Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cheney Lied About Using 9-11 Command  
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1471 times:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...hp?az=view_all&address=364x1806342





In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02--only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. "Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision," Bush's then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, "The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it's an order that had never been given before." And it wasn't on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which--though no one knew it at the time--was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that NEADS believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point--one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93--the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor.

10:10:31

NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.... Goddammit!...

FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.

NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire.



No one gave any orders to take action until 15 minutes after the attacks ended. They were all petrified by fear, shocked into inaction. Whether it was Bush reading his frakin' Pet Goat book, or Cheney doing nothing on his part.

Yet after, they created an entire backstory to appear heroic and stoic in the face of danger, when the tapes prove they were cowards, utterly lacking in leadership, much less heroics.

Robert NWDC10

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1462 times:

Wait just a minute. Are you telling me that the story we have all been told is not entirely accurate?  boggled  <--- Me....boggled? Well not really....but it sounds good and will probably keep the neocons off my back.

User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1458 times:

Why don't you link directly to the Vanity Fair article instead of wasting our time with that other stupid forum?

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1431 times:

I'm very skeptical of any conspiracy theories. I do however support a full independent investigation of 9/11 because there are some serious questions that need answers. I can't believe anybody would be opposed to a full investigation. Why are people afraid of that idea??

Oh and this time those key players who are questioned should be under oath unlike in the 9/11 commission hearings.

[Edited 2006-08-04 07:41:48]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

More conspiracy theorist crap . . .

Well, at least it give me an opportunity to up my post count and raise the redflag  . . .


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
More conspiracy theorist crap . . .

Why are you so opposed to a real investigation? What harm will that cause?

See this is the problem with our two party system. People blindly follow their leader like little sheep. I guarantee if Clinton were in office today under the exact same circumstances Republicans would be demanding an investigation. No question about it. There's nothing to be lost by a real investigation that will either prove their was gross negligence on the part of the administration or will prove they did their jobs.

[Edited 2006-08-04 08:23:30]

User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1410 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
More conspiracy theorist crap . . .

C'mon ANC, how is this conspiracy - the actual tapes bear out the fact that the timelines of the story we've been told don't synch up with the actual sequence of events. I'm not saying it substantially changes anything about what actually happened that day, but at the very least it does call into question what the Administration says they knew and ordered and 'when they knew it'.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 6):
C'mon ANC, how is this conspiracy - the actual tapes bear out the fact that the timelines of the story we've been told don't synch up with the actual sequence of events. I'm not saying it substantially changes anything about what actually happened that day, but at the very least it does call into question what the Administration says they knew and ordered and 'when they knew it'.

OK, I"ll give you that . . .

I would submit that had any of us been in the middle of the shit storm that day perhaps we'd have some issues regarding exactly which second we took a breath or made a phone call or any other minute detail as well . . . .

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 6):
but at the very least it does call into question what the Administration says they knew and ordered and 'when they knew it'.

At this point in time - does it matter? Nothing will change.

Quoting NWDC10 (Thread starter):
Cheney Lied

And of course, the instantly inflammatory thread title lends credibility right off the bat doesn't it?

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 5):
Why are you so opposed to a real investigation?

I'm not at all . . . Investigate all you want. The end result will be the same.


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
I'm not at all . . . Investigate all you want. The end result will be the same.

and if an investigation proves that, I will rest my case. I just want the truth, whatever it is.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
At this point in time - does it matter? Nothing will change.

It doesn't change what happened that day, and it sure as hell won't bring those souls back, but we do deserve to know if the Administration has knowingly 'embellished' their response.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
It doesn't change what happened that day, and it sure as hell won't bring those souls back, but we do deserve to know if the Administration has knowingly 'embellished' their response.

Fair enough -

Now show me an administration that hasn't . . . .


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Fair enough -

Now show me an administration that hasn't . . . .

Agreed ...
Politicians by definition have to lie to people,if they want to manage to be re-elected.
A president ,a defence -scretary or prime-minister can no reveal all the secrets he has knowledge of - so he has to lie to the public in order to protect his power and the integrity of the function.
It is certainly the role of good journalists to keep the balance at a reasonable low rate.
Take Nuclear Power plants- most politicians know damm well there are risks involved that the great public is not aware of-but they keep the silence.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Now show me an administration that hasn't . . . .

