Safe Mode: On
Senator Mark Dayton Confirms Rumsfeld's new procedures for "AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DEST

I personally read a story where the Pentagon Air
Traffic Control Tower personnel were watching T.V.
were never alerted to a Threat, so one Air Force
controller was taking a crap and getting her lunch
from her Nissan 300Zx (parked next to crash site)
when the Explosion occurred, because she knew the
president was supposed to arrive
at the Pentagon after noon with a meeting with

Download the actual Joint Chiefs of Staff Document
this article is based on (Adobe PDF):

Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld

(please help to disseminate this information)

By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware
of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building
where he was located during the September 11th
attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side
of it, and he ran out "into the smoke"
to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no
idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview

Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard.
The New York Times reported that by 8:13 a.m., the
FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of
Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald
Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did
not occur until approximately 9:37 a.m., nearly an
hour and a half later, this after two of the
tallest buildings in the world were devastated.
Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach
Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York

It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel
were indeed aware of the threats to their
security, and they took security measures on that
morning. But not the "Secretary of
Defense." Why should the man charged with
defending the United States of America concern
himself with hijacked aircraft?

There is a set of procedures for responding to
hijackings. In particular, these procedures were
changed on June 1, 2001, while Rumsfeld was in
power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document



These are the standing orders to the military as
to how to respond to hijackings over United States
territory. The June 1 '01 document deliberately
changed the existing policies. Previous directives
were issued in 1997, 1986 and before.

What is shocking about this entire sordid episode
is the total disconnect between what Donald
Rumsfeld's story alleges (ignorance of inbound
hijacked aircraft), and what these Chief of Staff
Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense:

"b. Support.

When notified that military assistance is needed
in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking)
emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will:

(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed
is reasonably available from police or commercial
sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the
appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine
if suitable assets are available and will forward
the request to the Secretary of Defense for
approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15,
paragraph D.7 (reference d)."


The usage of the word "approval" is the
major change here to the existing hijacking
response procedures. While the text of the
document tries to link this "approval"
to the previous orders "DODD 3025.15,"
the approval is now required BEFORE providing any
assistance at all. Previously, approval would be
required to respond to a situation with lethal

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all
military assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval
from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of
Defense") could be granted -- which, by his
own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total
ignorance of the inbound aircraft that attacked
the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building
complex, where a construction project had been
underway) .*

In this manner, fighter planes were held up from
immediately responding to the hijacked commercial
jets on September the 11th.

The flight base commanders were ordered by the
June 1st "Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction" to wait for "approval"
from the Secretary of Defense before they could
respond to hijackings, where they would have
routinely responded in the past.

It's inconceivable that New York City could be
struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and still over
30 minutes later there remained no defenses over
the skies of Washington D.C., easily one of the
most heavily defended places in the world.

This reality led Anatoli Kornukov, the
commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force to
say: "Generally it is impossible to carry out
an act of terror on the scenario which was used in
the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as something like
that happens here, I am reported about that right
away and in a minute we are all up."

The Plot Thickens

Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a
mastermind if he hadn't thought of a fall guy to
take the blame, if needed. This brings us to Tom
White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be
Secretary of the Army, and more importantly the
"executive agent for the Department of
Defense" on May 31, 2001 -- ONE DAY BEFORE

The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on
September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom White's
"responsibility" for the situation:

"Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a
responsibility for incidents like this as
executive agent for the Department of Defense, is
also joining me." (The Pentagon, Arlington,
Virginia, September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M. EDT):

It should be noted that Rumsfeld eventually fired
White, allegedly for disagreeing about a weapons
system. But, what about the introduction cited
above? This is clearly an attempt to divert blame
and responsibility away from the Secretary of
Defense, and over to the "executive
agent" a position that the general public
would have no knowledge. That way, if inquisitive
reporters started asking questions about the
procedures and failures, Rumsfeld would have an
easy scapegoat as to who the *real* person in
charge of the situation should have been.
Amazingly, no mainstream reporters bothered to
investigate these matters at this level, and so
the patsy wound up being unnecessary.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction is explicit,
however, and it mentions Rumsfeld's position and
it requires his "approval."

Just where was this "approval" on
September 11th 2001?

There is no mention of the Secretary of Defense
approving anything related to the hijackings. The
Vice-President (Cheney) is on record as approving
the shooting down of the fourth plane over
Pennsylvania. Whether or not the shoot-down
occurred is not yet clear. But there is no
connection whatsoever to the Secretary of Defense,
whose "approval" is explicitly required
before the military can respond to a hijacking
incident over the USA, according to its own


The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the
military to respond to an emergency such as a

"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))."

