What Stand Down Did Cheney Order?

Originally posted by exponent
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.

edit on 25/6/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

Apparently you're so new that you didn't notice i am new as well. I never claimed victory, nor did i ever present evidence claiming such.


An order that overrules a previous order, a previous order that gave authority for the military to act against hijackings.......

Seems like a do nothing order to me. No stretch needed.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.

First: If the order is a "Ask em First" order and when asked, he gave no permission...... then no action can be taken. Seems like he is ordering "No Action", aka an order to not act, or a "do not act order"

Second: I Still never said Cheney Gave it, you said i said it.

Third: And yet, here you are.

reply to post by Reheat


Just saying, for someone who claims to be rational, you are exhibiting a sizable helping of hostility.

reply to post by Mrgone


The wings of the jet cut the rather heavy vertical columns of the WTC tower but you didn't see wings or the marks on the building or ground where they hit . Oh , by the way Building 7 had all of the evidence for Enron ,World Com etc . It also housed the back up records of the Pentagon Budget . You know the 3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon can't explain where it went . Well the pentagon was hit where the other records were kept . So no prosecutions and the matter was dropped . Oh there was also a weakening of that hardened area also just before 911 . Gee it would be easy to think someone is lying .

reply to post by SimonPeter


Just where do you get your info anyway? It could not less accurate if you tried. ENRON officers STILL went to prison. And then the tripe about the Pentagon finance records.....i would love to know who started that crap....

reply to post by SimonPeter

You know the 3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon can't explain where it went .

This is the wrong thread for this.

Plus you are soooo misinformed.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.

So was it Rumsfeld's responsibility to authorize a shoot down if the plane would not divert?
If so, was he contacted for the authorization?

Because as far as I know he was having breakfast and then he was running around the Pentagon trying to help the rescue operation. Why did he think that it was more important to play "Ricky Rescue" instead of doing what he was supposed to do?

Originally posted by tpsreporter
Apparently you're so new that you didn't notice i am new as well. I never claimed victory, nor did i ever present evidence claiming such.

I said crowing and for being 'new' you sure seem willing to claim that things undoubtedly support your case awfully fast!

An order that overrules a previous order, a previous order that gave authority for the military to act against hijackings.......

Seems like a do nothing order to me. No stretch needed.

edit on 25-6-2012 by tpsreporter because: typo

The stretch is in believing that this order somehow invalidates the procedures in place. Reheat has explained this thoroughly in a new thread so I believe the discussion should move there.

reply to post by maxella1


Well, since there was no way in hell for anyone to intercept Flight 77 in time to shoot it down, doesnt really matter what he was doing now does it? But, since he did not start running around till after Flight 77 hit....well, that makes it a doubly moot point.

In retrospect, yes, he should have remained in his office or in a command center....could be why they reverted back to the old rules of engagement.....

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Well, since there was no way in hell for anyone to intercept Flight 77 in time to shoot it down, doesnt really matter what he was doing now does it? But, since he did not start running around till after Flight 77 hit....well, that makes it a doubly moot point.

In retrospect, yes, he should have remained in his office or in a command center....could be why they reverted back to the old rules of engagement.....

Nobody told him what was going on before flight 77 crashed ? I know that there's no chance you will admit that anybody in government should be held accountable for why they did or did not do on 9/11. I just want to see what excuse you'll come up with.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Oannes
No plane ever hit the Pentgon. Cheney already knew that 9/11 was an Inside job. He helped plan it. Its all lies. Don't think any goverment won't kill you. I attened a school where we lost two people. My only question is where are the people that were on that plane?

The aircraft wreckage AND the black box AND the multitude of eyewitnesses all say you're wrong.

Don't you think the conspiracy theorist world has enough goofball stories of "lasers from outer space", "the planes were holograms", and "the towers were fake buildings" without having to introduce more?

Ahh...but the lack of damage to the building, which, lets face it is what really counts here,not the small scattering of plane pieces conveniently small in size which allows for easier placement, or the allegations made by so-called eye-witnesses, or the supposed black box....all very easy to plant...No...the buildings damage tells you what happened, or more clearly, what DIDNT happen..

Plane crash??? Who the hell are you lot trying to kid...note the PC's untouched by the "plane"..note the book on top of the chair also untouched by the "plane"...note the lack of fire damage, UNLIKE WTC 1 and 2,

Your eyes won't deceive you in this instance...only dave and the other spooks on here will try to deceive you, but look at the picture below and, being critical ask yourself where is the evidence that a plane this did this?
Its impossible....on the one hand we have 2 planes collapsing 3 buildings in NY, totalling over 200 floors that fell that day,supposedly due to the fires, and then we have the Pentacon photo below which also had a supposed "plane" hit it, yet if you had been typing on that PC or opening that filing cabinet, other than the ceiling falling down on you, you would have been ok???
So, some buildings, when it suits, will collapse, yet another building, hit by "plane ' in similar fashion needs a bit of cosmetic repair?

