9/11 Commission records unsealed

[MikeW]

Just mentioning this new document in this thread, too - it's a 9/11 Commission transcript of a line between the FAA at Herndon and the Washington Operations Centre, and helpful for answering questions like "when did the FAA learn about each hijacked plane?"

 

[MikeW]

I've just uploaded a short 9/11 Commission file referencing Flight 93 passenger Toshiya Kuge. This is mostly interesting for its details on the process United Airlines followed in making contact with each passenger's next of kin, though. The airline had received 46,000 calls by the evening of 9/11, for instance, and had made contact with relatives of every passenger apart from Kuge (whose family had been contacted separately in Japan so wouldn't be included) and, of course, the hijackers. So those who wonder how they could be identified so quickly are missing some of these early clues,

Download the document here.

 

[Gravy]

I've taken RedIbis off ignore and will call his attention to this post. Now I know why he's been afraid to read my paper about William Rodriguez.

Take it for what it's worth, and I'm sure you'll say it's not worth much but that's a lawsuit filed on Rodriguez's behalf by Philip Berg. Rodriguez severed that legal relationship sometime after the suit was filed, although I don't know why exactly, but I do know that Rodriguez was unhappy with the representation.

Call it what you want, but I'd like to see Rodriguez saying it [that 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy] himself. Perhaps he has, I've just noticed that he is careful to distance himself from conspiracy theories or that what he experienced were pre-planted explosives.

Bolding mine.

“I was there. I don’t speculate.” –William Rodriguez​

During a radio interview Rodriguez says, “I agree that there are many conspiracy theories, but in my case, I was an eyewitness. I was there.” But then he immediately says, “Criminal minds within our own government were involved in this pre-planned process.”Source​

"I won't speculate because I'm not a theorist."Source
​

"William Rodriguez, of full age, being first duly sworn according to law, says:
​

1. I am the plaintiff in this action, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below....

...I will show in this affidavit that the truly unbelievable "conspiracy theory" concerning the 9-11 attacks, in particular those at the World Trade Center in New York, is the one being peddled by the Government."..–From Rodriguez's sworn, signed, and notarized court affidavit, January, 2006.

​

"The 9/11 attacks are just an illusion. It never happened in the way they say. It's all manufactured to give the impression that it happened like that."

Mr Rodriguez, a native of Puerto Rico, swears his ordeal began before the first plane hit the Twin Towers. He claims that the White House failed to act, and accuses the government of being involved in "sponsored terrorism" in a bid to find a motive to invade Iraq. Source..(02 December, 2006)
​

Host: "Do you think the people who crashed the planes were genuine terrorists, then?”

WR: "I don’t, because, uh, you know, it’s, it’s, well, what I’m saying is it’s not that they were genuine terrorists or not. I’m saying that I believe these people were handled by our own intelligence to do this thing." Source


Radio host Alex Jones: "When did you start understanding the official story was a fraud? Day one?"

WR: "Well, I didn’t know day one, I’ll be honest with you. Because, Alex, at the beginning I (inaudible) of the news. Probably days or weeks, because I came out with the story and I testified for the media, for the national media, on that same day of what I experienced. And I started to realize that my story was continuously being edited, that the whole information that I was giving wasn’t coming out correctly." Source


Besides what Rodriguez calls a massive government cover-up, the stories of all the workers, including the 14 people with him in the sub-level 1 basement office, have never been reported by major news outlets in the U.S., a fact which he said is beyond belief considering the importance of the testimony. Source


"My allegations were never investigated and the perpetrators never caught. The people they did question - the chiefs of the fire and police departments - weren't even in the building [This is false]. It was a complete whitewash." Source​

Though Rodriguez is sometimes pegged as a conspiracy theorist, he said he is not. He is simply an eyewitness with concerns, and wants to know what really happened that day.

"A lot of people don't believe me. They don't believe in conspiracy theories. Neither do I," Rodriguez explains. "But what I say to them is I was an eyewitness. I was there. I don't speculate, I tell people what happened because I experienced it. There are so many stupid theories that we don't agree with but that doesn't change the fact I think the official story is a lie." (February, 2007) Source


“I knew Jose very well since we worked for the same company,” said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation from his New Jersey apartment. “At the time, I taped his statements, I was more concerned about getting people needed assistance and, anyway, back then I really thought the government was seriously investigating the WTC attacks. “But since then I have learned otherwise. I realize now they are covering-up the real truth and that’s why I want to release Jose’s statement. What really upsets me and, you can take this message to the White House, is that people like Jose and many others like him who experienced what happened in the basement of the north tower were simply ignored and never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Source


“I was a magician for thirty years ... It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you’re doing the magic with the other hand.” Inferring that in plain sight, the planes struck; out of sight, bombs exploded, “It’s just a big magic trick,” Rodriguez concludes. “It’s an illusion.” Source


There’s reality, and there’s illusion,” says William Rodriguez. “When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem; 9/11 is a giant illusion. Source


“I was trained to investigate claims of the paranormal by one of the best magicians around (retired) and one of the leading investigators of phenomena. Mr. James Randi, little did I know that after 9/11 I was going to use those same skills to investigate what happened. Magic is the business of creating illusions and to make believe. 9/11 is nothing more than the David Copperfield‘s at the White House fooling us and hiding under heir sleeves the other cards.”..Source
​

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert." Source

False.
​

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.". Source


"I know there was a massive explosion in the basement, not related to an airplane." Source


Radio Host: "Do you believe there was a bomb in both buildings?"

WR: "Definitely. …I think that was explosives that was set up on the basement as an accelerator to actually bring the towers down.” Source


"After rescuing several more people from the basement that also witnessed bombs, William proceeded up the stair well to assist people out of the building." Source


"I disagree 100% with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower." Source (Notes by his 9/11 Commission interviewers (1, 2) indicate that Rodriguez said nothing about explosives during that interview, as he hadn't in his TV and print appearances, his statement to NIST investigators, or in his own 2004 lawsuit against the U.S. Government.)


“As a survivor of the initial bomb of 1993, it was not only osmosis, I believe exactly what happened years before, so that’s why when that explosion happened I put one and one together and say that it’s a bomb. Just to clear something up, I’m really not sure what it was, I am not an expert in explosives but you don’t need a degree on science and technology of fire safety to know what a fire looks like” Source​

Clear enough, RedIbis?​

 

[RedIbis]

I've taken RedIbis off ignore and will call his attention to this post. Now I know why he's been afraid to read my paper about William Rodriguez.

Bolding mine.





Clear enough, RedIbis?

Here's an idea. Go back through the Rodriguez Vindicated thread and answer all of my direct questions to you then I'll address your post. The ignore function should be used for abusive posters, not for civil and friendly posters who ask you very difficult and specific questions.

 

[Gravy]

Here's an idea. Go back through the Rodriguez Vindicated thread and answer all of my direct questions to you then I'll address your post. The ignore function should be used for abusive posters, not for civil and friendly posters who ask you very difficult and specific questions.

1) Why were you asking me direct questions when you know I've had you on ignore? Remember that I've had to remind you not to do that in the past.

2) In addition to #1, willful ignorance is anything but civil and friendly. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people I've ever encountered.

3) Was Rodriguez "vindicated" by the Commission notes, or do they support exactly what I've been saying about him: that to the people empowered with investigating the events of 9/11 he never mentions suspicions of explosives, bombs, or anything like them? Let's see how honest you are now.

4) Do you agree that Rodriguez is a conspiracy theorist who now claims there were bombs in the towers?

 

[Gravy]

As RedIbis requested, I went to the Rodriguez Vindicated thread. Here are his questions to me:

First, RedIbis asked me what Rodriguez's "big crime" was. It was repeatedly pointed out to him that no one was accusing him of a crime. Asking me to reply to this question yet again is neither "civil" nor "friendly."

Charging them [his 9/11 Commission interviewers whose notes have been released]? Do you want him to make a citizen's arrest? It's not like Rodriguez has been shy about his accusations.

