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' --AHD)
"shoot·down
"shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire."
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD)
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. By confusing the issues of "intercepting" vs. "shooting
down" after the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was trying to get his
listeners to forget that in fact nothing had been done before the
Pentagon was hit.
Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over the jump from "intercept"
to "shoot down" 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://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shippin
g=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
|