9-11 Coordinated By Cheney, says Wayne Madsen

I will let the 9/11 crews and debunkers duke this one out as to its possible validity or obscurity....Nothing would suprise me any more when it comes to these heathens running this country into the ground though...

Let's hear it folks---Pros & cons behind this:

It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense

Full Article:

www.rense.com...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I am finding that article from "Rense" hard to swallow in its entirety. It seems a re-hash of what has been going around for years (I.E., the "Mineta event") with new, admittedly unsubstantiated "PDAS" information. (They don't have the acronym for it? Puzzling...)


In particular, this bit stood out and seems to ring false:

...a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense.

PRE-9/11, a 'standing shootdown order'? For "hijacked planes"?

Wait a minute....huh?

Run that past any airline pilot (I notice the article didn't specifically say "hijacked airliners", but used the vague 'planes' instead).

Ask the FBI, too. Ask them (if they will tell you) what we referred to as the "common strategy", pre-9/11.

NOBODY ever told me they'd start shooting at us, if it happened!

AND, the 'Rense' people claim such authority was (before June 2001) in the hands of NORAD and the Pentagon???

Wow! Needs some fact-checking, there.

Alot of people either don't know or don't remember that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz tried to get us to go to war with Russia back in 1975. They were saying that Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction:





They didn't get their war when they tried to claim Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction, but they sure got it when they claimed Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction. All with the help of 9/11, which was just a modified version of "Operation Northwoods".

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

They didn't get their war when they tried to claim Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction, but they sure got it when they claimed Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction. All with the help of 9/11, which was just a modified version of "Operation Northwoods".

You really are expert at picking and choosing these tidbits to suit your own purposes, Bonez. I need to point out that we're also accusing North Korea of amassing weapons of mass destruction, and what's more, North Korea is ADMITTING they have nukes. Yet we're not going war with them.

The difference? It was agreed by the UN and ratified by Iraq at the end of the first gulf war that they would abandon nuke development, while there was no such agreement ratified by Russia. There was an agreement with North Korea but it was a "gentleman's agreement" that they wouldn't develop nukes in exchange for oil shipments, which they broke before the ink even dried on the agreement.

The other difference? Noone was particularly sad to see Saddam Hussein go. The moderates can now experiment with democracy, the religious zealots can now try to install an Islamic republic, and the Shi'ites and the Kurds who've been persecuted since day one can now walk down the street without worry of being murdered by the Fedayeen. Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia can breath a sigh of relief that a mini-Hitler is no longer in power, too.

Now that we see all the missing pieces you're leaving out, things don't sound as sinister as you would have them appear, do they? When I say you conspiracy theorists are deliberately manipulating your information to get people all paranoid over shadows, you're not exactly proving me wrong.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now that we see all the missing pieces you're leaving out, things don't sound as sinister as you would have them appear, do they? When I say you conspiracy theorists are deliberately manipulating your information to get people all paranoid over shadows, you're not exactly proving me wrong.

You've proven yourself wrong because it is you that left out important facts. They were lying about Russia amassing weapons of mass destruction so that somebody would be convinced to start a war with Russia. These same exact people lied again in saying that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Two different countries, two different times, the same people and the same lies.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Oh....wow.

For such a rational (if ever increasingly wrong) poster, that one is quite a stretch, _BoneZ_.

I mean, it leaves me dumbfounded, the illogical connections you are beginning to make. Seems a bit desperate, as if a formerly "solid" belief is starting to fray around the edges.

Caution, because this is a typical pattern shown in many other realms of paranoia, and the kind of over-thinking that leads to the depths of that particular rabbit hole. And, sometimes...'madness'.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I see a whole lotta "blah blah attack blah attack blah" in your post, but what I don't see is anything refuted. Had you watched the video, it is clear that they were lying about Russia amassing weapons of mass destruction. These same characters tried the same exact excuse/tactic with Iraq and got their war this time, albeit based on lies again.

What part of the above is "illogical" and "a stretch"? I sure would rather hear your opinions on what was posted because I think everybody could care less of your opinions about me becoming "paranoid" or becoming "mad" or "ever-increasingly wrong". Let's focus on the topic, shall we?







[edit on 1-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
They were lying about Russia amassing weapons of mass destruction so that somebody would be convinced to start a war with Russia.

Russia possesses the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the world. The country declared an arsenal of 28,000 tons of chemical weapons in 2008. According to the Nuclear Notebook, Russia had 5,200 nuclear weapons deployed in early 2008, making its stockpile the largest in the world. Other sources, such as Alexander Khramchikhin, an analyst at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, say that Russia has 3,100 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,700. According to a report published by the U.S State Department in April, 2009, Russia has 3,909 nuclear warheads, while the US has 5,576 warheads. The Soviet Union ratified the Geneva Protocol on January 22, 1975 with reservations. The reservations were later dropped on January 18, 2001.


www.fas.org...

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

thebulletin.metapress.com...

reply to post by Six Sigma


You didn't even watch the video, otherwise you wouldn't have commented the way you do.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You've proven yourself wrong because it is you that left out important facts. They were lying about Russia amassing weapons of mass destruction so that somebody would be convinced to start a war with Russia. These same exact people lied again in saying that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Now just HOW, exactly, were they lying when they were saying Russia was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? They WERE stockpiling weapons.

Chemical weapons program of the Soviet Union


When East and West Germany reunified, Germany wound up with some 10,000 tanks and 15,000 warplanes, which made the rest of Europe [censored] their pants and everyone was on their case to get rid of the things. The military buildup is the whole reason why the former Warsaw pact is so broke now, and the whole reason why they're selling everything that isn't nailed down. In my own personal collection I own an East German combat helmet, a Czech gas mask, a Romanian sniper rifle and a pile of Russian ammo to feed it, all of which would be completely unheard of in 1980. I've even seen the Order of Lenin being sold once in a while, but the thing is platinum so it goes for hard core $$$$.

Either you're twelve years old and weren't around during the cold war, or you're employing selective amnesia to advance your personal antiestablishment agenda. Seeing that the whole reason why you're even comparing these apples and oranges is to drop innuendo to get people to think the 9/11 attack was all some secret gov't plot, we both know which scenario is at work, here, don't we?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now just HOW, exactly, were they lying when they were saying Russia was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? They WERE stockpiling weapons.

Dave, you still haven't watched the video yet!

From the video:

"The CIA and other agencies that watched the Soviet Union continuously for any sign of threat, said that this was a complete fiction. There was no truth to Rumsfeld's allegations."

They even go as far in this video to explain how Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, tried claiming that the Soviet Union had weapons that they had no proof existed. And they claimed that just because they didn't have proof didn't mean the weapons didn't exist.

What kind of BS story do people fall for?

Dr. Anne Cahn from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency had this to say:

"If you go through Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems and you just examine them one-by-one, they were all wrong."

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz lied about the Soviet Union amassing weapons of mass destruction and these same criminals lied about Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction. Wake up and smell the BS!

It is truly amazing how many people sleep-walk through their lives.

EDIT: For everyone who took Bonez contention completely out of context and perspective: WATCH THE VIDEO

I took an unbiased approach to this thread and based my stance on the analytics of each presented point. Once I was done reading it seemed Bonez had clearly been ignoring what was an obvious fact, that they were stockpiling weapons, etc. regardless of whether or not there were attempts to make it appear that way for policy reasons.

Then I watched the video.

Essentially Russia, like any country, was producing weapons. However, you're all right. So now I don't know what you're arguing over. The purpose and reason behind Russias creation of weapons was taken into Rumsfelds hands and turned into propaganda for a specific purpose. That purpose was the false flag attack to go to war, so that their companies could profit. Yes, Russia was making weapons. Yes, our government attempted to lie about their purpose and use to instill fear and panic in our people, to consent to policy change through false flag operations, and ultimately get their war.

It didn't happen then. They did it in 2001. End of story.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by BladeDraven]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Dave, you still haven't watched the video yet!

Excuse me? It's you truthers who make up all sorts of unsubstanciated gripes like the way your comrades do against the 9/11 commission report and accuse it of being a pack of lies without even reading it, not me.

I did look at your video- Rumsfeld sayign the Soviets were constantly expanding and improving their weapons (which is true, so don't even deny it), and how the Soviet air defense functioned flawlessly and were fully integrated (which is also true since they show down that U2 spy plane so don't deny that either). Granted, they went into make believe weapon systems like non-acoustic anti-submarine technology, but it's entirely your own misrepresentation that makes this a "weapon of mass destruction". It's the submarines that were the WMD, not the non-acoustic technology, and the Soviets did have a large submarine fleet so don't even think of denying that, either. That movie was based upon events several years after the Soviet invasion of Czeckoslovakia, so if you're attempting to take it out of context and paint the Soviets as misunderstood peace loving introverts then you're lying through your teeth.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz lied about the Soviet Union amassing weapons of mass destruction and these same criminals lied about Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction. Wake up and smell the BS!

Believe me, I am smelling the BS. You're deliberately misrepresenting events that happened during the cold war, comparing Soviet expansionism Apples to Iraqi WMD oranges, taking facts out of context, and playing five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" games via Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, CIA analysis teams and the Soviets to drop innuendo that it's all part of one great big master plan to invade Iraq over pretexts of WMD. If this guilt by association game is how you're attempting to prove your 9/11 conspiracy stories, I don't need to tell you that you're getting pretty desperate these days.

And just WHAT does any of this bit have anything to do with the OP statement that "Cheney coordinated 9/11", exactly?

It goes like this:

These people regardless of what the actuality of the Russian arms situation was, were clearly working within our government to create a public perception that was highly misleading, then the plan was to utilize the Wolfowitz Doctrine to implement a false flag attack, blame Russia, and go to war.

Everything you stated is correct however, I feel the main point is slipping from you.

reply to post by BladeDraven


I agree with pretty much everything you're written, except the part about the "false flag attack". The evidence in the video doesn't point to that at all.

You can believe, with greater or lesser levels of certainty, based on the evidence presented

- that "Team B" wanted a hostile policy towards the USSR and later Iraq

- that they fabricated their conclusions (twice) to make this more likely

- that that hostile policy may have (and certainly did, in the case of Iraq) included actual military action

- that their reasons for doing this may have been venal and avaricious


But you cannot say with any certainty that any of that even vaguely points to them wanting to prosecute a false flag attack to jump-start war. Indeed the fact that it didn't happen the first time around with the USSR suggests that it wasn't them with 9/11 either.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I'm basing the "false flag" information off of literature released by people such as Kissinger and the entire grand scheme of things as realized by what occurred on 9/11 seems logically similar in the same exact methodology of propagation. The only thing that didn't occur then was a false-flag.

reply to post by BladeDraven


You're absolutely at liberty to believe that. I was just making the point that the offered video doesn't really suggest a "false flag" scenario. Indeed, as you seem to posit, it kind of suggests the opposite.

Originally posted by BladeDraven
It goes like this:

These people regardless of what the actuality of the Russian arms situation was, were clearly working within our government to create a public perception that was highly misleading, then the plan was to utilize the Wolfowitz Doctrine to implement a false flag attack, blame Russia, and go to war.

So when did this false flag attack that instigated a war with Russia occur, exactly?

Everything you stated is correct however, I feel the main point is slipping from you.

The main point of this thread is, "9/11 coordinated by Cheney", so if this whole Soviet Union bit from Bonez is supposed to support that claim in some way, then yes, the point HAS slipped from me, so please explain the connection to me. From where I stand, all I'm seeing is that you people are just making up any paranoid sounding fluff that pops into your head as you go along.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by BladeDraven
It goes like this:

These people regardless of what the actuality of the Russian arms situation was, were clearly working within our government to create a public perception that was highly misleading, then the plan was to utilize the Wolfowitz Doctrine to implement a false flag attack, blame Russia, and go to war.

So when did this false flag attack that instigated a war with Russia occur, exactly?

Everything you stated is correct however, I feel the main point is slipping from you.

The main point of this thread is, "9/11 coordinated by Cheney", so if this whole Soviet Union bit from Bonez is supposed to support that claim in some way, then yes, the point HAS slipped from me, so please explain the connection to me. From where I stand, all I'm seeing is that you people are just making up any paranoid sounding fluff that pops into your head as you go along.

This is getting annoyingly offensive. First of all I respect your opinion wholeheartedly and I'm not trying to argue my points based on paranoia or fluff. My argument stems from collective intelligence about specific historical events that took place. Obviously there was no false flag attack to spark a war with Russia, the only reason however, because it merely didn't happen. If you look at the propaganda machine being run by these individuals however, you realize that their goals and ambitions, almost down to the exact wording, mirrors the exact policy actions that got us into war with Iraq. However, in order to shape public opinion to comply with such actions, as stated in the very literature written by these neo-conservatives, America needed a false-flag attack.

I'm drawing parallels based on the intrinsic nature of how these events unfolded, comparing how we went to war with Iraq to how they wanted war with Russia. It'd be one thing if these were different groups of people, but the main warrant for our claims stems from the fact that these are the exact same individuals who tried to push us into war for no reason back then, using the exact same methods of lies and propaganda. I don't think I'm drawing irrational conclusions based on fluff.

reply to post by BladeDraven


Again, I appreciate what you say, although I disagree with it. I do however have another small issue with your line of thinking.

You take it as axiomatic that Team B et al were trying to drag the US into a hot war with the USSR. Your evidence is that they did this later with Iraq. But how do you know they were not just reacting to the specific situation and trying to win the cold war? Ultimately their tactics may have been wrong - or even based on fabrications - but the strategy they seemed to espouse succeeded. The US did win the cold war, largely because it won the arms race.

Furthermore your comparisons with Iraq - which I absolutely agree are striking - lead one to a question. Why didn't they create a false flag and invasion the first time around? Was it because they weren't powerful enough?