From: "Zac Howarth" <xgenericax_-at-_hotmail.com>
To: <nowar_-at-_flora.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:23:54 -0500
Hi everyone. This should probably be called "Lies the US Govt told us", but whatever. I was wondering if people had seen this. It's too curious for me to forget about. -Zac > ==============Forwarded Message================= > > 911: Lies Our Govt Told Us - Part I > > Source: The Emperors Clothes > http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm > > GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS > > Introduction & Part 1, Section 1 > by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel > > As Updated 17 November 2001 from 14 Nov 2001 post > > > INTRODUCTION TO SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE > > Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles > from the Pentagon. > > On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready > fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over > Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's > advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single > Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. > > The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which > fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under > emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed. > > Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the > failures: > > "Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, > [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was > coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would > have expected anything like that here.'"--'Newsday,' 23 September > 2001 (1) > > Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will > show that this is a lie. > > Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, > is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying > off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common > emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely > handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules. > > The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made > it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. > This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air > safety and defense systems. > > The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police > broadcast: > > " 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'" --'Daily News' > (New York) 12 September 2001 (2) > > 'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working > at the Pentagon worried they could be next: > > "'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a > Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the > tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most > recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" > --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3) > > U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in > response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not > because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only > happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way > to make them fail. > > Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to > disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level > support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed > immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, > the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their > own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be > countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested. > > The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict > hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted > absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This > includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of > Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs > of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers. > > In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable > cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for > complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn > to protect. > > The summary of evidence covers the following areas: > > * Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;' > > * The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not > prepared; > > * The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his > positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated > consciousness of guilt; > > * The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his > nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these > hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone > journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened > 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered > three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated > consciousness of guilt; > > * The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th. > Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been > 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. > Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version > of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air > Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. > This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been > repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We > will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and > incriminating. > > PART 1, SECTION 1: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect > Washington D.C.? > > LIE #1: 'NO COMBAT READY FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED NEAR THE PENTAGON' > > As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The > media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA > Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one > day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to > scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash: > > FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY: > > "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles > [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. > Defense officials won't say whether that has changed." --'USA TODAY,' > 17 September 2001 (4) > > SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY: > > "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at > Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, > but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." --'USA TODAY' > September 17, 2001 (5) > > Both stories are false. > > Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego > Union-Tribune': > > "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes > from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia > border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped > with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. > > "But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the > devastating attack on the Pentagon..." --'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 > September 2001. (6) > > Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two > 'combat-ready' squadrons: > > * the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing > (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters; > > * the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th > Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with > F/A-18 fighters. > > These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel. > > THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING > > "...as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready > response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a > natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and > federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the > District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air > Force" --DC Military (7) > > THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321) > > "In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and > women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. > > "Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve > squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation > Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply > functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. " --DC Military > (7) > > So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons. > > The above quotes are from www.dcmilitary.com, a private Website > authorized by the military to provide information for members of the > armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found > that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted > in the smallest type size. Similarly, the official Andrews AFB > Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can > still be accessed by going to www.archive.org and entering > www.andrews.af.mil . > > On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to > DC Military. The information on the Andrews Website confirms the > information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and > download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or > removed yet again. For Andrews, go to www.archive.org and then enter > www.andrews.af.mil > > [Note: a few days after this Emperor's Clothes article was posted, > the www.andrews.af.mil website went back up with the note: "This Page > was last modified September 12, 2001." The new Andrews website no > longer links to the most relevant information regarding 9-11. The > most relevant web pages "cannot be found." Fortunately, they are > still available through www.archive.org. > > The original addresses (now dead) are: > http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wing/pa/html/wg_units.html and > http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm > > The direct links to the archives of these pages are: > http://web.archive.org/web/20010306223457/http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wi > ng/pa/html/wg_units.html > http://web.archive.org/web/20010408230859/www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm > > We also have a backup copies of the pages at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr.htm > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr2.htm ] > > Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers > and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important > media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the > Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported > the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC? > > This failure is especially striking because some media did report > that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was > hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.: > > For example: > > " Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were > put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two > notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base > were in the air over Washington DC." --'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), > 14 September 2001 (8) > > And: > > "WASHINGTON - ...an audible gasp went up from the rear of the > audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. > Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through > the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, > fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other > installations and cross-crossed the skies... > > "A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the > Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments > before." --'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (9) > > And: > > "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then > decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air > Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC." > --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10) > > The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter > jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE > the Pentagon was hit. > > Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily > available.