| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"peace.seeker.27" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2006 03:48:44 AM |
| Object: |
Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
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."
.
|
|
| User: "milou" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
02 Aug 2006 05:13:46 AM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2006 01:48:44 -0700, "peace.seeker.27"
<vesuvian.doppelgange@lycos.com> wrote:
<crossposted cut&paste monkey's job snipped>
What they said doesn't fit with your conspiracy *****, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
02 Aug 2006 10:16:06 AM |
|
|
milou wrote:
<vesuvian.doppelgange@lycos.com> wrote:
What they said doesn't fit with your conspiracy *****, eh?
"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."
Not spin + Not true = Lies
.
|
|
|
| User: "milou" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
02 Aug 2006 11:08:36 AM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2006 08:16:06 -0700, wrote:
milou wrote:
< > wrote:
What they said doesn't fit with your conspiracy *****, eh?
"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."
Not spin + Not true = Lies
Nothing spectacular, it's allegations about how different services
reacted.
There was no need to cut&paste an article which anyone can read in the
media.
What's for your next panic? Darkness falling over your town 9pm
tonight?
And why would newsgroups about middle east discussions be interested
in US bureaucratic squabbles?
[Middle East NGs removed form xpost]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
03 Aug 2006 03:20:26 AM |
|
|
peace.seeker.27 wrote:
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
Why did many smell cordite after the blast? Who made them recant it
afterwards?
Why was the color of the flame wrong? It was closer to the color of
cordite buring than jet fuel.
Where were the engines from the aircraft?
Why was the hole in the building so small?
Why were the security cameria tapes never released?
What was the mysterious white aircraft doing circling overhead and then
why did it mosy off?
What was the mysterious draped thing they removed from the scene after
the crash?
Why did 1/3 see a cruse missle come in, and 1/3 saw a small biz jet, and
1/3 saw a large comercial aircraft?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gentile" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
03 Aug 2006 06:32:40 AM |
|
|
***News Flash***
George Bush commits suicide, blames Islamic Extremists.
"He faked the Decapitation claims Whitehouse Intern"
If a Conspiracy Theory sounds implausibe then......it didn't happen.
Youre saying that at the same time Terorists hijacked 3 other Planes
that someone decided to fire a Cruise Missile into the Pentagon. Sounds
like a Dan Brown Novel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
03 Aug 2006 06:46:35 AM |
|
|
"Gentile" <nudist100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154604760.304005.19280@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
***News Flash***
George Bush commits suicide, blames Islamic Extremists.
"He faked the Decapitation claims Whitehouse Intern"
If a Conspiracy Theory sounds implausibe then......it didn't happen.
Youre saying that at the same time Terorists hijacked 3 other Planes
that someone decided to fire a Cruise Missile into the Pentagon. Sounds
like a Dan Brown Novel.
Whatever it was that whacked the Pentagon, a Boeing it wasn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gentile" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
03 Aug 2006 07:23:10 AM |
|
|
Whatever it was that whacked the Pentagon, a Boeing it wasn't.
And who stood to gain from this? This Theory needs 3 things to be
plausable,
Motive
Means
Opportunity
I read all that crap a while ago and the crap that the Twin Towers was
a conspiracy too. If you only look at the Opportunity part, no one knew
what was really happening until a few hours after, that Terrorist had
Hijacked the Planes. Are you honestly suggesting that Americans had the
Opportunity to get their act together so fast and launch a Cruise
Missile into the Pentagon? Which brings us to Motive, why would they
bomb the Pentagon when the Twin Towers were already hit?
Anyone who believes this has a great future in Hollywood or Pallywood
as a Scriptwriter. The Palestinians constantly fake Media stories and
Hazbollah rescued the same dead infant several times over a 6 hour
period for the Media. The Terrorist who did that was not a Paramedic
and definitely not a good Actor.
Anytime I see Muslims on the News I am reminded of Comical Ali in
Bagdhad who was saying the "Americans will never invade Iraq" while
American Troops could clearly be seen in the background. The Media in
South Lebanon are told what they can report on by Hazbollah so the
Western Media cannot be believed either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Blankenship" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
03 Aug 2006 10:48:18 PM |
|
|
"Gentile" <nudist100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154607790.906826.281200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Whatever it was that whacked the Pentagon, a Boeing it wasn't.
And who stood to gain from this? This Theory needs 3 things to be
plausable,
Motive
Means
Opportunity
I read all that crap a while ago and the crap that the Twin Towers was
a conspiracy too. If you only look at the Opportunity part, no one knew
what was really happening until a few hours after, that Terrorist had
Hijacked the Planes.
Re-evaluate assuming that supposition is incorrect. Re-evaluate with the
information, "People in the US government knew..."
Are you honestly suggesting that Americans had the
Opportunity to get their act together so fast and launch a Cruise
Missile into the Pentagon?
See above.
Which brings us to Motive, why would they
bomb the Pentagon when the Twin Towers were already hit?
All part of a bigger plan. A fail-safe. If the planes didn't make it, the
Pentagon hit would produce a similar outcome, scaring the American people
into authorizing a war. We didn't know then it would be based on lies and
attack people not involved and suck $430,000,000,000 out of our country for
no benefit to anyone except war profiteers, ie. Halliburton, ***** Cheney,
etc.
Anyone who believes this has a great future in Hollywood or Pallywood
as a Scriptwriter. The Palestinians constantly fake Media stories and
Hazbollah rescued the same dead infant several times over a 6 hour
period for the Media. The Terrorist who did that was not a Paramedic
and definitely not a good Actor.
Who makes up all of this ***** that gets circulated on the Internet smearing
Democrats? I received one yesterday that claimed Bill Clinton ordered Atta
be released from a prison and Al Gore voted for blablaba. Both were lies,
but the email was an elaborate thing with photos, etc. Who has the time to
make this stuff? How many emails do you see that rail on Republicans? How
about NONE? This is called PROPAGANDA. When Fox News makes one claim and
the BBC says something completely different, who do you think has something
to gain by distorting the truth?
Anytime I see Muslims on the News I am reminded of Comical Ali in
Bagdhad who was saying the "Americans will never invade Iraq" while
American Troops could clearly be seen in the background. The Media in
South Lebanon are told what they can report on by Hazbollah so the
Western Media cannot be believed either.
So, who tells Fox News what to say? Do you really think we are getting the
truth here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gentile" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
04 Aug 2006 05:59:39 AM |
|
|
So, who tells Fox News what to say?
We dont get Fox in Europe
Do you really think we are getting the truth here?
"The Truth, the Truth, you cant handle the Truth" Jack Nicholson
Conspiracy Theories are just that....Theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jmcgill" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
04 Aug 2006 10:59:56 AM |
|
|
Gentile wrote:
So, who tells Fox News what to say?
We dont get Fox in Europe
Trade you for Czech TV.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osric" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon Lied to 9/11 Panel |
06 Aug 2006 09:28:12 AM |
|
|
Roy Blankenship wrote:
"Gentile" <nudist100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154607790.906826.281200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Whatever it was that whacked the Pentagon, a Boeing it wasn't.
And who stood to gain from this? This Theory needs 3 things to be
plausable,
Motive
Means
Opportunity
I read all that crap a while ago and the crap that the Twin Towers
was a conspiracy too. If you only look at the Opportunity part, no
one knew what was really happening until a few hours after, that
Terrorist had Hijacked the Planes.
Re-evaluate assuming that supposition is incorrect. Re-evaluate with
the information, "People in the US government knew..."
Are you honestly suggesting that Americans had the
Opportunity to get their act together so fast and launch a Cruise
Missile into the Pentagon?
See above.
Which brings us to Motive, why would they
bomb the Pentagon when the Twin Towers were already hit?
All part of a bigger plan. A fail-safe. If the planes didn't make it,
the Pentagon hit would produce a similar outcome, scaring the
American people into authorizing a war. We didn't know then it would
be based on lies and attack people not involved and suck
$430,000,000,000 out of our country for no benefit to anyone except
war profiteers, ie. Halliburton, ***** Cheney, etc.
Anyone who believes this has a great future in Hollywood or Pallywood
as a Scriptwriter. The Palestinians constantly fake Media stories and
Hazbollah rescued the same dead infant several times over a 6 hour
period for the Media. The Terrorist who did that was not a Paramedic
and definitely not a good Actor.
Who makes up all of this ***** that gets circulated on the Internet
smearing Democrats? I received one yesterday that claimed Bill
Clinton ordered Atta be released from a prison and Al Gore voted for
blablaba. Both were lies, but the email was an elaborate thing with
photos, etc. Who has the time to make this stuff? How many emails do
you see that rail on Republicans? How about NONE? This is called
PROPAGANDA. When Fox News makes one claim and the BBC says something
completely different, who do you think has something to gain by
distorting the truth?
Anytime I see Muslims on the News I am reminded of Comical Ali in
Bagdhad who was saying the "Americans will never invade Iraq" while
American Troops could clearly be seen in the background. The Media in
South Lebanon are told what they can report on by Hazbollah so the
Western Media cannot be believed either.
So, who tells Fox News what to say? Do you really think we are
getting the truth here?
Thats a very easy question to answer. Rupert Murdoch tells Fox News what to
say. And he tells them to say whatever will advance his business interests.
Mostly his business interests involve getting favours from the US government
and in return he delivers whatever they want on the news, oh and the British
Prime Minister.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
