The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-01-2004, 10:46 PM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/found_standown.htm

Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?

Jerry Russell | March 31 2004

Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept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. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

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 This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.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."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18,
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to
save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving
"potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles,
vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the
Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in
any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.

While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate
responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this
discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo.

If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it
would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making
it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a
timely fashion.

The relevant documents are on the Web at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/a...rcept_proc.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...7/d302515p.pdf

Jerry Russell
www.911-strike.com

E-MAIL THIS LINK
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The US Air Force's Torture Chamber" (or "When Florida Freezes Over") 82Rigger Airforce 5 03-01-2007 01:06 AM
More "cover-ups" & "corruption" In The Bush Administration! Gimpy Political Debate 0 10-07-2004 06:07 PM
someting I found in the current "Agent Orange Review" MORTARDUDE Vietnam 2 05-25-2004 07:49 AM
"Moderate" Republicans being "strong-armed" by the Bush Administration. Gimpy Political Debate 2 06-07-2003 02:31 PM
"Conservatives" show how their "agendas" harm true american heros'! Gimpy Political Debate 0 04-30-2003 10:25 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.