In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Nobody cares. The military wasn't going to shoot down a plane anyway.
How many different ways does this need to be spelled out to you people?
-----------
Scenario: Bush issues a shoot-down.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Bush doesn't issue a shoot-down.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Cheney issues a shoot-down.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Cheney doesn't issue a shoot-down.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Cheney orders a ham sammich.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Bush is friends with Saudi's.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Bush cries in his sleep.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Scenario: Truthers leave Mom's basement.
Effect on Actual Events = ZERO.
-----------
Give it up already.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Since you have been previously informed several times in this thread that your definition of the NCA is incomplete, you are now officially confirmed a LIAR.
Here is what officers in the US armed forces know:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/pub1_97/Chap2.html
Highlighting, bolding, italicising and red-coloring mine, to show which opart you left out deliberately and with intent to deceive.Joint Staff Officers Guide said:
This board needs no liars. Please go away.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Allies are "are people, groups, or nations that have joined together in an association for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out between them." (WP)
USA and Saudi Arabia co-operate in military and economic affairs, each thereby seeking to advance own and common goals, such as enabling the free flow of oil, stability in the region, and containing common enemies such as Iran and AQ.
Proof of this has been posted by shure:
As we can see, the president of the USA affirms the close ties with America's business ally.http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Bandar-Bush-kiss.jpg
Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
WP said:
Shure, please acknowledge that you have been properly schooled about the Saudis=Allies issue, and repeat after me:
In 2001, Saudi Arabia was officially and practically a military ally of the USA
Post-2001, this status was decreased.
Thanks in advance for improving your act. I hope you will not repeat the wrong insinuations. We would then have to call you on a lie.
jimd3100
Thinker
Oh, did I leave that part out did I? Tell us what post I left that out of. Because on my screen I posted the full quote over and over and over and over. So the liars are you conspiracy theorists with your made up fantasies, the latest of which is now Cheney was deputized and acting "in his stead". He has to be-he just has to be. LOL! Even though the 9-11 Commission, John Farmer, NORAD, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney all disagree with you. But so what? It ruins your stupid conspiracy theory, LOL! Have you conspiracy theorists considered joining the lets roll forum? They have almost as many fruitcake conspiracy theories as you uninformed tin foil hat wearing theorists.
Since Cheney was "lawfully in the Presidents stead" after being deputized by some mysterious unknown member of the NWO- according to your latest idiotic conspiracy theory. It's to bad no one decided to tell NORAD. It's also unfortunate that no one told Cheney himself before he started lying to the press.....
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
Maybe you should try reading a book. You know nothing but your stupid made up conspiracy theories. Here's one you might want to pick up when you're out buying your tin foil....
John Farmer senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission wrote a book called The Ground truth...
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/B0043RT9A8/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
He and the 9-11 commission, along with Bush, Rumsfeld, NORAD, Cheney himself, and every other person on the planet outside your conspiracy theory forum -none of them-not a person on the planet agrees with your conspiracy theory. Because you made it up on your forum.
http://anthonysummersandrobbynswan....5/bush-cheney-911-questions-still-unanswered/
They claimed for years Bush gave the orders. He didn't. And even if you gullible "skeptics" believe he did, he did it thru Cheney because according to your conspiracy theories he couldn't contact the military himself. He could only contact Cheney. Oh, and Rice. Oh, and Rumsfeld. LOL! The 9-11 commission knows Cheney was outside the Chain of Command and giving the orders and so does every other serious researcher such as Anthoney Summers and Robbyn Swann to name some more. But you "skeptics" will believe anything and tend to make ◊◊◊◊ up. You make stuff up because you are uninformed and don't know what you are talking about. Not to mention dishonest.
Last edited:
jimd3100
Thinker
And thanks to the supernatural powers of Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney they all knew that. Is that your newest conspiracy theory?
Goes good along with your theory of having the FAA hijack coordinator out of the U.S. only helped the FAA with their notifications to the military. Yea, that went real well. LOL!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why did the FAA order all planes out of the air if they knew there was no more problem aircraft? This is what you are saying, as of the last crash they knew there would be no more. Right?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Do you have a pair of 20/20 hind sight glasses? You seem to know who should have done what and what everyone knew so that's the only explanation I can think of.
jimd3100
Thinker
jimd3100
Thinker
No that would be you.
Oh?
Here is just one example of where I show you are the liar....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7814363&postcount=58
You are pathetic and predicable you might want to re-read the thread and issue an apology.
My first post in this thread:
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Do you not understand this part?
"or persons acting lawfully in their stead"
Yeah, go Google that.
jimd3100
Thinker
The President was to busy to deal with an attack, and put Cheney "in his stead" .... Maybe someone should have told NORAD? and to continue with your theory...
The other half of the NCA - The Secretary of Defense D Rumsfeld was out of the NEADS/FAA loop because? Was someone "in his stead" too, that no one was told about?
page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1
It's to bad the 9-11 commission quote mined and deceived and then forgot to mention that Cheney was acting "in his stead"....
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf PAGE 34/585
You all ARE accusing the 9-11 commission of quote mining and deceiving....right?
Last edited:
jimd3100
Thinker
Have you figured out yet that this quote....
Is from this source...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/pub1_97/Chap2.html
And as proof that you also tend to lie making false allegations check out post 58 where I quote the whole thing even when I couldn't post links....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7814363&postcount=58
And this quote...
Is from the 9-11 commission report where they do not include the "in their stead" because no one was acting "in their stead" whether you like it or not...at least according to the 9-11 commission report, who obviously doesn't believe in your conspiracy theory.
Page 34/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
So maybe you should be kicking yourself in the face by lying about others - or maybe take a reading comprehension course. An Apology would be in order as well.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
This is a fascinating subject though - the question of how a government reacts to an emergency, and what the military chain of command is for an extremely rare order.
