In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[alienentity]

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.

There was definitely no stand-down. Correct. But there was in fact a shoot-down order by roughly 10:30am. That we know.

Some people like to pick the wings off the Bush and Cheney flies, just to imagine them crawling around and hatching evil plots, I guess. It still won't change the basic facts, which we know - no stand-down, and a shoot-down order by 10:31 am.

I didn't even need a wall of links and quotes for that - anybody can peruse the thread and read about those things. But just for the record, I'll reiterate the most important one: 'Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31' (p 62 9/11 Commission Report)

Interestingly the next sentence reads 'It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered the shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...' and 'NORAD officials maintain that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93'

According to transcripts, the authorization to shoot down came to NORAD thru General Larry Arnold, and was very explicit about Dick Cheney: 'Vice President has cleared us to intercept the tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold]' (p 58) Cheney then informed Secretary Rumsfeld a few minutes later by phone.

The 9/11 Commission states that 'leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft' (p 59)

So it seems pretty clear that Cheney had spent a considerable effort at getting these orders conveyed to NORAD and NMCC, shortly after 10am by a lieutenant colonel at the White House (p 58)

It would be highly inaccurate to state that there was no shoot down order (as happened earlier in this thread) even if there is disagreement about exactly how and when it was conveyed, and by whom - clearly there were orders given. Every indication is that Cheney was trying to get planes shot down if they threatened the Capitol; to conclude otherwise is just foolish and borderline stupid.
I personally despise Cheney, but I can't fault him for his actions given the circumstances. There's no real justification for demonizing him because he didn't stop the attacks.

 

[Oystein]

Another thought:

It is foolish to assume that the US armed forces are absolutely barred from taking any military action at all to defend the USA unless a couple of civilians are available to give them authorization to specific kinds of action, such as "shoot down this and that!". Cause that's what Bush and Rumsfeld ultimately were: Civilians, representing a civilian society.

So when it is said, by the 9/11-Commission for example, that only the NCA (Bush, Rumsfeld or whoever they legally delegated this to) can order the shoot-down of an airliner, than this implies that it was illegal until 9/11 to shoot down civilian domestic target. So in this regard, the legal situation was no different to the one in Germany to which I referred to earlier.
In light of this prohibition to shoot down airliners, it is, in my view, still an open (i.e. not contested in and confirmed by a court of law) question if it is even true that the President has the right to order such a shoot-down of a domestic cilvilian target.

A corrollary of all this is that clearly there existed no legal obligation for Bush or Rumsfeld to order a shoot-down. Shure and jimd are thus waaaaaay of target when they accuse the NCA of failing to do their duties.

 

[jimd3100]

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.

Wrong. After KNOWING the country is under attack. It is NOT asking to much to expect the leaders of the Armed forces to respond as soon as possible. If you were a lowly guard on a military base. And you KNEW the base was being attacked and fellow soldiers killed. And you didn't respond, for well over an hour. You would be charged for dereliction of duty. And EVERYONE knew the U.S. was under attack after the second plane strike.

This is not a reasonable response to Americans being murdered during a KNOWN attack.......

After stepping out of the classroom and being told "America is under attack" at 9:15 The leader of the Armed Forces (Bush) called VP Cheney....

"Bush and Cheney assessed the situation and discussed what the President would say in his public statement. Better to be cautious, they agreed, and decided that Bush would speak of "an apparent" act of terrorism."

page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#reader_0060723467

He should be contacting the military to respond to an attack. This is not "hindsight". This is obvious.

Rumsfeld is the most experienced Sec of Defense in American History. He has two records. He is the youngest Sec of Defense ever, and the oldest Sec of Defense ever. You seem to think it is perfectly reasonable that the most experienced Sec of Defense in American history after KNOWING the U.S. is under attack. Would stay locked in his office and not respond. Only after the pentagon is hit by yet a third plane does he respond, but it is NOT to assume his duties as the leader of the countries defense forces but to help load people on stretchers. I've already stated that I am not interested in "finger pointing" and being "mean" by pointing out how they could have done a better job. I would let this go - but when the lying to create a false impression to the American people and history starts, then when it SHOULD be pointed out. You seem to have a problem admitting these politicians are being dishonest. That seems a little odd.

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.

According to you it's perfectly reasonable for the leaders of the Armed Forces to remove themselves from the Military/FAA loops for over an hour after KNOWING their country is under attack. It's not.

You consider it "mean" to point out facts in order to create an honest historical record. You also fail to realize when you are being deceived intentionally by political leaders. You seem to be concerned their feelings might get hurt.

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.

It's inaccurate because it's not true. It's not true because he is lying. We know he is lying because he knows when he talked to Bush. Because Bush gave the order to him. One again has to wonder why Bush is giving shoot down authority to Cheney. The answer is because Cheney is in charge and told him to when he called the President at 10:18.

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?

Just can't admit you might be lied to in order to create a false impression to the American people about the actions of their leaders on 9-11. I'm horrible to think historic events should be portrayed accurately. To Bad.

He's correct that Bush ordered the shoot down, but he was not correct that it was minutes after the second plane hit.

The record does not support Bush gave the shoot down order. The only reason you believe this is because you believe what Bush and Cheney said. You refuse to admit they are not telling the truth. Others who have studied the record know they are not telling the truth.

Though careful in its language, the 9/11 Commission dropped a clear hint in its Final Report that staff had found the Cheney and Bush account of the exchange less than convincing. There was "no documentary evidence," it noted, to back it up. "We just didn't believe it," general counsel Daniel Marcus declared long afterward. "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."

We believe we come close in the book to establishing that shoot-down authorization originated not with Bush but with the Vice President.

Former 9/11 Commission staff member and senior U.S. Army intelligence officer Miles Kara, who in retirement has continued to parse the records of that day, likes to warn researchers not to "impose ex post facto knowledge on the event." The caution holds true for those weighing the ex post facto accounts of former presidents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...graphic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html

I suggest you be a tad more skeptical. There is no record of the call between Bush and Cheney when this order was given. There are records of all the other calls.

That still doesn't make him a traitor or even a liar per se.

Once again no one is accusing anyone of being a traitor in regards to the day of 9-11. That charge pertains to the censoring of the Joint Inquiry's report.

The lies are shown on post 163

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7828163&postcount=163

 

[Sabretooth]

And thanks to the supernatural powers of Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney they all knew that. Is that your newest conspiracy theory?

You keep harping on this. I've given you more than enough info (the timelines) to show where your opinion is critically flawed. However, you obviously don't have the mental capacity or reasoning capabilities in that thick skull of yours to figure it out for yourself, so I guess I'll spell it out for you.

Try to remember how information was flowing on that morning. I know, it's hard to imagine life in the USA before 2001 when you were only 8 or 9 years old. Take the hindsight blinders off and actually contemplate what was happening that morning.


First plane strike - 8:46
- At this point, a few minutes after the strike, the only info that the POTUS has is that a plane of some kind has crashed into the WTC1. The initial feeling here is that this a horrible accident, not an act of terrorism. All the news centers were reporting it as an accident. I distinctly remember thinking the same thing.

Second plane strike - 9:03
- This strike leave no doubt...it's obviously a terror attack. However, at this point, the general consensus here is that it could be over. Both attacks are limited to the NYC area. Surely, there are no more.

Third plane strike - 9:37
- Now the scope is realized. This isn't some singular incident and now the NCA has to assume all aircraft are hot. This is most likely the first instance that the POTUS considered a shootdown order.

Do I have evidence of this? No. It's my opinion based on how events unfolded on 9/11 and how people tend to react. Evidence is really not available here, but, some speculation can be reasoned. Would others agree?

FAA grounds all aircraft - 9:40
- Now some action is finally being implemented. Keep in mind, we are still less than 60 minutes from the first strike.

POTUS and VP possibly discuss shootdown: ~10:00
- Considering the timeline of events and government reaction times, this makes sense. They've seen 3 aircraft used as missiles and the FAA has grounded all traffic. It makes sense at this point to discuss shooting down any planes that do not respond from this point forward.

Fourth plane strike - 10:03
- The passengers figured this one out and took action. However, I am rather confident that UA93 never reaches it's intended destination even if they didn't. Military info and response to this point would have seen this flight stopped.


Would anyone like to add anything to this? Am I off base in my speculations here?

 

[Oystein]

Sabretooth,

I think you are a bit over-confident when you offer an opinion on what the "consensus" was after the second strike. I guess no one really knew, and there wasn't a consensus.

For a clearer picture, add to this timeline the moments at which FAA was first aware, or at least believed, that more hijackings were ongoing (those of AA77 and UA93), and also the movements of Bush and his entourage after the 2nd strike - there was some priority on ensuring that Bush could return safely to Airforce One where he would be safe and have a better command and control post (oh by the way: So much for the claim that Bush deserted his post: A school was his dutiful post, but AF1 wasn't?).

I think you point out an important consideration: That a shoot-down order would have irresponsible before you have sorted out the skies and can clearly distinguishg between confused planes and hijacked planes.

By the way, I am doubtful that UA93 would have been shot out of the sky if passengers had not interfered.

 

[Reheat]

Sabretooth,
By the way, I am doubtful that UA93 would have been shot out of the sky if passengers had not interfered.

Nope, I think you are wrong. The Andrews fighters (2) had shoot down authority (at least, they thought they did and discussed how they would do it w/o missiles).

By the time UA 93 would have reached Washington, DC, the Andrews fighters were capping low and the Langley fighters were capping high.

Either one of those 5 fighters could have intercepted UA 93 well outside of DC airspace.

It's all really a matter of opinion, but the Andrews flight actually discussed it, so who really knows. It all is essentially speculation...

 

[Reheat]

The antagonistic group thinks "shoot down" was the desired option and inevitable if only the POTUS or the SECDEF had authorized it. If the airliner had been shot down and crashed into a school or large shopping mall, perhaps it would have generated different thoughts on the subject.

Even tho' the decision following the 9/11 tragedy has resulted in a general policy to exchange lives in the air for lives on the ground that is still a debatable option.. It is far better for those actually in the aircraft to either prevent a "take-over" or retake the aircraft just as the passengers on UA 93 attempted to do.

Perhaps the current philosophy will prompt that type of action in the future if there is another similar attempted attack knowing if they don't they might be shot down... Who really knows as it's all speculation....

 

[RedIbis]

By the way, I am doubtful that UA93 would have been shot out of the sky if passengers had not interfered.

How did the passengers interfere?

 

[Sabretooth]

How did the passengers interfere?

 

[carlitos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

 

[Sabretooth]

Sabretooth,

I think you are a bit over-confident when you offer an opinion on what the "consensus" was after the second strike. I guess no one really knew, and there wasn't a consensus.

Fair enough...maybe I used the wrong word. The point I was getting at was, with all the focus now toward the WTC, I don't believe anyone was contemplating attacks toward more targets.

For a clearer picture, add to this timeline the moments at which FAA was first aware, or at least believed, that more hijackings were ongoing (those of AA77 and UA93), and also the movements of Bush and his entourage after the 2nd strike - there was some priority on ensuring that Bush could return safely to Airforce One where he would be safe and have a better command and control post (oh by the way: So much for the claim that Bush deserted his post: A school was his dutiful post, but AF1 wasn't?).

Agreed.

I think you point out an important consideration: That a shoot-down order would have irresponsible before you have sorted out the skies and can clearly distinguishg between confused planes and hijacked planes.

Thanks.

By the way, I am doubtful that UA93 would have been shot out of the sky if passengers had not interfered.

I stand by my opinion, and Reheat explained why rather well. By this time, the fighters were finally in place to fight back. UA93 never would have made it to it's intended target.

 

[Oystein]

Fair enough...maybe I used the wrong word. The point I was getting at was, with all the focus now toward the WTC, I don't believe anyone was contemplating attacks toward more targets.

I can't be sure after 10 years, but I think at least I contemplated the possibility of more targets. Couldn't tell where - the Empire State Building or the UN building could have come to mind, the Sears Tower certainly was on some peoples' minds, and it would have been rather foolish not to contemplate the possibility of more hijackings. Once you have twom you have a concerted action, a conspiracy, a coordinated attack; and once you are there, it is a small step to contemplate more than two.

I am not sure at what point in time the first Washington officials said things like "USA is under attack", but if this was said or thought before the third hit, it implies the realisation that it might not be over yet.

The problem remains that the POTUS or the SecDef could not know immediately where to locate such a threat, and with the skies still packed with planes, a blank shoot-down order would have been irresponsible. If it is ever legal at all.

I stand by my opinion, and Reheat explained why rather well. By this time, the fighters were finally in place to fight back. UA93 never would have made it to it's intended target.

I am not saying it would not have happened, just that there is reason for doubts. You can't know - and it's useless speculation anyhow. UA93 crashed at 10:03, 150 miles from Washington. It would have taken under 30 minutes to get there. Where were the Langley fighters at the time? When would they have been given useful co-ordinates? Can we be sure that UA93 would have been identified as the only potential target at the time, so the fighters would indeed have been sent out of DC and towards PA? Not sure when the first armed Andrew fighters were up and available.



ETA: Oops I only now read Reheat's comment. That clears up some of the questions I had about the Andrews and Langley fighters. So yeah, ok, that increases the chance of a shoot-down. But not to certainty. And we all agree it's speculation after all.

 

[Sabretooth]

ETA: Oops I only now read Reheat's comment. That clears up some of the questions I had about the Andrews and Langley fighters. So yeah, ok, that increases the chance of a shoot-down. But not to certainty. And we all agree it's speculation after all.

Absolutely. Speculation can go in many different directions. Either way, it doesn't effect the outcome.

I usually don't play "what if" games, but I was trying to point out that the military finally did respond and find a position to protect NYC and DC...albeit too late.

Bottom line is that jimd and shure both are harping on this shootdown order garbage as if the POTUS and/or SECDEF and/or VP were supposed to issue the order as soon as Betty Ong called the reservation desk.

I've shown it to be impossible to intercept any of the flights, let alone shoot them down. There were still hundreds of legitimate flights in the air and these idiots are expecting fighter jets to just start flying around and blowing stuff up G.I. Joe style.

I'm starting to wonder if we're dealing with trolls.

 

[ozeco41]

The antagonistic group thinks "shoot down" was the desired option and inevitable if only the POTUS or the SECDEF had authorized it. If the airliner had been shot down and crashed into a school or large shopping mall, perhaps it would have generated different thoughts on the subject.....

Thanks for putting the "collateral damage" aspect on the table. It was one key factor alongside time line which I hinted at back in post #16 when I was trying to persuade shure to "put-up or shut-up".

...If so show us your time line indicating the earliest time that a shoot down decision could have been plausible, indicating which aircraft was or were the targets and explaining the "cost - benefit" of shoot down or not for that/those aircraft. (Risk analysis either way if you prefer those terms). For your first explanation the latter can be simply stated as likely deaths either way - I will excuse you the need to assess the world wide political cost of such an act at this stage...

 

[ozeco41]

...I'm starting to wonder if we're dealing with trolls.

"starting"?

 

[alienentity]

jimd - I've already explained to you twice that I'm not interested in engaging you further in this discussion. We know your opinion on this stuff, I think most of us disagree with your generalizations and have posted already.

We're moving the discussion on past your objections now, sorry. Since you are not prepared to entertain different points of view, you're an obstacle to discussion at this point. (You lost me in your last post as soon as you dismissed my view as 'wrong' - which is rude and arrogant of you)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Is that my theory? I wasn't aware of that. I had no idea that was my theory. I assumed the FAA ordered all the planes down in order to make sure no more flew into buildings.

How would that work? Any terrorist left in the air would just say "oh! the plane has been ordered to land so we can't take it over" or any terrorists already in control of planes would land when ordered?????

 

[tsig]

Wrong. After KNOWING the country is under attack. It is NOT asking to much to expect the leaders of the Armed forces to respond as soon as possible. If you were a lowly guard on a military base. And you KNEW the base was being attacked and fellow soldiers killed. And you didn't respond, for well over an hour. You would be charged for dereliction of duty. And EVERYONE knew the U.S. was under attack after the second plane strike.

This is not a reasonable response to Americans being murdered during a KNOWN attack.......

After stepping out of the classroom and being told "America is under attack" at 9:15 The leader of the Armed Forces (Bush) called VP Cheney....

page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#reader_0060723467

He should be contacting the military to respond to an attack. This is not "hindsight". This is obvious.

Rumsfeld is the most experienced Sec of Defense in American History. He has two records. He is the youngest Sec of Defense ever, and the oldest Sec of Defense ever. You seem to think it is perfectly reasonable that the most experienced Sec of Defense in American history after KNOWING the U.S. is under attack. Would stay locked in his office and not respond. Only after the pentagon is hit by yet a third plane does he respond, but it is NOT to assume his duties as the leader of the countries defense forces but to help load people on stretchers. I've already stated that I am not interested in "finger pointing" and being "mean" by pointing out how they could have done a better job. I would let this go - but when the lying to create a false impression to the American people and history starts, then when it SHOULD be pointed out. You seem to have a problem admitting these politicians are being dishonest. That seems a little odd.






According to you it's perfectly reasonable for the leaders of the Armed Forces to remove themselves from the Military/FAA loops for over an hour after KNOWING their country is under attack. It's not.

You consider it "mean" to point out facts in order to create an honest historical record. You also fail to realize when you are being deceived intentionally by political leaders. You seem to be concerned their feelings might get hurt.



It's inaccurate because it's not true. It's not true because he is lying. We know he is lying because he knows when he talked to Bush. Because Bush gave the order to him. One again has to wonder why Bush is giving shoot down authority to Cheney. The answer is because Cheney is in charge and told him to when he called the President at 10:18.



Just can't admit you might be lied to in order to create a false impression to the American people about the actions of their leaders on 9-11. I'm horrible to think historic events should be portrayed accurately. To Bad.



