9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony

[LumbergTech]

Two threads on this subject have been merged into this one.

No tin foil is allowed - See comment in post below

Anandtech Moderator



why is none of this surprising? of course it wont be convincing to those who have already decided that there is no way that our goverment would lie about it

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html

" A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general."

"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," according to The Washington Post.

 

[Pabster]

So what's your take on it? The Pentagon fudged the story to protect someone(s) or something, or it was an "inside job"?

Now I'll step aside whilst the conspiracy kooks have at it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they show up, the thread gets locked and they get a vacation

Anandtech Moderator

 

[alchemize]

Sounds like to me they had their head up their collective ass, and hence were covering the aforementioned buttocks with some deceptive doublespeak.

Or perhaps it's all part of the other grand master deception - appear like a bloated inept government agency when you really are puppetmasters of the universe

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Pabster
So what's your take on it? The Pentagon fudged the story to protect someone(s) or something, or it was an "inside job"?

Now I'll step aside whilst the conspiracy kooks have at it.

Conspiracy or not, the administration is acting VERY shadily concerning this subject.

 

[Cerb]

Finally, an article that does not paint a picture of the evil frightened neocons, diabolical zionists, or some other such mess. In bureaucracies, those towards the middle learn, as a punishment-avoidance mechanism, to pass blame around, and leave out part of the truth that could could harm them. Add in general confusion, and you've got a recipe for lies, deceipt, and conspiracies galore.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

"The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93."

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which?though no one knew it at the time?was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. "Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.," he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they'd land and make demands. "There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement."

The simple explanations work the best. I'd love to know what caught the other building on fire, too, but I doubt it was explosives planted just for that purpose, ya know.

The article is long, but very well written, and with minimal agenda until the end. When in doubt, assume incompetence, buck-passing, lack communication, and media sensationalism, not evil plots within our government.

P.S. c'mon, keep the lock-bait tin foil to a minimum, please? Pretty please, with a on top?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Cerb
When in doubt, assume incompetence, buck-passing, lack communication, and media sensationalism, not evil plots within our government.

QFT

 

[straightalker]

Here's a cookie.

If you ignore history you are bound to repeat it.

Applying your logic of "just assume incompetance" to, ...Adolph's rise of the 3rd Reich, would be foolish. These guys wrote the textbook on telling lies and had grand masters like Joseph Goebbels.

 

[LunarRay]

The story indicates that the authority to terminate flight 93 occurred after it had crashed or at least before anyone in military knew it was hijacked. I assume no one was watching TV cuz as I recall the stories regarding all aircraft were on TV in real time.. but perhaps UAL 93 was not..
That aside, I have no problem with Flight 93 having crashed at the hands of the passengers or the high jackers or both but would like to read some unbiased reason for the plane parts and contents in two areas before the actual crater of the impact site. Seems the plane must have experienced internal issues or something like that.
I for one would have ordered it shot down so I don't understand the issue amongst the conspiracy folks indicating that it is government at play..
But, I also see distortion and maybe lies given to the commission by folks in testimony.. that don't bode well for the credibilty side of things..

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Here's a cookie.

If you ignore history you are bound to repeat it.

Applying your logic of "just assume incompetance" to, ...Adolph's rise of the 3rd Reich, would be foolish. These guys wrote the textbook on telling lies and had grand masters like Joseph Goebbels.

...which is why it is important to have things like those tapes (or copies of them, anyway). I don't trust our neocons anymore than the next guy who's read the MIC speech and seen some news over the past decade or more, and their greed is likely ruining our economy in the long-term.

However, having corrupt folks in office in no way is evidence that the towers were intentially destroyed, there's little or no evidence for explosives being planted, the Pentagon missile thing requires way too strange a set of circumstances, etc.. The tactics you speak of are being used regularly, but no fake terrorist attack was needed (fake WMD, OTOH...), and we've gotten a magnificent semi-theocracy working itself into our government. Unum necessarium is dangerous in all its guises, be it God or Democracy or just consumerism.

LunarRay: every report conflicts with every other on exact timelines on the final planes. I honestly gave up on trying to figure any of that out. I know we had the towers real-time, as I watched the second one collapse, but I don't recall the details of Pentagon plane at the time. Given that the people working on it as it happened were apparently working with different data and assumptions, we may never be able to properly synthesize it (then again, someone might have some other tapes, or release black boxes, or some other thing that stitches it together).

 

[Talcite]

why did this article come from vanity fair? 0.o

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: straightalker
Here's a cookie.

