--- Begin Message ---
This is being sent on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as part of the mailing list that you joined.
List: emperorsclothes
URL: http://www.emperors-clothes.com
------------------------------------------------------------
URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Alternative address is http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/indict-2.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about one
article/day.
We encourage readers to reprint and re-post any Emperor's Clothes article. Please
include the article's Web address.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
=======================================
MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY
Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS'
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[Posted 20 November 2001]
Dedicated to the firemen of New York.
=======================================
In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air Force base, 10 miles from the
Pentagon, had combat-ready fighter squadrons on September 11th. Why didn't jets
scramble from Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit?
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
LIE # 2: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION WAS NEEDED TO SCRAMBLE JETS TO INTERCEPT FLIGHT 77
On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was interviewed on NBC TV's
'MEET THE PRESS.' During that interview he made the claim that the military needed
authorization from President George W. Bush before scrambling fighter jets to
intercept American Airlines Flight 77.
Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. He did not say, "A
commercial airliner can't be intercepted without presidential approval." Instead, he
spoke as if the need for presidential authorization were a commonly accepted fact; and
then, based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional misinformation to
confuse the millions of Americans who had asked themselves: why didn't jet fighters
intercept Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S. have radar
and an Air Force anymore?
It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to put the blame on
a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a different approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.'
Relying on his skills in public deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that
nothing improper had occurred. But as soon as one sees through his lies, one realizes
Mr. Cheney has placed the responsibility for the failure to intercept on George W.
Bush.
Here is the excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS' where Richard Cheney puts forward his
intercept lie:
"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 aircraft.
"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.
"in·ter·cept
"in·ter·cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive
in·ter·cept·ed, in·ter·cept·ing, in·ter·cepts
"1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary')
"shoot·down
"shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) 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.
Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over his sleight of hand by inserting the following
connecting sentence:
"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."
This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like fools.
First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air
Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a
routine basis. Sometimes the purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has
gone off course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the situation
directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. None of this requires
presidential approval.
Second, 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 serious, high-ranking military officers from the National
Military Command Center in the Pentagon (NMCC) can take charge.
Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial aircraft.
An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to intercept (or 'escort') a
commercial aircraft in response to any serious problem which the Air Traffic
Controller cannot solve through radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that
a commercial jet has deviated from its authorized flight path.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR
requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
before takeoff.
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2)
"Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These flight plans are
intended to provide quick routes that take advantage of favorable winds while avoiding
the routes traveled by other aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three
connected routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route path, and a
standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists of a sequence of geographic
points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a trajectory from the point of departure
to the point of arrival."
--'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak (3)
If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at one of its
'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot. If the ATC cannot make
contact, he or she will request an escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and
check out the situation. This is called 'interception.'
As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act. Usually it is
requested because routine communication has become impossible.
For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the famous golf pro, went
off course, and the pilot did not respond by radio, the FAA immediately contacted the
military:
"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,' 26 October 1999 (4)
The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter jet) might communicate
with a commercial airliner which fails to respond to radio contact. The FAA has a
chart entitled:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial jet is intercepted
in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate by:
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the
left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should
respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a
"slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5)
When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it creates a potentially
deadly hazard: it could collide with another jet. It is therefore reassuring that the
FAA has an exacting standard for what constitutes an emergency:
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of
radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
And:
"EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential
emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) - is
stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
The purpose: to help the FAA and the military work together to handle emergencies as
quickly as possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the
Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia.
But not always:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the
purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military
aircraft assigned to the escort mission. "
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)
Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight
to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the
chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which
handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
--'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10)
During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a hijacking has
occurred:
"The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact
with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)
A Defense Department manual makes the same point:
"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...forward
requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for
approval."
--CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11)
Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor
dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident:
"...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside
the Pentagon's National Military Command Center."
--'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)
When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt aggressive
behavior:
"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
FOOTNOTES:
For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base to the
Pentagon go to: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm
(1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
Backup transcript at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm
(2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E 'Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1,
effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2.
Full text posted at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2
(3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic
Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at:
http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm
(4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet," Web
posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT)
Full text posted at:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/
Backup at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/cnnlearjet.htm
(5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight Information
and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12,
2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals"
Full text posted at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4
(6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12,
2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations"
Full text posted at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
(7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12,
2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations"
Full text posted at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1
(8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998;
Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001),
Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)"
Full text posted at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205
(9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998;
Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001),
Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service"
Full text posted at:
http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2
(10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; Golfer, at Least Four
Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey
Full text posted at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
Backup at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm
(11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001,
"Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy
(page 1)
PDF available at:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
Backup at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf
(12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001, Thursday, BC cycle,
"Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity of Bush ranch"
Full text posted at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bushranch.htm
(13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page A1, "Facing
Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks"
by Glen Johnson.
Full text posted at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bg915.htm
=======================================
Emperor's Clothes can use your help.
=======================================
You can donate using PayPal - at
https:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&no_shipping=1
Or go to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or call the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at htttp://globalresistance.com
Click to be removed:
http://MessageBot.com/r.cgi?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&list=emperorsclothes
------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by http://MessageBot.com/
Get Cool Images at http://www.flamingtext.com/mb.html
--- End Message ---
