|
31 Mar 04 - 07:29 AM (#1150848) Subject: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel I said (and editorially cartooned) in a another thread that a growing mutiny against Rumsfeld was coming from select US Admirals. It is growing steadily in a structured release of increasingly incriminating information that Rumsfeld is an archetect of a terror designed for "our own good". When Rummy served Nixon, he was dismissed as being too much of a dove. The opinion of a grwoing number of people that Rumsfeld has evolved into a monster that only the People for the New American Century could love. I mentioned the first step was establishing the Special Orders Office in the Pentagon that was insulated from any other chain of Pentagon command except for a small band including Cheney. Chapter 2 ........................................... Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997. This CJCSI states that "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." Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field. While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo. If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a timely fashion. The relevant documents are on the Web at: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf Best regards, Jerry Russell www.911-strike.com |
|
31 Mar 04 - 12:07 PM (#1151068) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: DougR Donuel: I have seen nothing about this in the mainstream press. Has it been publicized? A mutiny is serious business. DougR |
|
31 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM (#1151116) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushcancer.jpg Dougr Either others will explain it to you or they will explain your sarcasm. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM (#1151119) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: GUEST Click Here |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:03 PM (#1151531) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: CarolC Here's the document, but it looks like it only refers to military aircraft: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:12 PM (#1151537) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: GUEST And here's the other one http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:41 PM (#1151552) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: CarolC Oops. Missed that one. Brain fart. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:50 PM (#1151558) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel What action did Rumsfeld take when the second WTC exploded? The same thing he did for the first. While Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon Bunker and 200 people died at the other side of the building he did the same nothing he did for the WTC. He did not initiate any defense. Now remember he is the one that created the order that he and he alone could initiate a retaliation against attack. Why didn't he? Or did he and he is lying about that? Will Condi's testimony touch on this? Will the commission even dare ask? I personally will offer an $18,000 reward for a clear and present video of the plane appraoching and hitting the Pentagon. The only videos available today are of a small missle hitting the Pentagon. I want to see the enormous jetliner. None exist. Nor does a single working voice recorder of any of those planes that day. The only picture of a Pentagon impact was of an explosion. I guess this city of tourists were all inside watching TV that day. I know it is reasonable to claim Rumsfeld was merely negligent. I know it seems unthinkable that he knew precisely what was to transpire that day. It may also be just a coincidence that Rice asked several people not to fly to NY or Washington on that day but there could be a reasonable explanation. I believe we will have to wait for the surprise from dedicated naval officers willing to tell us what they know. What ever it is we can take it. What ever way you cut it, by negligence or design this great country deserves something more truthful than a Warren report. I'm angry and I want to know. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 02:08 AM (#1151634) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: GUEST,Teribus Interesting extract from the link provided above by CarolC Letter 1st June, 2001 - section this extract is taken from relates to civilian aircraft hijacking within FAA controlled airspace. 3. Procedures a. General. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 11:14 AM (#1152021) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209 |
|
01 Apr 04 - 01:18 PM (#1152109) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: CarolC I didn't provide the link, Teribus. I only posted the html that made the link provided by Donuel into a blue clickie. You really need to learn the difference between these two things. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 01:30 PM (#1152113) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: DougR Sarcasim? Not intended as such. I wouldn't want to rain on your conspiracy theory anyway. DougR |
|
01 Apr 04 - 01:56 PM (#1152133) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: steve in ottawa The 9-11 Research web-site is goofy. While some of the items there may be truthful or insightful, certainly, some of the items are complete balderdash. For instance, one of their pages (trying to claim fire didn't bring down the WTC towers is titled: The Truss Failure Theory Fanciful Theory Based on Unverifiable Building Design Details (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html) The site's diatribe rests on the fact that the detailed designs of the building "have not been made public." (In secret, the towers were much stronger than we were later led to believe.) Gee, if they haven't published on the web, they must be hiding something! I don't care for American conservatives' willingness to elect stupid politicians. I don't like Bush or Rumsfeld. But to suggest that they planned September 11th is...to suggest superhuman cunning and fiendish morals; nope and nope. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 05:47 PM (#1152307) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel Yet no one dares explain this crazy Rumsfeld order that flies in the face of all US defense tradition. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 07:12 PM (#1152379) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: steve in ottawa Dares? That implies we'll suffer (from the all-controlling superhuman mastermind fiends) if we dare reveal the truth. Rumsfeld also interfered like crazy in the recent Gulf War deployment. Some people say the war was much more difficult because of his interference. He is a very smart, very self-important individual, who thinks he's vastly smarter and ought to be much more important than he is. I'm sure he'd like to be in charge of everything, let alone deciding whether or not to shoot down civilian planes. I haven't bothered to look at the order, but if it's real, a simple explanation is that Rumsfeld believed in the system; he thought the system would give him enough time to make the decisions himself. One puts decisions into the hands of the people in the field because the system doesn't always work (witness the German guy who landed a small plane in Red Square during the cold war). See what happened during the early war when Rumsfeld was informed of the POW pictures during a TV show? He started saying utterly stupid things. They're breaking the Geneva Convention! They're breaking the Geneva Convention! Sure, American media can show Iraqi bodies and POWs because they're privately run and therefore can't be construed as a combatant's deliberate humiliation of the enemy... Give me a break. Why was Rumsfeld so stupid? Because he gets stupid when he sees things slipping beyond his control. I'm wandering. In fairness, he was probably really tired. The amazing thing was that so much of the American media immediately parroted his hypocrisy. However, eventually they did show most of the pictures. Even they recognized that it was a matter of taste and decency, not law, that ought to have prevented the pictures being shown. Nuff of this topic for me. |
|
02 Apr 04 - 01:22 PM (#1152875) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel By the way those are the wrong pdf files. Those are from SOC White. |
|
02 Apr 04 - 02:22 PM (#1152930) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: CarolC Which ones are the wrong pdf files, Donuel? |
|
02 Apr 04 - 02:58 PM (#1152971) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Bill D about the plane hitting the Pentagon: there are NUMEROUS conspiracy theroies about this now...including this: "We now know Flight 77 was not crashed into the Pentagon. An F-16 flew over the Boeing 757 for a while, and then the airliner was diverted with transponder off, flown by remote control to either crash site or a landing site known only to the 911 perpetrators. Passengers and crew may be alive or may have been alive as captives some days following September 11.... From now on the passengers of flight 77 must be considered possible kidnap victims." (The writer goes on to almost accuse Hillary Clinton of the murders of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman!)http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm There are images from a security camera which show the plane briefly. I saw them on television shortly after the event. The camera was not a video camera,it took only a picture every couple of seconds, so there is no sequence. Critics want to claim the pics are blurry, the hole in the Pentagon does not 'match' what a 757 would make and it could have been a missle or small plane..etc..etc..... I would be VERY careful before susbscribing to one of those theories put forth by people who didn't DO the site investigation and have no idea what happens to a 757 hitting a solid structure at 500 MPH. Many people saw the plane approach and hit, and many small pieces of airplane were found....and Flight 77 and 64 passengers are missing. These facts are more compelling to me than a bunch of Gerrymandered 'facts' assembled by conspiracy hobbyests with too much time on their hands. |
|
02 Apr 04 - 03:49 PM (#1153032) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel A lot of people saw that plane huh? Name one. I live here and I saw one guy interviewed on Ch 7 who claimed he saw a plane but the TV station will not release his name or address. No one on the GW Parkway came forward claiming to see a low flying plane. The FBI supposedly took film from every possible camera in the area that could have glimpsed a plane in the area. Why no pictures even now? Every scenario can have some coincidence to it I suppose. Like that 200 foot span of the Pentagon being the only section of the Pentagon that underwent special reinforement construction back in 2000. A tree could fall in the forest and nobody will see it, but it is unlikely in Washington DC. |
|
02 Apr 04 - 04:17 PM (#1153062) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel more coincidence in 2000. Lets see what happens when we crash into the Pentagon with umm lets say an airliner... http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html |
|
02 Apr 04 - 04:19 PM (#1153065) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Donuel http://www.rense.com/general51/scrub.htm |
|
02 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM (#1153098) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Bill D *shrug*...there is this: I didn't do massive searches "September 13, 2001 America Recovers Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash By John Dodge USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. "My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course." Other rush hour commuters, glued to their radios for the latest updates coming from the World Trade Center, got out of their cars in shock. Sucherman estimates it was between 9:30 and 9:40 a.m. At this point, he knew the collision was deliberate." |
|
05 Apr 04 - 05:15 AM (#1154659) Subject: RE: BS: A mutiny against Rumsfeld's terrorism From: Teribus "On 5-20-02, Democrats.com exposed Condi Rice's Big Lie that no one ever expected the Pentagon to be hit by a civilian airliner." Did the current NSA ever state what Democrats.com has "exposed"? Or did she state something to the effect that no-one ever expected that hijackers would deliberately crash aircraft into buildings. The fact that the main airport in Washington is situated so that the flight path of aircraft on approach brings them close to some fairly significant buildings, means that I personally would be amazed if such an exercise as the one that Donuel draws our attention had not taken place. In the UK, ages ago, on the introduction of 747's into service, such an exercise was run for London Heathrow, for a 747 suffering full power failure on take-off heading east over London. Part of basic risk assessment Donuel nothing more. |