Rumsfeld went ahead and clouded the waters. The
priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to
place decision making power -- in the specific
case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the
Secretary of Defense. This is repeated in
multiple paragraphs:

"c. Military Escort Aircraft

(1) When notified that military escort aircraft
are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy
(hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify
the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to
determine if suitable aircraft are available and
forward the request to the Secretary of Defense
for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15,
paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

This creates the necessity for: 1) making a
request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2)
receiving approval before military aircraft may

The statement "to determine if suitable
aircraft are available" is also su****ious.
Can anyone imagine a situation where the United
States of America does not have a "suitable
aircraft" available to respond to a hijacked

NORAD tried to spin such a story in the aftermath
of September 11th. Supposedly, we just didn't
have any fighter planes on the morning of
September 11th. What were they all doing?

Obviously we had planes available in Washington
D.C., because press reports tell us about the
"air cover" or "air cap" that
went into effect just after the Pentagon was
struck. Planes from Andrews Air Force base were
in the sky "just minutes" after the
Pentagon was struck. Why was no air cover
available BEFORE the Pentagon was struck, Mr.
Rumsfeld? After all, the "Secretary of
Defense" is supposed to approve the launching
of "Military Escort Aircraft." Did you?

If not, why not?

Also, if you take no interest in actually
"defending" the people of America during
an attack, why do you remain in your position as
the Secretary of Defense?


Both Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have maintained
the fiction that:

"RUMSFELD: (...) Never would have crossed
anyone's mind that a commercial airline -- usually
a hijacker who takes an airplane, of course, wants
to get someplace or wants to make a statement or
wants to go on television or wants to hold
hostages, but this is a distinctly different
behavior pattern than we've seen previously, and
now, obviously, it's something we have to be
attentive to."

NBC's Meet the Press, Washington, D.C.,
September30, 2001

This is a blatant lie, which can be disproved in
numerous ways:

1) Threats of a suicide skyjacking were known at
the Genoa G-8 summit in July of 2001. The Italian
government ringed the city of Genoa and the
airport with anti-aircraft guns and missiles
because of a known Al Qaeda plot to assassinate
George W. Bush and other world leaders. (L.A.
TIMES, September 27, 2001)

2) The Pentagon had staged response exercises,
"Mass Casualty Exercises" in the case of
a crash by a jetliner, nearly a year before
September 11th in October of 2000.

3) Since 1995, the FBI had been aware of
"Project Bojinka" a plan by extremists
to simultaneously seize and to crash multiple
commercial jets as suicide weapons. This prompted
investigations at US flight schools.

4) Numerous warnings from Britain, Egypt, Germany,
Russia, Israel, Jordan and others alerted the US
intelligence services that a plane would be used
as a weapon to attack "prominent symbols of
American power," including World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, during the Summer of 2001.

5) A small Cessna plane actually did crash into
the White House on September 12, 1994.

6) In 1994, suicidal Algerian hijackers plotted to
use an Air France jetliner, loaded with fuel and
dynamite as a deadly weapon and crash into the
Eiffel Tower.

7) Another similar plan had Muslim militants
hijack Pan Am Flight 76 in Pakistan in 1986 in
order to attack Tel Aviv, Israel. The plane was
stormed before take-off.

8) At the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics,
"Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs
Service jets were deployed to intercept su****ious
aircraft in the skies over the Olympic
venues," (LA Times).

With the numerous reports that came out in May of
2002 of Bush Administration warnings prior to
September 11th, it is the lack of action that is
most telling. The American people were not
warned. Instead lies were told that "no
warnings" were ever received. When it became
public knowledge that warnings were indeed
received, the Bush Administration spin changed to
"warnings weren't specific enough."
This is also a lie.

If US airport security screeners were given the
type of information that was widely known in the
intelligence community, then there is a good
chance that thousands of lives could have been

But, in that case, we wouldn't have a "new
Pearl Harbor."


The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is
a Washington foreign policy "think tank"
created in 1997 by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and others.
Their policy papers are available on the web. In
a document called "Rebuilding America's
Defenses" they spell out pretty
straightforwardly what it is they seek. The
"neo conservatives" want nothing short
of total world domination though military and
financial supremacy.

