|FAA alerted Military Immediately; AF Prevented From Responding
by TOP VIEW 3:40pm Mon Dec 10 '01 (Modified on 12:55pm Wed Dec 12 '01)
Original Link: http://www.indymedia.org:8081//front.php3?article_id=103406
The Air Force spokesman confirmed that after alerts and requests for intercepts of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the HIGHEST LEVEL of the federal government demanded that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through with established scramble/ intercept procedures until further notice!
Re: AF Spokesman: FAA Alerted Military Immediately On 9.11;
Mon Dec 10 16:41:06 2001
** TOP_VIEW **
The Big Picture
AF Spokesman: FAA Alerted Military Immediately On 9.11; AF Prevented
TOP_VIEW conducted a phone interview on 12.09.01 with a spokesperson for
the U.S. Air Force, located in New York.
This person was ordered to the Ground Zero, Pennsylvania and Pentagon
9.11 crash sites within several days of the events, as part of an Air Force
Crucial information was conveyed to us, related specifically to the
entire matter of IF or WHEN FAA/ATC personnel alerted appropriate Air
National Guard/Air Force units, that four large passenger jets were
significantly off course and that all standard communications with these
craft had been broken.
We were informed that standard procedures fully in effect on the morning
of September 11 were absolutely followed to a "T" by U.S. Air Traffic
Control personnel; that via established channels and according to
established guidelines, U.S. Air National Guard and Air Force units --
which are ALWAYS on alert to be scrambled for intercepts of either
distressed OR suspicious and possibly hostile aircraft 365/24/7 in these
United States -- WERE DEFINITELY contacted by FAA/ATC on 9.11 IMMEDIATELY
after Air Traffic Control had become aware of the developing situation
with the jets.
The Air Force spokesman confirmed that after the alerts and requests for
intercepts of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the
HIGHEST LEVEL of the executive branch of the federal government were
received, demanding that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through
with established scramble/intercept procedures that morning until
The U.S. Air Force's hands (wings) were DELIBERATELY TIED on the morning
of September 11, until such time that the horrifying treacherous, murderous
deeds had been carried out by the BushMob.
Our informant has told us in no uncertain terms that as much as seventy
percent of Armed Forces officers -- with the NOTABLE exception of the
U.S. Navy -- are VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to the treacherous, murderous
actions carried out by profoundly corrupt and demonic elements within
the federal government on 9.11, and to the wholesale treachery and
demolition of the U.S. Constitution which said elements have now
It was conveyed to us that the "story" is by no means over yet; that the
fat lady has by NO means yet "sung", and that this large percentage of
the military who DO support, uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution are
NOT going let all this just "slide". They are simply waiting for the
right time, to do all within their power to set things straight in the
Our source furthermore fully concurred with the assessment of ourselves
and others: that a CRUCIAL element in the government being able to
"SELL" to the public their utterly false fables about WHY 9.11 death
planes were NOT intercepted by Air Guard/Air Force units has to do with
a deliberate, major and blatant distortion and twisting of the truth by
none other than Dick Cheney himself; accomplished in the following manner.
Cheney, while being interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC TV's 'MEET THE
PRESS on September 16th, claimed that the military needed authorization
from the president before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American
Airlines Flight 77.
THIS IS A BIG, BIG, LIE, plain and simple.
For example: remember two years ago, when golf pro Payne Stewart's small
PRIVATE Lear jet went off-course and out of communication just after
takeoff in Florida?
Within MINUTES, on an immediate alert from the FAA, U.S. Air Force and
Air Guard jets were scrambled to intercept Stewart's jet and see what
the heck was up (not that it helped much in that case...): "Several Air
Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control
plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway
Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --CNN, 10.26.99
Interceptors were in direct proximity to Stewart's seriously messed-up
aircraft within about TEN MINUTES of him having taken off. NOBODY had to
go pull Clinton away from Vice-president Monica Lewinsky and get him to
AUTHORIZE the INTERCEPT of Payne Stewart's jet that day.
Moreover, according to the same CNN article: "...officers on the Joint
Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the
Pentagon's National Military Command Center. -- CNN, 10.26.99
Air Traffic Controllers request military intercepts of private and
commercial planes REGULARLY. Sometimes it's because communications have
broken off; sometimes it's to inform a pilot that his plane has gone off
course; other times it's to observe the situation directly - for
instance, to see who's actually flying the plane and things like that.
None of this requires presidential approval.
But there's more to how Cheney twisted the truth here regarding what is
PROVABLY one of the biggest holes in the FedGov's 9.11 tapestry of lies;
since someone of even the most minimal intelligence would realize that
such intercepts are VERY common, do NOT require any "presidential
authorization" and SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE on September 11.
