|The Bush administration has surrounded itself with a wall of deception, but if one question is answered the wall will tumble down. Who stopped the Air Force from following standard intercept procedures on 911?
TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
We are a retired gray haired couple in love with America and the Earth. What we discovered after sifting through thousands of pages of evidence related to the 911 story has shattered our faith and convinced us that our nation is on the road to becoming a dictatorship unless the people wake up and act.
As our representative we beg you to have the courage to investigate what really happened on September 11th before it is too late.
There is one question above all others that holds the key to understanding why our national defense system and intelligence network appeared to be surprised and so unprepared for the 911 emergency. If the light of truth is focused on this question the whole story will become clear.
Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11th? Who stopped the Air Force from following standard intercept procedures when the FAA reported to NORAD that the planes were off course and had turned off their transponders?
We know that all local, state and national police forces have standard operating procedures for dealing with violations of law and emergencies. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. Obviously someone with authority ordered our national defense system to stand down and not to respond to this emergency. Who has such authority to countermand this standard intercept procedure? Some members of the Air Force have reported that the order to "stand down come from the HIGHEST SOURCE." The "highest source" is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces or persons directly under his authority, namely the U. S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers. It is transparently clear to anyone who knows the military system that no one else outside the office of President could have given such an order, or failed to follow these standard intercept procedures orders without being subject to court marshal.
But on Sept. 16 on "Meet the Press" Dick Cheney attempted to explain what happened on 911. He suggested that "they did not know what to do" and the President would have to make the decision to intercept the planes. He was clearly attempting to deceive the public with disinformation.
When you stop to think about it, it is obvious that the President of the United States could not be expected to respond personally to every emergency situation in American airspace. If the Air Force had to wait for authorization from the President before intercepting planes that are off course, our defense system would be totally paralyzed with communication traffic jams.
The standard intercept procedures in place for dealing with emergencies in the air are like those used by our police to intercept motorists on the road. When a pilot does not respond to radio contact or is acting suspiciously, an intercept plane is sent to investigate by making visual contact slightly in front of the pilot. If the pilot does not respond or refuses to land and appears to be a danger to others, the intercept plane is authorized to fire warning shots to get attention. Only when all else fails is the fighter plane authorized to shoot down the plane.
Only after standard procedures have been followed, is there any reason why the President of the United States might be called to personally respond to an emergency. Of course on September 11th, George W. Bush was busy listening to a goat story at Booker Elementary School in Florida when Andy Card informed him at 9:05 AM that the second plane had hit the World Trade Center. He was so busy he could not respond to this national emergency until 30 minutes later. Only after the third plane had hit the Pentagon were F-16 fighter jets allowed to fly out of Andrews Air Force Base to provide protective cover over Washington, DC.
If you get the truth about why our national defense forces failed to defend us on September 11th, you will also uncover answers to a host of other questions. After even a minimum investigation it is obvious to many citizens that the official stories are lies, disinformation and deceptions. The corporate media and Congress appear to be afraid to seriously address this question.
Perhaps now, after the collapse of Enron, some major news organization or public official will have the courage to blow the whistle on this blockbuster story of high treason before it is too late.
Do you have the courage to ask this question? It could make you a hero or destroy you.
If you want to check out this and a related question look at these news sources:
"Air defences stood down on 9 11" by R. Anderson
Also: Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"?
It would be helpful if folks from other states would also ask the same question of their representatives. Check Congress.org
Lincoln B. Justice
Address: Kearney, Nebraska phone: 308 234-3571 firstname.lastname@example.org
Add Your Own Comments
by COINTELPRO Tool 9:38pm Wed Feb 20 '02
Planes WERE dispatched on 9/11.
Cointel’s a Sweetie
by Amber 10:53pm Wed Feb 20 '02
FAQ #2: "You charge that the military was made to stand down on 9-11. But planes did scramble. They just arrived late."
[Posted 3 January 2002]
The new cover story, that "the planes were sent up but they arrived too late" also arrived pretty late: it was first put forth on September 14th on the CBS 6 PM news. Until that time, top officials said that no planes were scrambled to protect Washington, DC until after the Pentagon was hit. Vice President Cheney was giving out the old story as late as September 16th on the NBC TV program, MEET THE PRESS...(1a)
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" - Sir Walter Scott.
More Detailed Answer:
This is the CBS cover story we mentioned in Section 1 of our Summary of Evidence. (1)
According to this cover story, jets were scrambled from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod to intercept Flight 11, the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center. Also, supposedly, jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base to intercept American Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. In both cases, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supposedly called for the interceptors too late. Also, Otis AFB is about 185 miles from New York and Langley AFB is 129 miles from Washington, DC. So the interceptors supposedly had too far to travel.
