Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 in 3 believe 9-11 conspiracy

By Thomas Hargrove and Guido H. Stempel III

Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9-11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

Read the rest here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I want to emphasize that I'm pretty neutral on this issue.
He claims he was in the basement when he felt an explosion from a lower level before the plane hit above, the only people to back his account were 3 of his coworkers. None of them said anything about this till they became plaintiffs in a suit seeking unspecified damages potentially reaching millions or billions of dollars against the federal government in general and Bush administration particular. The day after the attacks he gave a different version ""We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.""

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

It is interesting that Peter should bring up WTC survivors. Except for Rodriguez and his three co-workers/co-plaintiffs none AFAIK support the 'controlled demolition theory' according to the 9/11

You seem to have it in for Rodriguez, who is by all acounts one of the "heroes" of 9/11. Anyway, assuming he has not been misquoted by CAN in its quick blurb, I wouldn't exactly call it a "different" version. Replace the word "rumble" with the closely related "explosion" and you have the same story he's always told, but in an undetailed manner, with explosion/rumble #1 coming from below and explosion/rumble #2 coming from above and coinciding with the plane strike. A detailed account of his story can be read here. Talk about reaching for straws.

No, I don’t have it in for him, I agree he acted heroically and I doubt I would have had the courage to do what he did. This doesn’t however make him infallible and the versions are quite different, in the first version he said there was a rumble in the second it was "…BOOM an explosion so hard that it pushed us upwards, upwards!…the explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the hole ceiling fell on top of us", that’s a far cry from a rumble. In the first telling the 2nd noise was a "rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture" in later tellings it was "BOOM!" In the first he said nothing about the direction from which the two noises came, in the second the first came from "between B2 and B3" the 2nd from "all the way at the top", in the first he said nothing about any additional explosions, in second he heard several more and one on the 33rd floor (IIRC) sounded "like someone moving furniture". I don’t believe he said about an explosion from below etc when he testified before the 9/11 Commission. The story seems to have evolved and mutated over time.

He is an expert
An xpert what?
An expert janitor?

What Peter is saying here is that Rodriguez would know about explosions in the WTC, having been there the first time around and that he knows the building like the back of his hand.

I don’t know if that would qualify him as an expert on determining the direction of explosions at the World Trade Center he’d experienced one previous one over 8 years earlier. In any case of the thousands of people who were in the North Tower at that moment his story is only back by three coworkers who, like him, only said this AFTER getting involved in the lawsuit. Other building employees gave there account but none that I’ve seen say anything about an explosion preceding the crash An article in "Chief Engineer" for example gave the accounts of several workers. http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

The are some rational explanations for him and others having heard two explosions.

  1. He felt the shock wave generated by the crash before he herd it. The speed of sound is 343 m/s at 20 C http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html the impact was about 365 meters above him so he only would have heard it about 1.14 seconds later. The speed of sound through steel is 5960 m/s, the shock wave would have reached him more than a second earlier.
  2. There were numerous reports of secondary explosions caused by jet fuel and according to the 9/11 Commission there was one in the B4 level http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-302.html which was corroborated by a worker quoted in the Chief Engineer article cited above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commission NIST estimated there were "between 16,400 and 18,800 civilians were in the WTC complex as of 8:46 AM on September 11" and "at most 2,152" of them died in other words there were about 15500 civilian survivors not including security guards, emergency personnel, and civilians from other building who aided in the evacuation of the complex. So out of about 20,000 witnesses only 4 say they think explosives were planted in the towers. So of the people who were there 0.02 % back this theory this is probably far below the rate of the general population. In a similar vein the rate of acceptance among experts is 0. If the CD theory had any merit one would think that people who were actually there and people with relevant expertise would be far more not far LESS likely to back it than the general population.

Not true. Many of the survivors and their families and the firefighters and other emergency personnel have huge questions about the official version, many are involved in lawsuits or refused to sign waivers of their rights.

Survivors of people who died are irrelevant to this point, I’m concerned with people who were actually there. Raising questions or refusing to sign a waiver is one thing, saying they believed 9-11 was an "inside job" or that explosives were used is something else. If you can come up with the names of any survivors who say those things cite them here. According to the link provided by Owen 16% of Americans believe that explosives may have been used. 16% of 20,000 is 3200, if that many survivors believe your theories why have so few come forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's been pimping the Fox News series on Israeli spying in America for awhile now, which very prominently features the art student ring.

More odd sexual innuendo.

A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia?

Relax, Sid. I just like using the word "pimping."

I imagine that he (Sid) was aware of that just he should have been aware that when Andy said he engaged in "intellectual masturbations" he wasn’t insinuating anything sexual. His silly commentary is a ruse to avoid addressing your point, he repeatedly pushed (no Sid I’m NOT insinuating that you are a drug dealer) the Fox spy stories, the main component of which relating to 9-11 was the art students article.

PS Sid I’m still waiting for you to reply to my rebuttal of you post about the Israeli movers in Jersey City.

In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press:

Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers

Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11

Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting."

Yes, Bollyn has a dodgy past and fails to provide links to any verifiable sources. This also is a case of bait and switch the linked articles have little to do with the Fox stories, the 1st has nothing to do with 9-11 and the 2nd is inconclusive, it’s main point related to 9-11 was that an Israeli owned Dutch company was the parent company of Huntleigh, the company that supposedly ran security at Logan and Newark. I was only able to substantiate that Huntleigh was responsible for screening for United at Logan. What the article fails to mention is that not all the Logan hijackers went through security there but were screened in Portland (Maine), where security presumably was weaker, from where they caught a connection to Boston. Not that they needed to because security was weak at Logan weeks before the attacks even for airlines whose security was not handled by Huntleigh [ http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01812080.htm – see the parts about Delta and Northwestern]. As I pointed out earlier on this thread security holes remained at American airports even after 9-11 when a college student was able to bring box cutters on board domestic flights [ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/suspicious.baggage/ ] Another point remains unaddressed is how much direct control did the parent company exercise on its subsidiary from across the Atlantic, were any of the American bosses Israelis? The president was named Joe Tuero [ http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg17188.html , http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/10/12/BA187221.DTL ] did the Israeli bosses have enough control over the subsidiary to make sure that "friendly" screeners would screen the hijackers? Don’t most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

IMO the military's original story about 9/11, that no jet fighters took off until after the Pentagon was hit, was true. This is the story that General Myers gave at his confirmation hearing, and what NORAD told the nation through an official spokesman. IOW there was indeed a stand-down, except with respect to Flight 93, whose take off had been delayed and which was possibly shot down.

This story was soon changed, with contrived timelines released for the scrambling of the Otis and Langley jets along with other lies, when it became obvious that the original story wouldn't fly. Myers in fact was pressured into changing the military's story right in the middle of his testimony.

Ron

Bill - what exactly do you think the timeline you posted proves?

Ron – So you think the two Air National Guard pilots from Otis who said they were scrambled and the school principal who told the Cape Cod Times that "the 102nd was scrambling into duty" when he left the base after news of the attacks broke were all lying? And that all the other people who said they scrambled were lying and that all the people at Otis, NORAD and various FAA flight centers who must know it’s not true are helping cover up those lies? Isn’t possible that the people who said no planes were scrambled were simply mistaken? Don’t forget "Dewey Wins" and ‘Brady is dead’ and ‘the miners are alive’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron – So you think the two Air National Guard pilots from Otis who said they were scrambled and the school principal who told the Cape Cod Times that "the 102nd was scrambling into duty" when he left the base after news of the attacks broke were all lying? And that all the other people who said they scrambled were lying and that all the people at Otis, NORAD and various FAA flight centers who must know it’s not true are helping cover up those lies? Isn’t possible that the people who said no planes were scrambled were simply mistaken? Don’t forget "Dewey Wins" and ‘Brady is dead’ and ‘the miners are alive’

I have read the Vanity Fair article on the NORAD tapes, and the tapes do show that the jets were scrambled before the attacks were over. So the answer to your question is yes, the people who said no planes were scrambled were mistaken. More specifically, if we take them at their word, those people, being the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the official spokesman for NORAD, were both absolutely incompetent for telling such a story two days after the events. Myers was rewarded for his incompetence with the chairmanship.