It is about the time that the PNAC was founded
when Rumsfeld and others began to pressure
President Clinton to invade Iraq. A January 1998
letter demands a new strategy of Clinton:
"That strategy should aim, above all, at the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from

Iraq, the second largest oil reserve in the world,
is a major strategic prize. And it is the
strategic advantage that drives the ideologues
such as Rumsfeld, confident in the belief that
whatever means employed are justified in the
pursuit of American "primacy" or
dominance over the entire world. The Project for
the New American Century will accept no challenge
to American supremacy around the globe, and the
policies they are now implementing support this
belief. They intend to raise military
expenditures to absurd levels, in a world where
the United States already outspends the rest of
the earth combined on military.

What the September 11th attacks are then is stated
explicitly in "Rebuilding America's
Defenses." It is the "new Pearl
Harbor." According to Rumsfeld and company,
the United States of America would slowly become
the unchallenged power of the world. But this
process would be speeded up satisfactorily if some
new external attack, "some catastrophic and
catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
were to occur. This concept is also state
explicitly in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD --
American Primacy And It's Geostrategic
Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, 1997.

Both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz traveled around the
media after September 11 repeating the phrase
"Pearl Harbor," and cementing it in
people's minds. The "Pearl Harbor
effect" is what is sought. An America
gung-ho for war, for payback, for militarism, for
sacrifice, for tears, for aggression, for the kind
of violence witnessed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki if
need be, this is the intended effect of September
the 11th and ultimately the reason that day came
to pass.

These are the true reasons that the September 11th
attacks remain uninvestigated, covered-up and
classified. Motive, opportunity and means -- the
only thing needed here is justice.

Much ado was made in the press about John Walker
Lindh, the "American Taliban" who fought
in Afghanistan. On September 11, 2001, there was
another Al Qaeda operative, a man who did more to
help the attacks succeed than anyone else. It was
not Osama bin Laden, but Donald H. Rumsfeld who
has earned his place in the history books as the
"American Taliban 2."

Don't forget that it was Donald Rumsfeld shaking
the hand of Saddam Hussein in 1983, even while it
was known that the dictator ("Hitler
revisited") was using prohibited poison gas
weapons. Rumsfeld assisted Saddam Hussein both
financially and militarily, never once bringing up
any qualms about helping a "ruthless dictator
who gasses his own people."


Larry King Live, December 5, 2001, regarding the
morning of September 11th:

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

DONALD RUMSFELD: Right here in this room.

LARRY KING: ... in this room about terrorism that

DONALD 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.


* A firestorm of controversy erupted among
independent investigators regarding the incident
at the Pentagon on September the 11th.
Photographs taken by Marine Corporal Jason
Ingersoll in the minutes after the crash, but
before the building collapsed, reveal the entry
hole into the Pentagon being too small to
accommodate a Boeing 757. Some of the photos and
analysis can be found here:

Link Title

Further evidence indicates that the Pentagon was
attacked by a smaller aircraft which fired a
missile just before impact. The missile's exhaust
plume is visible in the video frames that were
leaked to the press from the Pentagon parking lot
security camera (CNN, NBC). This smaller attack
plane was likely an Unmanned Attack Vehicle, or

Eyewitnesses told of a plane capable of holding
"8 to 12 people" (Steve Patterson,
Washington Post, 9/11/01) and this size is
consistent with the damage to the face of the
Pentagon, seen before the wall collapse. More
photos here:

It should be noted that the "leaked" (or
planted) Pentagon video footage has been doctored,
badly, in an attempt to cover up the actual moment
of impact, and to obscure the view of the
attacking plane.

More analysis can be found below:

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 7058 (Embed: 0)

Added: Jun-29-2007 
By: neverknwo
Iraq, Afghanistan, News
Tags: New, World, Order, Secret, Societies, Illuminati, 9/11, lies, corruption, deception, bush, nwo, clinton, 911, fascism, state, sponsored, terrorism, usa, iraq, iran, middle, east, wtc1, wtc2, wtc7, thermite, inside, job, patriot, liberty, cheney
Views: 8630 | Comments: 4 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 1 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • That first link doesn't work, Neverknwo.

    Posted Jun-29-2007 By 

    (0) | Report

  • 4341Marine: "That first link doesn't work, Neverknwo."
    It did yesterday, what's up with that?

    Posted Jun-29-2007 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Mark Dayton isn't even a senator anymore . Hes the douche bag that closed his senate office when there was a rumor of an attack . The only US senator to do so . He ran away like a little jihadist with an M1A1 on his tail .
    He's also a trust fund baby , Target Corp. is where he steals his money .

    Posted Jun-29-2007 By 

    (0) | Report

  • If this is all true I'm proud of this man for telling the truth. In an environment where most keep their mouths shut or lie.

    Posted Jun-29-2007 By 

    (0) | Report