And there's the rub - you and I both know you won't find one.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6815 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 2):
Why don't you link directly to the Vanity Fair article instead of wasting our time with that other stupid forum?

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/g...ege01

Well, having read that it seems to me that the whole structure was completely unprepared for something of this nature, and really, who would be? It was unprecedented, despite all the training. Whether there was advance warning of the attack itself, as foreign intelligence agencies are alleged to have provided, is a whole other ballpark.

It does beg the question of whether it was just bad luck that saw 3 of the 4 planes hit their targets or was someone aware of the systemic weaknesses that allowed this to happen. Clearly the time was too short for AA11, 14 minutes from hijack to impact, but in the other cases there seemed to be too much confusion as to just what was going on.

I expect part of this was the training where it was either a military attack with known or conditioned responses or a hijack to Cuba where there'd be responses from the hijacker and time to act. A silent hijacker/suicide bomber is new territory, presumably. And then there's the psychology. On the day when there's a planned exercise (and no-one gets hurt), a plane is hijacked and flown into the WTC. And then there's another hijacking, and another, and another..... and still someone thinks it an exercise

—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

When you spend you life looking at computer screens and radars, do you become detached from reality to some extent, especially when you do lots of training exercises? What happens to the mind when one of the green dots you follow across a radar screen flies into a skyscraper?

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
It doesn't change what happened that day, and it sure as hell won't bring those souls back, but we do deserve to know if the Administration has knowingly 'embellished' their response.

In the article...

Azzarello, Farmer, and several other commission members I spoke to dismissed this fog-of-war excuse and pointed out that not only had the military already reviewed the tapes but that the false story it told at the first hearing had a clear purpose. "How good would it have looked for the government in general if we still couldn't have stopped the fourth plane an hour and 35 minutes [into the attack]?" Azzarello asked. "How good would it have looked if there was a total breakdown in communication and nothing worked right?"



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

Since when is it news that an American politician has lied? Of course, Cheney is more brazen than most, and he's gotten a heck of a lot of people killed and murdered, but this 9-11 thing isn't really very important news.

User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 14):
heney is more brazen than most,

Dick Cheney? Who is that? You must mean Darth Cheney!


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

I seem to remember the 9/11 report basically saying the same thing - that the decision to shoot down any other hijacked planes was taken after the crash of the final plane. In fact that information was published only a week or two after the attacks, as I recall. So what's the big controversy? What's the lie?

Let's remember that a lot of people thought that there were more planes being hijacked that day, and that there were at least 2 others in the air at the time that were question marks, but were luckily cleared up in time.


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

That vanity fair article is chilling. You can really hear how crazy things got.

User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
More conspiracy theorist crap . . .

Well, at least it give me an opportunity to up my post count and raise the . . .

Have you taken the time to listen to the tapes?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 5):
Why are you so opposed to a real investigation?

I'm not at all . . . Investigate all you want. The end result will be the same.

You're right, we still won't get the whole truth about 9-11....but it's a start.

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 13):
Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 2):
Why don't you link directly to the Vanity Fair article instead of wasting our time with that other stupid forum?

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/g...ege01

Well, having read that it seems to me that the whole structure was completely unprepared for something of this nature, and really, who would be? It was unprecedented, despite all the training.

Seriously Oly, NORAD was running a drill that morning (9/11/01) involving mock hijacked airliners that were to fly into the WTC complex. You can't say we were totally bamboozled by the event. The tapes bear out one fact though....that perhaps we were for a short time confused whether Flight 11 was part of the "drill" or whether it was actually a "real world" event. Once it was determined to be "real world", the subsequent delay + the utter lack of properly positioned (and armed) fighters was absolutely unacceptable.


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

One thing I don't understand is why people are not more outraged at our defense system's epic failure. Even if there was mass confusion at first, to not be able to get a grip on the situation until over an hour and a half, completely after the whole attack took place is CRAZY! We pay shit loads of money to the Department of DEFENSE, and what's it all for? We might as well not have had any defense that day. People have gotten in a lot of trouble over much smaller scale failuers.

