Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cheap_Trick

(3,918 posts)
91. Maybe if we'd sent up interceptors as soon as the first plane's transponder was switched off
Mon Oct 13, 2014, 10:40 PM
Oct 2014

it wouldn't have mattered.

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
INSTRUCTION

J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A
DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT
AIRBORNE OBJECTS
References: See Enclosure D.

4. Policy.

a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC 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. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”

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

---------------------------------------------

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE

NUMBER 3025.15
February 18, 1997

SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

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 and, 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.
As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report
the fact of the 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.

REFERENCES

(g) DoD Directive 3025.1, "Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)," January 15,
1993

(http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf)
------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 3025.1
January 15, 1993
USD(P)
SUBJECT: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

4.5. Immediate Response

4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or
attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials
of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property
damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from
higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD
Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that
may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to
requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as
"Immediate Response."

(http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302501p.pdf)

--------------------------------------------------------------
As one can see, the June 1, 2001 revision on 'AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS' left untouched DoD's response protocol for scramble and intercept of aircraft experiencing in-flight emergencies. The June 1, 2001 revision only applied to hijacked aircraft and the destruction of airborne objects.

Since we were told that during the summer of 2001 (between June 2 and September 10) there were ZERO NORAD scrambles to intercept aircraft that experienced in-flight emergencies, that means DoD disobeyed a lawful written order.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Just spray 'em with vinegar... SidDithers Oct 2014 #1
I miss Spiralhawk, Berlum and whatever other identities she had... zappaman Oct 2014 #2
Oh my God, that thread again! NuclearDem Oct 2014 #3
Funnier than this? zappaman Oct 2014 #4
Two very separate schools of comedy. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #6
I've always been a fan of the classics. name not needed Oct 2014 #136
Not quite as funny as melting chicken wire... n/t cherokeeprogressive Oct 2014 #24
Another DU classic... SidDithers Oct 2014 #35
Thanks for bring that up...za RobertEarl Oct 2014 #27
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #46
He'll insist it's still coming. jeff47 Oct 2014 #51
What will happen to the tons of waste? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #52
Post removed Post removed Oct 2014 #60
Not real? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #62
Too easy with you AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #64
or just here to make anti-nuke advocates look bad. zappaman Oct 2014 #65
OMG! Are you series? This thread about chem trails got Analyst? Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #92
No. You don't appear that way at all. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #66
I don't appear intelligent to you? AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #67
Your posts define you, not I. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #68
Since everything is Bizarro world to you AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #69
No. I forgive you. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #70
you aren't a serious poster, quit playing games with us CreekDog Oct 2014 #141
This is weird RobertEarl Oct 2014 #143
Wasn't he thrown out of the E & E group? zappaman Oct 2014 #145
Answer zappaman Oct 2014 #53
I thought the sea star 'melting' was a problem related to Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #79
Shhhhhh! zappaman Oct 2014 #81
acidification RobertEarl Oct 2014 #87
That thread is outdated because we now know the starfish are being killed by Ebola. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #117
That's real? Atman Oct 2014 #9
I wish they wouldn't include us truthers in other crazy conspiracies Politicalboi Oct 2014 #5
We know you can't help it. zappaman Oct 2014 #8
So because Harry Houdini wasn't really a spy that means Standard Oil wasn't really a conspiracy? Electric Monk Oct 2014 #21
Did Standard Oil establish a monopoly through a mind control machine? NuclearDem Oct 2014 #61
Your lack of understanding of physics doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #12
+1 HuckleB Oct 2014 #131
They should - they're just as crazy. Drunken Irishman Oct 2014 #15
No, they're not. Atman Oct 2014 #23
And the Sandy Hook denialists have lots of claims of off-the-record jeff47 Oct 2014 #38
Yes, because claims of "off the record birth certificates" are exactly the same... Atman Oct 2014 #40
The fact that you believe one does not make it true. jeff47 Oct 2014 #49
we live in a country questionseverything Oct 2014 #54
Think about who the victims were. jeff47 Oct 2014 #75
I like how no one elses suggestions add up. But yours are concrete. Atman Oct 2014 #82
To quote Dr. Tyson.... Oktober Oct 2014 #86
Because yours are based on a misunderstanding of how structures are built jeff47 Oct 2014 #122
There was no heat load on the lower floors. Atman Oct 2014 #124
Because cars aren't crushed when they hit things. jeff47 Oct 2014 #125
You don't have to explain anything to me. Atman Oct 2014 #126
You make way too many assumptions about what I know. Atman Oct 2014 #127
"You can't melt steel with jet fuel." zappaman Oct 2014 #128
Actually, there are photographs of molten steel pouring out of the towers. Atman Oct 2014 #129
No there aren't. zappaman Oct 2014 #130
really, come on you are killing us here- snooper2 Oct 2014 #142
so we have established that the cia did pull off a huge ct questionseverything Oct 2014 #99
No, it actually wasn't that huge. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2014 #121
Why did there have to "hundreds of thousands" involved? Atman Oct 2014 #55
"I don't think Bush could masturbate without assistance" zappaman Oct 2014 #56
Because that's what it would take for it to be "MIC forced" or "pulling other strings" jeff47 Oct 2014 #74
I live in New England. Don't give me that "build a house" shit. Atman Oct 2014 #78
A large building has a hell of a lot more inertia than a house cpwm17 Oct 2014 #112
Wrong. zappaman Oct 2014 #113
Physics fail! cpwm17 Oct 2014 #114
Oh man I somehow missed that one! Now I understand the reference to melting chicken wire. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #120
And a 2 story barn falling down from neglect is exactly like a skyscraper hit by a plane. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #119
It is exactly the same.Made up shit! nt Logical Oct 2014 #59
+1 n/t tammywammy Oct 2014 #26
Kind of hard to argue with...but many people will, and do. Atman Oct 2014 #19
PNAC had me at "a new Pearl Harbor." nt valerief Oct 2014 #29
Yeah, but we're supposed to pretend none of that ever happened. Atman Oct 2014 #32
And when we did launch some interceptors Cheap_Trick Oct 2014 #33
...because prior to 9/11, supersonic flights over the US were illegal. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #77
Gee, I think we could've bent the rules for an emergency such as this. Cheap_Trick Oct 2014 #90
Even if we did "bend the rules" just that one time... NuclearDem Oct 2014 #93
Uh, we have a new invention called "radar" Cheap_Trick Oct 2014 #98
Yes, I'm aware of radar. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #102
Did you see how long it took them to intercept Payne Stewart's plane? hack89 Oct 2014 #105
You might want to look up what after-burners do to fuel consumption.. EX500rider Oct 2014 #80
Maybe if we'd sent up interceptors as soon as the first plane's transponder was switched off Cheap_Trick Oct 2014 #91
And again, how exactly were they supposed to locate the aircraft? NuclearDem Oct 2014 #95
The DoD has no way of knowing if a transponder is turned off hack89 Oct 2014 #137
Do you understand what top speed does for fuel consumption? hack89 Oct 2014 #88
I'd start here: EX500rider Oct 2014 #73
Can't trust Popular Mechanics. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #76
One of the greatest lines ever. NCTraveler Oct 2014 #36
These guys are almost as humorous as the chem-trail guys FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #41
Jet engines didn't fall to the street. Fusilage didn't fall to the street. Atman Oct 2014 #42
the hell they didn't jberryhill Oct 2014 #83
Whoopsie! zappaman Oct 2014 #84
Inconvenient... at best. LanternWaste Oct 2014 #101
"Jet engines didn't fall to the street. Fusilage didn't fall to the street." NCTraveler Oct 2014 #94
Same argument is made about the Pentagon plane. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #108
Correct, that was a dumb thing to say. Atman Oct 2014 #97
Bullpuckey jberryhill Oct 2014 #100
"Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" NuclearDem Oct 2014 #103
You obviously don't have much experience with large fires. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #107
And then giant structures conveniently fall perfectly into their own footprint. Atman Oct 2014 #110
Yeah, over 40 buildings were damaged by the WTC falling "perfectly into their own footprint." zappaman Oct 2014 #111
There you go again, using actual facts as evidence. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #116
Yeah you are "not a truther" you just use exactly the same (false) arguments. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #115
Also, nice Gish Gallop once your original statement was quickly proved false. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #109
I was going to mention that jberryhill Oct 2014 #132
It wasn't a "dumb thing to say", it was an absolutely untrue and false thing to say jberryhill Oct 2014 #134
"it won't matter that each of them is untrue and false - it's the volume of them which is yellowcanine Oct 2014 #135
20 year military vet here AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #45
Don't try logic on these fools FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #47
I feel compelled somedays AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #48
+1000 thank you for this! nt Logical Oct 2014 #58
Almost everything you said there is totally made up shit. Wow, you scare me. nt Logical Oct 2014 #57
"I can't understand it, therefore, it's not true." NuclearDem Oct 2014 #63
"leave NO debris anywhere near the buildings." EX500rider Oct 2014 #71
Planted. zappaman Oct 2014 #72
You ever think that there is a reason? Oktober Oct 2014 #85
Interesting, I did not think we are allowed to even bring up this subject. Rex Oct 2014 #7
Nothing wrong with discussing a hoax. zappaman Oct 2014 #11
I mean the 'word that shall not be said on DU'. Rex Oct 2014 #14
Good luck! zappaman Oct 2014 #17
Will do. Rex Oct 2014 #25
investigation is being demanded by 400 Shasta residents J_J_ Oct 2014 #10
We need a Conspiracy Theory Tax. You want your favorite theory investigated, pay up. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #118
Best idea ever! zappaman Oct 2014 #123
That's great. FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #13
I handle discussion with the chemtrails folks this way... stevenleser Oct 2014 #16
That's a good idea! zappaman Oct 2014 #18
The mentally ill don't handle actual science well. SwankyXomb Oct 2014 #31
Well now that's just like asking them to give up their hopes and dreams. logosoco Oct 2014 #39
I'not a chem-trail conspiracy guy, but your test is impossible. lob1 Oct 2014 #44
Keep trying or hire a plane FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #50
There are a couple of reasons why your objection isn't quite right. stevenleser Oct 2014 #104
I'll even help out here Quackers Oct 2014 #89
Excellent! Well done! stevenleser Oct 2014 #96
Love this! zappaman Oct 2014 #106
Ha wheniwasincongress Oct 2014 #20
My elderly dad believe all this hokum procon Oct 2014 #22
So, your Dad is aware? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #34
"the military ... did use airplanes to disperse chemicals into hurricanes?" Yeah and so what? yellowcanine Oct 2014 #138
Agent orange in VN? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #139
No, because I do not claim those chemicals are causing "Chemtrails" yellowcanine Oct 2014 #140
Well RobertEarl Oct 2014 #144
Science, Bob. zappaman Oct 2014 #146
I had a lady ask me if I knew what those streaks in the sky were. Turbineguy Oct 2014 #28
TV is used to influence our thinking. The govt doesn't need chemtrails. nt valerief Oct 2014 #30
How did you keep from busting out laughing right then and there? FLPanhandle Oct 2014 #43
Chemtrails only work on crazy people jberryhill Oct 2014 #133
I loved Chemtrail Central....best place to troll paranoids on the net. ileus Oct 2014 #37
There have been multiple experiments, including 9/11 groundings... hunter Oct 2014 #147
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Man Who Tricked Chemt...»Reply #91