The record does not support Bush gave the shoot down order. The only reason you believe this is because you believe what Bush and Cheney said. You refuse to admit they are not telling the truth. Others who have studied the record know they are not telling the truth.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...graphic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html

I suggest you be a tad more skeptical. There is no record of the call between Bush and Cheney when this order was given. There are records of all the other calls.



Once again no one is accusing anyone of being a traitor in regards to the day of 9-11. That charge pertains to the censoring of the Joint Inquiry's report.

The lies are shown on post 163

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7828163&postcount=163

So if you ran the zoo the grass would always be green and no animals would die.

 

[alienentity]

Thanks for putting the "collateral damage" aspect on the table. It was one key factor alongside time line which I hinted at back in post #16 when I was trying to persuade shure to "put-up or shut-up".

I assume a shoot down would only be a 'last resort', precisely because of the grave implications of downing a commercial airliner over a major city. So I fully agree that it would be something that civilian and military leadership were conflicted over and were reluctant to do.

The 9/11 Commission Report chronicles a lot of confusion regarding the shoot down order. For example on p 58 they write 'In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order'.
They also admit that it is not known exactly how the message was communicated thru NORAD, nor exactly what time these messages went out.

So in short we cannot make any absolute judgements about the decision-making process, only to say that it was underway by around 10am, and that there WAS INDEED a concerted, formal attempt to get a shoot down order communicated from Cheney to various military groups.

Speculating about the effect of a shoot down, one can easily imagine that, had an aircraft been shot down, crashing into a populated area and killing scores more civilians, the Bush administration would have taken an enormous amount of criticism from many directions. I'm quite certain that conspiracy theorists would have weaved a shoot down into their theories, perhaps speculating that certain people on the flight were killed on purpose etc...
And the countries of foreign nationals killed would probably have accused the US of being too heavy handed in their response.

Fortunately this scenario did not come to pass. Flight 93 never reached its destination, thanks to the actions of the passengers. Changes in policy since 9/11 also make it highly unlikely that this could happen again.

Even in Canada we have the Canadian Air Carrier Protection/Protective Program (CACPP), where armed RCMP officers, rather than air marshals (in the USA) fly. Apparently every flight to Ronald Reagan Washington Airport has one of these officers onboard.
I think this is a rational and effective approach to the threat, and hopefully a shoot down will never have to occur in future because of these policies.

 

[ozeco41]

I assume a shoot down would only be a 'last resort', precisely because of the grave implications of downing a commercial airliner over a major city. So I fully agree that it would be something that civilian and military leadership were conflicted over and were reluctant to do....

That would be putting it mildly. On the other hand I would be very surprised if the shoot down option had not been thought through as part of all agencies counter disaster planning. Not necessarily in the context of something we would do BUT rather something we would have to consider doing.

...Speculating about the effect of a shoot down, one can easily imagine that, had an aircraft been shot down, crashing into a populated area and killing scores more civilians, the Bush administration would have taken an enormous amount of criticism from many directions....

A lot of the discussion which has occurred here (ignoring the noise) seems to be from a "within the US" political perspective. Valid as far as it goes. But IMO the international condemnation would have focussed on the US - not the Bush administration.

In working my brain through the decision scenario some years back I identified another aspect which which I don't think has emerged here so far. Given the base "risk management" decision which has two main factors viz:
1) Deaths if we don't shoot down which would be lives saved if we do VERSUS deaths if we do shoot down. Those on the plane don't count - they lose either way BUT think of the political consequences from their relatives in the event of a shoot-down decision.
2) Can we wear the political consequences of whichever path we choose.

That other aspect is that the deaths avoided would have to be several times the ones sacrificed. And don't forget that those "deaths avoided" if the shoot down path is taken become merely virtual victims and will be massively discounted in after the event criticism. The focus will be on those who died as a result of "our Government's decision". Not on those who were allegedly saved because "we cannot be sure they would have died can we?"

.... I'm quite certain that conspiracy theorists would have weaved a shoot down into their theories, perhaps speculating that certain people on the flight were killed on purpose etc...

Without doubt the conspiracy movement would have a field day.

...And the countries of foreign nationals killed would probably have accused the US of being too heavy handed in their response...

It would depend on that countries political relationship with the US and also the full circumstances of the shoot down.

What I mean by that the shoot down would probably be seen as justified for hijacked aircraft #5 and #6 if they had existed and the terrorist's arrangements had left a time window to make shoot down practical. Lets not forget that the plan was designed for concurrent actions and leaving minimum not overlapped time so that response time windows were not available or too short.

...I think this is a rational and effective approach to the threat, and hopefully a shoot down will never have to occur in future because of these policies.

I tend to agree.