In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[ozeco41]

A case where mature logical minds think alike?

Without doubt.

...Funny. he post more links.

Yup.

I have tried to get him to discuss via a reasoned process. (Oystein's comments similarly....) But I/we seem to be outnumbered so I will probably leave him to talk round in circles about details of unproven relevance to whatever the topic is/was/may become...

The "JAQing Ploy" is too obvious.

 

[shure]

Why another question? Do you feel we have addressed the first to your satisfaction?

Are you AADD?

All I see for the most part are comments that dodge the issues laced with snide remarks.

 

[DGM]

How much intelligence was there about planes being used as weapons?

Just some advice. The most intelligent person in the debate is not the one that can "bookmark" the most links. It's the one that can put them into his own words in a convincing way. So far........I'm convinced you're very good with "Google".

 

[shure]

I'm backing up what I say with sources.

 

[DGM]

I'm backing up what I say with sources.

No. You're using "sources" to make your argument.

What exactly is your point and how does it support (whatever) you are proposing?

 

[Childlike Empress]

30 min, so far Jeff is not asking the right questions, he only gives talking points to Ron. Saudi fail. You could have asked him at least about Michael Moore's film, that would have winded him up...

Enough for now.

Had unexpected spare time in the train today and listened to the rest. Jeff came back to that topic and this time did a good job explaining to him why his "wall-between-the-agencies" incompetence canard is plain false.

Unsurprisingly, Ron was not familiar with the topic. He prefers to listen to his debunker friends who make the three monkeys when it comes to this topic, but continue to act all smug and pick on easy targets.

You should make s(h)ure he reads up on that and then call again. I started a thread about the "secrecykills" complex here.

The second half of the audio was more or less Ron doing amateur geopolitics, but ok, I had him more fundie in memory. Get well soon, Ron.

 

[beachnut]

...
. This is not just a disgrace, it is in fact- the stand down. The VP is not in the military chain of command and has no authority to issue shoot down orders. ...

Amazing incompetence for those so experienced. But if one were to be kind, they would accuse them of being incompetent liars.

Stand down, does anyone still push the stand down nonsense? I was on active duty on 11 September 2001, I got no stand down orders. I don't need permission to carry out my duty as an Air Force Officer. The stand down conclusion is nonsense based on delusional logic.

The lie of a "stand down" is faulty logic, based on opinions. The VP is part of the NCA, who said he was not part of the chain?! That will not stop 911 truth nonsense.

Both movement of troops and execution of military action must be directed by the NCA;by law, no one else in the chain of command has the authority to take such action except in self-defense.

The claim of a stand down is moronic claptrap. Proved by passengers, CIVILIANS, who are basically in CHARGE of the military, took action in self-defense without orders from the President, or VP. The claim of a stand down is delusional, and if there was a stand down, there would be an order, a message, and we would have a new President on 12 September 2001. The failed stand down claim, debunked on 911.

Flight 93 Passengers can stand up and attack terrorists, the military can also take action, without orders from the VP or President, or the NCA. How can the stand down claim continue given 10 years?

 

[shure]

No. You're using "sources" to make your argument.

 

[shure]

Did you google all of that nonsense, or what?

Stand down? Gee, I was on active duty on 11 September 2001, and I got zero stand down orders.

You got zero orders! Which would be the same as stand down orders because you wouldn't have been able to do anything without proper orders.

And I don't need permission to carry out my duty as an Air Force Officer.

To shoot down a plane you do!

learn the facts?

"Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/...002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redacted-044

Military officials ignored Cheney’s 9/11 shoot-down order
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/


Maybe you should learn the facts

 

[Reheat]

Ok, so you've got the facts and you say there was a stand down. Let's presume for a moment that Bush had been able to communicate with the PEOC and issued "shoot down" authorization at 0910. What would have been different from what actually occurred?

 

[tsig]

You got zero orders! Which would be the same as stand down orders because you wouldn't have been able to do anything without proper orders.



To shoot down a plane you do!





Maybe you should learn the facts

So the proof of stand down orders is that there were no stand down orders?

Are you calling Beechnut a liar?

 

[R.Mackey]

I've thought about it along the same lines as I think you are suggesting here. Although, if that was the case, why would Cheney be stuck in that position in the first place?

We know that Cheney and Bush talked on the phone prior to his first address to the nation. The subject of their conversation was about what Bush would say when he addressed the nation. No talk of any orders.

[...]

There was nothing wrong with the process. There was something wrong with people following proper proceedures.

There was some contact, sure, but we're talking about a very dynamic situation here. And W very well might have been a bit flat-footed. We all know he wasn't the sharpest President we've ever had. Literally everyone in the world would have been clamoring for his attention at that moment.

