AF Spokesman: FAA Alerted Military Immediately On 9.11; AF Prevented
 From Responding


Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 22:09:11 -0700
From: TOP_VIEW <>
Organization: TOP_VIEW

 ** TOP_VIEW **
The Big Picture

AF Spokesman: FAA Alerted Military Immediately On 9.11; AF Prevented
 From Responding

TOP_VIEW conducted a phone interview this morning (12.09.01) with a
spokesperson for the U.S. Air Force, located in New York.

This person was ordered to the Ground Zero, Pennsylvania and Pentagon
9.11 crash sites within several days of the events, as part of an Air Force
investigative probe.

Much of the truly eye-opening information conveyed to us by this
high-ranking officer will --  unfortunately -- have to wait until some
future time until we can organize it into article form; a small
percentage of the information simply cannot be made public at this time
for reasons of PERSONAL --NOT "national" -- security.

What we are focusing on right now is some crucial information related
specifically to the entire matter of IF or WHEN FAA/ATC personnel alerted
appropriate Air National Guard/Air Force units, that four large passenger
jets were significantly off course and that all standard communications
with these craft had been broken.

We were informed that STANDARD procedures FULLY IN EFFECT on the morning
of September 11 WERE ABSOLUTELY followed to a "T" by U.S. Air Traffic
Control personnel; that via established channels and according to
established guidelines, U.S. Air National Guard and Air Force units -- which
are ALWAYS on alert to be scrambled for intercepts of either distressed
OR suspicious and possibly hostile aircraft 365/24/7 in these United
States -- WERE DEFINITELY contacted by FAA/ATC on 9.11 IMMEDIATELY
after Air Traffic Control had become aware of the developing situation
with the jets.

The Air Force spokesman confirmed that AFTER the alerts and requests for
INTERCEPTS of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the
HIGHEST LEVEL of the executive branch of the federal government were
received, demanding that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through
with ESTABLISHED scramble/intercept procedures that morning until
further notice!

The U.S. Air Force's hands (wings) were DELIBERATELY TIED on the morning
of September 11, until such time that the HORRIFYING, TREACHEROUS, MURDEROUS

Our informant has told us in no uncertain terms that as much as SEVENTY
PERCENT of Armed Forces officers -- with the NOTABLE exception of the
U.S. Navy -- are VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to the treacherous, murderous
actions carried out by profoundly corrupt and demonic elements within
the federal government on 9.11, and to the WHOLESALE TREACHERY and
DEMOLITION of the U.S. Constitution which said elements have now

It was conveyed to us that the "story" is by no means over yet; that the
fat lady has by NO means yet "sung", and that this large percentage of
the military who DO support, uphold and defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION are
NOT going let all this just "slide". They are simply waiting for the
right time, to do all within their power to set things straight in the
United States.

Our source furthermore fully concurred with the assessment of ourselves
and others: that a crucial element in the government being able to
"SELL" to the public their utterly false fables about WHY 9.11 death
planes were NOT intercepted by Air Guard/Air Force units has to do with
a deliberate, major and blatant distortion and twisting of the truth by
none OTHER than Herr Doktor Dick "Mengele/Angel of Death" Cheney himself
(the satanist turd!); accomplished in the following manner.

Cheney, while being interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC TV's 'MEET THE
PRESS on September 16th, claimed that the military needed authorization
from the president before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American
Airlines Flight 77.

THIS IS A BIG, BIG, LIE, plain and simple.

For example: remember two years ago, when golf pro Payne Stewart's small
PRIVATE Lear jet went off-course and out of communication just after
takeoff in Florida?

Within MINUTES, on an IMMEDIATE alert from the FAA, U.S. Air Force and
Air Guard jets were SCRAMBLED to INTERCEPT Stewart's jet and see what
the heck was up (not that it helped much in that case...): "Several Air
Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control
plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway
Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --CNN, 10.26.99

Interceptors were in direct proximity to Stewart's seriously messed-up
aircraft within about TEN MINUTES of him having taken off. NOBODY had to
go pull Clinton away from Vice-president Monica Lewinsky and get him to
AUTHORIZE the INTERCEPT of Payne Stewart's jet that day. (NOT that Slick
would have let go that wet cigar long enough to do so anyway...)

Moreover, according to the same CNN article: "...officers on the Joint
Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the
Pentagon's National Military Command Center. -- CNN, 10.26.99

Air Traffic Controllers request military intercepts of private and
commercial planes REGULARLY. Sometimes it's because communications have
broken off; sometimes it's to inform a pilot that his plane has gone off
course; other times it's to observe the situation directly - for
instance, to see who's actually flying the plane and things like that.
None of this requires presidential approval.

