In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[alienentity]

ps, jimd, your threshold for proving a conspiracy is so ridiculously low, and so broad, that anytime two people are breathing at the same time on this planet it must be a conspiracy! LOL

Hint: For most people who are not being evasive and engaging in sophistry, a (9/11) conspiracy is a deliberate and secret plan. Conspiracies can be proved, but you must show direct evidence of the plan to do this. There is simply no such evidence to support the allegation of a conspiracy NOT to shoot down the planes on 9/11.

The failure of 9/11 truthers such as yourself is that you believe things which are based on speculation. Your many claims may in fact be dead wrong. We know this, and you should too. That's the difference between skeptics and conspiracy theorists.

 

[Reheat]

I'm not at all sure what the point is with these rants. Does jmd think he's tell us something we don't already know? Does he think he is he revealing a shocking revelations...

jmd, do you believe that the tragedy of 9/11 would have been prevented if only Bush or Rumsfield had issued "shoot down" authority to NORAD earlier?

Do you think a "shoot down" of civilian airliners is the solution to the prevention of further attacks? Since the content of all of the conversations between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and others is unknown why do you think they didn't ever discuss the possibility of "shooting down" the airliners? Do you think they should be prosecuted for this?

Psssst... I'll give you a tip about how to be more effective on this Forum. State your case clearly and concisely and avoid the rants you've engaged in so far. That isn't impressing anyone....

 

[jimd3100]

You haven't shown any lie about the shoot down order.

Interview of Rice by Terry Moran of ABC:

"DR. RICE: The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly. And it was authority requested through channels by Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Vice President passed the request, the President said yes."

That is called a lie about shoot down orders.

From The Ground Truth by J Farmer:

"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. Whether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day." page 260

This is also a lie:

Published on September 17, 2001, The Washington Times:

“Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, President Bush ordered military jets into the air around Washington with orders to shoot down any airliner that refused to turn away from the city, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday.”

9-11 Commission report:

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

Maybe you should be telling John Farmer that no one lied about the shoot down authorization:

"The official version," senior commission counsel John Farmer would say, "insisted that President Bush had issued an authorization to shoot down hijacked commercial flights, and that that order had been processed through the chain of command and passed to the fighters. This was untrue."

9-11 Commission:

“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 what did they tell Bob Woodward of the Washington post, and the American people? "Well, by golly that is exactly what we talked out!" But no one is lying right? LOL! Pathetic

Washington Post Sunday, January 27, 2002:

It was 9:55 a.m.

Once airborne, Bush spoke again to Cheney, who said the combat air patrol needed rules of engagement if pilots encountered an aircraft that might be under the control of hijackers. Cheney recommended that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any such civilian airliners -- as momentous a decision as the president was asked to make in those first hours.

Really?

MSNBC:

"NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place."

9-11 commission:

Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call

NY Times:

But the 9/11 Commission found "no documentary evidence for this call" amid numerous communications logs and contemporaneous notes from the White House bunker and Mr. Bush’s airplane.

Continuing with the Washington post piece, Bush and Rumsfeld remember very well what they talked about, by golly it was those shoot down orders. They wont dare tell that to the commission, because the 9-11 commission has the records and know they never issued any shoot down orders until after the attacks, and in Rumsfelds case way way after....

Washington Post:

Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. First, pilots would seek to make radio contact with the other plane and tell the pilot to land at a specific location. If that failed, the pilots were to use visual signals. These included having the fighters fly in front of the other plane.

If the plane continued heading toward what was seen as a significant target with apparently hostile intent, the U.S. pilot would have the authority to shoot it down. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command.

But that wasn't a lie was it?

9-11 Commission:

“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.”

You haven't shown any lie about the shoot down order.

One has to wonder why some of you are pretending the NCA didn't issue shoot down authorization during the attacks and why you deny lies were told about it. It's not a secret. All of this is old, so why all the denial?

You fail. The end.

Goodbye.

You sure say goodbye a lot.

 

[Sabretooth]

OK, let's try this again...

Based on the timeline I provided in post 142, how was NCA supposed to initiate a shoot-down order as the clustercrap of 9/11 unfolded?

Whether Rice/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush have conflicting recollections of when the order was implemented is inconsequential. The fact remains that even if there was a shoot-down order relayed to the military, the terror flights would not have been intercepted in time.

My question to you is: Why do you give a crap?

 

[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.



