What Stand Down Did Cheney Order?

Okay, I'm bored with you guys. So after I don't know how many pages of obfuscation and derail attempts, no one can find where NEADS received or obeyed a "stand down" order allegedly given by VP Cheney on 9/11 as AAL77 was closing in on DC. It exists neither in Mineta's testimony or the record of events. If there was any failure or "stand down", it was due to Mineta's own FAA, not NEADS, and certainly not VP Cheney. But that is the truth, not the lies spread by those who claim to seek the "truth". Why, because some people can't handle, or don't want, the truth.



I'm done with this thread, ya'll have at it.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Bilk22

 

So the most powerful military on the planet doesn't know how to protect it's government and infrastructure at is base. OK got it. Glad my tax dollars are being well spent.

We are a civilian society who has a military branch.
We are not a military society who needs military to stay in power.

That being said I would hope that TPTB would shoot down any long range missile (rocket not cruise) headed our way reguardless of where it came from. But then again our military is made up of a bunch of Joe Schmo's.
My own daughter is a wet behind the ears Lt in the Air Force and I would never give her the trigger.
"Do I have to?? It's painted such pretty colors!"

Wow you are really confused

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Bilk22

 

So the most powerful military on the planet doesn't know how to protect it's government and infrastructure at is base. OK got it. Glad my tax dollars are being well spent.

We are a civilian society who has a military branch.
We are not a military society who needs military to stay in power.

That being said I would hope that TPTB would shoot down any long range missile (rocket not cruise) headed our way reguardless of where it came from. But then again our military is made up of a bunch of Joe Schmo's.
My own daughter is a wet behind the ears Lt in the Air Force and I would never give her the trigger.
"Do I have to?? It's painted such pretty colors!"

Wow you are really confused

Yes I am. This isn't the same world I thought I lived in.

Originally posted by Kang69


And PSA 1771?






Your backup by the way, will mostly containment this thread with UFO's, he's not reliable.

Silly girl. Thats Swiss Air 111 .....Not PSA 1771

www.airdisaster.com...

And you are the one who posted a video with a UFO in it, not me. I only pointed it out to you.

Have you found any videos clearly showing explosions... that don't include any UFO's yet ?

LOL wow.

A poster provides the stand down order, with it's order number, and they ignore it.


It's clear that the shills are out in full force, probably before TPTB initiate their black flag op at the Olympics.


I love the shills refusing to answer questions and only saying "you didn't answer MY questions" LOL


In this thread, Truthers are making more sense than the Falsers.

reply to post by 911files


Are you completely ignoring the revised engagement order issued by Rumsfeld on June 1 , 2001? That order is CJCSI 3610.01A which changes the rules of engagement . I guess for the last 50 years we had it wrong so mister I'm in charge had his people change it . That really worked out well . If that order had not been issued to complicate our engagement policies things would have turned out differently . But why was the FBI also shut down from clamping down on Atta the ring leader for the hijackers .
What America needs is a new Pearl Harbor isn't Mr Chairman of the CFR Cheney . That act espionage against the US created the Patriot Act and Big Brother Government.

reply to post by tpsreporter


Well, first, the referenced order was not a stand down order of any kind.

Second, that directive came from Rumsfeld, not Cheney.

Third, you really need to find reality, rather than conspiracy sites.

reply to post by SimonPeter


I guess you missed my post showing that directive doesn't do what you think it does.. Why am I not surprised you would ignore that.

I might do a further analysis of it later tonight if I'm in the mood. It's hardly worth the time and effort. It is in no way a "stand down order" of any variety. I showed you that earlier in the thread, but you have apparently chosen to ignore it....

reply to post by tpsreporter


Are you really that gullible in real life? I'll bet you're on of those who call rational people, "sheeple" aren't you?

