portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?

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 This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept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.
Jerry Russell | March 31 2004

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 This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.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/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf

 http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf

Jerry Russell
www.911-strike.com

Congratulations! 31.Mar.2004 15:17

Tony Blair's dog

Excellent digging ;-)

Nice document, but understandable. 31.Mar.2004 15:18

Coastie.

quote:

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.

Unquote.

Quite true and reasonable.

It's a little thing the military calls "chain of command". I've read hundreds of briefings like this one and they all basically say the same, Kick it upstairs when in doubt.

Think about this if you would. What if a field commander gave the order to intercept an aircraft and/or fire on an aircraft and the hijack warning WAS A MISTAKE?

Field commanders, especially in non-wartime fire situations, don't have the luxury of giving that kind of order.

It does put Rumsfeld on the spot, I'll agree.

Thank you for posting this.

Re : Nice document, but NOT understandable 31.Mar.2004 17:36

reader

>It's a little thing the military calls "chain of command".

Sure, and it's also a little thing that *changed* via this command in the summer of 2001.

Gee, wonder why?

Chain Of Command, Summer 2001 31.Mar.2004 17:55

cbs news

Ashcroft Flying High

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.

All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.


smoking gun 31.Mar.2004 18:59

theresa mitchell

Fry conveniently hobbled the interceptors, then Rumsfeld conveniently sat on his hands.

It's clear they wanted the Reichstag to burn.

great find, but not quite a full smoking gun because... 01.Apr.2004 02:08

x

Just based on what you write above (I haven't read the document nor researched) I think you're missing one key point: there's a big difference between lethal actions (shoot-down, etc.) and just standard operating procedures. There's nothing in "D" that says that says the Secretary of Offense must be contacted for approval for a simple intercept. Again, I haven't researched the document you're noting, but by your words alone your argument doesn't equate to a stand down order against intercepts (although it might be equivalent to a stand down on shoot-down actions).

Intercepts were not ordered in a timely fashion and the above isn't a smoking gun on that issue.

and just to make sure you're understanding the logic flow in my post above... 01.Apr.2004 02:25

x

The initial problem was the very late order to scramble for intercepts (never mind the stuff that came after). While we all know that that issue is simply inconceivable given the time-frame of the events of that morning, it still, nonetheless, is the principle point of action that must happen first, and the document as you describe it doesn't place restrictions on generic intercept actions, which would presumably still be under standard operating procedures. Therefore, the document doesn't prove to be the reason why intercepts didn't take off the ground. It is therefore not a smoking gun. But it's still an important part of this puzzle.

What I like... 01.Apr.2004 03:22

Tony Blair's dog

about it is that it puts the spotlight on Rumsfeld
and not the "W" puppet.

"Don't shoot our Global Hawk! We want it to hit the Pentagon!" 01.Apr.2004 14:47

the real smoking gun

"Therefore, the document doesn't prove to be the reason why intercepts didn't take off the ground."

Point taken about that, though it is very interesting that the document states what types of items they want the only Pentagon to decide about shooting down...or leaving up....

This Pentagon document was sent out explicitly to keep people from shooting down other objects from the military. Specifically I note that they put unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)s, like the Global Hawk!-- the likely candidate for the actual hit on the Pentagon wall--right up on the top of the list!

quote:


Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects. Derelict airborne objects
(for example, unmanned free balloons, moored balloons or kites,
unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) or remotely operated vehicles (ROV)) are a potential threat to
public safety. Military personnel may, upon request, be required to
track and destroy such objects. The NMCC is the focal point for any
requests for DOD assistance in tracking and destroying derelict
airborne objects. With the exception of immediate responses as
authorized by reference d, the NMCC will forward all requests for such
assistance to the Secretary of Defense [RUMSFELD] for approval.

Due to circumstances beyond our control..... 03.Jun.2004 14:09

presidio17 arcticocean52@yahoo.com

...or in other words they did not do their jobs well. Does not really matter who is to blame, they either set up or system that ommitted an
effective solution to a potential event(s) and innocent people died.

We would not tolerate a doctor or vetrinarian making an ommission like
this and letting our loved one die. We should not tolerate this.

rumf contacted nat guard? 03.Jun.2004 14:45

asdfasfd@dsfas.com

so does this mean that sod had to go back to office (pic of him outside pent) to contact north dakota fly boys for penn's 93?