A question for look-up.

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

A question for look-up.
Topic Started: Jul 28 2008, 08:25 PM (456 Views)
Boonedoggled	Jul 28 2008, 08:25 PM Post #1
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	In post #14 of this thread, you made the following statement: look-up I guess the one thing that makes me wonder if we're on the right track is that if the plane was shot down (as some suggest) by a rogue commander who followed his military oath instead of the stand down order, then that would mean that there was no advanced knowledge of the 9/11 perps that they would NEED to fake calls. (bolding mine) Which oath are you referring to? PS I thought this would be a better place to ask as to not derail the other thread.
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


JFK	Jul 28 2008, 08:41 PM Post #2
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Mine was as follows : I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me god. The order of those is also important.
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


SPreston	Jul 28 2008, 10:21 PM Post #3
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	look-up if the plane was shot down (as some suggest) by a rogue commander who followed his military oath instead of the stand down order Boonedoggled Which oath are you referring to? JFK I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me god. Boone you've never sworn such an oath as this? This oath is something alien to you? Were you once in the military and like Dubya refused to take such an oath seriously? Do you think such oaths to defend OUR Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic are useless and outdated? You do understand Boone that an Inside Job 9-11 planner would be a domestic enemy don't you? There are other oaths of allegiance also. Oath of Service (Click me) US Army Corps of Engineers (click me)



Boonedoggled	Jul 28 2008, 10:22 PM Post #4
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	JFK The order of those is also important. The pilots had no authority, under the Constitution without presidential or congressional approval, to shoot down a civilian airliner. And, disobeying a direct order to stand down would have been a violation of that oath also. Is there another oath?
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


noeffects	Jul 28 2008, 11:31 PM Post #5
Posts: 231 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Quote: "The pilots had no authority, under the Constitution without presidential or congressional approval, to shoot down a civilian airliner. And, disobeying a direct order to stand down would have been a violation of that oath also." Quote: "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me," So if your the fighter pilots , and know about what happened in NY with hijacked planes. Then you also know of this hijacked plane. Hmm...All the while your commander in chief is busy reading goat books and flying to secret locales,etc...add also the news reports of that morning reported "there could be over 50,000 casualties" Then add to the fact that another "plane" hit the damn pentagon...come on now. Are those pilots really going to wait for some kind of Presidential Decree.? And Congress was all ready to vote on that quick enough.? Since all fighter pilots are officers, who's to say that one pilot knowing all the above.... didn't just command that it be shot down for national security.
Posts: 231 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


JFK	Jul 29 2008, 12:17 AM Post #6
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Boonedoggled Jul 28 2008, 10:22 PM JFK The order of those is also important. The pilots had no authority, under the Constitution without presidential or congressional approval, to shoot down a civilian airliner. And, disobeying a direct order to stand down would have been a violation of that oath also. Is there another oath? Actually yes there is... For Officers... In the Marine Corps anyway. Google for it. Pilots are Officers. I was enlisted. BTW, remember what I said about the order ? Which part of "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" do you not understand ? When 93 was on the last leg of it's flight it was well known that America was under attack. I wish we had unadulterated tapes from NORAD instead of NEADS though.
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jul 29 2008, 12:49 AM Post #7
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	why shoot down flight 93? well if it was shot down and it was flight 93 then there was a passenger revolt going on against the 3 'hijackers' armed with guns, the military were monitoring the flight and the ground delay allowed them to gain knowledge of their impending doom. now had the revolt been successful and imagine if the actual 'hijackers' were taken into custody [dead or alive]. i imagine this could cause some problems for the planners of 9/11. in no way does a shoot down imply there wasn't advance knowledge. if anything it indicates an aborted mission that could potentially jeopordize the entire operation had the passengers successfully retaken the plane. why cover up a shoot down? well i know i would be pretty pissed if i knew my loved one wasn't allowed a chance to fight especially knowing a revolt was underway, how about you?
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


x1975	Jul 29 2008, 03:27 AM Post #8
closed mind Posts: 71 Group: BANNED! Member #725 Joined: 07/09/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jul 29 2008, 12:49 AM why shoot down flight 93? well if it was shot down and it was flight 93 then there was a passenger revolt going on against the 3 'hijackers' armed with guns, the military were monitoring the flight and the ground delay allowed them to gain knowledge of their impending doom. now had the revolt been successful and imagine if the actual 'hijackers' were taken into custody [dead or alive]. i imagine this could cause some problems for the planners of 9/11. in no way does a shoot down imply there wasn't advance knowledge. if anything it indicates an aborted mission that could potentially jeopordize the entire operation had the passengers successfully retaken the plane. why cover up a shoot down? well i know i would be pretty pissed if i knew my loved one wasn't allowed a chance to fight especially knowing a revolt was underway, how about you? Why cover up a shoot down? After what happened in NYC and DC I think the vast majority of Americans would have fully understood the need to terminate the flight before it got to a target without regard to whether or not the passengers were trying to take back control. Are you really expected to risk the lives of thousands on the off chance that some civilians are going to pull a miracle, particularly if the oppurtunity presented itself to absolutley terminate the flight and avoid another catastrophe? No, if the DoD had successfully shot down Flight 93 you would have heard about it, they had no reason to cover it up, they were completely justified.



Domenick DiMaggio	Jul 29 2008, 06:11 AM Post #9
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	x1975 Jul 29 2008, 03:27 AM Domenick DiMaggio Jul 29 2008, 12:49 AM why shoot down flight 93? well if it was shot down and it was flight 93 then there was a passenger revolt going on against the 3 'hijackers' armed with guns, the military were monitoring the flight and the ground delay allowed them to gain knowledge of their impending doom. now had the revolt been successful and imagine if the actual 'hijackers' were taken into custody [dead or alive]. i imagine this could cause some problems for the planners of 9/11. in no way does a shoot down imply there wasn't advance knowledge. if anything it indicates an aborted mission that could potentially jeopordize the entire operation had the passengers successfully retaken the plane. why cover up a shoot down? well i know i would be pretty pissed if i knew my loved one wasn't allowed a chance to fight especially knowing a revolt was underway, how about you? Why cover up a shoot down? After what happened in NYC and DC I think the vast majority of Americans would have fully understood the need to terminate the flight before it got to a target without regard to whether or not the passengers were trying to take back control. Are you really expected to risk the lives of thousands on the off chance that some civilians are going to pull a miracle, particularly if the oppurtunity presented itself to absolutley terminate the flight and avoid another catastrophe? No, if the DoD had successfully shot down Flight 93 you would have heard about it, they had no reason to cover it up, they were completely justified. what if the final 3 minutes of the cvr proved the passengers had been successful....?
Posts: 1,231 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


