|
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. Click here to email the link to this article to a friend. We encourage readers to reprint and re-post any Emperor's Clothes article. Please include the article's Web address. www.tenc.net ======================================= MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY Dedicated to the firemen of New York. ======================================= 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 created the impression that the military would have needed presidential authorization to scramble fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. Instead he did two things. First, he avoided discussing the failure to intercept Flight 77. Instead he talked only about the choices Mr. Bush supposedly made after the Pentagon was hit. Second, he took it for granted that presidential approval was required to intercept a commercial jet, as if this were an accepted fact. Then based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans who wanted to know: why didn't jet fighters scramble to 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, that faced with horrendous choices a brave President had done the right thing. But as soon as one sees through this verbiage, one realizes Mr. Cheney has actually placed the responsibility for the failure to intercept American Flight 77 on George W. Bush. Here is the relevant excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS':
* * * Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here. First he says, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft." Later he says, "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.
Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking: why weren't any of the hijacked planes 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. Note that Cheney is speaking only of the period after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. By confusing the issues of "intercepting" vs. "shooting down" AFTER the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was trying to get his listeners to forget the real issue: that nothing had been done BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. Mr. Cheney attempted to hide the jump from "intercept" to "shoot down" by means of the following connecting sentence:
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 (NMCC) in the Pentagon 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.
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:
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 According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate by:
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
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the
escort. 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:
And:
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:
Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a hijacking has occurred:
A Defense Department manual makes the same point:
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:
When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt more aggressive behavior:
The 'Boston Globe' reported that:
Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.' As you will recall, he said:
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. (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. (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: (4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing
Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT) (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" (6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" (7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency
Determinations" (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)" (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" (10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.;
Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey (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) (12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September
2001, Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity
of Bush ranch" (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. =======================================
http://www.tenc.net/ * [Emperor's Clothes] This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at htttp://globalresistance.com |