(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)

Bumped for jimd3100 and shure


If you guys post once more in this thread without respecting the many requests to clearly and concisely state your premises and claims, without walls of quote mines, then the conclusion is inevitable: You have no premises and claims that you wish to submit to a reasoned debate.

I'd then recommend that you be considered trolls and ignored.

 

[jimd3100]

There is no law requiring common sense. After knowing that two passenger jets have been flown into two buildings.......being a tad curious as to whether there might be more and authorizing the military to shoot down if necessary doesn't fall into the category of political opinion. It falls into the category of common sense. I already said I have no interest in a life long debate on what might be different if things were different.

Does this mean I'm not invited to the Christmas party?

 

[LSSBB]

There is no law requiring common sense. After knowing that two passenger jets have been flown into two buildings.......being a tad curious as to whether there might be more and authorizing the military to shoot down if necessary doesn't fall into the category of political opinion. It falls into the category of common sense. I already said I have no interest in a life long debate on what might be different if things were different.

We are talking of politicians making decisions in a crisis. "Common sense" does not come into play.

 

[Dog Town]

Does this mean I'm not invited to the Christmas party?

You can come to the LA one.
Fair Warning: NWO Kitty does the door!

 

[Sabretooth]

There is no law requiring common sense. After knowing that two passenger jets have been flown into two buildings.......being a tad curious as to whether there might be more and authorizing the military to shoot down if necessary doesn't fall into the category of political opinion. It falls into the category of common sense. I already said I have no interest in a life long debate on what might be different if things were different.

Does this mean I'm not invited to the Christmas party?

One more time...

IT. DOESN'T. FREAKING. MATTER.

Whether the order was given or not, the hijacked aircraft would not have been intercepted. Period. The evidence lies within the timeline that you've conveniently ignored to this point.

Stop being so damn obtuse.

 

[Oystein]

There is no law requiring common sense. After knowing that two passenger jets have been flown into two buildings.......being a tad curious as to whether there might be more and authorizing the military to shoot down if necessary doesn't fall into the category of political opinion. It falls into the category of common sense.

And that is what - a fact, or your opinion?

Of course that is a matter of political opionion. You think it is politically negligible when an American president sends an American fighter pilot to shoot down an American airliner and kill dozends of American civilians? Seriously?

To get this into perspective, I wrote this already on page 2 of this thread (and got ignored):

...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 short: Under German constitutional law, what you consider "common sense" would be clearly, absolutely illegal!

I already said I have no interest in a life long debate on what might be different if things were different.
...

Thanks for admitting that

• Bush and Rumsfeld broke no law and are thus not criminally liable with regard to shoot-down orders. In particular, they did not commit treason, and they did not conspire
• You can't and won't show that any other course of action would have made any difference at all
• You are not interested in a debate that aims at resolving anything.

You have stated your opinion, I think think this should end your participation in this thread, since you have no interest in the debate. Goodbye. *sends jimd3100 to ignore*

 

[ozeco41]

...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...

That looks like sound law to this semi-lawyer.

The other issue which both our protagonists have ignored since I first raised it back in post #16 - is the issue of "risk management"

And you have not even raised the issue of non US nationals who could be passengers.



But don't forget that the US view on this bit:

...Human lives can never legally be under the disposition of the State...

...is diametrically opposed to the German position.

 

[Oystein]

That looks like sound law to this semi-lawyer.

The other issue which both our protagonists have ignored since I first raised it back in post #16 - is the issue of "risk management"

Yep. I had that in mind when I wrote

...
Of course that is a matter of political opionion. You think it is politically negligible when an American president sends an American fighter pilot to shoot down an American airliner and kill dozends of American civilians? Seriously?
...

And you have not even raised the issue of non US nationals who could be passengers.

But but ... isn't it common sense that the US President can kill whomever he wants, and in fact MUST kill? [/jimd3000]

But don't forget that the US view on this bit: ...is diametrically opposed to the German position.

Oh, I don't forget that and realize that several of our American fellow debunkers apparently also find it common sensical that airliners ought to have been shot down if given a chance and clear identification. However, political leaders should not only be guided by common sense, but also by strict adherence to the Constitution and other higher legal principles, and I can well see that even Bush and Rumsfeld would have paused to allow such considerations. It is not at all clear to me that US law would allow for the President to order the shoot-down of US civilian airliners over US airspace with innocent civilians aboard at any time at all. But even if the President were legally entitled to such an order, he is by no means under any obligation. That IS a matter of pure political opinion, and if shure and jimd opined that Bush is a bad President for nor clearly, publicly, personally and early issuing such an order, well, then they could debate that and perhaps even reach some consensus with some forumites here. But shure stated earlier in this thread that he thinks Bush is traitor - which is a very serious crime under US penal code. Ok, he didn't make the allegation of treason directly in connection with the shoot-down issue, but in close proximity. It is disingenious to make grave legal allegations but refuse to discuss law (reference applicable law as evidence for claims of criminal wrongdoing).