User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

So what Vanity Fair is saying that the NORAD system, specially the interceptors and GCI equipment, had seriously been degraded during the previous 8 years to the point of incompetence???? Is that it??

Well...what party was in the White House almost the whole period that runs from Sept 1993-Sept 2001? Hold them accountable!



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineScamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
m not at all . . . Investigate all you want. The end result will be the same.

Really? Is that because you have a direct line to God Himself who told you so, or are you going on your philosophy, "Mr. Bush said it, I believe it, and that's all that matters?"



If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13140 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 19):
One thing I don't understand is why people are not more outraged at our defense system's epic failure.

On 9/11, we saw something that was never considered that could happen. Like in air disasters, there were a number of items that combined to cause this disaster.
The defense system we have was designed for the cold war, that is a nuclear missile attack from the USSR, not for internal based attacks.
You had massive communications problems among the military, the air traffic control and the President.
The President was out of town and a possible target of terror. There was a slow reaction and delays in setting up vital communications with the President, the only one who could give the orders to shoot down a/c.
You have paralyzing fear that the WTC attacks caused, and no way to deal with it more quickly. It takes several minutes to get fighter a/c off the ground and a number of more to get in place to do a shoot down. There was the fear of shooting down any aircraft that may not be part of the 9/11 attacks, thus killing innocents and if shoot down an a/c, it may kill many on the ground.
To me the real issue is that almost to the day (Aug. 7th?) 5 years ago, there was a report to the President that noted possible terror threats soon in the USA. You had the reports of strange behaviors of some middle eastern men as to how to fly some aircraft and the FBI's horrible weaknesses in dealing with these reports and how they handled the arrest of Moussari after he was turned in by a Minnesota training facility. It was too easy for foreign nationals to get identity documents. You also had terrible weaknesses in the airport security, that allowed box cutters and other items on carry on luggage (something I can personally testify to, doing so on flights at both BOS and EWR, 2 weeks before 9/11, for use in a job assignment outside of Boston)


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 19):
One thing I don't understand is why people are not more outraged at our defense system's epic failure.

On 9/11, we saw something that was never considered that could happen.

Listen to the tape and count how many times they say "Is this the exercise or real world?". It is now known that a drill was happening concurrently with this event, a drill simultating hijacked airliners being flown into the WTC. If it was never considered as a possibility, then why have an exercise simulating it?


User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 20):
Well...what party was in the White House almost the whole period that runs from Sept 1993-Sept 2001? Hold them accountable!

Knock that stupid, partisan, sheepish, Bush worshiping nonsense off. I am seeking legitimate, non-partisan answers here, not pointless finger pointing. Jesus, if GWB said on the evening news tonight that we really need to round up all the Jews in the country and put them in concentration camps you would still support him. You would support him if he said we need to drop atomic bombs on Ireland. Why do you blindly follow a guy just because he is a "Republican"?? Why don't you try thinking for yourself.


25 David L : I'm not familiar with Vanity Fair - how reliable is it? If you're doubting the assertion by Vanity Fair then I can see your point. Otherwise, it seem
26 Darrenthe747 : While I agree with you that it is a valid question... I am just so tired of people following their leader blindly. It is without any question in my m
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question About Using Neutral In Automatic Car posted Sun Nov 26 2006 04:33:47 by Tu204
Senator: Galloway Lied About Oil 4 Food Scandal posted Tue Oct 25 2005 16:11:27 by Jetjack74
Bush Lied About Going To War And WMD.....Proof? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 07:19:19 by Dragon-wings
Australian Govt. Lied About Illegal Immigrants posted Sun Oct 27 2002 21:17:58 by Airmale
Please Stop Using 9/11 As An Excuse. posted Sun Sep 1 2002 13:14:22 by EGGD
My Comments About The 9.11 Attack. posted Sun Sep 16 2001 02:46:32 by Jiml1126
Weird Version About 9/11 Attack posted Fri Feb 24 2006 16:52:32 by TACAA320
Jokes About Dick Cheney Hunting Accident. posted Wed Feb 15 2006 21:52:10 by Luisde8cd
Oliver Stone Film About 9/11/01 posted Tue Jul 26 2005 00:10:27 by Aa777jr
Opinions About 9/11 posted Fri Sep 10 2004 21:07:18 by KiwiNanday