But let me clarify it for you a little bit. Members of our military are not robots. The whole situation was confusing, no matter who you were, no matter where you were. So it's entirely possible that a fighter pilot could have found himself in a position to make a snap decision, namely either destroy a civilian airliner and inflict great harm and loss of life, or do nothing and watch it inflict potentially even greater harm and loss of life. And in this situation, the pilot almost certainly would have acted, with or without orders.

This isn't like nuclear weapons release, which has tightly controlled interlocks, and it isn't a case where they had clear and unambiguous orders not to engage. In that situation, it's up to the man in the plane -- or, as it happened, the woman. We know they would have gone through with it based on conversations from pilots hunting for Flight 93, who discussed tactics even though their aircraft were unarmed.

So supposing I'm right about Cheney's motivations (I may not be), he's not really giving the pilots orders. They're going to do what they think needs doing whether they get orders or not. What Cheney is doing is telling the pilots, "do what you think is best, I'll take the heat for it."

This kind of thing happens in battle all the time, and is the hallmark of a good commander.

---

Which brings me to another question I would like people here to answer...

Would you support the release of the 28 redacted pages, as well as any and all other information as long as it does not reveal any sources or methods and is not a threat to national security?

I'm comfortable with this, sure. I don't think those 28 pages are going to show anything interesting, mind you. I just don't believe in unnecessary restrictions on information.

 

[beachnut]

You got zero orders! Which would be the same as stand down orders because you wouldn't have been able to do anything without proper orders.
...
Maybe you should learn the facts

What a line of nonsense.

NORAD has the mission to protect the skies. Before 911 they did not fly combat patrols where airliner traffic was. Our country is surround by airspace out of bounds for all traffic with corridors for inbound and outbound traffic. If you wander into these out of bound areas, or break the rules, you get intercepted. NORAD mission includes the skies over the US, there is no need to order the USAF to do their job. You and 911 failed due to ignorance


A USAF pilot can pretty much do what they did on 911, report for duty and took off without orders from the President. If a pilot happen to be airborne with any asset, he could interfere with the terrorists goal all he wants without orders, based on defending the USA!

Did you let Balsamo post for you?

If I was airborne, I could try to do something, no orders required.

..
To shoot down a plane you do!...
Maybe you should learn the facts

Nope, don't need permission to do anything. We have free will. More important, we train our pilots to exercise sound judgement, based on knowledge, something 911 truth fails to do.

Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and attacked terrorists! An AF officer can stand up and take out the terrorists. Did the Passengers ask for permission, did they have orders.

I served in the USAF for 28 years active duty; I did not need orders to to do what is right, or what is need to protect the USA. Since I was an officer, I see my oath of office and other directives as enough authority to take proper action as needed. You should read more, do more research. BTW, what you find from the evil NWO MSM is not the real answers, they are hearsay, individual interpretation.

"Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redacted-044

...
Maybe you should learn the facts

SO?
Technically, VP is a member of the NCA. So? Why is the chain of command important? The cool part here, is you are saying, your "facts" are saying, the VP can't order anything. That takes care of that fact. This part of your post is worthless.
oops, wait, you now debunk, your failed debunking, and debunk yourself... or what

...
Military officials ignored Cheney’s 9/11 shoot-down order
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/

Maybe you should learn the facts

Holy hearsay...
If a pilot knew for sure the plane was a terrorist controlled aircraft, that pilot could take action he deems necessary. Given enough time we should clearly identify the plane, and ask for instructions. But we are still able to act as needed. On 911 the idiots who took over the cockpits would be seen easy by a pilot right next to the cockpit, we fly finger tip in training, getting close is easy, getting a visual is easy! You can present all the BS you want, you can't figure out 911 making up lies like you do, you don't care for facts, you make up lies. The lie you have now is "stand down". An idiotic lie.

Pilots right next to my plane, and they can get close enough to see you.

I think a pilot could harass the terrorists just by flying, just by flaming out an engine with some exhaust an turbulence. But then I have flown through jet engine exhaust from a distance, and up close it would be bad news. Just something to try while waiting for permission, or the need to stop the terrorists.

I wonder who gave the order for the Passengers to essentially shoot down Flt 93?

I love it, you are using news sources as facts. You understand you are using an interpretation as a quote. The quote is made up by a news guy. Makes it hearsay. Do you understand that fact?

Holy mother of facts. Now you are saying the military ignored the VP, after you said the VP can't do orders anyway. Good for you, more nonsense, worthless tripe. ... , you failed to make a point.