But there's MORE to how Cheney twisted the truth here regarding what is
PROVABLY one of the BIGGEST holes in the FedGov's 9.11 tapestry of lies;
since someone of even the most MINIMAL intelligence would realize that
such intercepts are VERY common, do NOT require any "presidential
authorization" and SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE on September 11.

So what arch-spin-meister Mengele Cheney DID was to very subtly and
cleverly FUDGE the distinction between a common, often-executed
INTERCEPT and a SHOOT-DOWN of an aircraft already determined to be hostile.

Cheney put the entire situation in the context that there was a terribly
troubling, agonizing ethical decision to be made whether or not to SHOOT
DOWN a number of passenger aircraft which "seemed" to be hostile, and
that only the president (who WAS after all (don't forget) VERY busy
reading rabbit stories to Florida schoolkids at the time!) could have
authorized this shoot-down.

Well. FIRST of all, there was no NEED for any order to SHOOT DOWN; there
was ONLY a need for Air Force/Air Guard units -- which are ALWAYS
standing by to respond to FAA alerts about troubled and/or suspicious
aircraft -- to carry out STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES.

And keep in mind that military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear
"instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed
manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions
cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is
definitely serious, high-ranking military officers from the NMCC
(National Military Command Center) in the Pentagon can take charge.

So: even IF such intercepts had yielded information showing that the
aircraft were INDEED hijacked, were under hostile control and about to
be used as guided missiles/fuel-air bombs, there is still, according to
our Air Force contact, NO REQUIREMENT that any order to shoot down
hostile aircraft must come from the president himself. There ARE,
according to our FULLY-knowledgeable Air Force contact, procedures are
fully in place for NMCC commanding officers and the DOD to order such
shoot-downs, when it's obvious an attack of some kind is underway. After
all, the "commander-in-chief" might be too busy reading about rabbits to
schoolkids to be bothered making such decisions about shooting down
hostile aircraft!

That Satanist swine Cheney knows this probably better than ANYONE --
except for those military officers and personnel who DIRECTLY SAT ON by
the Executive Branch on the morning of 9.11, until it was FAR TOO LATE
to take any preventive actions whatsoever. Moreover, when jets were
finally scrambled, they were DELIBERATELY scrambled from more distant
bases from which it was a FOREGONE CERTAINTY the interceptors would
NEVER be able to reach the hijacked planes in time.

As an example of the blatantly false/disinformative statements made by
Cheney (ONCE AGAIN!) to give some credibility to this highly-manipulated,
non-timely "response" scenario, Mengele claimed that there were NO
intercept aircraft ready for action at Andrew Air Force Base -- only TEN
MILES from the Pentagon --  on the morning of 9.11. This has been proven
to be a TOTAL LIE.

(For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base
to the Pentagon go to:

BEYOND ANY DOUBT: the Executive branch of the federal government --
whether g. w. bush or more likely Herr doktor Dick Mengele Cheney
himself -- EXPRESSLY AND UNILATERALLY FORBADE Air Guard/Air Force units
from responding in a TIMELY manner to FAA alerts on the morning of
September 11, as they were fully ready to do.

This is the truth, and large numbers of Air Force and other military
personnel KNOW it, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And no doubt THAT explains exactly WHY Mengele Cheney has been in HIDING
for so much of the past there months!!!!!

-  -  -  -
Here's a transcript of the MEET THE PRESS segment where Cheney gets
going muddying the waters about intercepts, shootdowns, time frames,
(non-existent) moral considerations that supposedly delayed a response
even more, and other chaff to deflect truth-seeking radar. Following
that is a very worthwhile analysis of Cheney's verbal/conceptual
gymnastics from:

"MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made
during the course of the day?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this
question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial

"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying
combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an
airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give
them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.

"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a
hijacked commercial airline was destined for the White House or the
Capitol, we would take the plane down?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the
plane would not a last resort, our pilots were authorized to
take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision
to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens,
civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in
fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think,
exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat
air patrol up over New York."
--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)

* * *

Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.

First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept
incoming commercial aircraft."

Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane
would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take
them out..." that is, "shoot it down."

But "intercept": and "shoot it down" DO NOT mean the same thing.

"intercept (nter-spt1) verb, transitive > intercepted, intercepting, intercepts
1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
> (From 'American Heritage Dictionary')

"shootdown (sht1doun) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire." >
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary')

Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking:
why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted?

Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended
course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence,
there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept
Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged
question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American
citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not
necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent),
Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this
"horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept.


When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt
aggressive behavior:
"Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch
"A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of President
Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to land Thursday,
a sheriff's deputy said....

"The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was
unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At that
point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, got on
the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land...

"The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, about
eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford....

"In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher
Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots
in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above and one
below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field near Mineola."
--'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)

 The 'Boston Globe' reported that:
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its
fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a
graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to
attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft.
Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under
certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)

Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.'

