Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jazzz

the truth don't care
Banned
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General


By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; 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.


rest of article - Washington Post
 
9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up. VF.com exclusive: Hear excerpts from the September 11 NORAD tapes. Click PLAY after each transcript to listen

Vanity Fair
 
This is interesting. IMO, the USA was caught with it's knickers down and this is where you will find any conspiracy - in an attempt to cover up the many missed opportunities for stopping the 9/11 attacks.
 
Crispy said:
This is interesting. IMO, the USA was caught with it's knickers down and this is where you will find any conspiracy - in an attempt to cover up the many missed opportunities for stopping the 9/11 attacks.

Indeedy - a point I made on a 9/11 thread ages and ages ago, that 'cock up' played a massive role in what happened.
 
kyser_soze - yes I think so too.

Jazzz said:
9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
When were the tapes released?
 
Crispy said:
This is interesting. IMO, the USA was caught with it's knickers down and this is where you will find any conspiracy - in an attempt to cover up the many missed opportunities for stopping the 9/11 attacks.

"we need a pearl harbour event" PNAC
 
All this shows is that the Pentagon attempted to cover up their own fuck ups (which had already been exposed by the commission) and that the confusion and fuck ups went much further than anyone actually thought (or not, depending on your viewpoint).
 
Azrael23 said:
"we need a pearl harbour event" PNAC

This quote will haunt the current US Gov for EVER.From how it was used it seems they were praying for an event like 911 to happen.Even the most hardened anti conspiraloon MUST find this statement alarming.
 
Azrael23 said:
"we need a pearl harbour event" PNAC
And they got one - very handy too.

I'll entertain, lightly, the notion that they 'let it happen' - eg the intelligence was there, they 'pointed the radar in the other direction' and let the planes crash. The US has a history of making handy excuses, but they usually don't involve the slaughter of 1000's of their own citizens. Vietnam was entered into on flimsier grounds and that was a far more damaging war for the US. Beating up Saddam a bit more / grabbing oil etc. should have been easily doable on a slimmer pretext.

But no pods, explosives etc. please :)
 
skunkboy69 said:
This quote will haunt the current US Gov for EVER.From how it was used it seems they were praying for an event like 911 to happen.Even the most hardened anti conspiraloon MUST find this statement alarming.

You'd be suprised. There are some very disturbing conformitons about.
 
These tapes actually disprove the conspiracy theory that the military shoot down United 23. As the tapes show that the military went after a "ghost" plane (American flight 11) after it has crashed into the WTC.
 
kyser_soze said:
All this shows is that the Pentagon attempted to cover up their own fuck ups (which had already been exposed by the commission) and that the confusion and fuck ups went much further than anyone actually thought (or not, depending on your viewpoint).


why lie so blatently about something so important.

upsetting to listen to
 
DrRingDing said:
How many US citizens have been killed so far in Iraq?
Far fewer than were killed in Vietnam, which was my point. Nobody died at the Gulf of Tonkin.
 
Well, am I also supposed to find it 'alarming' that a decade earlier Tom Clancey wrote a short story about a hijacked airliner being flown into a skyscraper?

Of course they were praying for a 9/11-type event - the piece quite clearly states that it would be useful in generating hysteria and allowing increased military spending and greater home support.

The problem is, lots of people focus on that one article, without really reading the rest of the PNAC agenda which looked at taking the US back to a 1950s/60s position in the world, within the new multilateral environment that the end of the Cold War provided.

The actual idea is as old as the hills and was suggested by both Machiavelli and Sun Tsu - does this mean that there is a conspiracy involving long dead Italians and Europeans? No. I admit there is the possibility of rogue elements of the USG involved - but then is it so hard to believe that committed, organised groups of extremists weren't capable of doing this all on their own? It wouldn't be the first time planes had been hijacked in flight would it?
 
lostexpectation said:
why lie so blatently about something so important.

upsetting to listen to

Use your brain;

Reputation of the institution (DoD)
Reputation of the COs involved
The need to obfuscate the fact that the agency CHARGED with defending INTERNAL US Airspace utterly failed to do so.

If you have to ask why anyone would lie, or that as an institution it's staff would be encouraged to lie in order to protect it's prestige/cover up the fact that it couldn't fulfil it's primary mandate, you need to learn more about people. Or become a lot more cynical.
 
Oh yes its "mistakes" :rolleyes: They love their citizens too much to stage a terror attack using their own hired agents in order to gain massive amounts of power and justification for anything they want.

I mean what people in power want more power? For intelligent people some seem terribly naive.
 
Azrael - as I've said on numerous occassions, when someone supplies evidence, not conjecture, about alternative 9/11 stuff I'll listen - for example, I'd be more than willing to listen to the 'planted demolition' theories IF someone could provide solid evidence of what floors these explosives were planted on, what companies were there, what maintainance companies were involved...any kind of paper trail in fact.

As Deep Throat told Woodward - 'Follow the Money'.
 
i'll give it to the end of the page until this turns into "discussing" conspiracy nonsense, rather than the information in the original post.

i like it when the ed has to get his italics out.
 
But what if they got caught out? I mean, the deliberate murder of your own civilians? The risk of being found out is just too much. Evil bastards or not, they still get voted in. If I was in power, I'd be well aware of the risk to my power such an approach would bring. I'd do something much safer.

Surely, if you're going to 'engineer' something, make it less tangible - somewhere the evidence won't be so easy to find. Sink a deserted warship. Provoke Saddam into acting rashly etc. I don't like using this analogy, but it's like engineering a Vietnamese undercover operation that destroys the Brooklyn Bridge in order to go to war in Vietnam.
 
Besides, if anything, these tapes provide more weight against the fruitloopery. If the Pentagon is so inept that they have to go scurrying around tidying behind themselves when they get caught out, and then get found out; well - I don't put much faith in their ability to covertly knock down the WTC.

Unless it's all an elaborate double bluff!
 
kyser_soze said:
Azrael - as I've said on numerous occassions, when someone supplies evidence, not conjecture, about alternative 9/11 stuff I'll listen - for example, I'd be more than willing to listen to the 'planted demolition' theories IF someone could provide solid evidence of what floors these explosives were planted on, what companies were there, what maintainance companies were involved...any kind of paper trail in fact.

As Deep Throat told Woodward - 'Follow the Money'.

LMAO I`m sick of hearing it.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1358726890127819985&q=road+to+tyranny

Sit down and watch. Try and prove it to be bullocks and when you can`t, have a long think. I mean that in the most loving way possible because believe it or not I just want people to help avert future social catastrophe.
 
Crispy said:
But what if they got caught out? I mean, the deliberate murder of your own civilians? The risk of being found out is just too much. Evil bastards or not, they still get voted in. If I was in power, I'd be well aware of the risk to my power such an approach would bring. I'd do something much safer.

Surely, if you're going to 'engineer' something, make it less tangible - somewhere the evidence won't be so easy to find. Sink a deserted warship. Provoke Saddam into acting rashly etc. I don't like using this analogy, but it's like engineering a Vietnamese undercover operation that destroys the Brooklyn Bridge in order to go to war in Vietnam.

Errr do you know what an electronic voting machine is? Do you know who owns the companies? I think your forgetting Bush stole the election in the first place.
 
No amount of election fraud would get in the way of that sort of charge.
 
Azrael23 said:
Errr do you know what an electronic voting machine is? Do you know who owns the companies? I think your forgetting Bush stole the election in the first place.

Wasn't the whole problem with the votes that they were made on old skool 'punch' style voting machines, and that there was much debate about 'hanging chads'? So nothing to do with electronic voting machines in fact...

Which successfully ignored the sterling efforts made by Florida Police departments state wide to stop BME and other non-Bush voters from actually voting...

Azrael, I HAVE watched that documentary and it's supposition and extrapolation, not hard evidence - find some hard evidence, not stringing together lots of circumstantial stuff and calling it a whole.
 
Donna Ferentes said:
But what do you think, Jazzz?
I haven't had time to go through it carefully. But two things are particularly striking - the confusion (and lack of planes) due to the war games taking place, and the fact that NORAD had no idea that Flight 11 was crashing into the WTC, they thought it was on its way to Washington!

Oh and the fact that the Pentagon have lied like crazy to the 9/11 commission, which means you can distrust anything they say that isn't backed up by hard evidence.
 
Jazzz said:
I haven't had time to go through it carefully. But two things are particularly striking - the confusion (and lack of planes) due to the war games taking place, and the fact that NORAD had no idea that Flight 11 was crashing into the WTC, they thought it was on its way to Washington!

but they say the only had 4 planes on the eastcoast anyway... and that the war game was a cuban plane hijacking, (which I was just reading one actually happened a couple of days later...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom