Support 911Blogger


The 9/11 Stand Down

"Do the orders still stand?" -- Military aide to Vice President Navy Capt. Douglas Cochrane

Was there a stand down on 9-11? In a sense yes, but there is no evidence that a stand down order was issued. There would be no reason for VP Cheney to issue a stand down order, since he issuing a shoot down order, would have the same effect. I will proceed to show this as a fact along with the disturbing fact that the President of the United States, and the Secretary of Defense, both deserted their posts in a time of war. These two individuals who are the only ones authorized to issue shoot down orders of civilian aircraft, created the stand down, by deserting their posts, and then further disgraced themselves, and their offices, by lying to the American people.

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country." - Pres G Bush
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm

First - the players involved:

Condoleezza Rice -- National Security Adviser
Dick Cheney -- Vice President of the United States
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
George W Bush - President of the United States

Army Major Tony Crawford (Army)-- military aide to Condoleeza Rice (known as Executive assistant)
"Army Lieutenant Colonel Tony Crawford, an intelligence specialist and executive assistant to Rice" page 301
http://books.google.com/books?id=19cBGuqwaQ0C&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=%22Tony+Crawford%22+rice&source=bl&ots=Tsgxxw_Out&sig=...

Capt. Douglas Cochrane(Navy) - Military aide to Dick Cheney
"Cochrane was selected to serve as the Naval Aide to the Vice President in Nov. of 2000 and served Vice President Richard B. Cheney until Dec. 2002."
"He was commended by President George W. Bush for actions as Naval Aide and Vice Presidential Emergency Action Officer, on and about Sept. 11, 2001."
http://mayportmirror.jacksonville.com/military/mayport-mirror/2010-10-27/story/cochrane-takes-command

Vice Admiral Edmund Giambastiani (Navy)-- Military Aide to Donald Rumsfeld
"Special Assistant to the Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency - He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Mitre Corporation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Giambastiani

Lt. Col. Thomas F. Gould (USAF)- Military aide to George W Bush
"March 2000 - March 2002, U.S. Air Force military aide to the President, The White House, Washington, D.C."
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=14866
“I was there to ensure that the commander in chief had direct access to his military commanders, specifically in the realm of if we were under a nuclear attack I would present the president with his options,” Gould said.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/features/remembering_911/vandenberg-officer-at-bush-s-side-during-attacks/article_6a...

Before President Bush stepped into the classroom he was already told a commercial airliner had flown into the WTC. He was told this by Rice. This is confirmed in his own book, by Rice, and the 9-11 commission released notes.

"Then Condi called. I spoke to her from a secure phone in a classroom that had been converted into a communications center for the traveling White House staff. She told me the plane that had just struck the Trade Center tower was not a light aircraft. It was a commercial jetliner."
"I was stunned. That plane must have had the worst pilot in the world." Page 126
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615#reader_0307590615

From 9-11 commission released notes (POTUS=President of the United States):

"(so POTUS knew when he hung up it was a commercial plane??)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571575/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-102401-Rice-Transcript-Notes-998

Yes, the 9-11 commission was well aware of this. The question arises......how did they know it was a commercial airliner yet not know it was hijacked? The news was not reporting that a commercial airliner hit, because it was not known by them at the time. However the military had already launched jets after that plane because it was a known hijacking.

"As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737242/posts

How did Rice know it was a commercial airliner? Her military aide or as she describes him, her executive assistant Army Major Tony Crawford told her......

"Shortly before 9:00 a.m. I was standing at my desk when my executive assistant, then U.S. Army Major Tony Crawford, came in and said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. "That's odd," I said, thinking that it was probably a small plane that had gone off course." page 71

"A few minutes later, Tony came in and said that it was a commercial airliner that had hit the Trade Center. I got the President on the phone and told him what had happened. "That's a strange accident," he said." page 72
http://www.amazon.com/No-Higher-Honor-Memoir-Washington/dp/030758786X#reader_030758786X

Rumsfeld's military aide also is the one that told him about the first plane hit .........

"As my breakfast with the members of Congress was coming to a close that September morning, my senior military assistant, Vice Admiral Edmund Giambastiani, passed me a note. An aircraft had crashed into one of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York. It was, I assumed, a tragic accident." pages 5-6/19
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

Why don't they know this plane was hijacked? The military has already sent fighters after it and the people on the plane started calling reporting the hijacking at 8:19?

"As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737242/posts

Now let's turn to when these people are informed of the second plane strike. Keeping in mind according to them, no one ever informs them these planes are hijacked despite the fact that NEADS was notified at 8:37 and planes were launched from Otis AFB at 8:45.

Rice hears of second plane strike:

"Tony came in and he handed me a piece of paper, it said, a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. This was probably about 9:10 a.m. or so." -page 2/26
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/8a/Team3_Box11_EOPProducedDocsVolIII-BobWoodward-InterviewOfRice.pdf

Rumsfeld watches it happen on his TV......

"Back in my office, Giambastiani turned on the television to see the video of one of the towers burning. Putting the set on mute but glancing at it from time to time, I received an intelligence briefing from Denny Watson, my regular briefer. Her daily presentations were similar to those provided to the President each morning."

"We were a few minutes into my briefing when the scenes on the television set distracted us. A fireball was erupting from the other World Trade Center tower as a second airliner tore through the upper floors of the building."
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

The President is told:

"Andy Card pressed his head next to mine and whispered in my ear."
"A second plane hit the second tower," he said, pronouncing each word deliberately in his Massachusetts accent. "America is under attack." page 127
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615#reader_0307590615

Cheney saw the second strike on TV:

"So we turned on the television and watched for a few minutes, and then actually saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. And the - as soon as that second plane showed up, that's what triggered the thought: terrorism, that this was an attack..."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html

Now the world knows that planes are being flown into buildings. How many more are there? Only two people have the authority to issue shoot down orders. The President and Secretary of defense. Neither of them find out about any other hijackings, and neither give shoot down orders. What they do is desert their posts and leave the VP in charge. This is not just a disgrace, it is in fact- the stand down. The VP is not in the military chain of command and has no authority to issue shoot down orders. Not only that the Generals in charge know it due to the exercises that drilled that fact into their heads. So any shoot down orders he gives are not acted on. He does not have the authority any more than the Postmaster General does.

The evidence:

"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)." page 17/46
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

"The vice president was not even in the chain of command."

"The military understood that. In an exercise before 9/11, one that postulated a suicide mission involving a jet aimed at Washington, the generals had concluded that a putative shoot down could occur only in response to an "executive" order."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/president-bush-national-geographic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html

"Military officials ignored Cheney’s 9/11 shoot-down order"

"Most striking of all is the revelation that an order by Vice President Dick Cheney was ignored by the military, which saw his order to shoot down aircraft as outside the chain of command."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/

MR. LEHMAN: To follow up on that, General Arnold, did you
have authority to shoot down 93 when it was heading towards
Washington? And where did you get it?

GEN. ARNOLD: A lot of discussion on that. Our intent
on United 93 -- the simple answer is, to my knowledge, I did not
have authority to shoot that aircraft down.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf

MR. LEHMAN: So you were given it after the fact,
presidential authority to shoot it down?

GEN. ARNOLD: To my knowledge. Now, I can tell you that
in our discussion with the NORAD staff at that particular time
that we -- you know, we intended to intercept that aircraft at
some point in time, attempted to deviate that aircraft away from
the Washington, D.C. area. There was discussion at that
particular time whether or not that aircraft would be shot down.
But we, I did not know of presidential shoot down authority
until after that aircraft had crashed.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following
up on this shootdown authority, General Arnold, from what source
did you receive the shootdown authority?

GEN. ARNOLD: I did not receive shootdown authority.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: You say it was received subsequent to
the crash of 93?
GEN. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct.

MR. HAMILTON: I just want to clarify a few things
after listening to all this testimony. It's not all that clear
to me. As of September 11th, only the president had the
authority to order a shootdown of a commercial aircraft.
GEN. ARNOLD: That's correct, sir.

MR. HAMILTON: Now, one of the things that's curious to
me, General Arnold, you said that you did not learn of the
presidential order until after United 93 had already crashed.
That was about a little after 10 o'clock in the morning. The
first notice of difficulty here was at 8:20 in the morning when
a transponder goes off on the American Flight 11. I don't know
how significant that is, but 20 minutes later you had
notification of the possible hijack. So there's a long lapse of
time here between the time you are initially alerted and you
receive the order that you can shoot that aircraft down. Am I
right about that?
GEN. ARNOLD: That's correct.

MR. HAMILTON: Getting the notification from the president
of the United States that you had the authority to shoot a
commercial aircraft down is a pretty significant event. Why
would that not be in your timeline?
GEN. ARNOLD: I don't know when that happened.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf

Because it didn't happen. Bush deserted his post as commander in chief. He wasn't talking to the military. He was talking to Cheney. Cheney was giving the orders through his military aide ...."Do the orders still stand?" - D Cochrane. How come Bush's aide isn't asking that? How come Rumsfeld aide isn't asking that? Because they were not given shoot down orders. The President and Sec of Defense deserted their posts. But it gets worse. What were they doing when they deserted their posts? They were talking to each other for one thing. And guess what they were having a conversation about? Well.....SORRY....THEY JUST DON'T REMEMBER!

The evidence of President Bush deserting his post:

He is the commander in chief of the armed forces we are under attack. Commercial Airliners are being used as weapons. Only he and the Sec of Defense can issue shoot down orders. When does he contact the military and do so? He doesn't. Which means he deserted his post.

GEN. ARNOLD: I did not receive shootdown authority.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: You say it was received subsequent to
the crash of 93?
GEN. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct.

GEN. ARNOLD: That is correct. In fact, the American
Airlines 77, if we were to have arrived overhead at that particular point, I don't think that we would have shot that
aircraft down.
MR. HAMILTON: Because?
GEN. ARNOLD: Well, we had not been given authority --
MR. HAMILTON: You didn't have authority at that point.
GEN. ARNOLD: I was never aware of any order given to
shoot down American Airlines 77.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf

After the second plane has hit the tower at 9:03 we see the President being told. He does not contact the military. He has deserted his post as commander in chief of the armed forces. He does nothing but stare into space. Finally at 9:15 he leaves the classroom. But has deserted his post, so he does not perform his duties as the military commander in chief he instead contacts the VP so they can discuss......not shoot down orders but his exact wording he will use when he addresses the nation at 9:30.

"At nine-fifteen AM, President Bush called Cheney. The vice president, sitting at his desk, turned away from the crowd gathered in his office." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#reader_0060723467

"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

So at 9:30 we are to believe they still have no knowledge that these planes were hijacked? No one is authorized to shoot down flight 77 or any other plane that day. No shoot down authority given. The pentagon gets hit at 9:37-9:38 and Bush takes off on Air Force one. He does not contact the military. He has deserted his post. He does have a conversation with his deserting co conspirator Rumsfeld shortly after 10:00 which will be discussed when we look at Rumsfeld's desertion, leaving VP Cheney who is not in the military chain of command in charge.

The evidence of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld deserting his post:

"What was Rumsfeld doing on 9/11?" said the former official with sudden anger. "He deserted his post. He disappeared." Page 4
http://books.google.com/books?id=lN9uIMjTyi4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=rise+and+fall+rumsfeld&hl=en&ei=YsqGTfHdHMXKgQfx3-3QC...

What does Rumsfeld do after seeing the second plane hit on TV? He deserts his post. America is under attack so he belongs in the NMCC(National military Command Center)but instead stays in his office. The second plane hits at 9:03 and the pentagon gets hit 35 minutes later. What is he doing? Watching people die on TV in his office. The pentagon getting hit finally gets him out of his office and he proceeds to go out and assist loading people on stretchers. He is not going to issue shoot down orders he should be in the NMCC but has deserted his post.

What was Rumsfeld doing at this time? From his own book......

"Back in my office, Giambastiani turned on the television to see the video of one of the towers burning. Putting the set on mute but glancing at it from time to time, I received an intelligence briefing from Denny Watson, my regular briefer. Her daily presentations were similar to those provided to the President each morning."
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

"We were a few minutes into my briefing when the scenes on the television set distracted us. A fireball was erupting from the other World Trade Center tower as a second airliner tore through the upper floors of the building."
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

"As the flames rose the floors filled with asphyxiating smoke. Some people on the upper floors jumped to their deaths rather than wait for the fire to reach them." page 6/19
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

"I was still in my Pentagon office, absorbing news of the attacks in New York, when I felt the building shake." page 6/19
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

See? He doesn't call it "deserting my post" he calls it "absorbing". Just like Bush does......

As Bush was heading toward Air Force one to desert off into the wild blue yonder he called Rice. One would think he might be contacting the military to issue shoot down authorization for any other planes out there but like I said, this guy has desereted his post.......

"I called Condi from the secure phone in the limo. She told me there had been a third plane crash, this one into the pentagon. I sat back in my seat and absorbed her words." page 128
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615#reader_0307590615

According to Rice she tried to contact Rumsfeld just after the second strike where he himself admits he is in his office but according to Rice, evidently refuses to answer his phone......

"I tried to reach Don Rumsfeld but couldn't. His phones were just ringing, I was told. I turned around and saw on the television screen that a plane had gone into the Pentagon." page 72
http://www.amazon.com/No-Higher-Honor-Memoir-Washington/dp/030758786X#reader_030758786X

If she called after the pentagon was hit Rumsfeld was busy deserting his post and doing this....

When he is done with that he goes back into his office and talks with his deserting co conspirator. So while both the President and the Sec of Defense desert their posts and refuse to talk to the military and issue shoot down orders they do talk to each other. But don't bother asking what they were talking about. SORRY...BUT GOSH WE JUST CAN'T REMEMBER! This is Outrageous.

“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.” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

The Vice President is not in the military chain of command. He does not have the authority to issue shoot down orders. This Rumsfeld himself admits.....

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. The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking. Clearly he was involved in the process.
Cameron: It was reported that the decision came from the Vice President.
Rumsfeld: He might have recommended that.
Cameron: But the rules of engagement came out of your office.
Rumsfeld: Sure. page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redac...

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

Sure.....almost 3 hours after the last plane crashed.

"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:p.m., hours after the last hijacker had died." page 7
http://books.google.com/books?id=lN9uIMjTyi4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=rise+and+fall+rumsfeld&hl=en&ei=YsqGTfHdHMXKgQfx3-3QC...

There is no evidence that the President nor the Secretary of Defense contacted the military during the entire duration of the 9-11 attacks. They both admit to "absorbing" the news. They both admit to doing nothing after knowing we were under attack. Despite having their military aides next to them whose purpose was to be a liaison to the military only Cheney through D Cochrane was taking charge, and he had no authority. This was the stand down. Whether by incredible incompetence or by design this is what happened in their own words and official investigations.

Now the outrageous statements and lies:

"Rumsfeld: The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking" page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redac...

“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.” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Lie:
"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."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

Lie exposed:
"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
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

"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." page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Lie:
“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.”
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direc...

Lie exposed:
“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).” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

"The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

“At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told “negative clearance to shoot.” Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

“Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center" - Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday.”
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direc...

Outrageous statement:
"When Flight 77 hit, the defense secretary thought it was a bomb."
"I had no idea," Rumsfeld said on ABC's This Week.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm

"King: It was a jarring thing. And you ran toward the smoke?
Rumsfeld: Uh huh.
King: Because?
Rumsfeld: Goodness. Who knows? I wanted to see what had happened."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=260

Lie exposed:
"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."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/president-bush-national-geographic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html

Remember this?......

“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.” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Rumsfeld seems to suddenly remember now what they talked about when his book came out......

"Upon arriving back in my office, I spoke briefly with the President. He was on Air Force One somewhere over the southeastern United States, having left an appearance at a school in Florida when the second plane hit the World Trade Center. He was anxious to learn what damage had been done by the attack on the Pentagon. I reported what information I had." page 7-8
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/4500/The%20Agony%20of%20Surprise.pdf

Bush and Rumsfeld the two authorized to issue shoot down orders both refused to during the attacks, deserted their posts, claimed to the 9-11 commission to not remember what they talked about, but admitted to the commission it wasn't about shoot down orders because the commission has the records. They know they didn't issue shoot down orders and would like to know why. These guys can't remember. If one wants to plead incompetence there is a problem.

Bush's father was former head of the CIA and former President of the U.S.
Cheney was a former Sec of Defense.
Rumsfeld has two records. He was the youngest Secretary of Defense ever, and the oldest Secretary of Defense ever.
Amazing incompetence for those so experienced. But if one were to be kind, they would accuse them of being incompetent liars.

Leidig

Thanks for this interesting work, where I would like to add following account of the NMCC-commander during 911: He was pressed, why he was not in contact with the president (who was in the Air force one, which has a direct line to the NMCC), but instead with the white house (presumably Cheney)

LEIDIG: Sir, I can't speak to the connectivity with Air Force One. I was connected to the White House. And my understanding is Air Force One was in contact with the White House situation room. I was not in contact with Air Force One.

