In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[George 152]

The guy started in August 2007. Four+ years ago with only a handfull of posts. I'm thinking sockpuppet.

Maybe the spacing of the posts coincide with some form of residential treatment ?

 

[Sabretooth]

Here you go, shure. I made you a nice little timeline in table form so you can see for yourself that the military had zero chance of intercepting any of the four flights...so your little "Bush is a deserter" campaign is a big old waste of everyone's time.

TIME | EVENT
8:14|AA11 failed to respond to Boston
8:20|Betty Ong calls reservation desk to report hijacking
8:21|AA11 transponder disengaged
8:25|Boston Center hears voice of hijacker
8:28|Boston Center calls FAA Herndon to report hijacking
8:32|FAA Herndon calls FAA HQ in WA
8:34|Boston Center calls Otis ANG
8:38|Boston Center calls NORAD/NEADS
8:42|Last radio transmission from UA175
8:46|Two F-15's are ordered to scramble from Otis ANG
8:46|AA11 impacts WTC1
8:47|UA175 changes transponder code several times
8:52|UA175 change altitude and turns toward NYC
8:53|Otis F-15's airborne
8:55|NY Center controller reports possible hijack of UA175 to manager
8:56|AA77 transponder disengaged
9:01|NY Center calls FAA Herndon regarding UA175
9:03|NY Center calls NEADS regarding UA175
9:03|UA175 impacts WTC2
9:03|Otis fighters approx 70 miles from NYC
9:25|Otis fighters set up CAP near Manhattan
9:25|Indy calls FAA Herndon, who calls FAA WA, to report "missing" AA77
9:28|"Screaming" heard from from UA93
9:30|Langley fighters confirmed airborne (090 for 60)
9:32|"Bomb on board" UA93
9:34|FAA Washington contact NEADS regarding AA77
9:36|NEADS order Langley fighters to DC area
9:37|AA77 impacts the Pentagon
10:00|Langley fighters over DC
10:03|UA93 impacts ground near Shanksville
10:07|FAA Cleveland calls NEADS to report UA93 hijacked

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

I don't know why you got some personal lynch-mob hard-on for Bush considering he has been out of office for 3 years...but your attention is in all the wrong places. Find a new hobby.

 

[alienentity]

Here you go, shure. I made you a nice little timeline in table form so you can see for yourself that the military had zero chance of intercepting any of the four flights...so your little "Bush is a deserter" campaign is a big old waste of everyone's time.

Wow! That's really handy, thanks! So much info, so little wasted space..

 

[Sabretooth]

Wow! That's really handy, thanks! So much info, so little wasted space..

 

[jimd3100]

Saddam tried to kill me, I don't care why we took him out. I understand there is no evidence to tie him to 911.

That's sweet, you and Bandar Bush have something in common......

From: The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America's Tangled Relationship With Saudi Arabia

"Indyk remembered a different Bandar, one who was a super-hawk when it came to Saddam. "He was always pushing for the United States to bomb Iraq, much more than Paul Wolfowitz." He was referring to the neoconservative scholar and senior Pentagon official who would later press so hard for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003. "He wanted us to knock off Saddam." Indyk was convinced the prince had a personal grudge to settle with Saddam. When the State Department had taken away his security detail after Clinton came into office, Bandar had protested vociferously, arguing he needed it because Saddam had taken out a contract to have him killed. Also, Saddam had tried to assassinate his favorite U.S. president, George H.W. Bush, while he was visiting Kuwait after leaving office in April 1993. So the prince couldn't wait for the U.S. bombs to fall." page 137

Who said 9-11 was a tragedy? Thanks to 9-11 the USA can eliminate a couple of Bandars threats. 9-11 was a good deal for Him. What a lucky break.

Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (Senate):

The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of
foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers
while they were in the United States.
(3) The Administration's decision to classify this
information prevents the American people from having access
to information about the involvement of certain foreign
governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are
disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the
terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that are
going to get this indirect economic benefit. I believe the Members of
Congress, who are going to be called upon to vote on whether we should
grant this indirect benefit to a country that has been less than
supportive of our Nation's war on terror, ought to know that before we
vote and then find out later the full consequences of what we have
done.
So there was an issue as to why these 28 pages should have been
released when the report was initially completed in December of 2002.
Those issues remain today. And there is the additional issue of whether
we are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit to
a country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror
would be a gross understatement.

If you believe 9-11 had nothing to do with an invasion of Iraq you are delusional.

I worked with Saudis, they are our ally.

Yes, they are a sweet lot aren't they?

According to the joint inquiry Saudi Agents assisted the hijackers. And according to the 9-11 commission the Saudi consulate that the Agents met with before meeting the hijackers in L.A. Fahad al Thumairy, lied to them. And he isn't the only one. Also according to news reports he was banned from coming back to America because he is a terrorist. Are the Pakistani ISI our allies too? Good allies that should be protected due to "National Security" reasons? Tillman was also killed by Taliban as he saved his troops, and Jessica Lynch emptied her weapons before being taken and tortured. You'll believe anything.

Good allies of Britain as well no doubt.....

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

Why were you fooled by your buddy bush? Did bush fool you?

I'd say he fooled you. These Saudi's are not my friend or a friend to the 3000 Americans murdered on 9-11.

Even if the terrorists were funded for their stay in America by Saudis, it would be the same as parents funding a kid to go to college, and then the kid go nuts and kills people at the school;

WTF? Basically, the same thing huh? Are you a CIT member? Can you help me spread a Fly Under theory?

If they had substance, jimd would not be spamming the net with failed conclusions, jimd would be holding a Pulitzer Prize.
Proof I am wrong, the Pulitzer. Where is it?

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's not having Pulitzer, according to your logic is proof they write BS. LOL! . I've been saying pretty much the same thing but since I'm not even trying to get a Pulitzer, I'm not as polite as they are. I use terms like "deserted their posts", because that is what any of us would have been accused of if we were in positions of extreme importance and authority and did what they did on 9/11. You also continue to pile lies upon lies by claiming I am "spamming the net", when I couldn't care less if you or anyone else read anything I or anyone else writes, I post on very few places on the net, to say I spam anything is just another lie. The only reason I am posting here is to defend myself and point out your lies. Just like the last time I posted on this forum. When "your forum" awarded me with a stundie award, for promoting no plane crash at the pentagon, when I've never done that but have always said the opposite that a passenger jet did crash at the pentagon, so based on my experience here you'll just have to excuse me for coming to the conclusion that this is a board that encourages and promotes lies and false character assassination. BTW I never got my stundie, but I'd feel guilty claiming it now after reading your "terrorists are like college kids" quote.

Uh...gee, what an honor. Do I get a trophy or something? If so, I'm not sure it would be fair to accept your award, since you are not bright enough to give a closer look at what I was talking about.

Gosh those were some good times. Very impressive.

I'm a rank amateur in the matter, but I frankly doubt that it's even possible for the Pres to "dessert his post", since there is no one who has the authority to assign him a post that he could possibly dessert.

The American people assigned him a post as part of his duties. The Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is the President of the United States, according to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution

As Anthony Summers said:

It would have been unthinkable for the U.S. military to down a civilian airliner without a clear order from the President, as commander-in-chief. In his absence, the authority belonged to the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. “The operational chain of command,” relevant law decreed, ran “from the President to the Secretary of Defense,” and on through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to individual commanders. The Vice President was not in the chain of command.

That was well understood by U.S. military on September 11. In an earlier exercise, one that postulated a suicide mission involving a jet aimed at Washington, they had said shooting it down would require an “executive” order. The defense secretary’s authority, General Arnold told the Commission, was necessary to shoot down even a “derelict balloon.” Only the President, he thought, had the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner.

Technically, VP is a member of the NCA.

Really? No he isn't.

While technically the VP is not in the normal chain of command

no he's not. He's there in case the President is dead. The President was not dead on 9-11 neither was the Sec of Defense.

While technically the VP is not in the normal chain of command it is murky because Bush was out of pocket at the time and there were communication problems in addition to that.

It isn't murky to Rumsfeld...

Goldberg: What about authorization to shoot down United #93? Did that come from the Vice President?
Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn’t, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command.

Rumsfeld knows darn well about the chain of command and the NCA

Cameron: But the rules of engagement came out of your office.
Rumsfeld: Sure.

See? Rumsfeld issued the orders. LOL! He wouldn't lie would he? That would be inflammatory to say and show "political bias" wouldn't it? LOL!