Nevermind the over-the-top allegations of desertion and various conspiracies - no matter what a government does those kinds of theories are going to fly around on the internet and in the pub.
A question that comes to mind is, considering the relatively new Presidency, the lack of experience of GW Bush, and the fact that it was a surprise attack: had anyone in the administration ever considered this kind of order before, and what if anything would they know about such an order?
I've mentioned this before regarding 9/11 - it was an unprecedented attack, period. Never happened before or since. To expect the top leaders to instantly respond as if they'd been briefed, trained and prepared for it is asking far too much, IMO.
Of course, I'm not taking a position that assumes Bush and Cheney planned the attacks, so their hesitation and confusion does not seem nefarious.
The concept of the NCA, from what I've read, derives directly from the Cold War and the authorization to stop a nuclear attack. For that exact reason - that a comprehensive and quick response to hijacked planes that were to be used as weapons was not part of any strategic response before 9/11 - new policies were implemented after the attacks.
This again demonstrates that the previous policy was just not adequate to cover such a contingency - ie more people, such as the VP, and Chairman of the JCS needed to be included in the authority to shoot down.
9/11 was a tragic event, the military responses on the day were obviously not adequate to prevent even one of the planes from either being hijacked or flown by the hijackers. That has changed. We have learned from the attacks and will respond differently in future, guaranteed.
The finger pointing at Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld is a rather mean-spirited and unhelpful, IMO, since there's absolutely no reason to think that the outcome could have been different given the circumstances. Coulda, shoulda, woulda is not going to get the job done.
I'm still looking thru the various administration statements after the attacks - so far, Cheney's claim that Bush responded within minutes of the attacks by ordering aircraft to shoot down stands out as inaccurate, of course. He made the statement on Sept 13, and he may well have had an incorrect idea of the events - is there any reason to think that they would have dissected the entire day already? I doubt it, they had a lot of other things to worry about - a national crisis, in fact.
He's correct that Bush ordered the shoot down, but he was not correct that it was minutes after the second plane hit. He was wrong about that. He is correct that jets were scrambled, but not about the exact orders they had.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and simply say that he got important details wrong.
That still doesn't make him a traitor or even a liar per se.
Here's a list of the 'chain of command' that I got from one researcher:
President of the United States
Vice President of the United States
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Nevermind the over-the-top allegations of desertion and various conspiracies - no matter what a government does those kinds of theories are going to fly around on the internet and in the pub.
A question that comes to mind is, considering the relatively new Presidency, the lack of experience of GW Bush, and the fact that it was a surprise attack: had anyone in the administration ever considered this kind of order before, and what if anything would they know about such an order?
I've mentioned this before regarding 9/11 - it was an unprecedented attack, period. Never happened before or since. To expect the top leaders to instantly respond as if they'd been briefed, trained and prepared for it is asking far too much, IMO.
Of course, I'm not taking a position that assumes Bush and Cheney planned the attacks, so their hesitation and confusion does not seem nefarious.
The concept of the NCA, from what I've read, derives directly from the Cold War and the authorization to stop a nuclear attack. For that exact reason - that a comprehensive and quick response to hijacked planes that were to be used as weapons was not part of any strategic response before 9/11 - new policies were implemented after the attacks.
This again demonstrates that the previous policy was just not adequate to cover such a contingency - ie more people, such as the VP, and Chairman of the JCS needed to be included in the authority to shoot down.
9/11 was a tragic event, the military responses on the day were obviously not adequate to prevent even one of the planes from either being hijacked or flown by the hijackers. That has changed. We have learned from the attacks and will respond differently in future, guaranteed.
The finger pointing at Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld is a rather mean-spirited and unhelpful, IMO, since there's absolutely no reason to think that the outcome could have been different given the circumstances. Coulda, shoulda, woulda is not going to get the job done.
I'm still looking thru the various administration statements after the attacks - so far, Cheney's claim that Bush responded within minutes of the attacks by ordering aircraft to shoot down stands out as inaccurate, of course. He made the statement on Sept 13, and he may well have had an incorrect idea of the events - is there any reason to think that they would have dissected the entire day already? I doubt it, they had a lot of other things to worry about - a national crisis, in fact.
He's correct that Bush ordered the shoot down, but he was not correct that it was minutes after the second plane hit. He was wrong about that. He is correct that jets were scrambled, but not about the exact orders they had.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and simply say that he got important details wrong.
That still doesn't make him a traitor or even a liar per se.
Here's a list of the 'chain of command' that I got from one researcher:
President of the United States
Vice President of the United States
Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Pull that stinky nugget out of your ass, didn't you?
(PS, I don't know much about this specific topic, so I will default to the experts.)
I just wanted to make sure you understood the definition of that word.
jimd3100
Thinker
That's not the military chain of command that is the Presidential chain of command. If the President dies, the VP is next in line, if the Pres and VP are gone then Speaker of the house etc etc....
Just you. You proved it with your SPAM the entire internet, "Cheney said shoot down, means stand-down" super post of, hearsay, quote-mines, and cherry-picked nonsense. You would win the cherry-picking quote-mining Pulitzer. Your stand down stuff is based on nonsense.
Since your "stand-down" claim failed, you are stuck with the Chain of Command tangential smoke screen, hide your failed "stand-down" claim. The "stand-down" logic, a mix of Balsamo and Bush logic, you are the decider.
In an emergency commanders can take action; 911, an emergency. The heroes of 911, citizens on Flight 93, must not of got your "stand-down" order. Flight 93 Passengers took action, which effectively shot down flight 93. Makes your made up failed logic "stand-down" super-cherry-picking-quote-mining special effort, a waste of time spam.
Last edited: