MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

[jimnyc]

Evidence was given showing the Chief of Staff instructions to be purposely misrepresented. For those that missed it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_..._approval.html

[Sertes]

Evidence was given showing the Chief of Staff instructions to be purposely misrepresented. For those that missed it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_..._approval.html

At last! One point on which we agree: Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management.

Even before june 2001? ok, that's fine with me.

"Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management" is now a fact until proved otherwise.

Nice find, Jim

[jimnyc]

At last! One point on which we agree: Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management.

Even before june 2001? ok, that's fine with me.

"Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management" is now a fact until proved otherwise.

Nice find, Jim

Too lazy or too dumb to read the linked PDF documents on the page I sent you to? It clearly states that all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance are to be sent to the Secretary of Defense, with the exception of immediate responses

Sertes looks like an idiot once again, and it's very doubtful it can be proved otherwise!

[Sertes]

Too lazy or too dumb to read the linked PDF documents on the page I sent you to? It clearly states that all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance are to be sent to the Secretary of Defense, with the exception of immediate responses

Sertes looks like an idiot once again, and it's very doubtful it can be proved otherwise!

Are you serious?? Really Jim, who's not reading??

You posted a link that debunks the claim the order were only 3 months new.

It doesn't address the fact the Secretary of Defense was the one to call for hijacking responses. That claim was never under any challenge!!

Read again your linked article.

Or better yet, GO FOR THE FUCKING ORIGINALS:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjc...i/3610_01a.pdf

Page 1, Applicability:

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. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Page 17, References:

ENCLOSURE D
REFERENCES
[...]
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”

So we move to DOD Directive 3025.15, to see if Hijacking got that special "immediate responses as authorized by reference d":
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf

4.7.5.3. The Secretary of Defense shall manage the Department of
Defense's response to any acts or threats of terrorism.

4.7.5.4. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall assist the
Secretary of Defense when he or she is implementing the DoD operational response to acts or threats of terrorism. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall at all times maintain contingency plans for use in counter-terrorism situations.

So no, the Secretary of Defense had the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism.

So what now, another blatantly wrong link or another round of insults & denial?

[jimnyc]

Sorry, Pepperoni Boy, you followed the wrong trail! Allow me to AGAIN highlight the appropriate portions for you:

From here:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf

4.7.1 - Immediate Response

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning an, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD directive 3025.1 (reference g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD executive secretary as soon as it is available.

You are a very stupid little parmesan eating dolt. If the government thought for a moment that Cheney or Rumsfeld were derelict in their responsibilities on that day we would still be hearing about it to this day from all the Democrats. But we aren't, because even they aren't complete fucking idiots like you and your truther buddies.

[jimnyc]

Sertes, you claim in our debate, and earlier in this very thread, that the single most important piece of evidence you have is the whereabouts of Cheney at 9:30, and that he was in charge and knew about the hijacked plane. Now you're very adamant about it being the Secretary of Defense having the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism. So which is it, Cheney or Rumsfeld? Your earlier claim or your current claim? If we give you more time will you claim it Was Condoleeza who had final say?

Go eat a Calzone and discuss it with your buddies, then maybe you'll have some tinfoil left over for your warped head.

[Sertes]

Nice, you choose another round of "insults and denial" and inserted "wrong linking in it"

Sorry, Pepperoni Boy, you followed the wrong trail! Allow me to AGAIN highlight the appropriate portions for you:

From here:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf

4.7.1 - Immediate Response

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning an, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD directive 3025.1 (reference g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD executive secretary as soon as it is available.

Too bad section 4.7 is:
"4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following ways:"

So 4.7.1 is REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Immediate Response

The pharagraph you linked is used if a foreign nation military forces invades the U.S. with military forces. It's the one that would be used if the English come back with 100 warships and 1000 tanks to reclaim the colonies. It's the one that would be used if Al-quaeda used military planes to attack new york.

It's not for an hijacking response. It's not for counter-terrorism.

Instead section 4.7.5 is:
4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

Since that section too is part of section 4.7 that makes:

REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

And here, in the appropriate section, we read:

4.7.5.3. The Secretary of Defense shall manage the Department of
Defense's response to any acts or threats of terrorism.

So, you really fell for your own lie, you think I'm really stupid. I can read english, do you???

[LuvRPgrl]

Wasnt Sheen suppose to move out of the country if President Bush won election?

Ok, so once again, blah, blah, blah

Its simply IMPOSSIBLE for a conspiracy of such magnitude, requiring so many people to be in on it, without ONE OF THEM breaking ranks and going public and spilling their guts.
End of story

Nice, you choose another round of "insults and denial" and inserted "wrong linking in it"



Too bad section 4.7 is:
"4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following ways:"

So 4.7.1 is REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Immediate Response

The pharagraph you linked is used if a foreign nation military forces invades the U.S. with military forces. It's the one that would be used if the English come back with 100 warships and 1000 tanks to reclaim the colonies. It's the one that would be used if Al-quaeda used military planes to attack new york.

