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.

 

9-11 Commission frustrated with Bush Administration, Norad, FAA & Pentagon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I posted this on the norad tapes thread but thought it needed its own discussion.

Republican Thomas Dean and Democrat Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 commission are releasing a book detailing problems and frustrations encountered by the commission in the investigation of the events that transpired that day and subsequential happenings there after.

9-11 Commission faced multiple obstacles.



The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.




In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.


I for one, after reading that article, will be buying that book to read. It will sit on my bookshelf right next to my 9-11 report book when im done.

Im glad that its both a dem and a rep releasing this that way there can be no "oh its a democrat attack" or "oh its a republican attack" on the administration in this argument.

There is a growing solidarity on both sides of the "parties" that there is a problem with the existing government. The lies are getting too great. The lawbreaking is getting too great. Its becoming time to pay the piper mr.bush. Hopefully.

Now before you start flaming me over that last statement saying im a republican hater, im a democratic liberal. Im neither. I dont care what "party" of president purportrated this facade on the american people. I just want justice for the american people in the midst of this and any unlawful administrations.

And lets not say its just a ploy to make money. They have to get the info out somehow. If money was the case then why this,


Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004, became a national best seller.


The official 9-11 report became a BEST SELLER. Why sell it? Because thats how it gets out to the masses. Alot of people wouldnt know about some things unless it was on the book list. Dont expect mainstream regular folks to read about it here or file their own FOIA requests.




posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'm surprised that I'm the first response to this. This is huge. Here's the 911 Commission saying that even during the process it felt that the investigation was flawed and very likely the victim of deception, obstruction and false information by BushCo. It would seem this changes the playing field considerably.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I'm surprised that I'm the first response to this.


And I am not surprised. it is another NON-STORY as produced by the goof movement to try and convince the world that evil lurks around the corner, and we should trust no one.

In fact evil does lurk around the corner....in the form of a muslim terrorist, and NOT the government of the United States. This kind of crap has to stop so we can focus on finding - stopping - and killing the real terrorists hiding in IRAN/IRAQ/AFGHANASTAN/LEBANON.

Case study now closed.

The lemons have been squeezed, what a lovely lemon scent I partake in!

[edit on 5-8-2006 by Mr Beezer]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I'm willing to bet that there WAS plenty of lying going on to the comission. It's called CYA. You try to make yourself look better and the other groups look worse.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Wow 77 views and 2 replies, one of which pertains to nothing about this discussion.

jtma58, i am blown away that you are the only one posting anything of matter to this discussion also. Where are all the people up in arms over the Norad tapes and everyone else that believes what the commission is now coming forward with to state publicly.

Beezer WTF are you talking about, the goof movement...you calling me a goof or the 9-11 commission, which is it. I hope its not me. And if its the commission, by ur own admission the people investigating the tragic day of this country are goofs?

What kind of stuff has to stop Beezer? People showing you the truth? Does it hurt that bad? How many times do you have to be shown what is being purprotraited(sp?) in your face and u just dont get it.

Many cultures hate us and also have terrorists, why is it you think just Muslim terrorists are around every corner and want to do us harm, oh ya cuz bush said so and every other word is muslim outta his and the news teleprompters mouths so thats all you hear.

Ur blinders are a perfect example of the problems of the side choosers, left, right, dem, rep. When you wake up and see there is no left/right, only right/wrong and see the fodder in ur face, and realize WTF is going on, maybe then it will be too late for you. But i refuse to think inside the box that is painted for you on national news by ur so called "all knowing" government. Im not gonna state all of the examples of high up military not happy, senators, republicans, democrats, house of representatives not happy with whats going on cuz that has been done multiple times on multiple other threads.

Sorry Zap u posted while i was typing this post. You got it buddy..CYA is right. Cover your arse and let the other guy burn for it.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by S1LV3R4D0]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Interesting find going to the 9/11 Commission Web site.

www.9-11commission.gov...


This web site was frozen on September 20, 2004 at 12:00 AM, EDT. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links were active as of that date and time. For technical issues, contact webprogram@nara.gov. For questions about the web site, contact legislative.archives@nara.gov.


So even if you somehow managed to find indisputable evidence of something important, the Commission is CLOSED!




[edit: fixed ex tags]

[edit on 8/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
[removed unnecessary quote of Entire previous post]


-----Gee, that is odd ! I wonder why they don't leave the investgation open? It would be a very entertaining job in say 20 years. By then this highschool playground myth, will have morphed into an even better tale! I can hear some of it now, Bush flew a plane right into WTC, uhhm...well right after he parachuted to saftey! There are pictures of him giving the thumbs up to some israeli gentlemen dancing a jig, right as he lands in the back of a dumptruck filled to the top with 700,000,000 dollars in gold bars. Then he leaves the country to a look alike, and him and Marylin Monroe, moved to Kuwait and lived like Rock Stars. So you see, I agree!
Why is the investigation closed? Get back to me on that ! Would ya? LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





[edit on 6-8-2006 by Duhh]

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Well actually now they have an all new public dis-info site

www.9-11pdp.org...


The "official investigation" is ongoing, but something tells me that Bush and Co will be retired long before any hard evidence is found to prosecute them.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
You have voted S1LV3R4D0 for the way above top secret award.
Great work S1LV3R4D0.Its a pity that ths thread has soo less replies.The 9\11 debunkers are speechless



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Thanx Warthog, i think thats the first one ive gotten ever. Im attributing the lack of intelligent responses to it being the weekend and those with lives away from here are enjoying it. We will see how this carries out over the course of the week. I could be completely wrong and noone wants to touch the issue. I dunno

Duhh, would you like to explain your post. Everything you just typed has nothing to do with the book coming out. If you had even read the link you would see what it is pertaining to. Im glad that on your playground that is what kiddies are talking about but again, another post that has absolutely nothing to do with the original start of this thread.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
If certain groups and or individuals were misleading they were so for the sole reason of covering their A, and trying to make themselves look more competent on 9/11 then they really were. Say it with me folks, being misleading and perhaps lying about how badly you reacted on 9/11 does not a government involvement and conspiracy on 9/11 make. But anyway perhaps some of you should read this.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.