If you ignore history you are bound to repeat it.

Applying your logic of "just assume incompetance" to, ...Adolph's rise of the 3rd Reich, would be foolish. These guys wrote the textbook on telling lies and had grand masters like Joseph Goebbels.

...which is why it is important to have things like those tapes (or copies of them, anyway). I don't trust our neocons anymore than the next guy who's read the MIC speech and seen some news over the past decade or more, and their greed is likely ruining our economy in the long-term.

However, having corrupt folks in office in no way is evidence that the towers were intentially destroyed, there's little or no evidence for explosives being planted, the Pentagon missile thing requires way too strange a set of circumstances, etc.. The tactics you speak of are being used regularly, but no fake terrorist attack was needed (fake WMD, OTOH...), and we've gotten a magnificent semi-theocracy working itself into our government. Unum necessarium is dangerous in all its guises, be it God or Democracy or just consumerism.

LunarRay: every report conflicts with every other on exact timelines on the final planes. I honestly gave up on trying to figure any of that out. I know we had the towers real-time, as I watched the second one collapse, but I don't recall the details of Pentagon plane at the time. Given that the people working on it as it happened were apparently working with different data and assumptions, we may never be able to properly synthesize it (then again, someone might have some other tapes, or release black boxes, or some other thing that stitches it together).

Yeah.. .. We didn't shoot anything down and the four aircraft hijacked crashed into what they are purported to have crashed into. I've no doubt about that at all.
Time-lines are not important really cuz they are all with in reasonable parameters but the Puffery of some elected officials (Cheney) sickens me... they take tragedy and use it to show the US citizens that they had decisions and made the hard calls..
I can even understand the technical aspects of how collapse of the two towers could occur but not the molten steel at the foundation nor the seismic events preceding the collapse of both..
But, the one that has always stuck in my mind is building 7...
I've no real doubts about anything else the public assumes is truth well except the non finding of the aircraft's black boxes.... That I don't quite follow. The aircraft were in the upper area and on top of the rubble or what was left of them.. and the boxes can stand 3600g's of force.. and more heat that occurred in the event for the duration of it before collapse.
So.. we know the government and military don't testify honestly or completely... normal.. but they bring about the conspiracy issues or help feed them..

 

[Cerb]

...and some government agency certainly has the black boxes, we just don't know who, or why it's kept under wraps. I wouldn't be at all suprised if much of what is still hidden is cloaked so as to keep from making the President and his pals (esp. Cheney) look bad, rather than any of it actually being dangerous to the people (by way of being intelligence that could be used against us).

 

[LunarRay]

The tapes with the story on the Vanity Fair site clear up much of the issue regarding 'who's on first' for me. The military nor the FAA nor anyone save the airlines themselves had a clue what was going on it seems. That they (military and the Government) couldn't admit that seems normal as well since they didn't really have in their minds what we in hind sight see clearly. I'd expect they or some testified as they recalled.. only a few knew and lied is my opinion.
I'd love to read a Tom Clancy book ala his "Executive Decision" regarding this issue.. I'd be quite edified, I think

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cerb
...and some government agency certainly has the black boxes, we just don't know who, or why it's kept under wraps. I wouldn't be at all suprised if much of what is still hidden is cloaked so as to keep from making the President and his pals (esp. Cheney) look bad, rather than any of it actually being dangerous to the people (by way of being intelligence that could be used against us).

I can't imagine what (assuming they exist) the one that gives aircraft info would matter if it was made public.. we all know the plane took off and eventually hit the towers etc.. the other one... still no biggie.. we know who flew them so what they said is of little moment as far as I can see.. so I suppose with that bit of rationalization I'll assume they were destroyed and the witnesses are mistaken at them having been found.
I don't think The President or his friend The VP can be hurt by the contents of any of the black boxes.. I mean... they didn't land to have coffee at Starbucks enroute to their objective..

 

[Cerb]

Well, no, and I see your point, but recall how Cheney acted as though he knew what was going on and made tough decisions (making himself look good--remember, he's a former CEO of a massive company), and even that was torn apart by fairly early investigations and testimony. Secrecy and CYA are a couple things this administration is zealous about, if not always skilled at (and I don't want to mention the rest for concern over derailing the thread ).

