9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.
In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.
In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
no problem, it was part of
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00053.htm
11 Questions Avoided by the Media On NORAD Tapes
Friday, 4 August 2006, 10:21 am
Article: http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Eleven (11) Questions Avoided by the Media in Recent Reporting of Department of Defense Violations of Law
Kyle F. Hence
Executive Director 9/11 CitizensWatch
Co-Founder UnansweredQuestions.org
http://www.911citizenswatch.org
/Washington Post/
*9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon*
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html/Vanity Fair/
*9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes*
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01/The New York Times/
*New Tapes Disclose Confusion Within the Military on Sept. 11*
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/us/03norad.html
Recent articles in corporate media examine deception and lying by the Department of Defense relative to the attacks of September 11th 2001. They shed light on an effective cover-up by the 9/11 Commission in its refusal to bring Government deception to the American people by way of their discredited 9/11 Report. Links to these articles follow as do 11 questions which these revelations and NORAD tapes beg to be asked and which must be answered:
1. *Who was responsible for scheduling multiple war games and terror exercises involving aircraft for Sept. 11th
2. Who moved "Global Guardian" normally scheduled for October to September?
3. Who designed the war games to involve 'hijackings'?
4. Who planned and scheduled the movement of Airforce aircraft north to Canada, Alaska and Greenland?
5. Who planned the terror exercise at the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) involving an evacuation in response to threat from the air?
6. Who was "hands-on" responsible for coordinating all the war games the morning of September 11th?
7. Who would have been responsible for turning off the war games to enable a timely real world response to the attacks?
8. How were as many as 21 false radar blips or possible targets (per Jane Garvey) inserted into FAA radar screens?
9. Who was responsible for the identification of ghost flight 11 which allegedly continued to fly south past Manhattan and which may have caused NORAD's Langley intercept jets to vector North toward NYC rather than D.C.? * [NOTE: John Farmer of the 9/11 Commission said to me personally that the 9/11 Commission was never able to identify the individual for this information--to resolve this anomaly.]*
10. Why was there no reference to the pattern of 9/11 Commission cover-up including that of Able Danger as revealed by Capt. Scott Philpott?
* 11. The bottom line question that corporate media refuse to answer and which the 9/11 Commission ignored is who, specifically, would have been responsible for creating the circumstances that led to the confusion or fog the morning of 9/11 and who should have immediately ceased any and all war gaming activity and deceptive radar data?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
2. George Bush, Dick cheney, and Haliburton
3. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
4. George bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
5. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
6. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
7. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
8. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
9. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
10. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
11. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Haliburton
Why do you keep asking questions you already know the answer to?
government= paid "Yes" people figureheads.
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
And you're not leaving here without me, I don't wanna be without
My best... friend. Wake up, to see you could have it all
so you're saying they made up the parts about the new jersey attorney general and Republican commission member and former Navy secretary???
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Care to elaborate, are we the ones looking at evidence part of the puppet show or you who just takes everything as is part of the puppet show?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I'm just curious, do you look at anything posted, or do you automatically write it off? I know a lot of people here have read the 9/11 report and found it to be total rubbish just based on common sense.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Oh no mate...times running out on ur weak minded pack hunter fueled patriotism hahaha im going back to watching it fall on ur bulbous head, just had to pop in and rub it in a bit! see ya.....
Some facts must be considered before writing off those who believe that something and somebody more than 19 terrorists played a role in wreaking havoc upon America.
- At least 7 of the purported terrorists are still alive.
- The FBI, within minutes of the attack on the Pentagon, confiscated surveillance tapes form all businesses which could have filmed the side of the Pentagon that was damaged. The government reluctantly released a tape showing the explosion; it does not appear that a plane hit the Pentagon. Why was footage of the Twin Towers so readily available versus footage of the Pentagon? Also, research the size of the hole in the Pentagon and the size of a 757.
- There was one small piece of debris from Flight 77. The rest of the plane disintegrated, attributed to heat. This flight, along with United 93, are the only two flights known to have disintegrated. Search the wreckage of other plane crashes and make your own deductions.
- The only 3 steel-framed buidlings that have collapsed due to fire are those buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including building 7 which wasn't struck by anything. The only 3 EVER.
- The official government report surmises that the floors collapsed, one upon the other, as a result of the fire. There were over 100 floors in each of those buildings. Had they collapsed in a pancake fashion, it would've taken much more than 9 seconds for the floors to collapse upon each other. They fell in under 10 seconds each which is virtual freefall for the height and weight of those buildings.
- Thousands of people heard multiple explosions before and after the planes hit. If you watch the tapes in slow motion, you'll see explosions occurring below the falling parts of the building, smoke and debris shooting outward and upward. Many witnesses compared the falling of the buildings to demolitions, including several New York City firemen.
- Without the desire of a group of 9/11 widows, the 9/11 Commission may have never been formed. Also, why did the President try to squash the forming of a commission?
- The government's report, as previously mentioned, states that the floors fell upon each other. The report does not account for the steel frame itself.
- Jet fuel burns up to 1500 degrees, far short of the 2750 degrees required to melt steel.
- The Freedom of Information Act helped gain access to tape recordings of the firefighters relaying information from the towers before they collapsed. It took a lof time and struggle to force the government to release these tapes. In one recording, a fireman states that he's on the 78th floor (I'm not sure which building) and he saw some isolated pockets of fire. He requested two lines (hoses) to be sent up to put the fires out. Two hoses.
- The steel from the WTC building was removed and shipped away as quickly as clean-up crews could get rid of it, sent overseas and melted. Why wouldn't the government seek to investigate the integrity of the steel of 2 buildings that were the first steel-framed buildings to collapse from a fire whose fuel source didn't have the capacity to reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel?
- Larry Silverstein, who was leasing the WTC complex, had recently taken out insurance policies protecting against terrororist attacks shortly before 9/11. His group had originally agreed to purchase the lease for $3.2 billion; 9/11 occurred approximately 6 months after the lease commenced. At that juncture, Silverstein and his group had invested approximately $124 million. He received $3.55 billion as a result of his insurance policy that covered in the event of a terrorist attack. He tried to get an additional $3.55 billion, claiming that the two towers falling as a result of two plane attacks were separate incidents. He also openly admitted in interviews that he and others decided to "pull" building 7 which was demolished. Research the documents being held in building 7 if you have a spare moment.
- During a town hall meeting in Orlando, Florida after 9/11, President Bush was asked how he felt when the attacks occurred by a 3rd grade student. He said, "Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card – actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Footage of the first crash wasn't released until September 12th. You can see this town hall footage in one of the links below.
- President Bush's younger brother Marvin was a principal with the company that oversaw security for the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks.
Lots of questions arise, and much remains to be considered.
The widows pushing for answers:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250
Some vidoes that provoke some disturbing thoughts, questions and doubts:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
the problem with this board and discussing 9/11 is that the majority of people will not bother discussing the issue. they automatically throw things out the window and label you as a fruitcake or a conspiracy nut job.
but, you seem to be willing to debate. i have only studied certain theories and can't debate the majority of the issues in depth. though, im particularly interested in what happened to wtc 7. NIST is releasing a new report (supposedly early 2007) that should be helpful.
what is your stance on wtc 7? what is your supporting evidence to prove it was brought down on purpose?
~Ron Burgundy
I'm sure there will be, your previous post was awesome man. I think sometimes people get TOO into the thought of it and if you look at the very basic information you can see that things don't add up as they should
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Thanks, ledved. It's a topic that has piqued my curiosity quite a bit. It's difficult to levy proclamations of a complete cover-up or governmental interference, but when you take into account some of the information that's out there, things just don't quite add up. I'm thoroughly surprised that more of our fellow citizens don't seek out some of that information, maybe spread the word a little. One of the links I provided was for a documentary called "Loose Change" which apparently may be making its way into theatres. Surely independent theatres if and when it happens. It's another one of those deals that common folk like us will never have access to in terms of actual events. Makes you wanna play "Gimme Some Truth" really loud...
Another interesting tidbit ~ do a search on the training exercises the Air Force had on 9/11 and the locations of the fighters that typically comprise the air defense for the Eastern seaboard.
note of caution:
loose change is bunk...it pretty much throws everything in...even using anonymous bloggers as sources...there are plenty of better videos than this.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way