It's not for an hijacking response. It's not for counter-terrorism.

Instead section 4.7.5 is:
4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

Since that section too is part of section 4.7 that makes:

REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

And here, in the appropriate section, we read:


So, you really fell for your own lie, you think I'm really stupid. I can read english, do you???

[Sertes]

Its simply IMPOSSIBLE for a conspiracy of such magnitude, requiring so many people to be in on it, without ONE OF THEM breaking ranks and going public and spilling their guts.
End of story

Here we go again, when presented to hard evidence people just draw out the MEMEs, small ideas that float the internet made appositely to dismiss an unsettling truth.

It's already covered, but it makes no harm telling it again:

1) The number is 200, not a thousand

2) Similiar plans, false flag attacks that include 200 people supposed to remain silent forever have been made even by the U.S. cfr: Operation Northwoods, official plans for a false flag series of terrorists attacks to blame on Cuba, to start a war and a following invasion of the island.

3) It leaked in many occasions, the evidence presented by Mineta is the prime example

4) Why anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens, why would he come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy is still a mystery to me.
He would be hanged for high treason at best, or killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst. Leaks come from different sources, by those side by side with cospirators, those who saw the incongruencies and denounced them

[Sertes]

Sertes, you claim in our debate, and earlier in this very thread, that the single most important piece of evidence you have is the whereabouts of Cheney at 9:30, and that he was in charge and knew about the hijacked plane. Now you're very adamant about it being the Secretary of Defense having the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism. So which is it, Cheney or Rumsfeld? Your earlier claim or your current claim? If we give you more time will you claim it Was Condoleeza who had final say?

Go eat a Calzone and discuss it with your buddies, then maybe you'll have some tinfoil left over for your warped head.

Sorry, it appears my first answer to this was lost in the system failure. I'll write it again

You're getting it wrong, on purpose, again.

First of all you accuse me of changing version, having two claims: let's see what I wrote on the debate, which is not editable:

And who can make a stand down order of the entire US air force we witnessed? Only a couple of people in the world. One by not answering phone, the other by telling “of course the order still stand, have you heard anything on the contrary”

So my point, I'll explain it again, is that by standard procedures even the first plane could been intercepted before the first hit on the towers, but the man whose duty was to respond (Donald Rumsfeld) failed to it. For any reason, I don't care at this point, he has to answer why before a court.

Then again he didn't do it for the second plane.

You support the theory planes caused the collapses? FINE! DEMAND RESPONSABILITY!!

And after the second hit, when jetfighters scrambled anyway despite not having the authority, there was the need to direct them elsewere. That's where the VP come into action. If he was the one in charge as Mineta deposition tells us, HE HAS TO RESPOND BEFORE A COURT.

At the very least!

Then we can look to other evidence and accuse them both of more wrongdoings, but even the official versions should point finger in their direction.

Instead the 9/11 commission report just omits the part of Mineta deposition when he tells us where was the VP, what he was informed of, if there was a real chanche of shooting down the plane, and so on.
Also, we should ask the VP which is the order "that still stands" 7 minutes before the plane hit the pentagon.

[youtube]M3q0uZAEd5w[/youtube]

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to go crazy with another long reply. I spent 1/2 an hour on Friday replying to this Yo-Yo and my reply was lost due to the server failure.

First Sertes states the most important part of evidence was Dick Cheney and 9:30. Later he states that it was actually Donald Rumsfeld who had the last word for hijackings. Then in his last reply to me he claims the chain on the documents ends with 4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations. - which states the President must authorize the military to intervene.

He can't even follow his own words.

So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

[Gaffer]

I'm not going to go crazy with another long reply. I spent 1/2 an hour on Friday replying to this Yo-Yo and my reply was lost due to the server failure.

First Sertes states the most important part of evidence was Dick Cheney and 9:30. Later he states that it was actually Donald Rumsfeld who had the last word for hijackings. Then in his last reply to me he claims the chain on the documents ends with 4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations. - which states the President must authorize the military to intervene.

He can't even follow his own words.

So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

You know the server failure was an attempt by the government to hush up sertes and keep the propaganda....I mean information, from getting out. It's all part of the conspiracy.

[Sertes]

So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

I answered at 1:50, just as you were writing your last round of insults.
I addressed the fact you blame me of changing versions.
Now, which version do you support, anyway?