The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.

A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.

Link



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If certain groups and or individuals were misleading they were so for the sole reason of covering their A, and trying to make themselves look more competent on 9/11 then they really were. Say it with me folks, being misleading and perhaps lying about how badly you reacted on 9/11 does not a government involvement and conspiracy on 9/11 make. But anyway perhaps some of you should read this.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.

The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.

A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.

Link



I think it's much more likely that "poor record keeping" was the result of massive record shredding.

If the results of the continuing investigation are being " classified " We The People can't help but wonder why.

I suppose it's a matter of national security to prevent the legal prosecution of all those who are directly responsible for the events of 9/11



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
As far am I’m aware the military didn't shred "massive" records, like I said, you should make an effort to try and understand why certain individuals want to make their agency look more competent than it really was on 9/11. NO ONE wants to admit that they were totally unprepared and incapable of stopping the attacks on that day, so they try to shift the blame around, also known as the Cover Your Ass (CYA) policy. And BTW this report was classified because it was an internal investigation and there was some classified information in it. If there was some nefarious intent on their part you really think they would keep a report which exonerates the commanders in question classified?

And I really doubt anyone is trying to prevent the prosecution of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, see Moussaoui for details.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Good thread, silver.

One of the interesting facts regarding the 9/11 commission report is that Bush stonewalled them and blacked out loads of documents pertaining to Saudi Arabia and the Saudi government.

I think they also hit a brick wall when investigating Israeli ties as well.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Thanx Skadi, much appreciated. At times like these, we should take some stock in Sharpie, bet we would make a fortune.

As the trolls have latched onto they think i posted this as a stab at their almighty bush and co to contribute to the conspiracy theories. I posted this to show the large amount of CYA as Zap, myself and westpoint pointed out. Lets point the finger at others and let them worry about their own CYA.

Stonewalling, redacting and out and out lying(lying is my words which i believe has been going on for yrs) is why the commission is so frustrated with the multitude of departments. This has nothing to do with the conspiracies about explosives, remote controlled planes, global hawks, moved gold or any other flying frakin idea about that day.

You might be right FFTT. I would think they would have hung onto alot more of the most disastrous terrorist attack on US soil documents and information, but as inept as we have seen our gubmint be as of late, you maybe completely right.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.

The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.

A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.

Link


Since Reuters has now admitted to photoshopping photos, I really don't take what they say with any credit. But, I guess some do.

Link: www.ynetnews.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Im questioning alot of their info now too Griff, i used to consider reuters a more of a tell it like it is portal not tell it like the redacted pages handed down edited.

Now im thinkin they are a more tell it like they think you should see or hear it kinda portal.

Sad really.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Since Reuters has now admitted to photoshopping photos, I really don't take what they say with any credit. But, I guess some do.


You're being serious aren't you? If you had read a little bit and used some common sense you would see just how pathetic of an attempt is. Allow me to enlighten you...

First, if you’re going to throw accusations around you should check your facts first. "Reuters" did not alter the photo, their photographer based in Lebanon did, the altered image was sent to Reuters where it was featured in a news article. Upon discovery that the photo was altered they withdrew it form circulation and immediately suspended the photographer and initiated an investigation.


'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged.

Link


This would be a weak attempt even if you were trying to discredit Reuters over their Mid East coverage but to try and question them over a story which nearly everyone is carrying, and over a story which was originally published by the New York Times is simply absurd. I need not remind you that this report exists, it was released by the OIG to the NYT after they issued a FOIA request for it. You do believe the NYT when it comes to government investigations and programs don't you?



The report, initially classified secret, was released Friday under a freedom-of-information request by The New York Times.

New York Times


Here are just a few of the many sources reporting this story.

ABC News
Canada.com
MSNBC
Washington Post

:shk:



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First, if you’re going to throw accusations around you should check your facts first. "Reuters" did not alter the photo, their photographer based in Lebanon did, the altered image was sent to Reuters where it was featured in a news article. Upon discovery that the photo was altered they withdrew it form circulation and immediately suspended the photographer and initiated an investigation.


Isn't this the same type of thing Dan Rather got into trouble for? Didn't someone send him "photoshopped" information (not even one of his own reporters mind you) about Bush's record and went and reported on it? Since Dan Rather got into trouble and no one believes him anymore, I think the same level of competency should apply to Rueters.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Isn't this the same type of thing Dan Rather got into trouble for? Didn't someone send him "photoshopped" information (not even one of his own reporters mind you) about Bush's record and went and reported on it? Since Dan Rather got into trouble and no one believes him anymore, I think the same level of competency should apply to Rueters.


Not even close. Rather did not have anything that was "photoshopped". It was a doc that was suppsosed to be from the 70's, done on a typewritter.While, it was clear that it was a microsoft word doc. They were warned by staffers on their own staff it was prob fake. Instead of reseaching it more, which they should have done.Hell, it's CBS! They ran a story trying to attack Bush. It blew up in their faces.
Now The big"R", was shown the pic was false and acted on the spot. They are also going back and looking at every pic the photog has ever sold them. That is responsible journalism. Accidents happen. Reuters has done exactly what they should have done. CBS blew it. Simple enough?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join