look-up	Jul 29 2008, 08:28 AM Post #10
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Boonedoggled Jul 28 2008, 10:22 PM JFK The order of those is also important. The pilots had no authority, under the Constitution without presidential or congressional approval, to shoot down a civilian airliner. And, disobeying a direct order to stand down would have been a violation of that oath also. Is there another oath? thanks Boone for starting a new thread. it's a valid question. I agree with JFK that the most important part of the oath is the main part - defending the constitution and the USA against all enemies... As I'm sure you already know, Dick Cheney had recently changed the shoot-down order procedure, going against years of tradition which had the military commanders in the field giving the order in the heat of the moment, to shoot down any aircraft over US airspace he or she deemed a threat to national security. When the DIck changed that procedure, he created a situation that on 9/11 caused a unknown enemy (that is, "unknown" to the commander who may have ordered 93 to be shot down in this theory) to potentially attack the infastructure of the united states capital. It left us VERY vulnerable. If this military officer decided to go against the new orders from the Vice President, don't you think he/she would know exactly what they were doing? They would know that they were obeying their oath of office OVER obeying the Executive Branch. It would be a clear example of a person knowing truly that the ideals which he based his military carrerr upon - defending the USA and SERVING THE PEOPLE of the USA - were being jeoprodized by the office of the VP, and must be disobeyed and hope that the matter is cleared up later... which apparently it was. It's like a police officer deciding to use deadly force in a high speed chase because he knows the accused is going to a school to murder some children. No, even more, it's like that officer knowing that this accused person is part of a group of crazies who have already killed many school children that same morning. He uses deadly force even though his superirors can't be reached to give him the authorization. He does this because he has faith. Faith that the system will protect him afterwards. Faith that any sane person would agree he had made the right decision. For what it's worth. Hypothetical military commander, if you're out there. We agree that you did make the right decision, as hard as it must have been.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jul 29 2008, 08:30 AM Post #11
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	FYI, Boone, I am not contending that the pilots of the jets would have made a decision... but the person directing them from their headquaters. Higher rank, no doubt.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jul 29 2008, 08:33 AM Post #12
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	x1975 Are you really expected to risk the lives of thousands planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. but the point you made is still valid -- that they shouldn't risk the lives of the people that WOULD die to save the lives of the people on the plane. "the needs of the many..."
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Boonedoggled	Jul 29 2008, 01:03 PM Post #13
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	JFK Which part of "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" do you not understand ? I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic* Using military aircraft to shoot down a civilian airliner would have violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Quote: I wish we had unadulterated tapes from NORAD instead of NEADS though. I would like to hear them also, if there are any. I would also like to hear more of the ATC recordings. That might happen pretty soon though, I received a letter from the FAA regarding a recent request that I made using the FOIA and the opening sentence says, ''The agency is beginning the process of responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to the events of September 11, 2001.''
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Boonedoggled	Jul 29 2008, 01:32 PM Post #14
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up As I'm sure you already know, Dick Cheney had recently changed the shoot-down order procedure, going against years of tradition which had the military commanders in the field giving the order in the heat of the moment, to shoot down any aircraft over US airspace he or she deemed a threat to national security. When the DIck changed that procedure, he created a situation that on 9/11 caused a unknown enemy (that is, "unknown" to the commander who may have ordered 93 to be shot down in this theory) to potentially attack the infastructure of the united states capital. It left us VERY vulnerable. I believe you're talking about CJCSI 3610.01A. That instruction doesn't discuss shoot down procedures, it only discusses military intercept procedures when requested by the FAA. ''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.'' The change from the old directive did not inhibit the military's ability to launch fighters in any way. If anything, it helped them.
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jul 29 2008, 02:19 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	the question of this thread is whether the commander might have been acting on orders or not... if he disobeyed a direct order, then he was still defending the constitution of the USA. Protecting the Capital and protecting the COnstitution is a moot point. Read "defend the constitution of the USA" as "Protect the democracy of the USA against all enemies" Regarding military use of force inside the USA, are you serious? You really think that local police agencies have fighter jets they can send to intercept fighters? The standard procedure is for the military to perform that task. It is not a violation of law to intercept and potentially shoot down airliners if hijackers have commondered it. At that moment, once you've verified it is an airborne weapon headed for a national security related target, it becomes an act of war and the military has every right to step in and prevent it from happening.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Shopnut	Jul 29 2008, 06:41 PM Post #16
Posts: 222 Group: BANNED! Member #767 Joined: 07/26/08	look-up Jul 29 2008, 08:33 AM planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. Planes have killed thousands of people, in war and peace.
Posts: 222 Group: BANNED! Member #767 Joined: 07/26/08


Boonedoggled	Jul 29 2008, 09:02 PM Post #17
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up Regarding military use of force inside the USA, are you serious? You really think that local police agencies have fighter jets they can send to intercept fighters? The standard procedure is for the military to perform that task. It is not a violation of law to intercept and potentially shoot down airliners if hijackers have commondered it. At that moment, once you've verified it is an airborne weapon headed for a national security related target, it becomes an act of war and the military has every right to step in and prevent it from happening. The standard procedure was for the military to intercept and escort only. It changed after 9/11: Quote: Sources told CNN that President Bush decided to delegate the authority to shoot down domestic jetliners to mid-level generals without his specific approval "under extraordinary circumstances." CNN.com Why would the president grant commanders the authority to shoot down airliners after 9/11 if they had that authority on 9/11?
Posts: 132 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Aug 1 2008, 02:29 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Shopnut Jul 29 2008, 06:41 PM look-up Jul 29 2008, 08:33 AM planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. Planes have killed thousands of people, in war and peace. singular planes cannot do that. You know what I meant.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Aug 1 2008, 04:01 PM Post #19
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Boonedoggled Jul 29 2008, 09:02 PM Why would the president grant commanders the authority to shoot down airliners after 9/11 if they had that authority on 9/11? I did not say I thought they had the authority on 9/11. I was speculating that perhaps a commander ordered the shoot down in anticipation that the DOD, via SoD would authorize shortly. Or perhaps they ordered the shoot down in defiance of the fact that the order did not come soon enough, and he/she believed they were acting in the best interest of national security. The fact that there was eventually a shoot-down order issued, could just be a cover for the fact that this commander went rogue and shot it down. Just speculation.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Shopnut	Aug 2 2008, 02:09 PM Post #20
Posts: 222 Group: BANNED! Member #767 Joined: 07/26/08	look-up Aug 1 2008, 02:29 PM You know what I meant. That's crap. You should mean what you say and you better say what you mean.
Posts: 222 Group: BANNED! Member #767 Joined: 07/26/08