...
Maybe you should learn the facts

Maybe you should get some facts to support your idiotic insane claim of a stand down. Show me the stand down order. Show me the message for the stand down. Good luck, so far you are fact free for your moronic stand down claim. kind of like, shot down, by the USAF, with no orders...

 

[Childlike Empress]

I love it, you are using news sources as facts. You understand you are using an interpretation as a quote. The quote is made up by a news guy. Makes it hearsay. Do you understand that fact?

 

[beachnut]

The summation of known facts for 911 truth, including the idiots of CIT and super pilot Balsamo. Who gave 911 truth the stand down order to avoid using reality, logic, and knowledge?

It is funny how 911 truth use random quotes, many made up out of the blue by news agencies, their interpretation of events, as their fodder for idiotic claims like the stand down lie.


Raw Story?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/
From the article...
Proof of the terrorists killing people. No stand down...
Proof the military did not stand down, they were launched.
Proof 175 impacted the WTC! Verified by ATC/RADAR, etc. Verified by eye, and RADAR, and then you have all the video. Proof it was 175, which CIT and Balsamo say is flying over PA, and the passengers may be in witness protection. What a bunch of nuts with insane claims. The stand down order is stupid, and to make the claim sets a new standard of ignorance.
Flight 93 evidence, of Passenger revolt, a "shoot down"...
10:30, a shoot down order, kind of late, but then I don't need an order to take action on 911 -

BTW, the article has proof ATC and NORAD worked together at the worker-bee level to launch fighter... with no order, and no stand down order.

ABC News, broadcast Thursday, Sept. 8, 2011 - Raw Story is not a very good source. Why does 911 truth fail to verify what they post?

The article used to defend the insane claim of a stand down, debunks 911 truth and all the crazy claims you have tried to make. Destroys CIT and Balsamo claims.

Did shure plagiarize his massive post of woo, or is he jimd3100, SPAMMING the entire Internet with his nonsense? Is this a CT of SPAM?

And the answer is... Plagiarized

 

[Oystein]

I still don't get why shootdown-order or no shootdown-order given or not given by this or that person amounts to treason.

Shure, please re-read ozeco's posts, and try to heed his advice: First make a concise case, so we know what you are talking about!

Then show that your premises are
a) true
b) relevant (i.e. changing them would have led to a significantly different outcome; in this case: At least one plane would have been shot down)

If you can't do that, there is no debate topic worthy my time.

 

[Oystein]

Shure seems to reason under the following premises (among others):

1. It is illegal for the US armed forces under 2001 standard operating procedures / standung orders to shoot down a hijacked civilain airliner
2. It is legal for the President or the SoD to order the shoot-down of a hijacked domestic civilian airliner
3. No-one else in the chain of command has the authority to order the shoot-down of a civilian airliner
4. Bush and Rumsfeld had a legal obligation to give a shoot-down order

These are 4 distinct legal opinions, and I think all 4 are more or less questionable. Some, if not all, are probably not yet objectively established as either being true or false, for lack of a law or a final judicial decision pertaining to them. So we are all free to have our personal and humble opinions.

If German law were applicable, then #1 and #3 would be correct, and #2 and #4 would be false. I know this because the German Constitutional Court, our pentant of the Supreme Court, has made a final decision on a law that explicitly would have allowed the political leadership to authorize the shoot-down of a hijacked airliner if it had been determined that the same was about to be used as a weapon. Such a law was proposed by the Minister for the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, a few years ago in reaction to 9/11, and voted into Law by the German federal legislative. Someone called the Constitutional Court which immediately and summarily tossed it out on grounds of protecting the Dignity of humans: The State cannot make conscious decisions to kill one set of innocent non-combattants in order to potentially save another set of people. Human lives can never legally be under the disposition of the State.

In the USA, I would guess that
#1 is false - while there were in 2001 no SOP to deal with such a situation, I think NORAD could have interpreted its mission and SOP as authorizing them to shoot down if they determined America was under attack, without recourse to the CiC
#2 is true, if #1 is false, and probably false, if #1 is true
#3 is void of sense if the truth values for #1 and #2 are unequal, which they most probably are.
#4 is false - there is no law or legal principle that would demand a specific course of action

As a set, Shure's premises are almost certainly FALSE.

 

[jimd3100]

I was on active duty on 11 September 2001, I got no stand down orders.

Here beachnut is falsely implying that "shure" is claiming a stand down order was issued. When in fact the opposite is true, when it comes to orders issued.

Then beachnut falsely implies that any pilot in the USAF can kill as many civilians on commercial aircraft as he deems necessary. Lol! No, he doesn't need orders to kill civilians, babies, and defenseless women on a commercial aircraft. The 9-11 commission, not to mention common sense disagree with you.