 

[ozeco41]

...But but ... isn't it common sense that the US President can kill whomever he wants, and in fact MUST kill? [/jimd3000]....

Yes - the blindness of our two protagonists to the political consequences of killing innocent civilians by executive decree is astonishing. And that without the international political consequences if some of those intentionally killed were foreign nationals.

Bear in mind the risk management balance. If it was possible to avoid the death of (say) 500 by killing (say) 100 the 100 are real. The "saved" 500 are not. So if you win by the decision you immediately lose. Because it is 100 on the debit side and nothing real on the credit side. The figure would immediately be represented as theoretical - and the path goes rapidly downhill from there. A speedy way for a country to achieve pariah status.

However those are aspects which could have been interesting to discuss - except our protagonists were lost in the little world of their hatreds.

...Oh, I don't forget that and realize that several of our American fellow debunkers apparently also find it common sensical that airliners ought to have been shot down if given a chance and clear identification.

Scary over simplification isn't it. Thankfully Internet forum consensus is not the means of US governance.......yet.

... However, political leaders should not only be guided by common sense, but also by strict adherence to the Constitution and other higher legal principles, and I can well see that even Bush and Rumsfeld would have paused to allow such considerations. It is not at all clear to me that US law would allow for the President to order the shoot-down of US civilian airliners over US airspace with innocent civilians aboard at any time at all. But even if the President were legally entitled to such an order, he is by no means under any obligation. That IS a matter of pure political opinion, and if shure and jimd opined that Bush is a bad President for nor clearly, publicly, personally and early issuing such an order, well, then they could debate that and perhaps even reach some consensus with some forumites here....

Yes. There is a "redneck" element here

... But shure stated earlier in this thread that he thinks Bush is traitor - which is a very serious crime under US penal code. Ok, he didn't make the allegation of treason directly in connection with the shoot-down issue, but in close proximity. It is disingenious to make grave legal allegations but refuse to discuss law (reference applicable law as evidence for claims of criminal wrongdoing).

I noted and passed over the "traitor"/"treason" issue. Saw it as childish hyperbole by shure. No attempt to define treason OR the "elements of proof of the offence" - whatever those are under US statute. I don't even have the Australian statute in my law library - and no ready access to US statute.

That said I remembered "Google is your friend" and find:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

...so there it is up front in the US constitution. Derived from English common law but stripped of the elements of "Killing the King" and fornicating with royalty in such a way that succession to the throne is placed in doubt. Neither of which are relevant in the US of A

Quaint stuff the old common law.

End of wild diversion

 

[Oystein]

...
I noted and passed over the "traitor"/"treason" issue. Saw it as childish hyperbole by shure. ...

Of course - but still, that's treading legal ground, if taken serious. I'd expect a clarification from shure if he wishes to debate political prudence (a matter of opinion), or legal culpability (a matter of - potentially - objective jurisprudence, capable of and demanding evidence in the form of citing laws, statues, court decisions or pertinent legal essays by accepted legal scholars).

jimd already denied explicitly that the debate is about political opinion. I wonder what shure thinks it is about.

 

[LSSBB]

Oystein and Ozeco, I must say I am learning a lot from the direction you have taken this conversation. To be honest, I really could not tell from jimd's expositions what point he was trying to make. To reiterate sabertooth's point, though, it doesn't matter - the planes never got shot down anyway.

 

[carlitos]

Goodbye. *sends jimd3100 to ignore*

I think that here you exercised a reasonable timeline for following Ryan Mackey's advice. I went a little sooner, but the outcome was predictably the same.

And, as ever, I learned something from the Constitutional discussion.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

We are talking of politicians making decisions in a crisis. "Common sense" does not come into play.

The GOP have enough problems right now finding a candidate for next year. If we are going to require them to show "common sense" as well then Obama will be unopposed!