pguillory	Aug 3 2008, 12:48 PM Post #21
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	look-up Aug 1 2008, 02:29 PM Shopnut Jul 29 2008, 06:41 PM look-up Jul 29 2008, 08:33 AM planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. Planes have killed thousands of people, in war and peace. singular planes cannot do that. You know what I meant. jA single plane can kill thousands of people depending on what it crashes into. If AA11 would have crashed 20fools lower, I guarantee that thousands in the north tower would have been killed. The building would have collapsed much sooner because of the added weight above the impact zone, and many more people would not have been able to get out of the building.
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


SPreston	Aug 3 2008, 02:44 PM Post #22
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	pguillory Aug 3 2008, 12:48 PM look-up Shopnut look-up planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. Planes have killed thousands of people, in war and peace. singular planes cannot do that. You know what I meant. jA single plane can kill thousands of people depending on what it crashes into. If AA11 would have crashed 20fools lower, I guarantee that thousands in the north tower would have been killed. The building would have collapsed much sooner because of the added weight above the impact zone, and many more people would not have been able to get out of the building. No it would not. That is ridiculous. They would not have time to move the planted demolition explosives down to the fools (floors) below, impacted in your imaginary North Tower scenario, and the top-down explosive demolition would have occured exactly the same or they would have called the whole 9-11 Inside Job off. You cannot guarantee anything. North Tower Top-down Explosive Demolition South Tower Top-down Explosive Demolition



pguillory	Aug 3 2008, 03:31 PM Post #23
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Preston, you still believe that the toweres wer CD? I thought that claim had pretty much been abandoned.
Posts: 37 Group: Members Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


look-up	Aug 4 2008, 08:39 AM Post #24
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Shopnut Aug 2 2008, 02:09 PM look-up Aug 1 2008, 02:29 PM You know what I meant. That's crap. You should mean what you say and you better say what you mean. Since you seem to insist on accuracy with being perfectly litteral, I'll point out your errors as well. Planes haven't killed many people in war and peace. Bombs and bullets FROM the planes have. But I will not hold you to such standards because that would be unreasonable. Seriously. I KNEW what you MEANT by it, even though litterally speaking, the planes usually are not the cause of death. This is how reasonable people have conversations with human beings. if your standard is to have flawless words spoon-fed to you with absolutely no accounting for interpreting what someone probably meant by what they said, then you shouldn't be posting on the internet... and probably shouldn't be associating with human beings, since we are all imperfect. I am SOOOOOO sorry for leaving out a few words that could cause you to intentionally misrepresent my words. I will be SOOOO much more careful in the future, knowing exactly how people like you operate. Thanks for the heads up
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Aug 4 2008, 08:40 AM Post #25
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	pguillory Aug 3 2008, 12:48 PM look-up Aug 1 2008, 02:29 PM Shopnut Jul 29 2008, 06:41 PM look-up Jul 29 2008, 08:33 AM planes can't kill thousands of people... never have. never will. Planes have killed thousands of people, in war and peace. singular planes cannot do that. You know what I meant. jA single plane can kill thousands of people depending on what it crashes into. If AA11 would have crashed 20fools lower, I guarantee that thousands in the north tower would have been killed. The building would have collapsed much sooner because of the added weight above the impact zone, and many more people would not have been able to get out of the building. skeptics say the darndest things.... the point is that hasn't happened. you guys really get pleasure out of this?
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2