reply to post by vipertech0596


First: If there was no actual "Stand Down Order", but rather only an order to 'not act' (Which yes, using semantics, are two different things) and if that is the order which caused a lack of action from the military on 9/11, and others (Truthers Movement) came to start calling it a stand-down order, and the OP decided to continue refering to it as such (possibly knowing it was being mislabeled) then he/she was creating a situation based on errors where no proof can work under his rules of "Which Stand Down Order Did Cheney Give?". It seems, the answer is "He didn't give one, but Rumsfeld did an order with similar effect".
*If the OP truly wanted a real conversation he wouldn't have locked himself into a set of rules before engaging other parties on the topic. Conversations must be allowed to grow as new items are presented; that order being presented is a new item, and it fits the bill of the conspiracy that the OP is trying to dismantle. Refusing to hear the evidence being presented, makes one fail at the debate. Both sides of the argument are doing it by choosing what evidence they want to listen to and what evidence they want to ignore.*

Second : And? I never said that directive came from Cheney, so thank you for pointing out the un-necessary facts regarding what i didn't say. There's plenty of things i didn't say, and pointing them out doesn't add value to your stance.

Third: You really need to follow your own advice.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by tpsreporter

 

Are you really that gullible in real life? I'll bet you're on of those who call rational people, "sheeple" aren't you?

I can feel your Blood Pressure rising from here.

I hope you don't consider yourself a rational person, because your attempts to instigate emotions are far from that. It seems you are seeking an internet argument. No thanks.

I prefer a debate, where the other party isn't on a rage induced mission to derail the conversation at every turn.

reply to post by tpsreporter


Perhaps you could clarify something. I'm new to this thread but it seems you are crowing about your victory when you

• Didn't find a 'stand down' order
  
• Didn't find anything from cheney
  
• Didn't support the Mineta conspiracies

Your argument seems to be that because the order doesn't say to immediately shoot down aircraft considered to be hijacked, that it's a 'do-nothing' order? That seems to be stretching logic beyond its limit.

reply to post by tpsreporter


First, it was not a do not act order. It was a before you shoot anything down, talk to me order. Its called establishing a chain of command.

Second, read the title.

Third, I make it a point to live in reality.

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by tpsreporter

 

Are you really that gullible in real life? I'll bet you're on of those who call rational people, "sheeple" aren't you?

I can feel your Blood Pressure rising from here.

I hope you don't consider yourself a rational person, because your attempts to instigate emotions are far from that. It seems you are seeking an internet argument. No thanks.

I prefer a debate, where the other party isn't on a rage induced mission to derail the conversation at every turn.

My blood pressure is fine, but thanks for your concern. You have no evidence of a stand down order, an intentional delay or any other interference in the Air Defense response of the day. None of any kind from anyone. There's been nothing but the same old clap trap for almost 11 years. If you think you do, puke it up and I'll have a look....

reply to post by vipertech0596


took how long too scramble a identify,, when Paine Stewart the Golfer, died?

now how long too apply the same technique at Sept. 11 th. ?

guess depends who is in charge.

Originally posted by BobAthome
took how long too scramble a identify,, when Paine Stewart the Golfer, died?

Over an hour to scramble, identify and intercept.

now how long too apply the same technique at Sept. 11 th. ?

guess depends who is in charge.

Guess not!

reply to post by BobAthome

It took over an hour for the Air Force to get a jet to Stewarts airplane. On 9/11, it was effectively over in an hour.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

took how long too scramble a identify,, when Paine Stewart the Golfer, died?

.

81 minuets and it was a divert not a scramble. The actual scramble / intercept took 2 1/2 hours from what I rember.

reply to post by lambs to lions


Thanks for saying it first.

The Pentagon crash is the fishiest. That hole is not the size of an airliner. For reference of what an airliner crashing into a building leaves behind, please refer to any angle that you want of airliners smashing int WTC 1 and 2.

So much more info but everyone seems to want to talk about WTC7.

Pentagon

Cheers

reply to post by 911files


Agenda 21 whats you take on the master take over plan that will put us under Socialist government ? Do you deny that there is a NWO globalist government plot ongoing in the world today .
I don't guess that you saw the National News reports on how could our military not responded . I don't know where you get your information from but old Cheney and Bush not talking to the Congress except together , off the record and not under oath and unrecorded . What did they have to hide . Their terms implies that they were worried about being found out about something . They were worried about being prosecuted for their part in 911 . This implies they were guilty in the matter . And it doesn't say much for anyone who defends old Cheney .