Being on Air Force one is not out of the pocket. He called Cheney at 9:15. Before going on AF One. As Ron Wieck pointed out in his talk with Jeff Hill, after seeing the second plane strike he was wondering how many other planes there were, Bush was busy with other things, no one was keeping Bush from contacting the Military or FAA, instead he called Cheney to go over what wording he would use at his address at 9:30. You're claiming he was "out of the pocket", he had no problem contacting Rice shortly after the pentagon was hit where he "absorbed her words", he talked to Cheney again at 9:45 and he talked with him again just before 10 although according to the 9-11 Commission there is no evidence of this call and coincidentally that is when he told Cheney "You bet" when Cheney claims he told him he should issue shoot down orders. Oddly enough The President who is "out of the pocket" never mentions these shoot down orders to Sec of Defense Rumsfeld when he contacts him shortly after 10. What they talked about has been forgotten by both Bush and Rumsfeld though....gosh to bad. I wonder if it was interesting? Guess we'll never know. But according to you Bush can't issue shoot down orders himself because he is talking on the phone in Florida, and then on a piece of junk called AF One later. LOL!

Who was suppose to be in charge for immediate decision making, the White House janitor?

No that would be the other half of the NCA who is the Secretary of Defense. His name was Donald Rumsfeld.

I understand some of you not liking terms like "deserting their posts" but oh well. The point of this particular write up is being missed. Contrary to lies spewed out by beachnut I post on very few places on the net and frankly don't care if anyone here approves or not of the terms I use. I have the same message but would use a different means of delivery depending on who the audience is. I posted this particular write up on 911blogger and on shure's forum. So the audience is "9-11 truthers" and the point was to get these people to stop saying Cheney ordered a stand down. Me nor Shure believe Cheney or anyone else ordered a stand down. The point is on 9/11 no one was going to be shooting down any planes. Not because there was a stand down order. But because the NCA (Bush and Rumsfeld) never issued any. They were busy watching TV and loading people on stretchers and deciding what wording he should use, and other BS that I call "deserting their post". There was no stand down order issued -there was no need to issue one. No one was shooting down any planes on 9-11 because the NCA never issued shoot down authorization.

Also the point is not to try and nit pick something to place blame for no reason. I understand perfectly well that brainwashed Islamic a**holes hijacked planes and killed people. I understand perfectly well it was a weird day and Chaotic. And I'm fine with keeping my mouth shut that maybe these guys didn't perform in spectacular fashion. The flight attendants did a heroic job with their calls and information. The Boston Operations center went above and beyond the call of duty when they discovered the first hijacking by not only notifying the FAA but contacting the nearest military base themselves. That was the closest any plane ever came to being intercepted thanks to them. But yes, we all know that plane wasn't getting shot down. We can debate endlessly on flight 77 and 93. I'm not interested. Because there are other factors involved. The passengers on 93 are heroes. They stopped that plane, and if Rambo shot it down at 10:00 he'd be in prison for killing a bunch of civilians without authorization and the black box would have shown the passengers were about to take over the plane. No one was shooting down planes on 9-11 because the NCA were derelict. Now you can argue that it would have made no difference. No one could have known that at the time, and I disagree anyway but not interested in speculation on what might have happened if things were different. It's not productive and waste of time. But my message to 9-11 truthers was.....There is no evidence of a stand down order, and no reason to give one-no one was going to shoot down planes on 9-11 because they didn't have the authority. Rules have changed since then and beachnut pretends the rules were the same then as now. Like I said I understand it was a weird day, and I would have kept my mouth shut. But I don't like being lied to. And that is why I point at them. Because if you continue to let your officials lie to the American people and honor themselves with multi million dollar book deals and medals as they deceive and manipulate you are destroying your own country.

 

[ozeco41]

Here you go, shure. I made you a nice little timeline in table form so you can see for yourself that the military had zero chance of intercepting any of the four flights...so your little "Bush is a deserter" campaign is a big old waste of everyone's time.