(An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with > radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full > distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American > Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General > Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go > into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit. > > Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September: > > "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter > aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to > establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system > that were hijacked." --Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation > hearing 13 September 2001 (11) > > And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press': > > "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was > this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming > commercial aircraft. > > "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?' > > "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a > flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which > is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up > a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 > (12) > > As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision > was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming > commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove > that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under > certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for > approval from the White House. > > Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART I, SECTION II > > FOOTNOTES: > > For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force > base to the Pentagon go to: > http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm > > (1) 'Newsday' 23 September 2001, "Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates > Weaknesses" by Sylvia Adcock, Brian Donovan and Craig Gordon > Web version at:: > http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story > Backup at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nd923.htm > > (2) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday, NEWS > SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.' > the full text is available at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm > > (3) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By > Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001 > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html > Backup at > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/def.htm > > (4) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence > on home front," by Andrea Stone. > Web version is at: > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm > Backup at: > http:/.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa-1.htm > > (5) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, > "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, > Washington > Web version is at: > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm > Backup at > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa2.htm > > (6) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at: > http://www.signonsandiego.com/ Article at: > http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/main/document.html?QDesc=&FMTS=FT&QVPID > =&FrameName=&QCPP=&QIID=000000080620146&FMT=FT > Backup at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/sd.htm > > (7) Current DC Military weblink is: > http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html: > Backup of the November 2001 web page at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm > Backup of how the page looked on September 2001 at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmilsep.htm > > (8) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 > Web article at: > http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml > Backup article at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/tel16.htm > > (9) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 > To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on: > http://www.denverpost.com > Backup article at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dp11.htm > > (10) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11 > September 2001, "Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on > Marine One," Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting. > See transcript at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbc911cover.htm > > (11) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 > September 2001 > Full transcript at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm > This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media > sources. > > (12) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. > Full transcript at: > http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1 > Backup transcript at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm > > ==================================================== > > 911: LIES OUR GOVT TOLD US, PART II > > source - The Emperors' Clothes > http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm > > > MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY > Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS' > by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel > Posted 20 November 2001 > > > In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air Force base, 10 > miles from the Pentagon, had combat-ready fighter squadrons on > September 11th. Why didn't jets scramble from Andrews until after the > Pentagon was hit? > http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm > > LIE # 2: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION WAS NEEDED TO SCRAMBLE JETS TO > INTERCEPT FLIGHT 77 > > On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was > interviewed on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS.' During that interview he > made the claim that the military needed authorization from President > George W. Bush before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American > Airlines Flight 77. > > Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. He > did not say, "A commercial airliner can't be intercepted without > presidential approval." Instead, he spoke as if the need for > presidential authorization were a commonly accepted fact; and then, > based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional > misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans who had asked > themselves: why didn't jet fighters intercept Flight 77 before it > crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S. have radar and an Air > Force anymore? > > It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to > put the blame on a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a different > approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.' Relying on his skills in public > deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that nothing > improper had occurred. But as soon as one sees through his lies, one > realizes Mr. Cheney has placed the responsibility for the failure to > intercept on George W. Bush. > > Here is the excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS' where Richard Cheney puts > forward his intercept lie: > > "MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made > during the course of the day? > > "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was > this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming > commercial aircraft. > > "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided? > > "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a > flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which > is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up > a long time... > > "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't > give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's > appropriate. > > "MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a > hijacked commercial airline was destined for the White House or the > Capitol, we would take the plane down? > > "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if > the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were > authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a > horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full > of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and > are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all > those Americans on board? > > "...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I > think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd > had combat air patrol up over New York." -- NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 > September 2001 (1) > > * * * > > Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here. > > First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would > intercept incoming commercial aircraft." > > Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane > would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take > them out..." that is, "shoot it down." > > But "intercept" and "shoot it down" do not mean the same thing. > > "in·ter·cept > > * "in·ter·cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive > in·ter·cept·ed, in·ter·cept·ing, in·ter·cepts > > "1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course > of" (From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD) > > "shoot·down > > * "shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun > > "Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire." > (From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD) > > > Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from > asking: why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted? > > Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended > course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence, > there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to > intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the > morally charged question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full > of American citizens". By creating this emotional link between > interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial > jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President > forced to make this "horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to > intercept. > > Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over his sleight of hand by inserting > the following connecting sentence: > > "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't > give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's > appropriate." > > This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like > fools. > > First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet > can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to > intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the > purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off > course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the > situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. > None of this requires presidential approval. > > Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear > "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in > detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The > instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. > If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers from the > National Military Command Center in the Pentagon (NMCC) can take > charge. > > Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial > aircraft. > > An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to > intercept (or 'escort') a commercial aircraft in response to any > serious problem which the Air Traffic Controller cannot solve through > radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that a commercial > jet has deviated from its authorized flight path. > > Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight > Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal > Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff. > (FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2) > > "Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These > flight plans are intended to provide quick routes that take advantage > of favorable winds while avoiding the routes traveled by other > aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three connected > routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route > path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists > of a sequence of geographic points, or fixes, which, when connected, > form a trajectory from the point of departure to the point of > arrival." --'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak (3) > > If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at > one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the > pilot. If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an > escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the > situation. This is called 'interception.' > > As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act. > Usually it is requested because routine communication has become > impossible. > > For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the famous > golf pro, went off course, and the pilot did not respond by radio, > the FAA immediately contacted the military: > > "Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS > radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track > the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." -- > 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4) > > The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter jet) > might communicate with a commercial airliner which fails to respond > to radio contact. The FAA has a chart entitled: > > "INTERCEPTING SIGNALS > "Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by > intercepted aircraft." > > According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial > jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate > by: > > "...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and > normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..." > > This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial > jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply. > > The escort then makes a > > "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading > [direction]." > > The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort. > (FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5) > > When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it > creates a potentially deadly hazard: it could collide with another > jet. It is therefore reassuring that the FAA has an exacting standard > for what constitutes an emergency: > > "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is > unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any > ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6) > > And: > > "EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS > > "If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or > potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." -- > FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7) > > A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer > (ADLO) - is stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North > American Aerospace Defense Command. The purpose: to help the FAA and > the military work together to handle emergencies as quickly as > possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as > the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base > at Langley, Virginia. But not always: > > "Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. > However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort > aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort > mission. " --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9) > > Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course: > > "First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine > training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another > Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two > Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two > F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota." --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10) > > During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a > hijacking has occurred: > > "The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator > by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)."-- > FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9) > > A Defense Department manual makes the same point: > > "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...forward requests for DOD [Department of > Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."-- > CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11) > > Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and > thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, > during the Payne Stewart incident: > > "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar > screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center."-- > 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4) > > When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt > aggressive behavior: > > "Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch > > "A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of > President Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to > land Thursday, a sheriff's deputy said.... > > "The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was > unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At > that point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, > got on the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land... > > "The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, > about eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford.... > > "In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher > Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military > pilots in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above > and one below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field > near Mineola." --'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12) > > The 'Boston Globe' reported that: > > "[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its > fighters routinely intercept aircraft. > > "When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a > graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to > attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the > aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's > path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."-- > 'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13) > > Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE > PRESS.' > > As you will recall, he said: > > "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't > give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's > appropriate." > > Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept > pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows > perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational > network exist to handle intercept emergencies. > > Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in > sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a > commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made > in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been > taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. > Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly > predict how the hijacker would respond to an intercept by military > jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing > into the Pentagon, does that mean he would also be ready to die for > the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order to land? > > So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why > not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the > military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a > potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to > surrender? > > Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying > this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at > stake? Isn't that "a point"? > > A DEFENSE THAT BACKFIRES > > What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only > President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a > hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see > in a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney > said on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when > he goes on trial for treason. > > Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART 1, SECTION 3 > > FOOTNOTES: > > For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force > base to the Pentagon go to: > http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm > > (1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. > Full transcript at: > http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1 > Backup transcript at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm > > (2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E > 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. > Full text posted at: > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2 > > (3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and > Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis > and Emina Torlak at: > http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm > > (4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing > Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT) > Full text posted at: > http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/ > Backup at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/cnnlearjet.htm > > (5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic > Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' > (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 > "Interception Signals" > Full text posted at: > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4 > > (6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 > Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" > Full text posted at: > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5 > > (7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 > Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" > Full text posted at: > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1 > > November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change > 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense > Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" > Full text posted at: > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205 > > November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change > 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of > Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" > Full text posted at: > http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2 > > (10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; > Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey > Full text posted at: > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html > Backup at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm > > (11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 > June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict > Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1) > PDF available at: > http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf > Backup at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf > > (12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001, > Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity > of Bush ranch" > Full text posted at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bushranch.htm > > (13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition > Page A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets > Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson. > Full text posted at: > http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bg915.htm > > > >