So what arch-spin-meister Cheney did was to very subtly and cleverly
fudge the distinction between a common, often-executed intercept and a
SHOOT-DOWN of an aircraft already determined to be hostile.
Cheney put the entire situation in the context that there was a terribly
troubling, agonizing ethical decision to be made whether or not to shoot
down a number of passenger aircraft which "seemed" to be hostile, and
that only the president (who was after all VERY busy reading rabbit
stories to Florida schoolkids at the time!) could have authorized this shoot-down.
Well. first of all, there was no NEED for any order to SHOOT DOWN; there
was only a need for Air Force/Air Guard units -- which are always
standing by to respond to FAA alerts about troubled and/or suspicious
aircraft -- to carry out standard intercept procedures.
And keep in mind that military interceptors (or '"escorts") already have clear
"instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed
manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions
cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is
definitely serious, high-ranking military officers from the NMCC
(National Military Command Center) in the Pentagon can take charge.
So: even if such intercepts had yielded information showing that the
aircraft were indeed hijacked, were under hostile control and about to
be used as guided missiles/fuel-air bombs, there is still -- according
to our Air Force contact -- no requirement that any order to shoot down
hostile aircraft must come from the president himself. There are procedures
fully in place for NMCC commanding officers and the DOD to order such
shoot-downs, when it's obvious an attack of some kind is underway. After
all, the "commander-in-chief" might be too busy reading about rabbits to
schoolkids to be bothered making such decisions about shooting down
Cheney knows this probably better than anyone -- except for those
military officers and personnel who were DIRECTLY SAT ON by the
Executive Branch on the morning of 9.11, until it was far too late to
take any preventive actions whatsoever. Moreover, when jets were finally
scrambled, they were deliberately scrambled from more distant bases,
making it a foregone certainty the interceptors would NEVER be able to
reach the hijacked planes in time.
As an example of the blatantly false/disinformative statements made by
Cheney (ONCE AGAIN!) to give some credibility to this highly-manipulated,
non-timely "response" scenario, he claimed that there were no intercept
aircraft ready for action at Andrew Air Force Base -- only TEN MILES
from the Pentagon -- on the morning of 9.11. This has been proven to be
a TOTAL LIE.
(For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base
to the Pentagon go to:
Beyond any doubt: the Executive branch of the federal government --
whether g. w. bush or more likely Dick Cheney himself -- EXPRESSLY AND
UNILATERALLY FORBADE Air Guard/Air Force units from responding in a
TIMELY manner to FAA alerts on the morning of September 11, as they were
fully ready to do.
This is the TRUTH, and large numbers of Air Force and other military
officers and personnel know it, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
And no doubt THAT explains exactly WHY Cheney has been in HIDING for
so much of the past three months!!!!!
- - - -
Here's a transcript of the MEET THE PRESS segment where Cheney gets
going muddying the waters about intercepts, shoot-downs, time frames,
(non-existent) moral considerations that supposedly delayed a response
even more, and other chaff to deflect truth-seeking radar. Following
that is a very worthwhile analysis of Cheney's verbal/conceptual
"MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made
during the course of the day?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this
question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial
"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying
combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an
airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give
them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.
"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a
hijacked commercial airline was destined for the White House or the
Capitol, we would take the plane down?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the
plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to
take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision
to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens,
civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in
fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think,
exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat
air patrol up over New York."
--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)
* * *
Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.
First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept
incoming commercial aircraft."
Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane
would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take
them out..." that is, "shoot it down."
But "intercept": and "shoot it down" DO NOT mean the same thing.
"intercept (nter-spt1) verb, transitive > intercepted, intercepting, intercepts
1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
> (From 'American Heritage Dictionary')
"shootdown (sht1doun) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire." >
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary')
Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking:
why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted?
Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended
course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence,
there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept
Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged
question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American
citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not
necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent),
Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this
"horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept.
When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt
"Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch
"A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of President
Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to land Thursday,
a sheriff's deputy said....
"The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was
unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At that
point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, got on
the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land...
"The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, about
eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford....
"In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher
Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots
in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above and one
below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field near Mineola."
--'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)
The 'Boston Globe' reported that:
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its
fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a
graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to
attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft.
Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under
certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)
Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.'
As you will recall, he said:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give
them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept
pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly
well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to
handle intercept emergencies.
Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in
sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a
commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in
advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken
over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr.
Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the
hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a
hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon,
does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a
military pilot's order to land?
So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why
not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the
military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a
potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?
Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying
this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake?
Isn't that "a point"?
A DEFENSE THAT BACKFIRES
What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only
President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a
hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see in
a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney said
on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when he goes
on trial for treason.
Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART 1, SECTION 3