He claims his account to the Commission was covered up. The records from two people show otherwise. Both cannot be true. Rodriguez said in 2006 that he was going to be filing a new lawsuit against the government. He has not done so. Will he be taking these interviewers to court? Of course not. He might have a leg to stand on if there were any record of him claiming, before 2005, that he thinks there were explosives in the buildings. If there were such a record, Rodriguez would have produced it.

And remember that in 2006 and 2007 Rodriguez repeatedly said that he does not claim that there were explosives or bombs in the buildings. He cannot both have told the Commission of his suspicions of explosives and not told them that. Your response, Redibis? Do you think it is more likely that the two interviewers are lying and covering it up, or, given his extensive record of false claims, that the problem lies with Rodriguez?

If he's a member here then why are you insulting him?

This was answered in that thread. I made no actionable statements about him, and he is not a registered member with posting privileges.

RedIbis then said this:

You'll find out quick that Gravy's "analysis" is not much more than long winded, subjective witch hunting.

Since the evidence (see above) shows that RedIbis was unfamiliar with the content of my analysis, this statement is neither "civil" nor "friendly." I will point out yet again that, like Rodriguez, RedIbis hasn't shown that I got anything wrong in that paper.

Some advice, RedIbis: save your complaints for when you have evidence to support them. This behavior of yours is simply rude.

 

[RedIbis]

1) Why were you asking me direct questions when you know I've had you on ignore? Remember that I've had to remind you not to do that in the past.

Because as long as I stay within the rules I can do what I damn well please. The more pertinent question is why you feel the need to tell people what to do. Isn't that what moderation is for?

2) In addition to #1, willful ignorance is anything but civil and friendly. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people I've ever encountered.

Well while we're just taking cheap shots, your "research", as I've pointed out in the past, is nothing but selective and subjective exaggeration, which you admit is not scientific or academic.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant, as they've been answered earlier in the thread and you refuse to address any of the questions I've already asked.

What a bizarre debunking strategy you have. You arbitrarily retire, put people on ignore, beg people to ignore other posters, only to send private messages when you feel like having me answer your questions.

The rest of the world is not the jref forum. You don't deserve any special attention and your "research" is no better than mass of narcissistic blathering that goes on on the internet. Make up your mind, either keep me on ignore or engage in a sincere and civil discussion in the spirit and mission of the forum.

 

[dtugg]

Red do you know that you are a dishonest person or do you have yourself fooled?

 

[The Big Dog]

Because as long as I stay within the rules I can do what I damn well please. The more pertinent question is why you feel the need to tell people what to do. Isn't that what moderation is for?



Well while we're just taking cheap shots, your "research", as I've pointed out in the past, is nothing but selective and subjective exaggeration, which you admit is not scientific or academic.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant, as they've been answered earlier in the thread and you refuse to address any of the questions I've already asked.

What a bizarre debunking strategy you have. You arbitrarily retire, put people on ignore, beg people to ignore other posters, only to send private messages when you feel like having me answer your questions.

The rest of the world is not the jref forum. You don't deserve any special attention and your "research" is no better than mass of narcissistic blathering that goes on on the internet. Make up your mind, either keep me on ignore or engage in a sincere and civil discussion in the spirit and mission of the forum.

RED, are you really going to fire off a spread of insults, openly dodge the questions, and then top it off with one of the most hypocritical comments in the history of this forum??

Perhaps you do not understand.
Understanding the mission of the forum
Seems to be impossible for you.
Such conduct is unbecoming.
You seem not to care that people see you as a coward.

 

[BCR]

I notice RedIbis just completely skipped answering Gravy's #3 and #4 questions. Interesting.

 

[johnny karate]

What a bizarre debunking strategy you have.

As opposed to your rock-solid strategy of lying and running away from inconvenient questions.

Speaking of which:

Here's an idea. Go back through the Rodriguez Vindicated thread and answer all of my direct questions to you then I'll address your post.

Gravy complied with your request. You have the floor.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I notice RedIbis just completely skipped answering Gravy's #3 and #4 questions. Interesting.

And an entire post that followed...

 

[MikeW]

I've just uploaded a new 9/11 Commission record which is nominally about Joseph DeLuca. But the most interesting part was bundled with it for some reason: a flight history of everyone on flight 93 (passenger names, where they bought their tickets, when, various other details). This lets us see definitively who was a last minute passenger, provides another reason why Mark Bingham might have been left off my first passenger list (he was on a standby ticket as a guest of his UA-employee aunt), and more.

It's well worth a look if you ever take part in any threads about flight 93 passengers, then. Grab a copy here.

 

[T.A.M.]

and in turn, rips apart the idea of pre-made scripts, read by actors via voice morphing, to fake the calls.

But why should the truthers let little things like facts stand in the way.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Nothing RedIbis? Just more running from the facts about Rodriguez – which are staring you in the face and aren't going away – and more whining about me?

Yet you still haven't shown that there's a single thing wrong in my Rodriguez paper. Surprise, surprise. Back to ignore you go.

 

[MikeW]

And here's another new 9/11 Commission record, this time on Mark Bingham.

It includes a couple of brief FBI interviews with family members. Mostly the information we already know about his phone call.

There's a further explanation of why Bingham may not have appeared on that other passenger list I was given (he was traveling on an employee pass and hadn't paid for the ticket).

There's an FBI document saying that United Airlines passed a list of people whose names appeared on the flight 93 boarding passes. The hijackers, of course, are included. We often hear "there's no evidence they were even on the planes" - do boarding passes count?

An FBI list of personal effects released to family members of the flight 93 passengers. Obviously it's totally impossible that anything could have survived, right? Well, no - the list says properties were released for 26 passengers (and this is only one list, there may have been more).

It's an interesting few pages, then, and you can download the document here.

(I really must get some real-life work done now so won't be posting these for a while, but I'm not finished. There's plenty more to come.)

 

[RedIbis]

Surprise, surprise. Back to ignore you go.

Shocking. So you waited exactly one day, a Sunday, for me to respond to points that were already addressed in the thread. Great to see you're really in the spirit of honest, civil debate.

What I think is that you are purposefully avoiding a protracted discussion of your work, particularly the Rodriguez paper, as you are aware that I've previously pointed out your errors, exaggerations and unsupported assertions. It doesn't go unnoticed that as soon as someone presses you on the specifics you run for the ignore button like a schoolkid running home with his football.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Red do you know that you are a dishonest person or do you have yourself fooled?

It appears to be both.

 

[MikeW]

I've just uploaded another new Commission document, a second interview with FAA deputy administrator Monte Belger (different to the one available online at NARA). You should download this if a) you'd like to understand more about the FAA timeline for 9/11, or b) you're interested in the Mineta story, as Belger is the guy who is supposed to described the approaching Flight 77 to him.

So what does he say? Truthers can take some hope from Belger saying he was speaking to Mineta minutes before the 9:45 ground stop, and that Mineta gave that order, as (if accurate) that could support Mineta's timeline. Unfortunately for them, Belger specifically says he doesn't recall speaking to Mineta about the approaching fast target that went on to hit the Pentagon, and there's other problems with the Mineta story to come.

Anyway, if you're interested, download the document here (10 MB PDF file).

 

[pgimeno]

Thanks MikeW - that's an extremely valuable load of information. Going back to WR's MFR:

The summary of William Rodriguez Commission interview is now available here. Keep reading after the basic MFR for the original interview notes.

A couple of names caught my attention on the last manuscript page: Carmen and Arturo Griffith (although it appears to be spelled Griffin - I'm not good with handwriting though).

I can't post links yet (I even had to delete the link coming in MikeW's quote - will take some time to reach the 15 post mark necessary at this posting frequency) but many people probably know about the 911stories.googlepages.com site (maintained by Gravy, if I understand correctly).

Why are their names there? Were they cited by WR? Wonder if they were perhaps inteviewed? If so, that might explain that the commission did not pay attention to Rodriguez's claims of explosions, associating them with the elevators instead.

Does anyone have a clue about a MFR that accounts for this?

The Port Authority's on-site commanding police officer was standing in the concourse when a fireball erupted out of elevator shafts and exploded onto the mall concourse, causing him to dive for cover.

(from the 9/11 Commission, cited in the section called "Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements" of the 911stories web).