Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts

[Cassandra]

http://independent.com/news/news906.htm

"
NICK WELSH:
Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11 was likely to happen and did nothing about it?

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them.

What’s the official explanation of that?
I’m afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced government officials to explain why standard operating procedures were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn’t report these hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that were very late. "

Some of the other concerns I find a bit squirrely, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of this one.

[aquart]

1. We know why.

I haven't got the link but someone here has it. It was posted fairly recently. The DOD, that's right, Rummy's turf, issued a directive taking the procedure off automatic and putting it in the hands of the DOD to notify the jets to scramble.

If I got it wrong, please someone with a better memory or the link jump in.

I don't know if anyone has ever directly asked Rummy about it.

[Ready4Change]

2. Please someone post a link for this?

It's one of my major un answered questions.

[grannylib]

3. here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1384567#1384592

[NecessaryOnslaught]

6. Here's the whole document

www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Thanks for the link!

Let's look at this document up close, and see if it says what you say it says.

On the very first page, we read:

Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. 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. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

This says:

When an airplane is hijacked, the Administrator of the FAA is the boss. That's what "exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity" means.

When the boss asks the Department of Defense for help, the DOD will provide it.

All requests for help will go through Rummy's office with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.

What's reference d? According to page 17 of the .pdf, it's DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”. The text of that directive is found here:

www.dtra.mil/news/deskbook/full%20text%20documents/Agencies%20Documents/DODD-3025.15.pdf

What does this say about immediate responses?

On page 3:

With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions, as provided in paragraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What does paragraph 4.7.1 say?

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities’ written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.

Does scrambling planes to intercept hijacked aircraft fall under this definition?

Well, yeah.

So keep looking for that order that grounded the aircraft. It may yet be out there, but it's not here.

[medienanalyse]

9. Andrews and the new meaning of DoD

Bolo, all that is very nice what you wrote, and I am willing to agree:
a written order to stand down will never be found.

Because a polica of Delay or Deception (DoD) works out better.

1. You just do not mention Andrews ADB 10 miles away anymore.
2. You neglect any reference to the normal procedures in case of mislead aircraft, closed airspace, problems with radioing and so on - which are about 70-80 per year.
3. This means not to speak about "air policing" and QRA
4. Exspecially it means not to talk about NORAD, but to talk about FAA regulations
5. And you, Bolo, just take the regulation and not the reality, you do not compare the standard operational procedures with logic and the regulations as written. This means you ignore i.e.:
6. AIRDEFENSE IS NRCESSARY even when FAA ATCs would sleep completely. NORAD scrambles without being asked when "America is under attack", as the President knew at 9:05. Rumsfeld or the NORAD did not know for some other 40 minutes what Bush already knew in Sarasota and did not care about?
7. The inconsistencies of the Bushist story are too many to deal with them here. The inside job only needed some lonely persons in the right places: ONE ATC in Cleveland, ONE ATC in NAshua, ONE evaciated FAA facility in Herndon, one evacuated ARTCC in Cleveland. The rest is orders top-down "wait we must clear the situation" or "keep ready to scramble (but dont do it)" See OTIS, Langley, Andrews.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. My point in the above post

Examining whether the following statement was true or false:

aqart: The DOD, that's right, Rummy's turf, issued a directive taking the procedure off automatic and putting it in the hands of the DOD to notify the jets to scramble.

I think I demonstrated that the statement is completely and utterly false. No other subject was addressed. I didn't address anything but this single regulation because the regulation was the operative subject of discussion!

Whether a written standdown order exists or not, I have no way of knowing. I do know that this order isn't it, though.

[medienanalyse]

13. I agree again

and feel a little bit uncomfortable to agree with you more than one time. Sometimes I thought you might be one of the Bushist party. Now I must admit you might be one of the truth party.
Which is not the same as the Anti-Bushists or the "Whatreallyhappeners".

In fact we need people who are looking for truth and not for agreement of their heroic and well-meaning thoughts.

[Old and In the Way]

4. 52 minutes

The time between the 2nd WTC crash and flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

And where are the security camera tapes taken from the gas station accross from the Pentagon?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

5. Even more puzzling

On a beautiful autumn morning in the nation's capital, why didn't one tourist take a photo or video of what had to be an unusual sight -- a large airplane maneuvering low over the city and diving along the southern edge of Arlington National Cemetery as it zeroed in on the Pentagon? Did everyone leave their cameras at home that day?

[Bob Stanford]

8. Do not forget Ronald Reagan Airport

what had to be an unusual sight -- a large airplane maneuvering low over the city

No, that´s not unusual, because one mile near the Pentagon there is the large RONALD-REAGAN-AIRPORT. It is very usual that planes are maneuvering low over the city.

Bob

[impe]

10. Tourists and

the Media, what about traffic helicopters that day... all visibly missing. The only real film of what happened was taken from the gas station by the FBI within minutes of the pentagon hit. Are we to believe after the WTC attacks, none of the Washington media were interested in what 2 wayward planes were going to do in the Nation's Capital.

[number6]

14. LIHOP

"standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly
hijacked airplanes were not followed on 9/11."

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:...:smoke: