Here's an example of the suggestion from prisonplanet, in an article by 911 Troofer, Michael Ruppert:
...the "new" NORAD procedures transferring scramble authority to Rumsfeld on June 1, 2001 were ignored by several NORAD commanders on 9/11....Only problem is, the "new" NORAD procedures did *NOT* transfer scramble authority to Rumsfeld on June 1, 2001. The update issued on June 1st was a merely administrative update......it only changed a few administrative details......the actual change to the procedure transferring authority to the Secretary of Defence happened in 1997, under Bill Clinton's administration!
LINK
This mistaken claim is repeated over and over throughout 911 Troof. It's part of the folklore, and almost nobody has ever bothered to check the claim. SFAIK I am the only person to have bothered to check. Troofers believe the change to be an important one, but they've clearly never checked it. Speaks volumes for their methods, and their gullibility.
The June 1st, 2001 update to the procedures was a merely administrative affair - the actual procedures were changed in the 1997 update.
Another example of how Alex Jones employs this "evidence" to distort the facts:
This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept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in the field are stripped of all authority to act.That clearly suggests the 'new' orders issued June 1st 2001 'superseded' the 1997 orders, and that it was the new version which transferred authority for shooting down hijacked planes to Donald Rumsfeld. And, hey! - that's a mighty suspicious coincidence, isn't it, coming just weeks before 911?
.....
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 This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.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."
LINK
But the 'new' CJCSI had no new orders - all orders remain the same - the only changes are purely administrative ones, updating and adding some new department names etc. Nothing of substance changed in June 2001 whatsoever.
See for yourself:
The 1997 procedures: HERE
The "new" 2001 procedures: HERE
They're identical in substance: nothing changed. Remember that, the next time a Troofer makes the claim?
3 comments:
I haven't a clue. I tried searching for a good source to explain the stand down order controversy, and all the links are dodgy. There was something about Norman Mineta. I think there was some kind of sinister inside role, but I doubt Cheney and Bush would have been involved. I also don't believe Bin Laden had anything to do with it. I don't think he ever took credit for it, something that terrorists always seem to do. I also think Bin Laden has been dead for years due to his kidney problems. I don't buy that a pristine passport was found but that there has been no release of the cockpit recorders. The airliner put option movement seems to lead to who is involved, but we never got any closure on that. I believe there are two separate stories here. Yours is how right wing disinfo has propagated myths about September 11th to serve the image of an unsubstantiated internet full of anti-semites, while the actual anomalies of that sad day have never been explained.
I've gone all the way from being stunned, angry and aggressive on the day - to a Troofer, and all the way back to essentially rejecting the entire Troofer perspective.
That certainly doesn't mean I lack any skepticism about 'the official line'.
I'll happily admit that we don't and can't absolutely know who was on the planes. But that also means no alternative explanation can assert we know for a fact the supposed perps were *not* on the planes, which is what I often see claimed.
I once couldn't believe the towers could have fallen as they did from fire......but now I believe they did collapse from plane crash, explosions, fire. The WTC never had to meet NYC building codes....because it was Port Authority. In the 1970s the NY fire chief said modern hi-rise buildings were death-traps: he warned there was going to be a disaster. The steel was supplied by ALCOA - big-time political sponsors. There were warnings - that AQ was going to attempt it. There was operation Bojinka. People have been silenced - Bushco were a bunch of liars. None of that necessarily precludes the guilt of AQ. It isn't as if there is no-one out there whom hates America enough to attempt it. I'm surprised it hadn't happened earlier, and more often.
Internal flights in US were under heavy commercial pressure - there were very few checks. The dude whom checked-in Mohammed Atta for instance claims he felt Atta was big trouble....but he was fearful that if he refused Atta a boarding pass, his company would be sued, and he'd lose his job - if he was wrong.
Personally I think 911 Troof has been useful to the Bush admin, in so far as it has helped obscure the negligence of Bushco by positing all sorts of other explanations, of varying degrees of absurdity.
Ultimately, I can only believe what there is evidence to believe. In all the time since 911, there is absolutely zero evidence for any alternative hypothesis. But there is plenty of evidence for the obvious story. From an empirical scientific POV, I just have to accept what evidence there is - I can't simply accept the notion that "all the 'real' evidence is locked away". Accepting that leads one away from scientific approach. All the science I see points to the most obvious - Occam's razor and all that?
I don't mind people having a different opinion - as long as it is over clearly ambiguous data. but i won't accept people just asserting stuff groundlessly.
I don't like the way people accuse me of all sorts of things simply because I now reject the conspiracy angles. I think my own view is pretty solid - that Bushco were negligible - that american foreign policy is ultimately responsible - that fundamentalist islam (or any religion) is dangerous.
I don't mind people disagreeing - so long as they're well intentioned, realistic, etc.
i find it an interesting topic - and I now like being on the other side of the fence - it's my usual position :)
negligent - not negligible. whoops. :)
Post a Comment