TIME | EVENT
8:14|AA11 failed to respond to Boston
8:20|Betty Ong calls reservation desk to report hijacking
8:21|AA11 transponder disengaged
8:25|Boston Center hears voice of hijacker
8:28|Boston Center calls FAA Herndon to report hijacking
8:32|FAA Herndon calls FAA HQ in WA
8:34|Boston Center calls Otis ANG
8:38|Boston Center calls NORAD/NEADS
8:42|Last radio transmission from UA175
8:46|Two F-15's are ordered to scramble from Otis ANG
8:46|AA11 impacts WTC1
8:47|UA175 changes transponder code several times
8:52|UA175 change altitude and turns toward NYC
8:53|Otis F-15's airborne
8:55|NY Center controller reports possible hijack of UA175 to manager
8:56|AA77 transponder disengaged
9:01|NY Center calls FAA Herndon regarding UA175
9:03|NY Center calls NEADS regarding UA175
9:03|UA175 impacts WTC2
9:03|Otis fighters approx 70 miles from NYC
9:25|Otis fighters set up CAP near Manhattan
9:25|Indy calls FAA Herndon, who calls FAA WA, to report "missing" AA77
9:28|"Screaming" heard from from UA93
9:30|Langley fighters confirmed airborne (090 for 60)
9:32|"Bomb on board" UA93
9:34|FAA Washington contact NEADS regarding AA77
9:36|NEADS order Langley fighters to DC area
9:37|AA77 impacts the Pentagon
10:00|Langley fighters over DC
10:03|UA93 impacts ground near Shanksville
10:07|FAA Cleveland calls NEADS to report UA93 hijacked

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

I don't know why you got some personal lynch-mob hard-on for Bush considering he has been out of office for 3 years...but your attention is in all the wrong places. Find a new hobby.

Thanks for posting that Sabretooth.

When I identified the timeline as the key issue - way back in post 16 of this thread - I was hoping that shure would address the issue. So I deliberately did not spell out the time line problem. Simply left it as a minor challenge to his intellect.

It has since become clear that shure and his associate jimd3100 have no interest in reasoned discussion. All they seem to want is to vent their ill formed illogical hatreds. So essentially they are only trolling. And I don't enter into discussions with such people. Among other reasons that is because they won't discuss.

With the timeline now posted they have no excuse for avoiding the realities of lack of opportunity for the major decisions involved in shoot down.

As far as Bush is concerned I, as an Australian, have no strong antipathy towards him. He never impressed me as being in the top bracket of US presidents but the king is dead. Long live the king. I do not comprehend why people want to take out their ill formed hatreds on him. Or, more accurately, to lambast us on this forum with their nonsense.

 

[alienentity]

The point is on 9/11 no one was going to be shooting down any planes. Not because there was a stand down order. But because the NCA (Bush and Rumsfeld) never issued any

Really? Then who was it that issued the orders remembered by this pilot?
http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/06/pilot-recalls-911-shootdown-order/

He was flying in protection of his country that day. He recalls being prepared to shoot down planes. I think his testimony carries a lot more weight than your opinion, frankly.

Not only that, his statements directly contradict your claim that there was never any shoot down order issued by Bush or Rumsfeld. So I conclude you are wrong about that. I also know you won't change your mind, and that you will find some way to rationalize away this testimony so as to maintain your previous conclusions.

But it's worth demonstrating that your claims are not well supported by the evidence.

 

[Oystein]

Jimd, Shure,

do I understand correctly that one of your premises is "Both Bush and Rumsfeld were under a legal obligation to issue a shoot-down authorization"?

If so, please answer briefly:

• What is the legal basis for that premise (which law, statue, treaty or court decision)?
• At what point in time did the obligation to issue such an order first arise? Please give us the earliest time on the clock on 9/11 when the existence of this obligation must have been apparent, and explain why you pick that time.
• What practical difference would if have made if such an order was given via the proper chain of command at that point in time when the legal obligation first arose? Please educate us about that chain of command, assume reasonable delays, and explain the differences you come up with along the timeline kindly provide by sabretooth!

If not, I take it you will agree that Bush and Rumsfeld did not act criminally when (and if) they did not issue a shoot-down authorization. Right? At most, you could criticize their judgement call, but that would be in the realm of political opinion.

 

[jimd3100]

"History, should record that, whether through unprecedented administrative incompetence or orchestrated mendacity, the American people were misled about the nation's response to the 9/11 attacks." - J Farmer The Ground Truth

Really? Then who was it that issued the orders remembered by this pilot?

Probably Bush. If you want to play semantics go ahead. Yes, they issued shoot down orders after they were notified at 10:15 that flight 93 was down.

He was flying in protection of his country that day. He recalls being prepared to shoot down planes. I think his testimony carries a lot more weight than your opinion, frankly.

Good. Because he just confirms that the NCA issued no orders at all during the attacks. If you want to play semantic games go ahead.

Not only that, his statements directly contradict your claim that there was never any shoot down order issued by Bush or Rumsfeld. So I conclude you are wrong about that. I also know you won't change your mind, and that you will find some way to rationalize away this testimony so as to maintain your previous conclusions.