The 9/11 commission report version

OR

The Mineta deposition version

I don't care for the insults or the accusations, but I will stop answering your questions if you don't answer mine. Respect that I have in the people who want to discuss this issue has its limits. You can show some, just a little. Even acknowledging that the two versions are just the opposite would be a start, a simple "yes they are opposite" will do.

Oh, by the way, the person supposed to be in command was Rumsfeld, and since the president was unreachable, guess who was second in command? GUESS.

[jimnyc]

I answered at 1:50, just as you were writing your last round of insults.
I addressed the fact you blame me of changing versions.
Now, which version do you support, anyway?

The 9/11 commission report version

OR

The Mineta deposition version

I don't care for the insults or the accusations, but I will stop answering your questions if you don't answer mine. Respect that I have in the people who want to discuss this issue has its limits. You can show some, just a little. Even acknowledging that the two versions are just the opposite would be a start, a simple "yes they are opposite" will do.

Oh, by the way, the person supposed to be in command was Rumsfeld, and since the president was unreachable, guess who was second in command? GUESS.

I don't give a flying fuck what you don't like, and couldn't care less if you stopped your inane ramblings. If you don't like it, go post at the loony bin sites where the rest of the idiot truthers post at.

You say Rumsfeld was in command, then why would he have needed to reach the president or Cheney? While there are reports that communication was knocked out in various ways, do you have proof to offer that Rumsfeld couldn't reach either? Your last documented reference states that the president was the one who would need to authorize military intervention for domestic terrorism, so what does either Rumsfeld or Cheney have to do with it?

The Mineta deposition simply states that someone informed Cheney of a plane miles away from the Pentagon and coming in that direction. Cheney took no action, and wasn't supposed to as it wasn't his call to make. So what's your point? It still proves absolutely nothing at all.

More on Mineta:

http://72.14.205.104/custom?q=cache:...82790381073093
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...neta-said.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Norman_Mineta

[Sertes]

I don't give a flying fuck what you don't like, and couldn't care less if you stopped your inane ramblings. If you don't like it, go post at the loony bin sites where the rest of the idiot truthers post at.

You say Rumsfeld was in command, then why would he have needed to reach the president or Cheney? While there are reports that communication was knocked out in various ways, do you have proof to offer that Rumsfeld couldn't reach either? Your last documented reference states that the president was the one who would need to authorize military intervention for domestic terrorism, so what does either Rumsfeld or Cheney have to do with it?

The closer we got to the truth, the harsher the insults.

As I wrote here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...9&postcount=59

As for VP being the one in command, maybe you don't know of the communication issue of 9/11: all communications with key elements of defense, intelligence and political power were cut off. The only one in charge was VP Cheney. Or, if you believe in the 9/11 commission report, no one was in charge when the pentagon plane struck.

CIA Director George Tenet: "With all hell breaking loose, it was hard to get calls through on the secure phone. Essentially, I was in a communications blackout between the St. Regis and Langley, the longest twelve minutes of my life."

As speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert was third in line for the presidency: "On that dreadful day I couldn't make the thing work. No matter what I did, I couldn't connect with the vice president. As the minutes passed, my frustrations grew."

Secretary of State Colin Powell was away in Lima, Peru: "I never felt more useless in my life than on the morning of the 11th of September. Phones [were] gone because of what happened here and what happened to the [communications] system here in Washington. They couldn't get a phone line through. I was able to get some radio communications--two radio spots on the way back--but for most of that seven-hour period, I could not tell what was going on here in my capital, and I'm the secretary of state!"

President George W. Bush reportedly experienced some serious problems in his attempts at contacting colleagues back in Washington. According to the 9/11 Commission Report: "The president told us he was frustrated with the poor communications that morning. He could not reach key officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, for a period of time. The line to the White House shelter conference room--and the vice president--kept cutting off."

I cut the article to post the main points here, you can find the whole here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12072

See, Rumsfeld was the one supposedly to be in command of the hijacking crisis management, but missing him and being the president unreachable, WHO WAS IN PLACE AND IN POSITION TO GIVE ORDERS?
It seems to me you are climbing glasses to save your neocon firends.

The Mineta deposition simply states that someone informed Cheney of a plane miles away from the Pentagon and coming in that direction. Cheney took no action, and wasn't supposed to as it wasn't his call to make. So what's your point? It still proves absolutely nothing at all.

So why the 9/11 commission report YOU linked in the debate:

1) tells us Dick Cheney was elsewere
2) tells us Dick Cheney was unaware of the pentagon plane
3) tells us NORAD was informed late and by chanche of the pentagon plane
4) cuts the Mineta deposition in all the critical parts

WHY?

WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOVIE OF THE DEPOSITION NOT SOME RANDOM SITE COMMENTING IT.