As you will recall, he said:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give
them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept
pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly
well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to
handle intercept emergencies.

Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in
sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a
commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in
advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken
over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr.
Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the
hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a
hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon,
does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a
military pilot's order to land?

So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why
not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the
military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a
potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?

Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying
this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake?
Isn't that "a point"?

What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only
President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a
hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see in
a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney said
on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when he goes
on trial for treason.

Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART 1, SECTION 3

For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base
to the Pentagon go to:

(1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at:

(2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E
'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7,
2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2.
Full text posted at:

(3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air
Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and
Emina Torlak at:

(4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's
Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT) > Full text posted at:
Backup at:

(5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight
Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change
3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals"  Full
text posted at:

(6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" > Full
text posted at:

(7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" >
Full text posted at:

(8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date:
November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2,
effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison
Officers (ADLO's)"
Full text posted at:

(9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date:
November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2,
effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked
Aircraft: Requests for Service"
Full text posted at:

(10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; Golfer,
at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey
Full text posted at:
Backup at:

(11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1
June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict
Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1)
PDF available at:
Backup at:

(12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001,
Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity of
Bush ranch"
Full text posted at:

(13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page
A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too
Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson.
Full text posted at:


Letter From, Former Director of Military History, USAF Acade
Mon Dec 10 03:06:01 2001

"Reform of MI News"
From: Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)

Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events
through the lens of military history. I have joined the
cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Ameri-

Dear friends and fellow Americans 14 September, 2001
Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from
last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I
am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a
student and teacher of military history, I have a different
perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will
be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats,
politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain.

In spite of what the media, and even our own government
is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of
mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would
be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed
by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't
take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I
deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities.
The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was
a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but
also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out
of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like
my father's generation had to do with the formidable Ja-
panese in the years following WW II.

These men hate the United States with all of their
being, and we must not underestimate the power of their
moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest
combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is
to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the
Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral
conviction was five times more important in battle than
physical strength. Our enemies are willing better said
anxious -- to give their lives for their cause.

How committed are we America? And for how long? In
addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent
attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamen-
tals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide,
namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first
heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at
our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This
was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same
sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to

This war will escalate, with a good portion of it
happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

These men will not go easily into the night. They do
not fear us. We must not fear them. In spite of our over-
whelming conventional strength as the world's only "super-
power" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this
fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric
designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize
that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the
battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better
than the enemy, and we have some excellent "counter terror-
ist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage
rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch,"
(which may come in handy).

We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if
their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready
and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy
will be costly and time consuming. They have already de-
ployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are
likely living the lives of everyday citizens. Simply put,
our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mis-
sion on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be
patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be
worked out.

For the most part, our military is still in the process
of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who
grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in -
Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be
linear warfare, there will be no clear "centers of gravity"
to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technolog-
ical edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be
decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming
battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard
the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it
will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens
and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also
be patient with our military leaders.

Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time
behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they
will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition,
hoping to drag the battle out until the American public
loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe
in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it
is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for
a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam,
when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a mili-
tary history teacher) defeated the United States of America
without ever winning a major tactical battle. American
soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Ameri-
cans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three
years later when they returned. Although we hope that Usama
Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ
the concept.

We can expect not only large doses of pain like the
recent attacks, but also less audacious "sand in the gears"
tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at
water supplies and power distribution facilities. These
attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing
the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventu-
ally eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let
it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citi-
zenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has
targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or
defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and
self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change.
The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often
quoted and least read military theorist in history), says
that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed

of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership
of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that
plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

Every American citizen was in the cross hairs of last
Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate
enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The
will of the American people will decide this war. If we are
to win, it will be because we have what it takes to perse-
vere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes,
improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually

Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared
a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just
wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just
keep faith in America, and continue to support your Presi-
dent and military, and the outcome is certain.

If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain.
God Bless America Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Former
Director of Military History, USAF Academy Please forward
this to everyone you know. I hope you agree that the mes-
sage is very clear and must be understood by every citizen
of this country.

Mid-Atlantic English Springer Spaniel Rescue
Serving PA, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA, & WV
Visit our website at Join
our e-mail list at
This e-mail is being sent to you from Charlene
Truszkowski   Webmaster
- Reform Party of Michigan


High Alert for Travel 06-23-01

Threat of Terrorism to the United States


911 - TERROR IN AMERICA Part 2  



Subscribe to apfn
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

flag5.gif (36297 bytes)flag5.gif (36297 bytes)flag5.gif (36297 bytes)flag5.gif (36297 bytes)


American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..."

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN     Home Page

History of ENVAX [internet]


Hit Counter

Last updated 08/05/2010