Oh, they issued shoot down orders. Bush at 10:20 after it was known at 10:15 that flight 93 was down.

But at least he was more responsive than Rumsfeld. Who got around to it about 1 in the afternoon.

But it's worth demonstrating that your claims are not well supported by the evidence.

Maybe you should be taking that up with the 9-11 commission......

"Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004)."

"Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."

and this guy....
from: Rumsfeld: his rise, fall, and catastrophic legacy

“Rumsfeld, once he had finally settled into his place at the command center, got to work on the “rules of engagement” for the fighter pilots. This was an irrelevant exercise for he did not complete and issue them until 1.m., hours after the last hijacker had died.” page 7

BTW the pilots name is Dan Caine

from foxnews:

Caine is a colonel in the Air National Guard, 113th Wing, based at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside of Washington, D.C. He flies F-16 fighter jets, and he was ordered on Sept. 11, 2001, to take to the skies to shoot down any other hijacked airlines that posed a threat to the nation's capital.

Col. Duffy says his first order of business was to make sure there were no more hijacked airliners, and he started a mission similar to Col. Caine's, which was to intercept any questionable aircraft.

He points out that even if he had arrived before the second plane hit, he would not have been able to fire any missiles at the airliner. Those were not his orders.

"If we'd been there earlier, that's probably the question I get the most, if you'd had been there at least in time for the second aircraft, what would you have done? And we would have intercepted it just like we did the other planes. So, you would have seen me pull up beside it and try to turn it away, but that's all that I could do and that's all that we would have had clearance to do."

According to historycommons:

Caine will take off from Andrews at 11:11 a.m

So why don't you tell the forum when exactly he received his orders?

 

[ozeco41]

...Oh, they issued shoot down orders. Bush at 10:20 after it was known at 10:15 that flight 93 was down.

But at least he was more responsive than Rumsfeld. Who got around to it about 1 in the afternoon....

FINALLY something which looks like the start of possible discussion.

So you are not talking about a shoot down on 9/11 since all four planes were down by the times you are concerned with. (Which implicitly demonstrates the truth that I pointed to way back in post 16 - viz no suitable window of opportunity for any decision to shoot down on 9/11 )

So what is your problem?

Lets try for the next step of discussion. What status do you give to these shoot down orders which you allege were issued at 10:20 and 13:00?

 

[DGM]

One good thing that comes out of this. At least they agree UA 93 was not shot down.

 

[ozeco41]

One good thing that comes out of this. At least they agree UA 93 was not shot down.

Their rants are so incoherent its hard to tell how many admissions they have made.

I was tempted to parse this lot:

...Also the point is not to try and nit pick something to place blame for no reason. I understand perfectly well that brainwashed Islamic a**holes hijacked planes and killed people. I understand perfectly well it was a weird day and Chaotic. And I'm fine with keeping my mouth shut that maybe these guys didn't perform in spectacular fashion. The flight attendants did a heroic job with their calls and information. The Boston Operations center went above and beyond the call of duty when they discovered the first hijacking by not only notifying the FAA but contacting the nearest military base themselves. That was the closest any plane ever came to being intercepted thanks to them. But yes, we all know that plane wasn't getting shot down. We can debate endlessly on flight 77 and 93. I'm not interested. Because there are other factors involved. The passengers on 93 are heroes. They stopped that plane, and if Rambo shot it down at 10:00 he'd be in prison for killing a bunch of civilians without authorization and the black box would have shown the passengers were about to take over the plane. No one was shooting down planes on 9-11 because the NCA were derelict. Now you can argue that it would have made no difference. No one could have known that at the time, and I disagree anyway but not interested in speculation on what might have happened if things were different. It's not productive and waste of time. But my message to 9-11 truthers was.....There is no evidence of a stand down order, and no reason to give one-no one was going to shoot down planes on 9-11 because they didn't have the authority. Rules have changed since then and beachnut pretends the rules were the same then as now. Like I said I understand it was a weird day, and I would have kept my mouth shut. But I don't like being lied to. And that is why I point at them. Because if you continue to let your officials lie to the American people and honor themselves with multi million dollar book deals and medals as they deceive and manipulate you are destroying your own country.

...it is hard to find a single point where "they" disagree with the mainstream.

Overall "they" seem to have switched a lot of their hatred from Bush to beachnut. Which shows that it is not a rational dislike - simply dishonest, unfocussed and illogical "angry young person" stuff. Beachnut doesn't need me to defend him against such rubbish.

what is interesting in a way - certainly not unexpected - is that despite my early post pointing at the time line impossibilities people are still prepared to go along with shure and discuss his material about shoot down and close down.

I tend not to yield to trolls by letting them set the agenda...

If they are not prepared to discuss the real and relevant issues --- tough. Their problem not mine.

Ditto their reluctance to state what their problem is - I won't be chasing them over the Internet to pin down what they are trying to claim. In these cases I suspect that they are simply not capable of clear thinking...but I could be wrong..

...but why else would any rational person post stuff like the paragraph I quoted above????

 

[alienentity]

Probably Bush. If you want to play semantics go ahead. Yes, they issued shoot down orders after they were notified at 10:15 that flight 93 was down.

So they did issue shootdown orders. But you stated earlier that they did not 'the NCA (Bush and Rumsfeld) never issued any'

If you're trying to make an argument, you will need to be more coherent. You seem to be complaining that they issued the shootdown orders, but not when you think it would have been best to do so. So what? You are griping about procedure, dude, this is not a conspiracy of any kind.
I think you used the term 'co-conspirator' for Rumsfeld. You are way out of line using that kind of language, seeing as you have zero evidence to demonstrate a conspiracy.

It's very easy to throw inflammatory terms around, anyone can do that. Very few can back it up with substance, and you're not one of them. There's nothing here.

I shake my head when I read things like ''The point is on 9/11 no one was going to be shooting down any planes.'. There is no evidence that anybody knew that as a fact by 10:30am on 9/11. Caine himself didn't know that, according to his comments. The situation had only been unfolding for a couple of hours, and an entire nation was in a state of shock and disbelief.

Using hindsight to take cheap shots is not going to impress many people, it's actually a pretty low tactic.

Cheerio, I'm not going to invest any more time in this discussion. There is nothing here of substance that isn't already evident.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

Sure. Of course you have to understand that you don't get to make the decision on those subjects.

 

[Sabretooth]

Probably Bush. If you want to play semantics go ahead. Yes, they issued shoot down orders after they were notified at 10:15 that flight 93 was down.

Wait a minute...you seem to be shifting gears here and that opens a whole other can of worms...

1. Now you're saying that Bush (previously accused of "deserting his post") did what he should have done and did issue a shoot down order? You need to pick a side...you can't play all the angles and claim they all back your opinion.

2. OK, he issued a shoot down...but, I'm not seeing where this is a big deal. At this point in the morning, no one knew UA93 was the end of the terror attack. So had there been more planes, they possibly could have been intercepted.

So which is it? You can say 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 and suggest that both answers prove your point.

 

[jimd3100]

So they did issue shootdown orders. But you stated earlier that they did not 'the NCA (Bush and Rumsfeld) never issued any'

If you're trying to make an argument, you will need to be more coherent.

That's funny. Because it was coherent to you earlier.....

Really the only thing you have uncovered is that the NCA did not respond with a shoot down order while the initial attacks were taking place; this was done only later, by your account.

It's not my fault you can't keep track of your own thoughts, but this is more likely YOU doing what you couldn't wait to accuse me of....

you will find some way to rationalize away this testimony so as to maintain your previous conclusions.

Wait a minute...you seem to be shifting gears here and that opens a whole other can of worms...

BS I never shifted anything as the previous quotes prove.

I think you used the term 'co-conspirator' for Rumsfeld. You are way out of line using that kind of language, seeing as you have zero evidence to demonstrate a conspiracy.

I don't care if you don't like the language I use.

From online dictionary:

conspiracy [kuhn-spir-uh-see] --
1.the act of conspiring.

conspire
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.

Everyone in the world knew planes were flying into buildings after the second strike. Bush decided to do nothing (in order to not scare the children ) then he decided to call Cheney and discuss what he would say at 9:30 when he was already scheduled to give a talk. Then he headed out toward AF one and called C. Rice who informed him that the pentagon had been hit. He called Cheney again at 9:45, and there is zero evidence that during all this time he issued any orders to the military at all including shoot down authority. There is zero evidence he contacted the FAA as well. Rumsfeld according to his own words saw the second strike on TV and continued watching TV (for 35 minutes) until finally the pentagon was hit on the other side of the building. He made his way to find out what all that racket was. There is zero evidence he issued any orders at all during the attacks and zero evidence he assumed his post in the Military command center until after 10:30. These two guys talked to each other shortly after ten but can't remember what they talked about. You believe them don't you? You probably do.