ROEMER: So you have no knowledge of that?

LEIDIG: No, sir.

(UNKNOWN): Is there no NMCC protocol to connect directly with Air Force One?

LEIDIG: Yes, sir, there is a capability to do that. On that day, we were connected with the White House.

ROEMER: Why weren't you using that other capability?

LEIDIG: I don't recall, sir.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49429-2004Jun17_5.html

identity of young man

jimd3100: "Do the orders still stand?" -- Military aide to Vice President Navy Capt. Douglas Cochrane

It would be interesting to ask Mineta, whether the young man had a military uniform or was really a "scared civilian". In this video CIA-veteran Ray McGovern speaks about a personal encounter with Norman Mineta. McGovern claims, that Mineta should have identified the young man was a "scared civilian". This would exclude Cochrane, because he was a "naval aide" and must have been wearing an uniform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlZ-Rd-lig ( time-index: 3:45)
"Mineta was there, he heard the Vice President do this. He identified this young man as a civilian, a scared civilian, and he corroborated what he testified (...)."

Further it would be interesting, whether Mineta really told that ("scared civilian") to McGovern in their encounter.

All the conspiracy theories seem to be crumbling

Well, that's it. No faked phone calls. No order to "stand down." It has become obvious that the "official story" is true. I accept that now.
God bless George W. Bush.
Bomb Iran!
Bomb Pakistan!
Bomb Russia!
Bomb China!
Bomb Jersey! (at least the shore)

Truthers, go home. It's over. 911 blogger has proved it!

Poor fella

If your case for a new 9/11 investigation rested on faked phone calls and the long sought after 'stand down' order, then perhaps you should go home.

Glad to see that the crumbling of moronic and offensive conspiracy theories are resulting in less moronic and offensive conspiracy theorists in this movement. Maybe soon we'll even win back some of the credibility we lost for tolerating such things in the first place.

NYC Guy-

Don't throw it all to hell just yet.

I don't know how long you've been at this, but I have been at it for a bit - probably much like you.

I have been frustrated many times here at 9/11 Blogger, by some of the very people I think are frustrating you. Maybe it's not them, but the info they are presenting or how it is being presented...I dunno, but:

This is all a learning experiance. You, them, me - we don't know what happened on 9/11. We are here at Blogger to find out more or spread our awareness of the subject.

What is important to remember is that this is a challenge to us all. The posts that you seem to think are in allignment of the official story and supportive of wars of invasion are not that at all.

The posts about the phone calls, this post about "stand down" orders (or lack there of) and others are simply about getting our facts straight.

This is a benefit. Imagine having all your facts straight in a conversation with somone versus not having your facts straight. I know what you would rather have , I imagine.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld being demonstrably abscent during 9/11 is close to the same as a stand down order, and if not criminal, adds to the whole case of 9/11 in a courtroom or investigation by Congress.

This is also about dropping any pre-concieved ideas we may have about what happened on 9/11, because what happened is probably incredibly more complex than anything we have considered.

This has been liberating for me, and actually, after arguing with SnowCrash about the Pentagon, I learned something: I have a lot to learn.

If I can't prove my case, I don't have one.

Stay up.

JimD: thanks

Show "How Does One Call Themsleves A Truther & Support Official Story?" by Aidan Monaghan
Show "The good news is..." by Joe

Crux of the matter

SC: "One is forced repeatedly in the quest for the facts about 9/11 to choose between the truth and a titillating conspiracy theory. ... I don't care whether one fact or the other supports a conspiracy. If it does, then it does, if it doesn't, then it doesn't."

Truth doesn't = promoting BS claims as fact, regardless of the facts. If this was true, then space beams, holograms and reptilian overlords would be 'truth' - and probably some people actually believe that stuff.

Another important issue, one closely related to the possibility of establishing justice (in addition to the truth) is what can be proved, or at least plausibly demonstrated to reasonable members of the public, while independent researchers w/ limited resources lack access to the full record and body of witnesses. This is what jimd3100 has done in this essay; it's clear that those charged w/ the country's defense were missing in action, and their excuses don't add up.

Aidan is attacking this line of inquiry, and erecting a strawman claim; that acknowledging that certain elements of the OCT appear to be factual - or at least are not contradicted by any credible evidence - is 'supporting the official story', and that pointing out that certain claims are unsupported by credible evidence is being 'divisive'.

