I took a crack at answering every single one, just for fun...
This is all off the top of my head...I have bolded areas where I don't know what it is referring to. Perhaps others can address those points.
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).
False, simply put. Some confusion was initially raised when the FBI released a list of hijackers without photographs. The hijackers have all been confirmed dead.
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
Fanatics often do things that are discouraged by their religion, such as killing people. Under their beliefs, the act of martyrdom washed away all previous sins and assured them entrance into heaven.
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
This is incorrect. Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilot’s license, acquired in the USA. The flight of AA77 required no special expertise whatsoever, and the aircraft FDR indicates that the person at the controls was not an especially gifted pilot.
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
The lists referred to are the lists of victims. Hijackers are not victims. The hijackers’ names appear on the airline manifests.
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
False. Any number of steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, including the Kader Toy Factory, in 1993 – the worst industrial fire in history.
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
False. Traditionally fires spread slowly through buildings, and as such only a small area of the building is at maximum intensity at any given time. The jet fuel from the aircraft that hit the towers spread fires across large areas of multiple floors at the same time, thus resulting in a much more widespread intense fire. In addition the aircraft impacts caused severe structural damage and stripped fire-proofing from steel – neither of which had occurred in any previous buildings.
A building fire often cited is the Windsor Tower located in Madrid, Spain, which was destroyed by fire in 2005. However the Windsor Tower was not a steel-framed building, but a steel-and concrete building, with a heavy concrete core. The outer steel sections of the building suffered total collapse. The Windsor Tower fire spread through 29 floors with a total area of around 18,000m
2. Each floor of the Twin Towers covered an area in excess of 3,900m
2, thus the impact areas alone of each tower covered more floor space than the entire Windsor Tower.
In order to accurately compare the Windsor Tower with the Twin Towers, one would first need to remove the building’s concrete core, then severely damage every single floor of the building, then floor every single floor with jet fuel and set each floor alight at the same time. In this scenario the Windsor Tower would totally collapse in a matter of minutes.
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
UA175 hit the South Tower much lower than AA11 hit the North Tower. Based on an estimated total load of 500,000 tonnes per tower, giving a load of 4,500 tonnes per floor, the impact zone of WTC1 was holding a load of 54,000 tonnes (12 floors). In contrast WTC2 was holding an above-impact load of 112,500 tonnes (25 floors). In addition, UA175 was travelling approximately 100 MPH faster than AA11 upon impact, thus giving it significantly greater kinetic energy and resulting in much more severe damage. Finally, UA175 hit WTC2 at one corner, whereas AA11 hit WTC1 squarely. This resulted in asymmetrical damage in WTC2, compounding the stresses on the badly damaged impact floors.
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
NIST’s report on WTC7 is not yet complete, thus it is no surprise that the Commission Report did not address it. WTC7 was severely damaged during the collapse of WTC1, and the degree of damage inflicted is the key question to understanding the building’s collapse. Due to the evacuation of lower Manhattan and the smoke obscuring the building’s south face throughout the day, it is impossible to clearly determine from photographic evidence how extensive the damage was. However, numerous videos and photographs show a massive column of smoke belching from every single floor of WTC7 – indeed the smoke column over Manhattan from WTC7 was many times larger than the smoke column from the fires in WTC1 and WTC2.
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony from FDNY staff around the building is unanimous in its summary of the building’s condition – namely that it was dire. Examples of observed features include:
-A huge gash 20 storeys high 1/3 of the way into the building, on the south face.
-Creaking, groaning, and other sounds of structural movement.
-Fire on nearly every floor of the building.
-The building was leaning on an angle (as measures using a transit).
-A bulge began to appear in the building.
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
The key features of a controlled demolition are very loud and very visible explosions throughout the entire structure, moments before collapse. Such explosions did not occur on 9/11.
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
The pancake collapse theory initially proposed by FEMA was rejected by NIST who investigated the collapses. They cited the sagging of floor trusses, pulling exterior columns inwards, as the initiating event for the collapse.
In many collapse videos and photographs, large sections of the cores of each tower can be seen standing for some time after the remainder of the building has collapsed.
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
No doubt this was omitted as irrelevant. Silverstein was clearly referring to FDNY operations occurring around WTC7. In addition, the FDNY made the decision to withdraw operations from WTC7 due to fear of building collapse. Silverstein had no authority to direct FDNY operations whatsoever. The word “pull” in building demolition refers to using heavy machinery and steel cables to literally “pull over” building wall sections that are too severely damaged to allow a more traditional explosive demolition.
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
This is false. All of the debris from Ground Zero was transported by barge to one of several sites where literally thousands of FBI special agents and forensic teams sifted through every single scrap of debris for evidence. In addition an FBI crime scene office was also established at Ground Zero itself.
NIST, who investigated the collapses, were given access to the steel, and selected specific pieces of the building to use in their investigation.
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).
See above.
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
The collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2 was forseen by a number of people, including the NYPD aviation unit and FDNY staff in the lobby of WTC1. The NYPD aviation unit notified the command bunker in WTC7, and in response the building was evacuated.
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
Although often cited, there’s no evidence that Walker and Bush are related. The company they were with, Securacom, was not in charge of security for the WTC, but rather gained a contract for system integration of a new security upgrade provided by another security company after the 1993 WTC bombing. Securacom’s work at the WTC appears to have ended in 1998. The WTC indeed had their own staff position heading security – and on 9/11 that was held by John O’Neil, who died in the attacks. Security was also provided by the PAPD.
Finally, Marvin Bush left Securacom in 2000, and was not with the company when the attacks occurred.
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
The section of The Pentagon hit by AA77 was the side directly facing the direction from which the aircraft came.
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
Investigations in The Pentagon done by a number of organisations concluded that the damage was entirely consistent with an impact from a Boeing 757 travelling at high speed.
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
The 9/11 Commission Report is nor charged with, nor has the capability to investigate the specific scientific details of the attacks. Numerous investigations from a range of government agencies have investigated, and continue to investigate, various elements of the attacks. Examples include NIST, who studied the building collapses, and the FBI who led the criminal investigation.
The upgrades to The Pentagon designed to make it more effectively resist a truck bomb worked well. The building did not collapse immediately, allowing hundreds of people to safely escape.
The careful cross-analysis of photos of The Pentagon’s facade prior to collapse indicates that the severe damage area spans at least 60 feet.
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
Ample physical and eyewitness evidence supports the claim that a 757 crashed into The Pentagon.
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner — even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
The notion that The Pentagon has an anti-missile defence system is absurd. It is located a short distance from a major airport, in the middle of a major metropolitan area. In addition, on anniversaries of the attacks military mobile anti-air defence units were deployed to The Pentagon – indicating such defences did not previously exist.
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras — including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike — could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
A large amount of security camera footage in the area of The Pentagon was confiscated by the FBI as potential evidence. This was done in the hope that some might capture the impact. However security cameras are designed to protect the sites where they are installed – not to look at another building some distance away. Any capture of impact by a security camera would be entirely by chance, and is unlikely to have been in an ideal frame. In addition, to save storage space security cameras are normally run at a very low frame rate – often as low as 1fps. This is ample time to capture someone driving off without paying for gas, or stealing from the cash register, but a poor medium for capturing an airliner smashing into a distant building at high speed.
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
Indeed, the terrorists used AA77 just like a missile – a 100 tonne missile loaded with jet fuel and carrying 59 civilians.
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
There’s no indication whatsoever that the hijackers intended to fly an aircraft into the school, nor that they even intended to attack Bush. Until such time as the USSS determined precisely what was happening, and until such time as they secured the route to Air Force One, the most sensible course of action was to remain in place.
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
A number of fighter aircraft were scrambled to provide escort to Air Force One. When Air Force One eventually landed at Andrews AFB no less than 8 USAF fighters accompanied it, including fighters from the 121st Fighter Squadron.
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
There is no indication that news of the hijackings went further than NORAD, the FAA, American Airlines, and United Airlines prior to 0903.
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
This was a specific individual threat assessment. Ashcroft used official government aircraft for official government business and continued to use commercial airlines for personal business.
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
Requires more investigation.
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
Requires more investigation.
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
These transactions were investigated by the FBI and found not to be suspicious.
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
A group of Pentagon officials cancelled travel plans intended for 9/11. There is no indication these plans involved flying. This is not evidence of an “inside job” as anyone involved in the conspiracy would know which flights were to be hijacked, thus making cancellation of travel plans unnecessary.
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
This claim is false and has been flatly denied by bin Laden himself.
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S. military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
The experiences of soldier on the ground in Afghanistan at the time suggests otherwise. The US did not have sufficient ground forces in Afghanistan at the time to properly secure the Tora Bora caves site. Initially they intended to deploy the forces in country, however the major element of the force was pulled out of fear that it would result in significant US casualties. Instead local Afghani forces assaulted Tora Bora, supported by coalition Special Forces. The assault was insufficient to achieve its objective of capturing key Al Qaeda leaders.
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
As per above, bin Laden was never in hospital in Dubai.
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family — all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period — were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
I’ve put these three together. The Commission states it found no evidence of Saudis funding the operation. This is not an omission by them, except for people who simply flat out refuse to believe them.
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
The Saudis who left the USA on Sept 13 were in the USA under consular passports and thus had diplomatic immunity. It is a violation of centuries old international convention to impede the free movement of a diplomat.
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
The National Security Advisor himself determined that they were not a security threat, and authorised their departure. Before their departure they were interviewed by the FBI.
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
See above.
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
Requires more investigation.
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
Requires more investigation.
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
The request for a warrant to search his computer was rejected by the FBI’s attorneys as they did not feel there was sufficient grounds to issue one.
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds — testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
Sibel Edmonds did not join the FBI until after 9/11.
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials (103-04).
Intelligence officials often meet intelligence officials from other countries. It’s part of their job.
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
The only source for this claim is a minor story in one Indian newspaper.
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
Again, this is not an omission, but a finding. This matter was investigated by the Commission.
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
This has no relevance to 9/11.
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
The assassination of Masood is not especially related to 9/11. There was ample reason for either Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the ISI to assassinate Masood, without involving either the CIA or 9/11.
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
The FBI and Pakistani authorities jointly investigated the case, identified those responsible, and arrested them. They were convicted and sentenced. Those responsible admit their guilt at claim one of their motives was to embarrass the Pakistani government.
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
Al Qaeda and the ISI have always had a close connection. Pakistan is rife with supporters of Radical Islamic terrorists.
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
It is well known that Islamic terrorists, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wanted to collapse the towers.
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
Indeed, they were. As we saw with Iraq.
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the U.S. military (117-18).
This is not relevant to the attacks.
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the U.S. Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
How is this relevant?
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks — Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart — were also three of the strongest advocates for the U.S. Space Command (122).
Again, how is this relevant?
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
Again, not relevant. By 2001 no one was especially interested in a gas pipeline through Afghanistan.
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
There is no evidence that this meeting ever occurred.
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the U.S. public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
Central Asia – under any of its many definitions – has very little, if any, oil. The world’s most significant traditional oil reserves are in the Middle East, while non traditional sources in Canada and Venezuela contain more oil than the rest of the world combined. Canada is currently the largest exporter of oil to the United States.
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
The 9/11 Commission report concluded that Iraq was in no way related to 9/11.
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
The United States invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11, not Iraq.
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
The United States invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11, not Iraq.
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command — even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
The claim is entirely correct.
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
This is entirely correct. On 9/11 NEADS had a pair of F-15s at Otis ANGB and a pair of F-16s at Langley AFB.
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
This is entirely false. On 9/11 Andrews AFB was home to the 121st Fighter Squadron, flying F-16’s, and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 (VMFA-321) flying F/A-18’s. Neither of these squadrons were part of the NORAD air defence mission. However on 9/11 the USSS did request that the 121st FS scramble fighters to protect Washington DC. The 121st were able to launch several unarmed fighters moments after the end of the attacks.
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
This is indeed incorrect. Major Nasypany, the NEADS Mission Crew Commander, ordered the scramble of the Otis fighters at 0845 – after having put the aircraft on “Battle Stations” within one minute of the call from Boston ARTCC. Two minutes later, at 0847, as AA11 hit WTC1, the Otis fighters were scrambled, Nasypany’s 0845 order having been approved by Colonel Marr and General Arnold.
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the U.S. military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
This is entirely true. NEADS has inferior radar to the FAA, and was not capable of finding the aircraft on its scopes.
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
The initial intercept of N47BA (Stewart’s Learjet35) took 81 minutes. NEADS were only notified of the hijacking of AA11 nine minutes before it crashed.
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
This is an incorrect interpretation of events. In reality NEADS did not issue a scramble order immediately because they did not know where to send the fighters. Otis was put on “Battle Stations” within 60 seconds of the notification from Boston ARTCC at 0837. A scramble order was not issued until 0845 because the NEADS MCC did not have sufficient information. However at 0845 he decided to scramble the fighters without a specific destination for intercept. The Otis fighters took off 2 minutes after the scramble order was received.
69. The claim that the U.S. military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
This is entirely true and consistent with the physical evidence.
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
The previous report should be considered false because the evidence does not support it. NORAD’s initial timeline was in direct conflict with both physical evidence and testimony from staff and the FAA. I propose that the NORAD commanders did not have the opportunity to correctly investigate their response to 9/11 during the intervening 3 years because NORAD was grossly over-stretched trying to maintain Operation Noble Eagle.
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
This could probably require more investigation.
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
As per above.
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
As per above.
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
AA77 was not hijacked until 0854. According to the ARTCC transcript, the last transmission from AA77 was at 1250:51 UTC (0850:51 EDT) and ran “ah direct FALMOUTH American seventy seven thanks”.
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
I am sure it was taken seriously. Indianapolis Centre seriously thought AA77 had crashed. They were wrong.
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
The US Military do not monitor US airspace.
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three (3) years (192-93).
The Commission Report claims that they were intentionally lying. Personally I think they were simply mistaken.
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
This claim is entirely correct and supported by ample evidence.
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
NEADS discovered that AA77 had been hijacked by accident at 0934.
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
Something to investigate?
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department" — although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
Neither Rumsfeld nor Myers nor Clarke were in a position to direct NORAD operations.
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference — although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
It is possible that Clarke knew (or claims to know) who participated, but the Commission Report did not?
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
Richard Clarke’s version of events is full of problems in the timeline.
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
The purpose of a report is to determine the facts, not highlight ever incorrect interpretation of events.
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
This has been addressed plenty. Mineta was entirely mistaken.
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36 — in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
Everyone thought AA77 was headed for the White House, not The Pentagon. I doubt anyone in The Pentagon knew it was a target until it was hit.
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon — one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
Not mentioning something is not the same as saying it didn’t happen.
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
This is entirely correct. The Navy ATC controller handling the aircraft sent them into a standard departure profile – heading 090 (east) for 60 miles.
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
There is no evidence that suggests AA77 did not hit The Pentagon.
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
This claim is entirely true and consistent with the evidence.
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
Worth investigating?
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
Everyone is “able” to know everything anyone else knows.
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
Much that was done on 9/11 broke from protocol.
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
Worth investigating?
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
This is an incorrect understanding of events. The FAA would give the USSS updates, however between those updates the USSS simply projected the flight’s progress. Thus for a period of time the USSS continued to project UA93’s progress based on the FAA’s last report even though it had crashed.
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the U.S. military until 10:31 (237-41).
The shoot down order was issued by the President.
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
There is no evidence indicating that UA93 was shot down.
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
Richard Clarke is an advisor and has no authority in the chain of command of the executive or of the military. There is no reason to think he would be notified of the request.
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
Clarke’s memory of what happened is repeatedly wrong.
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
This claim is collaborated by multiple sources, and only refuted by testimonies that are demonstratably incorrect in their timelines.
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
See above.
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
There was no consideration of the military using force against a civilian target, and such an act is potentially illegal. As such the military requested this authorisation from the President.
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
UA93 was crashed into the ground by the hijackers after passengers attempted to storm the cockpit. There were no military fighters within range of UA93 at the time. The Otis F-15s were over Manhattan, the Langley F-16s were over Washington DC, and fighters were in the process of being scrambled from both Selfridge Field (to intercept Delta 1989) and Andrews AFB (to protect Washington DC).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
I honestly don’t know what he's referring to.
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
This is entirely false. In 2001 there were only 7 bases maintaining the NORAD air defence mission across the entire contiguous United States.
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
This is entirely true and correct. NORAD’s area of responsibility is the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) which lies over water off the US coastline.
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
Again, this is correct.
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
There’s no evidence that NORAD had recognised this threat.
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
The two command post exercises being held by NORAD on 9/11 enhanced the military’s response.
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
Operation Northwoods has no relevance to 9/11.
111. The claim — made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them — that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
This is incorrect. It was a failure of protocol that resulted in NEADS learning of the hijackings so quickly. Boston ARTCC notified NEADS directly of the hijackings, which is a violation of protocol.
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
The Commission was assembled from members of Congress, thus it is impossible for them to be entirely independent.
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
The funding thing is a myth. I feel the Administration’s reluctance to establish the Commission was understandable, given the context in which it was called for.
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
The Commission was assembled from members of Congress, thus it is impossible for them to be entirely independent.
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
Your speculation is not of value.
-Gumboot
)