9/11 NORAD stand down order. MIHOP proof?

From rumormillnews.com

Here is the document, issued two months before the operation, that allowed Rumsfeld to hold the NORAD jets back from intercepting the "hijacked" airliners.

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

"This document superseded earlier DOD procedures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superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.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

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>"

Was there an action taken or supposed to be taken by Rumsfeld that morning or was he pre-empted by whatever Clarke was running out of the White House?

In his Larry King interview it doesn't sound as though he thought he had an immediate role requiring him to spring into action.

<http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries3.htm>

KING: You were right here when the Pentagon...

RUMSFELD: I was.

KING: And someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation...

RUMSFELD: Right here in this room.

KING: ... in this room about terrorism that morning. RUMSFELD: I had said at -- I had an 8 o'clock
breakfast -- that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that
would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people, again, how important
it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that contributes -- that underpins peace and stability in our
world. And that is what underpins peace and stability. It's the fact -- we can't have healthy economies and
active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stabile world. And I said that to these people.

And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And
we adjourned the meeting. And I went in to get my CIA briefing right next door here, and the whole building
shook within 15 minutes. And it was a jarring thing.

KING: And you ran toward the smoke?

RUMSFELD: Yes.

KING: Because?

RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, who knows? I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people
needed help. And went downstairs and helped for a bit with some people on stretchers. And then I came
back up here and started to realize I had to get back up here and get at it.

KING: I know we're out of the allotted time, but Gary Hart has said that he expects -- his commission
previously said this would happen. You were pretty prophetic that morning. But it's going to happen again.

RUMSFELD: Well, we have to recognize that it's a dangerous and untidy world. There's a lot of very powerful,
lethal weapons that exist and ways that people can impose enormous damage. And we have to be vigilant.
We have to be willing to invest to see that we have the kinds of capabilities that we can deter and defend
and, where necessary, preempt.

you absolve him of complicity?

Have you considered that perhaps he was LYING? Rumsfield is a sociopathological serial liar.

It is rather obvious that the DOD order specifies the Secretary of Defense as the order giver to intercept hijacked planes. If he did not give the order to intercept the planes, then NORAD was effectively stood down. This is why none of the planes were intercepted even though they had more than adequate time to do so. How much more deductive reasoning does it take to implicate him?

www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

Awesome analysis.

Sorry I had never seen your site before.

Watch your back!

I couldn't get the second link to work. Can anybody find a good link to this?

It loads up fine for me.

CJCSI 3610.01, 31 July 1997. is:

7. Summary of Changes
a. Unmanned vehicles (UAV, ROV) added to the description of
possible derelict airborne objects.
b. Statutory Authority for Responding to Aircraft Piracy enclosure
removed and added to reference list.
c. In various places throughout the document, “USELEMNORAD” was
replaced with “NORAD.”
d. FAA Order 7610.4J, 3 November 1998, “Special Military
Operations,” was added as a reference.

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

Seems pretty ordinary to me.

For those interested in FAA Order 7610.4J

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html