Rumsfeld ever had authority to order it shot down.

(...)

According to you "A suspicious plan can be many things, including (...) an identified civilian airliner." According to NORAD, Rumsfeld had the authority to shoot down suspicious planes, but nevertheless you keep saying, that "nobody has demonstrated, that in the specific instance, that is known to be an civilian airline", Rumsfeld ever had authority to order it shot down."


Again, let me try and explain this a little more slowly.

Martin is saying that, before NORAD can shoot down a suspicious plane, an order must come from President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld. This is equivalent to saying that, without an order from Bush or Rumsfeld, NORAD cannot shoot down a suspicious plane.

Martin is not saying that Rumsfeld is necessarily authorised to issue an order to shoot down a suspicious plane in any specific circumstances.

Rumsfeld is not authorized to issue an shoot down order by himself, just can give an order, when he was asked to give one?:eek: Do you really mean that?


Let's construct a scenario. I'll change the names so as to make it clear that this is hypothetical. Suppose, hypothetically, President Anderson is the only person with the authority to authorise the shooting down of a civilian airliner, but Defense Secretary Brown has the authority to relay that order to NORAD. President Anderson therefore orders Secretary Brown to forward the order to NORAD that an airliner is to be shot down, and Secretary Brown does so. NORAD is now authorised to shoot down the plane, having (as far as it's concerned) received its orders from Secretary Brown only. However, Secretary Brown has not acted on his own authority.
Going back to reality, we can conclude, therefore, that it cannot be determined, from the fact that NORAD may not shoot down an airliner without orders from the President or the Defense Secretary, that the Defense Secretary may issue such an order on his own authority.


I understand, but the NORAD-spokesman says the president or the secretary of defense can order the shoot down. According to wikipedia the both form an "entity", if one person is incapacitated the other can act just by himself.

National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the United States military and United States government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

It is interesting, how eager are you guys to neglect the shoot down authority of Rumsfeld.

[Oystein]

...
I understand, but the NORAD-spokesman says the president or the secretary of defense can order the shoot down. According to wikipedia the both form an "entity", if one person is incapacitated the other can act just by himself.

National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the United States military and United States government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

It is interesting, how eager are you guys to neglect the shoot down authority of Rumsfeld.

They can order a shoot-down. This is not to say that they are allowed to!

If the SecDef comes into his office drunk and orders the shoot-down of just any random airliner - would that be within his authority? Would be a legal order? Would NORAD have to follow that order?

If Mr. zu Guttenberg orders the plane which your mum is on shot down, and the pilot of the Luftwaffe fighter executes that order - would you defend the pilot, because he acted on an authorized order?

Were the Russians in 1982 doing the right thing when they shot down the Korean airliner near Sachalin?


Please answer honestly!

[gumboot]

Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman:

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat.

Jet fighters approaching a suspicious plane might radio the pilot, tip their wings or simply identify the aircraft and break off, Martin said. No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html

What does that mean? It seems, that Rumsfeld had a shoot-down authority.



I suggest you re-read my post more carefully, as it seems you haven't yet grasped the pertinent facts.

[bio]

I suggest you re-read my post more carefully, as it seems you haven't yet grasped the pertinent facts.

well - it seems, that some of your posts are debunked by Maj. Douglas Martin. :)

[Cheap Shot]

Priot to 9/11 if fighters were only used as escorts in a hijack situation. Even though we call them interceptors, there only tasking was was to escort. As the day of events of 9/11 occurred things changed.

Three months after 9/11 we had a lessons learned meeting at Boston Center we had a captian from NORAD, who was a pilot, said that if he was in a fighter on an escort of a hijack and thought the plane was going to crash into a building and thought that he could put the aircraft down in a safe place that he would without any order.

Well that sounds like just talk, and my assumption is on that day that there was a lot of talk, about what and who could shoot down aircraft and with what authority. However there are certain people in charge and for a reason. Col. Marr at NEADS wasn't going to issue any order that he wasn't comfortable with as far as its clarity and without what he beleived had the proper authority. The Secretary of Defense, NORAD, the President or the Vice President didn't have the fighters on frequency but Col. Marr did, the final order would have been issued by him.

[Oystein]

well - it seems, that some of your posts are debunked by Maj. Douglas Martin. :)

It seems that you did not re-read them :)