Two things stood out for me in the NORAD transcripts. One was the descriptions of the folks at NEADS searching the inland air space on their radars to try to find the hijacked planes. This shows that the military's story that NORAD's radar on 9/11 was only tuned outward, as in the Cold War, so that they ostensibly couldn't search domestic air space, was just another government lie. The other is that one of the most significant events in the military response, namely the call for authorization to launch the jets, from Colonel Marr to his superior General Arnold, was "not recorded." Thus the question remains unanswered as to why that call consumed 8 minutes (leaving 1 minute for the Otis fighters to reach NYC from Cape Cod before the first tower was hit). What all did Marr and Arnold chat about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

IMO the military's original story about 9/11, that no jet fighters took off until after the Pentagon was hit, was true. This is the story that General Myers gave at his confirmation hearing, and what NORAD told the nation through an official spokesman. IOW there was indeed a stand-down, except with respect to Flight 93, whose take off had been delayed and which was possibly shot down.

This story was soon changed, with contrived timelines released for the scrambling of the Otis and Langley jets along with other lies, when it became obvious that the original story wouldn't fly. Myers in fact was pressured into changing the military's story right in the middle of his testimony.

Ron

Bill - what exactly do you think the timeline you posted proves?

Ron – So you think the two Air National Guard pilots from Otis who said they were scrambled and the school principal who told the Cape Cod Times that "the 102nd was scrambling into duty" when he left the base after news of the attacks broke were all lying? And that all the other people who said they scrambled were lying and that all the people at Otis, NORAD and various FAA flight centers who must know it’s not true are helping cover up those lies? Isn’t possible that the people who said no planes were scrambled were simply mistaken? Don’t forget "Dewey Wins" and ‘Brady is dead’ and ‘the miners are alive’

RON, I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF LYING. I WAS THERE AT THE 911 COM HEARING WHEN THE GENERALS TESTIFIED. THE TIMELINE I PUT OUT IS BASED ON THE 911 COM REPORT. THE TIMELINE DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN GIVE YOU A RUNDOWN ON WHAT THE REPORT SAYS HAPPENED WHEN IT HAPPENED.

WE KNOW PLANES WERE SCRAMBLED AND WHEN.

MY FOCUS WAS AND IS ON THE ORIGINAL MISDIRECTED PHONE CALL NOTIFICATION FROM FAA BOSTON TO AC 177TH NJANG - THAT A HIJACK WAS IN PROGRESS AND REQUESTING FIGHTERS - CIRCA 8:30, AND 177TH SAYING THEY WERE NOT ON ALERT AND TO CALL OTIS, WHICH THEY DID. THE PILOTS AT OTIS, BECAUSE OF THIS PHONE CALL, WERE ALREADY AWARE A HIJACKING WAS IN PROGRESS, AND WAITED FOR ORDERS TO SCRAMBLE AND TAKE OFF.

DON'T WRITE HEADLINES UNTIL THE FACTS ARE IN.

WHEN 911 COM ISSUED ITS FINAL REPORT, THEY REQUESTED THE INSPECTOR GENERALS OF DOD AND FAA TO INQUIRE FURHTER AND THEIR REPORTS ARE DUE TO BE PUBLICLY RELEASED THIS WEEK, AND THAT'S WHY THE DOD GAVE THE 30 HOURS OF TAPES TO VANITY FAIR. THEY'RE PLAYING POKER AND PLAYED A HIGH CARD, WHILE HOLDING BACK ON THE REST OF THEIR HAND.

LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE IGS HAVE TO SAY.

BILL KELLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the release of the NORAD tapes, it was necessary to revise and update my article "United Flight 93 and the NetJet." I have now completed that chore (August 5, 2006). Rather than try to post the whole article again as before, which requires some reformatting etc. for links in the many footnotes, I am deleting the old version here and simply providing the link to the new online version for those interested. Most of the posts in this thread are unfortunately irrelevant to the subject matter anyway.

http://www.hobrad.com/united.htm

(Hit refresh if the article doesn't say "Updated August, 2006.")

Outstanding article, Ron. Very well done.

Mike Hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two articles by Bollyn were also interesting. Thanks again. It seems that America's defence and security is inextricably tied to Israel. Maybe its time for Israel to become the 51st state, or more accurately, for America to declare it is merely a colony, wholly controlled by Israel.

I hope everyone [sane] will keep in mind the distinction between the people in America from the government [or what passes for one now] in America; and the people of Israel from the government [or what passes for one now] in Israel. Both governments are far-Right; militaristic; neo-fascist; run by fundamentalists to a large degree and conspiring in intelligence and military fields - and have been for a long time. The people in those two nations are a mix...some support the nonsense, but I think in both a minority....and in both there are those fighting against the monsters at the helm(s). Not accusing anyone special...and not you Mark, just sometimes feel all forget. I hold an American passport and was born there.....but don't want to be associated with the xxxx going on now....in fact am fighting it with all my might - many others in America and in Israel feel the same, respectively. Sane persons all around the world must now work together against most governments they find themselves in....a new uno-mundo movement for peace and sanity....or else this planet will soon be cosmic history as far as homo sapiens is concerned.

I agree with this paragraph almost entirely, Peter. Change "American" for "Australian" and you could be speaking for me.

The difference between us on this, if there is one, seems quite small to me, although it may be significant.

I observe that you, Peter, tend to view 'Christian fundamentalism' as a highly dangerous force in its own right that you believe is pushing the world in a highly negative direction.

I believe that the truth is a little more complex. I see Christian fundamentalism as a force that is largely co-opted and controlled by the power elite when they find it useful. When they don't, it is ignored and marginalised.

My main condemnation is reserved for an elite that misbehaves.

I do believe that those who hold most power - and whom one may call 'the power elite' or 'the elite' for short - must be open to scrutiny, even more so (not less) than the rest of the community. We must be able to examine and discuss the composition, nature, goals and activities of the elite. If we can't do that, all claims to a democratic open society are sham and the aspiration of equal rights for all is effectively dead.

As I believe passionately in the virtues of an open, democratci society and hold dear the aspiration of equal rights for all, I shall resist any attempt to stifle discussion about those who, by hook or by crook, have gained positions of great power in the world.

As an Australian, I am disgusted by the collaboration of the current Australian Government with a crooked trigger-happy American Government. But I believe the nature of Australia's collaboration with the USA is of a different nature than the collaboration between Israel and the USA. Sorry if it causes offence, but I believe the difference is of significance and merits discussion.

In Australia's case, the financial cost of collaboration is borne by Australia; when Australia joins America's wars, it pays for the privilege.

There are US bases in Australia. What's more, because of near-universal mainstream media support for that, any Australian Government threatening to close US bases would be subjected to massive destabilisation.

US spooks operate inside Australia and occasionally carry out clandestine operations (I doubt, somehow, the reverse applies; if so, as far as I'm aware, it has never come to light).

No regular financial assistance is provided to Australia by the USA.

Doubtless Australia's status as an ally helps mould policy in Washington to some extent, but whenever interests clash (the competing interests of oiur respective farming industries are the classic example) Australian interests rarely win out.

There is no powerful 'Australia lobby' inside the USA, with quite obvious means and intent to affect the outcome of elections.

In each of these regards, the case of Israel is quite, quite different.

To fight the current militaristic drift of policies with all our might, we need to be able to examine critically the forces driving these policies.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's been pimping the Fox News series on Israeli spying in America for awhile now, which very prominently features the art student ring.

More odd sexual innuendo.

A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia?

Relax, Sid. I just like using the word "pimping."

I imagine that he (Sid) was aware of that just he should have been aware that when Andy said he engaged in "intellectual masturbations" he wasn’t insinuating anything sexual. His silly commentary is a ruse to avoid addressing your point, he repeatedly pushed (no Sid I’m NOT insinuating that you are a drug dealer) the Fox spy stories, the main component of which relating to 9-11 was the art students article.

PS Sid I’m still waiting for you to reply to my rebuttal of you post about the Israeli movers in Jersey City.

In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press:

Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers

Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11

Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting."

Yes, Bollyn has a dodgy past and fails to provide links to any verifiable sources. This also is a case of bait and switch the linked articles have little to do with the Fox stories, the 1st has nothing to do with 9-11 and the 2nd is inconclusive, it’s main point related to 9-11 was that an Israeli owned Dutch company was the parent company of Huntleigh, the company that supposedly ran security at Logan and Newark. I was only able to substantiate that Huntleigh was responsible for screening for United at Logan. What the article fails to mention is that not all the Logan hijackers went through security there but were screened in Portland (Maine), where security presumably was weaker, from where they caught a connection to Boston. Not that they needed to because security was weak at Logan weeks before the attacks even for airlines whose security was not handled by Huntleigh [ http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01812080.htm – see the parts about Delta and Northwestern]. As I pointed out earlier on this thread security holes remained at American airports even after 9-11 when a college student was able to bring box cutters on board domestic flights [ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/suspicious.baggage/ ] Another point remains unaddressed is how much direct control did the parent company exercise on its subsidiary from across the Atlantic, were any of the American bosses Israelis? The president was named Joe Tuero [ http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg17188.html , http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/10/12/BA187221.DTL ] did the Israeli bosses have enough control over the subsidiary to make sure that "friendly" screeners would screen the hijackers? Don’t most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway?

Len

A few points in response.

First, yes, you correctly observed I was play-acting about taking offense over sexual innuendo. I could't care less what any of you think about my sexual preferences or habits.

How's this for a deal? I'll stop pretending to take offence if other posters stop using smutty language when attacking me.

Second, quoting the Bollyn articles was not 'bait and switch'. The references are both highly relevant to this thread. One indicated massive Israeli intelligence penetration of US telecommunications; the other pointed to links between the current Israeli Prime Minister and the company controlling security at key airports on 9-11.

I agree that a lot more documentation would be beneficial. I'm sure Bollyn would agree. With more research and open discussion, no doubt it can be established whether concerns raised in his articles have substance, or not.

Third, you wrote: " Don’t most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway?"

I think the point here, which your comments obscures, is that whatever exactly happened on 9-11, if the official scenario is not accurate, the role of the airport security companies is of potential central relevance to finding out what really did happen.

For me, the most explosive line in Bollyn's article about the airport secuity companies was the following:

"Huntleigh, along with the other security companies, was granted complete congressional protection in 2002."

Can anyone here throw light on this - one way or the other?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sept. 11 Commissioners' Book Details Internal Disputes

Friday, August 04, 2006 (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON — The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.

In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

The book states that commission staff, "exceedingly frustrated" by what they thought could be deception, proposed a full review into why the FAA and the Pentagon's NORAD had presented inaccurate information. That ultimately could have led to sanctions.

Due to a lack of time, the panel ultimately referred the matter to the inspectors general at the Pentagon and Transportation Department. Both are preparing reports, spokesmen said this week.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton "a low point" in the commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote.

Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004 and became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton but does say they failed to make anti-terrorism a high priority before the attacks.

The panel of five Republicans and five Democrats also concluded that the Sept. 11 attacks would not be the nation's last, noting that Al Qaeda had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.

Among the issues:

— Iraq. The commission threatened to splinter over the question of investigating the administration's use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. The strongest proponent was original member Max Cleland, a Democratic former senator who later stepped down for separate reasons.

If Cleland had not resigned, the commission probably would not have reached unanimity, according to the book. Ultimately, commissioners decided to touch briefly on the Iraq war by concluding there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda; the administration had asserted there were substantial contacts between the two.

— Israel. The commission disagreed as to how to characterize Al Qaeda's motives for attacking the U.S., with Hamilton arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East were major contributors.

Unidentified members believed that "listing U.S. support for as a root cause of Al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy," which those commission members did not want.

Ultimately, the panel made a brief statement noting that U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

— Access to detainees. The panel pushed for direct access to detainees, at one point proposing to be at least physically present or to listen by telephone during interrogations so they could gauge credibility and get unvarnished accounts.

The administration resisted, citing concerns about national security. Officials also said they feared setting a precedent of access by a nongovernment entity that could undermine the administration's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees classified as "enemy combatants."

The commission agreed to submit questions and receive written responses. Later, allegations emerged of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay that probably played a factor in the government's resistance, the book states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

IMO the military's original story about 9/11, that no jet fighters took off until after the Pentagon was hit, was true. This is the story that General Myers gave at his confirmation hearing, and what NORAD told the nation through an official spokesman. IOW there was indeed a stand-down, except with respect to Flight 93, whose take off had been delayed and which was possibly shot down.

This story was soon changed, with contrived timelines released for the scrambling of the Otis and Langley jets along with other lies, when it became obvious that the original story wouldn't fly. Myers in fact was pressured into changing the military's story right in the middle of his testimony.

Ron

Ron – So you think the two Air National Guard pilots from Otis who said they were scrambled and the school principal who told the Cape Cod Times that "the 102nd was scrambling into duty" when he left the base after news of the attacks broke were all lying? And that all the other people who said they scrambled were lying and that all the people at Otis, NORAD and various FAA flight centers who must know it’s not true are helping cover up those lies? Isn’t possible that the people who said no planes were scrambled were simply mistaken? Don’t forget "Dewey Wins" and ‘Brady is dead’ and ‘the miners are alive’

Friday, August 04, 2006 (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON — The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.....

.....Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.

In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

The book states that commission staff, "exceedingly frustrated" by what they thought could be deception, proposed a full review into why the FAA and the Pentagon's NORAD had presented inaccurate information. That ultimately could have led to sanctions.

Due to a lack of time, the panel ultimately referred the matter to the inspectors general at the Pentagon and Transportation Department. Both are preparing reports, spokesmen said this week.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans can rest easier, knowing the Pentagon has investigated itself.

Officials Didn't Lie to Sept. 11 Panel, Pentagon Says

Associated Press

Sunday, August 6, 2006

There is no evidence that Pentagon officials intentionally misled the Sept. 11 commission when they gave inaccurate accounts about actions at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks, a Defense Department spokesman said yesterday.

A forthcoming report from the Pentagon's inspector general will address the question of whether military commanders intentionally misled the commission, said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Brian Maka.

But "there is nothing that indicates the information provided to the commission was knowingly false," Maka said.

The inspector general's report is the result of a compromise among commissioners, some of whom concluded that the Pentagon may have been deliberately trying to mislead the Sept. 11 panel and the public, sources involved in the debate told The Washington Post last week.

The commission debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation before agreeing to turn the allegations over to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments.

Panel members have said that timelines from audiotapes from the North American Aerospace Defense Command's Northeast headquarters did not match accounts given in testimony by government officials.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told commissioners that NORAD began tracking United Airlines Flight 93 at 9:16 a.m. on Sept. 11 and intended to intercept it. The commission determined that the jet was not hijacked until 12 minutes later and that the military was not aware of the flight until the jet had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Officials with the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration later corrected some information originally given to the panel, such as the tracking of Flight 93 and the exact times the FAA notified the military of the hijackings.

Poor investigation and record-keeping contributed to the inaccuracies, according to a summary from the Pentagon inspector general's office released last week.

The summary of the report said improvements had been made, but it also called for more steps to improve the Defense Department's ability to investigate "a future significant air event."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...