9-11 commission report:

"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."

But guess what these guys claim when they are not talking to the 9-11 commission but instead to reporters and authors (Bush was interviewed for this book....


From Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush:

"After finally getting hold of Rumsfeld and discussing the shoot-down procedure with him, Bush called Cheney back. "You bet," he said." -- page 139

John Farmer knows these guys are lying but you guys want to protect them from evil people like me who don't like being lied to - to bad

From J Farmer book The Ground Truth:

"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Wether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day. page 260

 

[DGM]

John Farmer knows these guys are lying but you guys want to protect them from evil people like me who don't like being lied to - to bad

Personally I don't think you're evil. You're just not very convincing.

 

[alienentity]

That's funny. Because it was coherent to you earlier.....

Dude, you're getting boring and repetitive. Your story doesn't add up, you can't even get your story straight. I've already quoted your contradictory claims, no need to repeat them again to further humiliate you.

You haven't shown any lie about the shoot down order. I don't like being lied to either, you're not special in that regard. Don't make accusations if you can't back them up with facts - it's really that simple.

You make claims, you fail to convince any of us. You fail. The end.

Goodbye.

 

[Sabretooth]

He called Cheney again at 9:45, and there is zero evidence that during all this time he issued any orders to the military at all including shoot down authority.

There is also zero evidence that he didn't.

There is zero evidence he contacted the FAA as well.

See above. Also, why would he?

There is zero evidence he issued any orders at all during the attacks and zero evidence he assumed his post in the Military command center until after 10:30.

See above.
The funny thing about evidence is that it's a two way street. You can't have zero evidence of an either/or and claim that it automatically justifies your opinion.

You're not convincing anyone of any willful disregard of responsibility. All you got right now is a cool story, bro.

 

[Oystein]

That's funny. Because it was coherent to you earlier.....



It's not my fault you can't keep track of your own thoughts, but this is more likely YOU doing what you couldn't wait to accuse me of....





BS I never shifted anything as the previous quotes prove.



I don't care if you don't like the language I use.

From online dictionary:



Everyone in the world knew planes were flying into buildings after the second strike. Bush decided to do nothing (in order to not scare the children ) then he decided to call Cheney and discuss what he would say at 9:30 when he was already scheduled to give a talk. Then he headed out toward AF one and called C. Rice who informed him that the pentagon had been hit. He called Cheney again at 9:45, and there is zero evidence that during all this time he issued any orders to the military at all including shoot down authority. There is zero evidence he contacted the FAA as well. Rumsfeld according to his own words saw the second strike on TV and continued watching TV (for 35 minutes) until finally the pentagon was hit on the other side of the building. He made his way to find out what all that racket was. There is zero evidence he issued any orders at all during the attacks and zero evidence he assumed his post in the Military command center until after 10:30. These two guys talked to each other shortly after ten but can't remember what they talked about. You believe them don't you? You probably do.

9-11 commission report:



But guess what these guys claim when they are not talking to the 9-11 commission but instead to reporters and authors (Bush was interviewed for this book....


From Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush:



John Farmer knows these guys are lying but you guys want to protect them from evil people like me who don't like being lied to - to bad

From J Farmer book The Ground Truth:

Jimd, Shure,

do I understand correctly that one of your premises is "Both Bush and Rumsfeld were under a legal obligation to issue a shoot-down authorization"?

If so, please answer briefly:

• What is the legal basis for that premise (which law, statue, treaty or court decision)?
• At what point in time did the obligation to issue such an order first arise? Please give us the earliest time on the clock on 9/11 when the existence of this obligation must have been apparent, and explain why you pick that time.
• What practical difference would if have made if such an order was given via the proper chain of command at that point in time when the legal obligation first arose? Please educate us about that chain of command, assume reasonable delays, and explain the differences you come up with along the timeline kindly provide by sabretooth!

If not, I take it you will agree that Bush and Rumsfeld did not act criminally when (and if) they did not issue a shoot-down authorization. Right? At most, you could criticize their judgement call, but that would be in the realm of political opinion.



(I copied this verbatim and in full from an earlier post that got totally ignored. It applies fully to this latest rant. I predict both jimd3100 and shure will again choose to not answer my questions)