I don't need permission to carry out my duty as an Air Force Officer. The stand down conclusion is nonsense based on delusional logic.

In fact they were specifically told they had negative clearance to shoot. I can't post links so google the quote yourself from the 9-11 commission report....

"At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."

The lie of a "stand down" is faulty logic, based on opinions.

The lies are from you, saying that we are suggesting a stand down order, and another lie, is you suggesting pilots didn't need shoot down orders, and even though told by their commander "negative clearance to shoot", they could still shoot as they pleased, and another lie is saying the VP is in the chain of command and part of the NCA.

The VP is part of the NCA, who said he was not part of the chain?! That will not stop 911 truth nonsense.

Your own document of this refutes you, along with the 9-11 commission. You never posted a link to your source of your quote and here is why...if you did we would have seen this.....

a. National Command Authorities (NCA)

(1) Constitutionally, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the national defense rests with the President.

(2) Since passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the President has used his Secretary of Defense as his principal assistant in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. The Secretary is responsible for the effective, efficient, and economical operation of the Department of Defense, and he has statutory authority, direction, and control over the military departments.

(3) The National Command Authorities (NCA) are the President and Secretary of Defense or persons acting lawfully in their stead. The term NCA is used to signify constitutional authority to direct the Armed Forces in their execution of military action. Both movement of troops and execution of military action must be directed by the NCA; by law, no one else in the chain of command has the authority to take such action except in self-defense.

b. National Security Council (NSC). The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947 as the principal forum to consider national security issues that require Presidential decision. Its membership now includes only four statutory members: the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Director of Central Intelligence serve as statutory advisers to the NSC. The history of the NSC and its organization are discussed in Chapter 5.

I can't post links because I haven't wasted enough of my time here pointing out how dishonest you are, because I think it's boring and annoying.

You will probably continue with your dishonesty and say the VP was in the NSC which is the same thing...it isn't. Or say the VP was lawfully "in their stead", He wasn't. He was never the commander in chief on 9-11.

Therefore, the secretary of defense plays a critical role in the oversight of military action. He or she answers to the president, and in turn guides military action along two lines of authority.

Confirmed again by the 9-11 commission.....

"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)."

9-11 commission:

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order.

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to "ID type and tail."

In most cases, the chain of command authorizing the use of force runs from the president to the secretary of defense and from the secretary to the combatant commander. The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed.

"At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."

Here beachnut falsely tries to imply some connection to Pilots for no plane at the pentagon and CIT.....

Did you let Balsamo post for you?

When the only people who pay any attention to Pilots for No plane crash at the pentagon and CIT are fruitcakes and some people on a jref forum.

As fun as all that is, I find it much more interesting that the President got away with protecting foreign nationals who were involved in the 9-11 attacks that killed 3000 Americans. Conducting a cover up of those involved in the 9-11 attacks makes him a traitor who has committed treason, and is deliberately keeping important information on the attack of 9-11 from us. And it continues. You seem to support the government in keeping it's citizens in the dark as much as possible. At the same time the President was protecting his Saudi buddies the Administration was working with their Saudi buddies trying to convince Americans to attack Iraq. It's treason.

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?' And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: 'Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.'"

- 60 minutes program

You blindly follow your leaders no matter where they lead you or what they tell you and keep from you. You like being manipulated by those in power.

But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."

For his part, Bush has insisted that revealing the 28 pages would compromise "sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror." But the chairman and vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the joint inquiry, Florida Democrat Bob Graham and Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, rejected that argument, contending that perhaps only 5 percent of the 28 pages would compromise national security if made public. Graham and Shelby are leading a drive in Congress to force the government to declassify the documents.

 

[funk de fino]

Quick question: Ever hear of a guy named Alexander Haig?

I've always felt that's what Cheney was doing -- he knew he wasn't authorized by the book to give a shoot-down order, but comms were down, the clock was ticking, and by George something needed doing. If he winds up facing the music later for exceeding his authority, so be it.

I despise Cheney, but if this is what he was doing, I actually respect him for it.

As it happened, of course, there was no shoot-down, so the whole thing was a wash. Leaving the pertinent question of "how can we improve our processes / comms so this never happens again?" That's certainly worth looking into. Not really a conspiracy, though.

This ^^^^

 

[Miragememories]

Stand down, does anyone still push the stand down nonsense? I was on active duty on 11 September 2001, I got no stand down orders. I don't need permission to carry out my duty as an Air Force Officer. The stand down conclusion is nonsense based on delusional logic.

Really?

I thought you were retired at that time.

MM