Stand Down Order Found

[Nancy Waterman]

This needs to come to the attention of the 9/11 committee

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=46729

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 This document superseded earlier DOD procedures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superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.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.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Nice find Nancy !

A tip of the Hawk wing for this one...kick

[Imalittleteapot]

2. kick

[nostamj]

3. I sent this to Kyle Hence n/t

[KittyWampus]

4. Holy Cow! This Is The Holy Grail

of 9/11 documents/unexplained failures.

[Supormom]

5. Kick

[redqueen]

6. Love the timing of this change

The Clinton-era directive (from 1997) is negated by this one, issued only three months prior to their Riechstag.

Sweet.

[LagaLover]

10. That's routine

CJCS Instructions are periodically updated to reflect changes in procedures, technology, responsible organizations. If you look at the summary of changes, nothing was really changed form the 1997 document except UAVs were added, USELEMNORAD was changed to NORAD, the statutory authority enclosure was removed and added to the reference list, and a new FAA document was added as a reference. It doesn't look like ANY procedures were changed.

[Renew Deal]

7. Send this to them

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/contact.htm

They read their mail.

[chelaque liberal]

8. Googled Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A . The document is there on Adobe

[Minstrel Boy]

11. Here's the link to the Defense Dept document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

I think this has been known for some time. It is significant: it's paperwork just two months before 9/11, changing the protocol for a shootdown, taking it out of the hands of those on the ground and giving it to Rumsfeld. But it's just a partial explanation for the coordinated failure of air response that day: the lack of timely interception; fighter jets sent aloft from distant bases while those close-by were kept on ground; jets flown at a fraction of their available speed, and called back.

I'd like to know more about this, cited by John Judge:

"I also talked to an independent journalist investigator at the Pentagon whose response to my stand down thesis that I'm giving you, he said, 'Didn't you read in the New York Times" -- and I've not been able to find this article so it may be he mis-cited it -- 'that three days before September 11th half of the combat ready planes in the United States were taken down offline.' I said, 'I did not. Are you making your argument or mine?'
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html

[LagaLover]

14. What was changed from the 1997 Instruction

to the current one? I don't see where it "changing the protocol for a shootdown, taking it out of the hands of those on the ground and giving it to Rumsfeld." Do you?

[revcarol]

9. Send it to Waxman.

He's the only one who seems to be acting on government secrecy.YEARS after 9/11 this comes out!!People have been asking since Day 2, 'WHY WEREN'T THE PLANES SCRAMBLED IN A TIMELY MANNER?'

[napi21]

12. I heard the Chairman of 911 committee say he gets hundreds of pieces

information each day and they try to investigate each one.

Anyone know how to send this to the committee?

[nostamj]

13. see post #7 for contact info n/t

[leesa]

15. This is very important since it was issued about the time they were

getting lots of outside warnings of probable planned attacks. Did Rummie receive any requests for lethal support?

It still doesn't explain why they did not respond to the hijackings. There STILL must have been an additional 'stand-down' order because they would have at least sent up jets to track them and be prepared or to visually ID the cockpit crew. It doesn't sound like non-lethal intervention was prohibited. Someone kept them grounded.

Also, who ordered them to fly at reduced speeds when they were in the air?