It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Some 9/11 Commission members mulled criminal referrals for military officials

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   





Report: Some 9/11 Commission members mulled criminal referrals for military officials

Some 9/11 Commission members mulled criminal referrals for military and aviation officials suspected of lying to cover-up for "bungling," according to a story in Wednesday's Washington Post.

"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," writes Dan Eggan.

"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," the article continues.

More...



No, really?


I particularly like this part:




"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."



What a surprise...




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The cover-up is finally coming out. Ineptitude is NO excuse for lying. But Bush and Cheney weren't under oath, so it really doesn't matter what they said anyway.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
What is the implication? Are they saying that the misinformation that they got was indicitive of a 'cover-up' that points to 'inside job' and 'stand down' or does the report point to covering up the incompetence of dealing with the situation as it happened?

Those are two completely different actions.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Yes Vushta, 2 completely different. But a cover-up non the less. If they are willing to cover-up this, then what else are they willing to cover-up?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yes Vushta, 2 completely different. But a cover-up non the less. If they are willing to cover-up this, +


I agree. I think they are covering their asses in a way thats probably not thats usual for politic..business..and not that unusual in everyday life for every person.
Personally I think its a good guess that 93 was shot down.. as it should have been.



then what else are they willing to cover-up?


In all instances it would have to be something that actually happened.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Let's see, is any of this about how there weren't any hijacked planes on 9-11? Is any of it about how there was a "stand-down" order, or that a missile was fired into the Pentagon?

Nope it's about folks who covered up the fact that they weren't as alert as they should have been, that signals got crossed on that day, and that a lot of people were confused and made mistakes. Human nature by a couple of old salts. Nothing more nothing less! Interesting that it was the 911 commission to take notice in the first place. Aren't they part of the "Giant Conspiracy" ? Then the USG releases the info that shows this !!!! Way to go you super slueths. Sherlock would be proud! LOL LOL LOL................. Happy Hunting!




"If you wan't lies watch Loose Change "!
"If you wan't the truth watch Screw Loose Change!"



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Nope it's about folks who covered up the fact that they weren't as alert as they should have been, that signals got crossed on that day, and that a lot of people were confused and made mistakes. Human nature by a couple of old salts. Nothing more nothing less!


Nothing more, nothing less huh? So, it's ok for our government officials and millitary to lie? I'm guessing you were backing Clinton back in the day then? I'll say it again....ineptitude is no excuse to lie and cover-up.

BTW, it doesn't have to be about anything you pointed out. A lie is a lie and negates the whole Commission Report IMO.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Let's see, is any of this about how there weren't any hijacked planes on 9-11? Is any of it about how there was a "stand-down" order, or that a missile was fired into the Pentagon?

Nope it's about folks who covered up the fact that they weren't as alert as they should have been, that signals got crossed on that day, and that a lot of people were confused and made mistakes. Human nature by a couple of old salts. Nothing more nothing less! Interesting that it was the 911 commission to take notice in the first place. Aren't they part of the "Giant Conspiracy" ? Then the USG releases the info that shows this !!!! Way to go you super slueths. Sherlock would be proud! LOL LOL LOL................. Happy Hunting!


If the military was lying then that could be a cover for anything. Gross incompetence is only one of the two possibilities. Criminal conspiracy is the other.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
That is quite a leap to conclusions there. Would you throw out the baby with the bath water? And, it was not covered up. It was known by the 911 commission things were amiss. See that was only a couple of people, and it was found out.Imagine thousands trying to be involved in a cover up. Doesn't hold water.IMOHO! Happy Hunting.



"If you wan't LIES watch Screw Looose Cange"
"If You Wan't the TRUTH Watch SCREW LOOSE CHANGE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
That is quite a leap to conclusions there. Would you throw out the baby with the bath water? And, it was not covered up.


Even you must admit that the official 9/11 Pentagon story is hardest to swallow of the lot?

To think they knew nothing of the attacks and hijackings occurring across US airspace until a plane actually hit them in the ass is comical


At least now this story coming out is part of the unravelling of lies. And you try to dismiss it as unimportant? I never saw a user name so apt



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
To think they knew nothing of the attacks and hijackings occurring across US airspaceuntil a plane actually hit them in the ass is comica l

This is the first time in 5 years I have ever heard this. Where did you get this from? That they didn't know?

Of course they knew. The thing is, what could they do, what did or didn't they do....




From all that I've read and researched so far, the only coverup that's possibly about to be revealed and from what I can tell the only thing the Pentagon misled investigators on is flight 93.
It may be about to come out that they did in fact shoot it down.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
This is the first time in 5 years I have ever heard this. Where did you get this from? That they didn't know?


I am making this statement based on my (sometimes faulty) memory of reading 'The New Pearl Harbor' by David Ray Griffin sometime ago

A quick google and I found this quote:


By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea."
(ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01)

Source




[edit on 2/8/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Let's see, is any of this about how there weren't any hijacked planes on 9-11?

What?
No, did you read the reports? No, they weren't questioning if there were hijacked jets. They were saying that the Pentagon covered up their reponse to the events. You don't find that noteworthy, unless there's a Global Hawk missile involved?


Q: Was there a cover-up?
A: Apparently, YES.
Q
id bush do it?
A: This has nothing to do with that.

Its that first 'yes' that shouldn't get 'thrown out with the bathwater'. A conspiracy on 911 doesn't have to involve demolition of the towers or guided missiles or even a false flag operation.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I still want a good explaination as to why several pages of information related to Saudi Arabia was blacked out and efforts to investigate Saudi connections were stonewalled.

After all, weren't 15 of the alleged 19 hijackers Saudi Nationals?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join