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The tapes with the story on the Vanity Fair site clear up much of the issue regarding 'who's on first' for me. The military nor the FAA nor anyone save the airlines themselves had a clue what was going on it seems. That they (military and the Government) couldn't admit that seems normal as well since they didn't really have in their minds what we in hind sight see clearly. I'd expect they or some testified as they recalled.. only a few knew and lied is my opinion.
I'd love to read a Tom Clancy book ala his "Executive Decision" regarding this issue.. I'd be quite edified, I think

At least make sure you watch this small video and read this page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuAVuuGkV8 <<< Original airdate was March 2001
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Finally, an article that does not paint a picture of the evil frightened neocons, diabolical zionists, or some other such mess. In bureaucracies, those towards the middle learn, as a punishment-avoidance mechanism, to pass blame around, and leave out part of the truth that could could harm them. Add in general confusion, and you've got a recipe for lies, deceipt, and conspiracies galore.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

"The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93."

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which?though no one knew it at the time?was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. "Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.," he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they'd land and make demands. "There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement."

The simple explanations work the best. I'd love to know what caught the other building on fire, too, but I doubt it was explosives planted just for that purpose, ya know.

The article is long, but very well written, and with minimal agenda until the end. When in doubt, assume incompetence, buck-passing, lack communication, and media sensationalism, not evil plots within our government.

P.S. c'mon, keep the lock-bait tin foil to a minimum, please? Pretty please, with a on top?

I think this is an outstanding article. Yes, it confirms that the Pentagon deceived the 9/11 Commission, and that needs to be dealt with. It also confirms that there are (were?) gaping holes in America's air defense system, both in terms of communications and coordination, and in resources available (only four armed fighters available for all of the northeastern U.S.?). In many ways, the story of our 9/11 military response could come straight out of the Keystone Kops. Yet most of all, reading the transcripts I was struck by a sense of capable professionals stepping up to chaos, taking charge, acting decisively, and doing the best that could be humanly done with the resources available and the information--and misinformation-- they were given.

While there are plenty of other 9/11 questions unanswered, for me, at least, this article adequately answers the question of "Where were our fighters?" Good read.

 

[LunarRay]

Listening to the audio and reading the transcripts of the "NORAD" tapes then reading the 9/11 testimony transcripts as it related to the events of that day coupled with the actions and remarks taken or made by the 9/11 Commission illuminates the reality that is 'Washington'.
Ben-Veniste a seasoned interrogator if ever there was one must have wanted to explode when he summarized the testimony of High Government Officials and the NORAD tapes in his mind.
Kerrey on the other hand probably just chuckled.
It seems it don't matter what reality was on that day but, rather, what should we (The Government) say to the 'American' people. What is it that 'America' needs to hear. What is it that we (The Government) need to say that diminishes the fear that the Government was not in control. So... distortion, lie and perhaps even truth are combined to effect that. We can speculate on any number of hidden Agenda and policy but none of that will ever be known. All we citizens know for sure is what is actually known and then all manner of spin is attached to that based on still more agenda. Black ops, Green ops all sorts of ops and each so compartmentalized that there can be no link from one to another but yet used to show a pattern...
Who are we? Or more importantly, What are we is the never ending question and never answered question. This is just another chapter and back to sleep we go... sleep rids the conscious of the reality of who and what we are... they are us we are them and life and death are individually experienced but the agenda are perpetual.

 

[jlbenedict]

The truth will never be uncovered until every influential leader with Bush ties are removed from office. When Bush speaks of "Regime Change" for Iraq, its almost comical. The truth is, "Regime Change" needs to happen here in our own country. The mess of all this is it will take an additional two presidential terms to uncover the truth and even begin to straighten out this mess.

 

[LunarRay]

But the reality is BOTH sides and the middle all have their Agenda and when ever who ever is in power there will always be "business as usual".
The Thread topic is simply reasonable people with a 3 million dollar budget trying to answer what every one in power already knows. They know how to fix the issues and they know who knew what.. It was all for the US Citizen's consumption.
This Commission endeavor serves no REAL purpose.
I think the linking of Intel agencies was nice but it is still compartmentalized and only as good as the data coming in and the information resulting.
They believed they had Washington covered with the two fighters but unless they terminated the flights over water or unoccupied land maybe the pentagon was the best alternative for the end of that flight or the Capital building since it was empty. So.. alot of what was said made sense if you think about it... they are expert in the art of being a word crafter. They speak with great minds and always with plausible denial.. Lets face it unless a skilled questioner asks the right questions in the right way skilled witnesses can craft their responses to fit their desire..

 

[DAPUNISHER]

edited to not feed trolls