[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Who Died: June 2024 Week 4 | News

MORE TROUBLE FOR OLD JOE

"Gestapo" Müller - Hunting Hitler's Secret Police Chief

How Michelle Obama Could Become Democrats' Nominee after Biden's Terrible Debate, with Steve Bannon

Was This Lethal Spitfire Ace Killed by His Own Tactics?

Welsh Police Pay Home Visit To Man For Displaying Reform UK Political Sign

Liz Harrington Drops a BOMBSHELL on How Georgia Was Stolen

Trudeau govt to make all bathrooms in Parliament buildings GENDER NEUTRAL

French official admits censorship is needed for government to control public opinion

Bill Maher Predicts Trump Victory: The Left Is Aggressively Anti-Common Sense

Google is suppressing Blaze Media. Heres how you can help.

Large-scale prisons being secretly erected in all 50 states will they be used to house illegals or force Americans into concentration camps?

Hezbollah is ready to confront Israels military, with Jon Elmer

Balloons Land in Southern Lebanon, Warning Locals the Land Belongs to Jews

German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported

DNC Caught Funneling Millions to Law Firms Involved in Unprecedented Lawfare Campaign Against Trump

Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump

NYC to ban cellphones in public schools.

New York Times Columnists Turn On Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance

8 Armed Men With Venezuelan Accents Violently Rob Denver Jewelry Store

Uvalde Police School Chief Indicted, Arrested Over Response To 2022 Shooting

Greetings from the Horse

Tonight confirmed every Democrats worst fear.

Five Women Soon To Die In 1928

How Trump Can Lose The Debate

Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference

James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's Intel Czar Rigged 2016 And 2020 Debates Against Trump

Biden Campaign Balks Wont Commit to Drug Test

S-500 Prometheus: Designed To Kill Stealth Jets, ICBMs

The US military chases shiny new things and the ranks suffer


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: 9-11 Coordinated By Cheney Says Wayne Madsen
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
Published: May 1, 2010
Author: wm
Post Date: 2010-05-01 07:19:36 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 321
Comments: 29

9-11 Coordinated By Cheney Says Wayne Madsen

By Wayne Madsen WayneMadsenReport.com 4-30-10

The super-classified network that served as command and control for the 9/11 false flag attack on America

Multiple U.S. intelligence sources have reported to WMR that a super-classified network with only some 70 terminals in select U.S. government locations handled the parallel command-and-control activities that permitted the 9/11 terrorist attacks to be successful.

The "above top secret" network bears the acronym "PDAS." WMR has not yet discovered what the acronym stands for, however, the system is limited to only a few hundred people with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Special Access Program (SAP) need-to-know access, in addition to the President and Vice President.

On September 11, 2001, PDAS was used to convey the information from the Air Force Chief of Staff to the White House, CIA, and other select agencies that the Air Force had successfully intercepted and downed a target over Pennsylvania. It is believed that the "target" in question was United flight 93, although there is no confirmation that the aircraft was in fact the one downed by Air Force interceptors.

The Air Force Chief of Staff on 9/11 was General John Jumper, who had become the top Air Force commander on September 6, 2001, just five days before the 9/11 attacks.

There is also reason to believe that the PDAS terminal at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) at the White House was used to coordinate the activities related to the aerial attack on the Pentagon. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta claimed Vice President Dick Cheney was present at the PEOC at 9:25 am on the morning of 9/11, before the alleged impact of American Airlines flight 77 on the building.

Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that Cheney was aware of special orders concerning a plane heading toward Washington. Mineta said: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice Presidentthe plane is 50 miles outthe plane is 30 miles out.and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president 'do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

PDAS terminals are reportedly located at the White House, on board Air Force One, the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, the National Security Agency, the Boeing E- 4 Advanced Airborne Command Post that was seen flying over Washington, DC on 9/11 after the attacks, the Defense Intelligence Agency at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, DC, and the Raven Rock Mountain Complex in Pennsylvania where Cheney hid out after the 9/11 attacks.

Mineta later followed up with reporters and stated "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense. http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: gengis gandhi (#0)

I have never seen any proof that any planes were highjacked. People assume that because that is what the media stated. What flew into the twin towers could have been military planes and there is some evidence they were. Certainly the Pentegon was not hit by a passenger plane.

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-01   7:30:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: DWornock (#1)

remember that it is the govt's position that they were hijacked.

the evidence they had were some videos and a passport they said survived the entire collapse and was handily right there to be found.

then, the crime scene protocol was ignored like in okc.