Dan Rather broadcast this cover story on the CBS 6:00 news, September 14th. This was the first time that anybody said planes were scrambled from Langley AFB on 9-11. We did a little research and found 31 references to Langley in the English-speaking mass media, that is newspapers & TV, worldwide, between September 11th and the CBS News at 6 PM on the 14th.
Not one of these news reports about Langley Air Force Base mentioned Dan Rather's excellent new fact!
General Richard B. Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9-11, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 13th. He testified at great length. The Senators asked him three times about the failure to scramble planes on 9-11. But Myers said nothing about planes scrambling from Langley Air Force base, where he had been stationed from 1987 to 1990. (3)
Apparently there was a communications problem getting the new cover story to some top officials. For instance, as late as September 16th, Vice President Cheney was telling 'MEET THE PRESS' that George Bush personally made the decision to send up interceptors and suggesting he had done so only after the Pentagon was hit. (1a)
And during a CBS News Special on September 12th, Dan Rather asked CBS Military Consultant Major Mitch Mitchell:
"These hijacked aircraft were in the air for quite a while, they made unusual turns, to say the least. Would--why doesn't the Pentagon have the kind of protection that they can get a fighter--interceptor aircraft up, and if someone is going to plow an aircraft into the Pentagon, that we have at least some--some line of defense?" --CBS News Special Report (12:00 Noon PM ET) - September 12, 2001 "Aftermath of and investigation into attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon." (1b)
Nobody contradicted the Dan Rather of September 12th until the new reality was unveiled by the Dan Rather of September 14th.
How amazing that fighter jets could be scrambled from Langley before the Pentagon was hit without a single top leader of the military or the Bush administration knowing it happened!
What a relief for President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers (who happens to be the most powerful general in the Air Force) and Dan Rather himself to learn the good news from Dan Rather on the six o'clock news, September 14th: the Air Force had indeed sent up interceptors. It was just that nobody knew...
Read the transcript of that CBS news program. You will see that Rather cites no source for his new 'information.' He just says, casually, "CBS News has learned..." (2)
Four (4) days later, also without a word of explanation for this rewriting of history, NORAD incorporated the CBS report in its official timeline. The Langley interceptors had become a Fact.
We will explore several problems with the CBS/NORAD cover story in soon-to-be-published sections of the Summary of Evidence.
The following may be of particular interest.
First, the move from "we didn't put planes up until after the Pentagon was hit," which was the official story until Sept. 13th, to "we put planes up before the first World Trade Center attack," was for the most part carried out during General Richard B. Myers' testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 13th.
Second, if you read the transcript of that Senate hearing, (3) you can witness the new cover story being constructed right before your eyes.
Under pressure from the Senators to come up with something convincing, Myers twice changed his testimony, putting forward three entirely different versions of what happened September 11th. Myers' last 'reality' was pretty close to what Dan Rather reported at 6 PM the next day. In between, Myers and the Senators went into a closed (i.e., secret) session.
Here is an excerpt from Senator Bill Nelson's comments at the Armed Services Committee hearing. Note if you will the highly suggestive language, phrases such as, "Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive [i.e., secret] session," and "I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer." He doesn't outright say, "Your cover story stinks." But he sure suggests it:
BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive [i.e., secret] session. But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee, but for the executive branch and the military establishment. If we knew that there was a general threat of terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer." (4)
The CBS/NORAD cover story did not successfully answer Nelson's questions.
That is, since planes were flying into buildings, and since Washington, DC was the city most likely to be the next target, why would planes be scrambled all the way from Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles from Washington, as late as 9:30? Why wouldn't they be scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, at around 8:50, when the military knew that a hijacked plane had hit the World Trade Center? Or at 9:06, when, we are told, the FAA ordered all planes grounded, from Washington, DC to Cleveland! (5)
The irrationality of the CBS/NORAD cover story supports our charge that the military was in fact ordered to stand down on 9-11.
What Have You Got Against Horsesh*t?
by c'mon now 10:55pm Wed Feb 20 '02
CoIntelPro Tool. First of all, this article is pretty much "according to NORAD". Oh no, they have no vested interest in lying. None at all. 2nd: why were planes scrambled from so far away from NYC to intercept? 3rd: Why did the planes from the Pentagon head towards NYC if it's true that AWACS were in the air--indicating that the path of the Pentagon plane should have been known? I can think of questions all day long to show why the article you linked to has the right general idea (even if it WAS written by a John Doe who should not be taken to represent the best logic of the "our-gov't-betrayed-us" camp).
You use the tactics of a lame republican talk show host, which is to find someone of questionable intelligence who generally opposes your viewpoints and use his inadequacy to make your side of the argument look better.
Why don't you make an INTELLECTUAL argument as to why flight 77 stood almost no chance of being at least intercepted? Many of the links given in this posting are a good start as to why flight 77 SHOULD HAVE been intercepted.