If the 9/11 truth movement has credibility (and not a reputation for being a movement composed of people who seize on any piece of flimsy evidence and speculative interpretation to proclaim some fantastic theory is 'Truth'), then the odds of getting a full investigation are increased.

Erik "Loose Nuke" Larsen: Official Allegations = Facts? (Wrong)

"Aidan is attacking this line of inquiry, and erecting a strawman claim; that acknowledging that certain elements of the OCT appear to be factual - or at least are not contradicted by any credible evidence."

Erik "Loose Nuke" Larsen is either unable to distinguish between provable facts and mere official allegations or is trying to confuse the two.

"Truth doesn't = promoting BS claims as fact"

This would also apply exactly to the federal government's alleged version of 9/11 events. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Erik.

Again, I'm skeptical of self-appointed "credibility cops", especially when they posit flawed arguments like those of Erik, to defend their new found roles.

While we all appreciate you trying to save the 9/11 Truth movement from itself Erik, it is doing well without your help.

My Humble Opinion

@Aidan Monaghan: I think that some others have been offering a more intelligent argument and that your claims that they are divisive are not correct. The question in the title of this comment, to which I'm replying, is easy to answer. Truth is truth, not necessarily anti-official anything. The logic in the question is a slippery slope.

Please reconsider the question in your title. Thank you.

Remarkable

They just lie right out in public like that. When the public refuses to believe any alternative or isn't allowed to believe the alternative, it gives them the ability to lie plain sight. As we just learned (thanks to Nor Cal's recent post!) it takes two parties to make the lie. Well they went too far this time, their story is crumbling. A senior volunteer at our local med center lauded me this week on the 9/11 demand answers pin I wear and showed it to another volunteer while I got coffee. It was very encouraging to say the least. The truth will come out.

A question or so for Jimd3100 if you could be so kind? We know the rules of engagement for these types of responses were changed earlier in 2001. Do we know much about how or why that decision was made and by whom? Signatories? Meeting notes or minutes as to why the change was needed? proper change documents submitted? any post9/11 notes on this process? thanks for your thoughts.

Great post!!

dtg

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"... the obvious stares you in the face." Shayam Sunder
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Rules of Engagement

dtg86 said...."We know the rules of engagement for these types of responses were changed earlier in 2001. Do we know much about how or why that decision was made and by whom? Signatories? Meeting notes or minutes as to why the change was needed?"

Good questions. And I could be wrong on this but from all I can gather not much really changed.

Here is the updated June 1 2001 document

1 June 2001
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Here is the document it replaced. Dated from 1997

31 July 1997
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf

I don't see significant changes - there is a page showing the changes that were made...

7. Summary of Changes page 3/20
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Hoffman's site adds this....

"If it is true that the standing orders would have required approval by the Secretary of Defense for intercepts on 9/11/01, then, in theory, a defacto stand-down could have been implemented by the secretary simply failing to act during the crisis."
http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

I agree and point out that is indeed what happened. However the President himself would also need to "fail to act" which is also what happened, as I point out. However Hoffman also makes this point which I agreed with until.......

"However, it is doubtful that insiders planning the attack would have relied on the orders alone to assure that there was no effective military response to the attack"
http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan pointed out in their book and articles that ........

"The vice president was not even in the chain of command."

"The military understood that. In an exercise before 9/11, one that postulated a suicide mission involving a jet aimed at Washington, the generals had concluded that a putative shoot down could occur only in response to an "executive" order."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/president-bush-national-geographic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html

Those exercises that were similar to the 9/11 attack made all those involved aware of who is authorized to give these types of orders. Thereby virtually insuring the defacto stand down. One could argue that no- it was simply amazing incompetence. But I don't see any way around arguing that these two deserted their post, and therefor caused this defacto stand down. This was covered up. Just one of several 9-11 cover ups. The question is - are they covering up incompetence or treason? Those 28 pages involving Foreign government involvement Bush deleted from the Joint Inquiry - that cover up proves to me treason, he has friends that could very well be mentioned in those pages. Names like Bandar.

....and Bandar's father and

....and Bandar's father and Bandar's Uncles and I'd love to know who else.....