The US elected W because he was folksy and not Al Gore. There is no test for competence and if a President ends up being competent in a crisis that's just good luck. It is a fault in the US system but its worked well enough for well over 200 years.

 

[A W Smith]

Truthers bitching about a missed opportunity

I have no doubt, no doubt at all that if any passenger aircraft were shot out of the sky, The troll movement spin would be that there were never any hijackers. Just more "false flag" shock and awe to add to their conspiracy.

 

[jimd3100]

Whether Rice/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush have conflicting recollections of when the order was implemented is inconsequential.

Sure if you enjoy being lied to. What recollections were conflicting? Is it OK for them to try and re-write history? Is it better to keep Americans uninformed rather than embarrass Saudi friends with links to terrorists? Gee...I'm such a radical!

The fact remains that even if there was a shoot-down order relayed to the military, the terror flights would not have been intercepted in time.

You mean in hindsight? Or are you proposing that these guys knew the future?

You think it is politically negligible when an American president sends an American fighter pilot to shoot down an American airliner and kill dozends of American civilians? Seriously?

That's how to stop planes from flying into buildings.

In short: Under German constitutional law, what you consider "common sense" would be clearly, absolutely illegal!

9/11 happened in America Sherlock. Germany doesn't have the death penalty. America does. Think that has a relationship to your German Law? Did you know Germany and America are not the same country? And here's a little secret that the rest of the world already knows. Shoot down orders were eventually given. So according to you, that was "clearly, absolutely illegal". And there is nothing "clearly,absolutely, illegal" about being a tad curious if other planes are off course. You don't know what you're talking about.

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)."

[*]Bush and Rumsfeld broke no law and are thus not criminally liable with regard to shoot-down orders. In particular, they did not commit treason, and they did not conspire

LOL! According to you - shooting down aircraft would have been illegal because of some law in Germany, so it was the right thing not to issue those orders. But they did issue shoot down orders - so your fairy tale makes no sense.

No one made any claim treason was committed on 9-11. It looks to me that treason was committed when he protected his Saudi buddies, by censoring 28 important pages of the joint inquiry. And interfering with a congressional investigation (when he refused to allow the joint inquiry to interview the FBI Informant who was housing some hijackers.) As he was doing all that he was convincing Americans that maybe Iraq had "possible" ties with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and should be invaded-that and his WMD. I'm sure his Saudi buddies appreciated his efforts.

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

And Bush and Rumsfeld(not to mention Rice and Cheney) obviously conspired when they told their fairy tail of the events of that day that was exposed by John Farmer to name one person who was involved in the 9-11 commission report.. Or maybe you believe Bush and Rumsfelds account before they talked to the 9-11 Commission, and then when meeting the Commission, both suddenly forgot what they talked about, and you believe that to. But both agreed it wasn't about shoot down orders. But they never conspired in any way shape or form. They just have bad memories at the same time and good memories which are the same, at other times.

[*]You can't and won't show that any other course of action would have made any difference at all

Because it's all hindsight. You seem to think these guys are Gods or have supernatural abilities to know the future.

[*]You are not interested in a debate that aims at resolving anything.

Your intellectual circle jerk is not a debate. I'm not CIT I'm not interested in your lifelong debates on things I don't care about.

If German law were applicable

It's not so who cares?

That looks like sound law to this semi-lawyer

LOL!

 

[beachnut]

... Your intellectual circle jerk is not a debate. I'm not CIT I'm not interested in your lifelong debates on things I don't care about. ...

LOL!

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=47631
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-You-Should-Be-a-9-11-T-by-jimd3100-080708-640.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jimd3100_080229_9_2f11___six_years_in_.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jimd3100_080106_what_caused_the_wtc_.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jimd3100_080104_the_real_reason_the_.htm
http://911blogger.com/blogs/jimd3100
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/about-they-hate-our-freedoms.html
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-16/death-osama-911-and-war-terror
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-02/destruction-911-evidence-continues-bin-laden-body-dumped-sea
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=45
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-13/bush-one-terrible-pilot

Wow... you don't have time to waste time here, you are busy forming your own brand of 911 truth. You use the same kind of logic as 911 truth for forming the "truth" you claim.

circle what? Is that an intellectual term for something? What do you call your "stand down" nonsense? What conclusion do you make? Bush is a traitor. Based on what? Your political opinion. You rattle off massive amounts of unrelated stuff, and then you issue the edict, Bush is a traitor. You sound like Bush, but with extra extraneous stuff. Did you vote for Bush?