'It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand.'

- Apache proverb

gengis gandhi  posted on  2010-05-01   8:35:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: DWornock (#1)

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-05-01   9:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: gengis gandhi (#2)

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-05-01   9:05:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: gengis gandhi (#0)

If the WTC was not hit by the passenger planes, then where are the passengers? Some of those people were considered important.

Shoonra  posted on  2010-05-01   10:21:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Shoonra (#5)

If the WTC was not hit by the passenger planes, then where are the passengers?

A better questions would be, "Where are all the passengers?" How come so few? How come the refusal to provide a list of the pasengers or even historical records showing what the average number of passengers were on those flight?

When have you ever flown, especially during the day, when a large commerical airplane that holds almost 200 people only had 30 passenger such as Flight 93?

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-01   11:38:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: DWornock (#1)

The Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane. The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since government agents seized surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash (which is evidence for foreknowledge, but not for “no plane”). It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

It was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry Meyssan and US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Monsieur Meyssan started a webpage that suggested a plane did not hit the Pentagon on October 7, and Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" hit the Pentagon. That "missile" quote was then used by many no plane advocates as part of the campaign to draw attention to this claim. Meyssan went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published two books "The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11 The Big Lie") and Pentagate. These books have been translated into a total of 28 languages, which ensures that they are the dominant version of the claim suggesting complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the world.

www.oilempire.us/state.html#rumsfeld

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   11:48:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#7)

The Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane.

So we're told. The only thing that I know is that one is fool to believe pronouncements that issue from Washington, DC.

bluegrass  posted on  2010-05-01   11:51:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: bluegrass (#8)

At a previous employer I worked with another who was on her way to Bethesda Md for Oracle Financials training. She was one of those who saw the plane just before it hit.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   12:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#9)

Until the Feds release the footage from the cameras they confiscated from around the Pentagon, we're in the dark about what actually happened.

We do know that the Feds make a regular practice of lying about what time it is.

bluegrass  posted on  2010-05-01   12:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: bluegrass (#10)

Again, the no plane hoax was planned before the attacks. I have no doubt the administration and others were involved in allowing/enabling the attacks to happen. This was set up as a straw man so they could use it as the foundation to discredit all legitimate concerns about how and why the attacks were not prevented. It is the typical disinformation tactic used by governments to discredit those who may question the veracity of what people are being told.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   12:18:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#11)

The point is that we have no real evidence of what was used to initiate these attacks.

bluegrass  posted on  2010-05-01   12:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#7)

There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane [or an alien spaceship, Russian satellite, semi-truck, or meteor] did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

Of course not since you don't prove a negative. The following is far more logical:

Since there is NO credible,verifiable evidence in support of any of the theories pretending that a pasenger plane did crash into the Pentagon, it is not logical to assume that one did. Most of the evidence points to it being a missle and therefore that is the most logical conclusion.

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-01   12:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: bluegrass (#12)

I agree. I have my opinion... I believe this was planned in advance, mostly by the Ashkenazim neocons that began to take control of our government in the late 70s / early 80s, elements of the Israeli government/politicians and other sociopaths like bush, cheney, rumsfeld etc. It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Northwoods, the attack on Panama etc. I believe the goal is world domination, elimination of the middle class, the trashing of our Constitutional protections/rights and the desire by some such as the Lubavitchers who believe if they can expand the land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates before the Promises of the NT are fulfilled they have proven the NT to be a lie.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   12:52:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: DWornock (#13)

I don't want to argue about it. As I previously said I worked with a young lady who was there for Oracle classes and who saw the plane. Those involved what you to believe/argue the "no plane theory" because it is so easy to discredit and thus provides a foundation for discrediting those who ask/post valid questions about the attacks.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   12:56:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: DWornock (#13)

Of course not since you don't prove a negative.

Yes, Dwornock, you can prove a negative. It's rather simple. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false.

In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative. So, using logic, if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true!

Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation.

Source: Dr. Hales

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations

abraxas  posted on  2010-05-01   13:08:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#15)

...I worked with a young lady who was there for Oracle classes and who saw the plane.

Saw the plane?


“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy

wudidiz  posted on  2010-05-01   13:39:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: wudidiz (#17)

ascertained, observed, watched, took in, perceived, noticed, experienced, had sight of

See what I was saying now?

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-01   16:24:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#18)

Aah.

Nonsense.


“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy

wudidiz  posted on  2010-05-02   12:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: abraxas (#16)

Yes, Dwornock, you can prove a negative. It's rather simple. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false.

In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative. So, using logic, if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true!

Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation.

Source: Dr.

All that is an interesting example of attempting to make an argument that sounds plausible. However, it doesn't change the fact that you cannot prove a negative.

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-03   7:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: wudidiz (#17)

Saw the plane?

The internet is full of paid liars. But that doesn't make their lies true. Far more credible is Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. She states:

"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-03   7:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: DWornock (#21)

Major General Albert Stubblebine (Please watch the short video)


“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy

wudidiz  posted on  2010-05-03   8:59:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: DWornock (#21)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iopnMDa2048


“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy

wudidiz  posted on  2010-05-03   9:03:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: DWornock (#20)

example: you are accused of a crime.

you must prove your innocence, a negative.

you do this with an alibi. "i was not the criminal because i was someplace else'

therefore, the alibi proves the negative 'i did not commit the crime' or 'i am innocent'

so this is one example of proving a negative.

'It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand.'

- Apache proverb

gengis gandhi  posted on  2010-05-03   9:07:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: DWornock (#20)

All that is an interesting example of attempting to make an argument that sounds plausible. However, it doesn't change the fact that you cannot prove a negative.

lol........then you will have a hell of a time proving this negative: YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. Note the NOT in that statement, Dwornock.

Don't you see that you have no argument because you are claiming that YOUR negative statement is TRUE and PLAUSABLE. Yet, you are claiming that negative cannot be proven. Calling it a "fact" doesn't change that......logic alone negates any notion of "fact" within the often repeated "you can't prove a negative claim" which, by the way, has been proven to be false. (refer to my initial post for proof)

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations

abraxas  posted on  2010-05-03   19:51:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: DWornock (#20)

you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation, you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever. Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-03   21:37:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: gengis gandhi (#0)

It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense.

This is a myth and that's why it is almost never sourced with DoD documentation. But it is so sourced at History Commons: Context of 'June 1, 2001: Revised Hijacking Procedure Outlines Defense Department Responsibilities'

These are the relevant documents in question and the keywords in both are "with the exception of immediate responses":

DoD Directive 3025.15, February 18, 1997 -- SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1.,

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.

AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS -- US Department of Defense, 6/1/2001

Excerpt from the History Commons site linked above: the National Military Command Center (NMCC) within the Pentagon “is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. 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. [end excerpt]

Afaik, reference d dates back to June 10 1986 and isn't available online: DoD Directive S-5210.36, "Provision of DoD Sensitive Support to DoD Components and Other Departments and Agencies of the U. S. Government (U),"

The real issue (if anyone is interested in that and not 9/11 mythology) isn't a storyboard chain of command shuffling but Posse Comitatus. An attack on this country, though, isn't a law enforcement issue as Rumsfeld referred to it. The military didn't have to wait around for a request to come in for law enforcement assistance or "orders" from paper-pusher Rumsfeld or Cheney or even from Bush. Apparently, the military didn't go to Def Con 1 that day, which is the alert level that would be expected (at least after the Pentagon was said to have been attacked, if not before when the 2nd alleged plane struck the WTC "IHOP": International House of Pancakes).

DEFCON - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The defense readiness condition (DEFCON) is a measure of the activation and readiness level of the United States armed forces. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON

DEFCON 1 This refers to maximum readiness. It is not certain whether this has ever been used, but it is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack on U.S. armed forces or U.S. territory by a foreign military power.

September 11, 2001 attacks The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks.[4]

That and jets ordered "scrambled soft" indicates to me that there were no hijacked planes.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-05-06   2:01:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#26)

You cannot prove a negative; you can only prove positives; that is, that something does exist. However, there is nothing illogical about your explainations. Further, when there is only one possibility, such as in your example, if you prove one possibility, then that excludes the other possibilities. If that is one of your definations of proving a negative, I do not disagree because that defination is logical.

I just happen to have a different standard. I cannot prove there is not an invisible green demond that whispers in my ears suggesting I do evil things. I cannot prove that in the distance past that the earth didn't have visitors from outer space. However, maybe you can prove that something is not in the Bible by looking at and then excluding every verse in the Bible. Therefore, my standard does have limitations.

And, it is true that not-not is a positive. However, I am not impressed with using not[not] and proving what is inside of the bracket as proof of proving a negative even though logically that may be valid.

DWornock  posted on  2010-05-06   20:05:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: DWornock (#28)

Such a negative attitude.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2010-05-07   17:30:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]