A weak link in the OCT

The people tasked with the defense of the country were out of the loop during the attacks, have given conflicting and/or incredible accounts about what they were doing and why, and, well after the time when they admitted knowing the country was under attack, were still acting as if they were clueless and incompetent, rather than authorizing actions for the defense of the country (and the Constitution, which they swore to defend). The 9/11 Commission Report whitewashes this particular episode, despite scraping off some of the veneer during its hearings and investigation. The incompetence card wasn't played by the Commission, though many Democrats seem to think it suffices.

Considering all the other stuff that 'conveniently' went wrong or didn't go right at NSA, CIA, FBI and FAA/NMCC/NORAD/NEADS, despite years of exercise scenarios w/ 9/11-type elements, previous incidents of hijacked planes being used as missiles dating (Samuel Byck's attempted assassination of Nixon at the White House is notable, and buried in a Commission Report end note), and repeated warning signs of an impending Al Qaeda attack on the US, possibly using planes as missiles (going back to 1998) - as well as the 'coincidence' of controlled demolition - it's much more plausible that creating the appearance of being out of the loop/incompetent is a cover story to cloak criminal and treasonous actions.

The AWOL chain of command was noted early on by many observers - here's one example: (NMCC commander Montague Winfield was also mysteriously clueless and out of the loop): http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801011459507 but has not gotten enough attention (or credible answers for the questions it raises). jimd3100, by digging out these quotes and facts from the official records and books written by some of the principals, and putting them together here, has shed new light on an important subject; nice work.

Also interesting is the point which Jim has made before, and I'm glad he keeps bringing it up; Rice's assistant Tony Crawford learned, just after it happened, that the plane that hit WTC 1 was a commercial airliner. This was well before the news media reported this fact, and at a time when it might have been reasonable for the FAA/military to suspect that it was the hijacked airliner that had just disappeared from radar - but at this time, according to the official account, the FAA/military had not officially put 2 + 2 together; so how did Crawford know? And why, despite having this info glaring them in the face, did the Commission not pursue it? Of course, that's a bit much to expect from an investigation that has someone like Zelikow in charge of it.

Re: the Rules of Engagement comment - one of the significant changes was this: "(DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997) 4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force."

In other words, as scrambling fighters to respond to the 9/11 attacks, "result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force," then this is a situation where AWOL Rummie's authorization would be needed.

Rules of engagement

No, there were no -significant- changes. The "new" Rules refer basically to the old Rules:
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

"Reference d" refer to the old Rules of Engagement from 1997.

my comment was unclear

I think this explains it well:

"CJCSI 3610.01, dated July 31, 1997, required that all requests for assistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. An update to that order, CJCSI 3610.01, dated June 1, 2001, had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack: "
http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

in other words, it's what wasn't changed that was relevant to the situation on 9/11. And fighters could have been scrambled anyway - but people in the loop who were seeking to interfere w/ the response could tell those who were trying to respond, that before they could take action, Sec. Def. approval would be required, cuz they might need to confront/shoot down.

much thanks

Much thanks jimd for all the great info. Thanks again

important question

The question is, why could Cheney command orders in the Bunker at all!

"Yes, there is an exercise maestro."
Don Arias, 1st Air Force and Continental United States NORAD Region public affairs
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
Link goes to ...
Crossing the Rubicon
Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney
by
Michael Kane

The official documents

Go here and read very carefully all these withdrawal notices, and what contents they are said to contain, it is outrageous that all this information is being kept from being released - still, more than 10 years later- under the guise of "National Security".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274489/DH-B3-White-House-Timelines-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Doug-Cochrane-and-14-Withdrawal-Notice-...

No one is stopping anyone from "believing" anything. If one wants to believe in a stand down order go ahead and believe in it. There is no evidence for it. I'm not interested in beliefs. There is overwhelming evidence of the President and the Sec of Defense deserting their posts on 9/11. And lying to the American people. (Which BTW eliminates the need for a stand down order)

Another important video by 911truthseatle

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Mr. Mineta says "Absolutely" .. that Cheney was there before the plane hit the Pentagon. Mrs. Cheney was there as well.

Sorry but I am a bit confused here??

If the young man asks the vp if the order still stands after informing him that the plane has gotten closer and closer then what order is he questioning? If the vp does not have the authority to issue a stand down order or a shoot down order then exactly what order and why is the young man asking him about the approaching plane. Thanks for your insight.