Truth Too Much for Some Minds
by fearless 10:59pm Wed Feb 20 '02
One little reference makes the above ariticle "total horseshit?" When you do look and examine the facts, questions and behavior of officials regarding the 9-11, what does the above [COINTELPRO Tool] person have for brains?
by dubious rex 11:14pm Wed Feb 20 '02
A common explanation as to why no U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was too late, is that it was “simple incompetence.”
Well, let's deal with the “incompetence theory” by first going back to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashed, killing all on board. This from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report:
9:19 a.m.: the flight departs
9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control
9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.
9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.
9:54 - 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection.
Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.
So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines, which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident illustrates.
Air Force Stood Down?
by Tom 12:16am Thu Feb 21 '02
I have been following this story since it first appeared in the first few days after 9-11. I have been asking my military friends and acquaintances how the questions could be answered. So far, about the only thing I get from anyone who knows anything about the military is similar to the first reply: "horseshit." I have yet to see a truly reasoned refutation of the allegations that something is major amiss.
Is it just too painfully obvious that the CIA etc was hoodwinked and they are embarassed. Or is it worse?
28 Minutes, and Horseshit
by Der 00's Meister 3:33am Thu Feb 21 '02
Mr. Tool, I would have thought that you'd be quicker on this one. After all, these are older people from Nebraska (where I was born), and they know a thing or two about horseshit out there. Naturally, if people like the Justices can see through the US government's line of horseshit on 9/11, it will tend to boost young radicals confidence that they're on the right track. Now, if I were in your shoes, I'd have been on this one in less than five minutes --- I mean, it probably took you less than one minute to comment. Like I said, dude, you're slipping!!
More Logic Flaws
by COINTELPRO Tool 6:13am Thu Feb 21 '02
You all seem to be of the opinion that a story that ISN't picked up by other media after it is reported by one source proves that story to be false.
That pretty much proves 99/9% of the obscure news recycled on IMC to be false as well. But anyone who has paid attention to news coverage of ANY disaster knows that first reports are usually wrong.
The fact that it took news organizations two days to get NORAD's actions right does NOT prove that it is a "cover story." Rather wasn't the only one to report the NORAD interception story - Newsday and New York Times also reported this as well.
The remainder of the emperorsnewclothes FAQ is based on one shaky assumption: " since Washington, DC was the city most likely to be the next target..."
The fact is that there had NEVER been a coordinated series of terrorist attacks like this in the U.S. - or anywhere else - ever. There is no reason to believe there were ANY more targets "likely," whether it was DC or NYC.
Lying assholes. Do you really hope to persuade anyone outside your twisted world with this garbage?
Or are you content with alienating yourselves further from normal human beings, just to convince yourselves that you're right?
Cointelpro Is A Tool
by lee 7:02am Thu Feb 21 '02
Not that all of everyones rebuttals to cointelpro isn’t real good, logical, accurate etc., but why waste your time on a guy who is obviously a troll? He never comes up with any facts of his own, and he generally just attacks, usually as close under the original post as possible, the author, the facts, the premise, with innuendo and insults.
To put it in his own terms, cointelpro is a right wing stooge, a brain fucked clote sucking piece of human shit who’s only purpose in life it to spread his stink.
Espionage Is Not A New Thing
by CointelproIsHorseshit 7:20am Thu Feb 21 '02
Spying is not a new thing.
If somebody had the proper codes they could have had air defense stand down.
Ad Hominem Attacks Don't Help COINTEL
by Citizen Able 7:42am Thu Feb 21 '02
Why don't you just admit you’re in over your head on this one, COINTELPRO Tool?
The issue of the media coverage of 9/11 being inadequate is a valid point. Thanks to an Amber, we have a post with more in-depth coverage of a congressional hearing on the military's response on 9/11.
The fact that you ignore this information, then hurl your childish invective tells me you don't have a reasonable response to this information.
I agree with Lee that COINTELPRO Tool's a troll. I think it is instructive to everyone here (COINTELPRO Tool included) to point out how his strategy actually works against him. He replies immediately with his usual invective which prompts someone else to provide more in-depth information--information that I, along with a wider audience had not seen before. Even this pathetic troll has a role to play in our seeking of the truth, unwitting though he may be.
The Hot Question for 911
by Lincoln B. Justice with comments from others
Posted on the Independent Newswire on 20 February 2002
To next article in Covering Up the Cover-Up
Phase 1 “Know” Menu
Looking for Justice in All the Wrong Places Menu
Covering Up the Cover Up Menu
The Reality of Israeli Zionist Infiltration Menu
Are We On the Path of Expanding Liberty or Tyranny?
Declaring Independence and A State of Global Rebellion Menu
A Picture of the Stars and A Voice from the Ethers Menu
Interim Addendums During Phase 1