There are too many inconsistencies, omissions and apparent deceptions that involve the 911 Commission, CIA, DIA, DOJ, EPA, FBI, NIST, NTSB, NORAD, Bush administration, etc. that lead me to be generally skeptical of the government. Clearly the government lies to us for propagandistic reasons (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tilson, the “spontaneous uprising” to pull down Saddam Hussein’s statue, etc), so I am forced to take a skeptic’s view.
You've generated a veritable mountain of accusations here. Care to back any of them up.
Therefore, a reasonable question is whether UA93 was in fact shot down! (The eyewitness and physical evidence at Shanksville is inconclusive about that, but it does not falsify that possibility either… ).
Regardless of shoot down orders, UA93 was not shot down.
Firstly, no one in the military was aware it was hijacked until after it had crashed.
Secondly, there were no military aircraft in a position to shoot it down at 1003 over PA.
Thirdly, eye witness testimony, debris recovery, the FDR, and the CVR all reinforce the assertion that the aircraft was not shot down.
Also why the Commission Report would tell a very different story than original accounts by: ie, re-adjusting timelines for Norad and for Cheney’s whereabouts - so we can’t question their culpability in shooting down 93. (Under the situation I think the American people would have found it forgiveable. But then who wants to tarnish the heroic story of the UA93 passengers?)
See above. Were Mineta's testimony entirely accurate, it does not change the fact that UA93 was not shot down.
As for the evidence:
Cheney’s own statements (“But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.”) implies he was in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit.
No, it implies he was in the PEOC before he was informed that the Pentagon was hit.
The timeframe referred to in Mineta’s testimony is also consistent with Richard Clarke’s book (Against All Enemies).
Richard Clarke's book has gaping problems with chronology of its own. It is worth pointing out that Clarke was at the opposite end of the White House to the PEOC, thus his assertions of when people entered the PEOC are somewhat worthless.
And the wholly ignored Laura Brown FAA memo suggests Norad's not telling the truth.
What are the details of Ms Brown's memo?
WHICH BRINGS ME TO ME MY MAIN POINT… THERE IS A CIRCULAR SET OF CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS THAT MAKE EITHER POINT OF VIEW INCONCLUSIVE.[/COLOR]
This would be true, if we only had personal accounts of events. But we do not. We also have written records, radar data, tape recordings, and other primary evidence. Thus it becomes a matter of determining which accounts most accurately reflect the physical evidence.
Lets not confuse the issue of “intercept” with the issue of planes being shot down. Prior to June 1, 2001 Norad dealt on average with ~70 intercepts of straying planes or emergencies every year. Norad never shot any of these down. Nor did they justify sending fighters on the basis that they must be armed first in case they have to shoot down an aircraft. (A popular example is the Payne Stewart incident).
So it seems reasonable that flights 77 and 93 should have at least been intercepted and escorted by some fighter jets (especially over DC air space), whether or not they were able to shoot them down.
Woah.... hold on there a moment.
Firstly, NORAD carried out much more than 70 intercepts a year. There were 67 just in the six months prior to 9/11.
Secondly, every single one of these successful intercepts was carried out by an armed NORAD alert fighter (indeed, these are the only aircraft under NORAD's control).
Thirdly, every single one of these intercepts involved an aircraft entering the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) from outside the United States.
Fourthly, the intercept of Payne Stewart's learjet is the only example of a military intercept over the continental United States in the decade prior to 9/11.
Fifthly, the initial intercept of said learjet was carried out by a test pilot from Eglin AFB, not by a NORAD fighter.
Sixthly, said intercept took 81 minutes. The longest hijack duration of any flight on 9/11 was 41 minutes.
Seventhly, until 9/11 NORAD did not, and never had, a mandate to intercept aircraft over the continental United States.
Incidentally, Norad originally claimed they were not informed of ANY of the planes until each one had crashed. A week later they modified that assertion and issued a timeline that showed mostly FAA culpable in delaying contact with the military. Then 2-1/2 years the 911 Commission’s the Norad timeline changed again. The final timeline shows the FAA even more culpable/incompetent! Why did the Pentagon sit on the “facts” for 3 years?
Please provide evidence for the above claims or withdraw them.
NORAD has only ever released one official timeline of their response to 9/11. It was released shortly after the attacks, and left the blame for failure to intercept squarely in NORAD's lap. In their timeline they were notified in ample time to respond to the attacks, and were in a position to shoot down UA93, had it reached Washington DC.
This version of events remained unchallenged until the 9/11 commission report investigated events. Upon review of NORAD's tape recordings of the day, they determined that NORAD's official timeline was completely wrong.
The facts indicated that NORAD had actually done extremely well, despite being hampered by delays in communication from the FAA (having said that, had the FAA not broken protocol these delays would have been even longer).
These are the only two versions of events. The official released NORAD one, and the actual one.
The Commission alleges that NORAD intentionally deceived, however I am sceptical of this. It may seem incredible that the commanders of NORAD did not review the tapes between 2001 and 2003, however throughout that time NORAD was undertaking Operation Noble Eagle - a task that stretched their resources to breaking point. Noble Eagle began on the afternoon of 9/11, and continues to this day (though down-graded now).
NORAD's priority was providing protection to the USA, not reviewing tapes of what happened on 9/11.
My point as well. A valiant pilot could have stopped UA93 even if he had to ram it. No need to necessarily arm interceptor jets. We also know that the jetliner made a broad circle around the Pentagon before hitting the west side, and was a sitting duck to be shot out of the sky. Are there no anti-aircraft batteries at the Pentagon? I just don’t get the overall picture of incompetence from the NMCC.
There are no anti aircraft defences of any kind at the Pentagon.
Regardless of what pilots
could have done (pilots from the 121st Fighter Squadron at Andrews AFB considered ramming the airliner, but were not confident of the results) the evidence unanimously indicates UA93 was flown into the ground intentionally by the hijackers to prevent passengers seizing control.
-Gumboot