HAHA....whatever.
A lot of misinformation on ATS...read at your peril!

reply to post by maxella1


Sigh. You know what they say about assuming right?

If you could find someone in our government, who acted out of malice, I would be all for holding them accountable. However, in this case, it would be a repeat of what happened to Admiral Kimmel and General Short in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. They made the best decisions they could, based on the info they had at the time, and they were hung out to dry.....because SOMEONE just HAD to be held accountable.

reply to post by vipertech0596

They made the best decisions they could, based on the info they had at the time, and they were hung out to dry.....because SOMEONE just HAD to be held accountable.

9/11 was a lot different and you know it. I really don't want to argue anymore but I cant agree with you. At least until I will find something that would change my mind. So far all I see is negligence (in the best case scenario ) which cost 3000 innocent lives.

reply to post by maxella1


Negligence based on what and by who? With actual evidence to support your point of view? (no more assumptions on your part)

reply to post by vipertech0596


But, if he wants to lock-up Billy that's OK. I have always resented that he got a BJ while supposedly working!

The real question should be what were the orders that still stand? To stand down is the most likely considering the situation. But knowing Cheney and his health it was probably for the 2 double bacon cheese burgers with extra grease, the guy really cared for Cheneys health that much. Seeing how no action was taken by the military and Cheney was in charge of calling those shots, it's only reasonable to say it was a stand down/no shoot down order. What other order would the guy keep asking about over and over in such a situation?

reply to post by yayeeya


The order to shoot down other suspected hostiles? Just saying.....

Originally posted by yayeeya
The real question should be what were the orders that still stand? To stand down is the most likely considering the situation. But knowing Cheney and his health it was probably for the 2 double bacon cheese burgers with extra grease, the guy really cared for Cheneys health that much. Seeing how no action was taken by the military and Cheney was in charge of calling those shots, it's only reasonable to say it was a stand down/no shoot down order. What other order would the guy keep asking about over and over in such a situation?

Wrong! The situation was that Cheney had just issued a "shoot down authorization" shortly before the conversation. Funny you would omit that minor factoid. To ask once: "Do the orders still stand" is asking over and over again?

I don't think it's funny that you assume his heart problem was due to his lifestyle. There are also genetics involved, but that's not clever enough, huh?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Negligence based on what and by who? With actual evidence to support your point of view? (no more assumptions on your part)

, Michael Scheuer, Richard Clarke, Antony Schaffer seem to think there were negligence. I don't have evidence, you should ask them instead.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Sigh. You know what they say about assuming right?

If you could find someone in our government, who acted out of malice, I would be all for holding them accountable. However, in this case, it would be a repeat of what happened to Admiral Kimmel and General Short in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. They made the best decisions they could, based on the info they had at the time, and they were hung out to dry.....because SOMEONE just HAD to be held accountable.

I don't understand, are you not for holding Government officals accountable for actions when they mess up in ways other than malicious intent??

Neglegence that results in a death still gets people behind bars.
Dereliction of Duty still gets people behind bars


If you don't want to blame Rumsfeld because he was doing the best he could with the info he had, ignoring him basically abandoning his post to play rescuer at the Pentagon (something he was not charged with by his posting as Defense Secretary) and ignoring the fact that since Flight 93 was still in the air, there was a reasonable expectation that more attacks were coming, and that since (according to the Offical Story) we had no idea who had commited these acts, and thus could not say with any certainty at that time this wasn't part of an even larger attack perpitrated by an enemy nation declaring war, or that in being in the midst of a rescue operation at the pentagon when maybe he should have been concerned with securing the President or readying our National Defense......

Wouldn't you still hold those who gave him the bad info responsible? At the very least?

If no one told him that Flight 93 was still in the air for example?


Do we really want to have our leaders unable to coupe with a situation like this?



The only problem with bringing up Pearl Harbor, is that most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, also believe Pearl Harbor was either an inside job or at least purposly allowed to happen. Because of that, using it as an example or analogy to disprove the theories on 9/11 being an inside job, you'll basically be moving back to position one with them.

Let's find a middle ground to base how we can judge the actions of the leaders.

Most who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, can still agree that at the very least it was gross neglegence. Why not start there? That assumes, it all went down how they say it went down. Only now, we have to question how the people in charge dropped the ball left and right. Even if the events were not avoidable, they still didn't get things right in how they dealt with it afterwards. And shouldn't they be held accountable to some degree?