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.

 

Evidence of Cover-Up

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here is what I feel is the strongest evidence of some sort of government cover-up:

1) According to the 9/11 Commission Report, page 34, NORAD officials testified under oath that at 9:16 am NEADS received notification from the FAA that Flight 93 was hijacked.

2) NORAD officials also testified that they received notification at 9:24 am that Flight 77 was hijacked.

3) NORAD officials also testified that they scrambled Langley fighters in response to the hijackings of Flights 77 and 93.



However, rather than accept the specific testimony under oath of NORAD officials, the 9/11 Commission concluded that all three of the above statements made during the hearings were false.

Instead, the 9/11 Commission claims that the NORAD officials were told by an unidentified FAA employee that Flight 11 did not hit WTC1 and was heading south towards Washington D.C. The 9/11 Commission stated that they were unable to identify who it was at the FAA who gave NORAD this misinformation.



This means that there are only two possible scenarios, both of which imply a government cover-up of some sort:

Scenario 1: If the 9/11 Commission report is correct, then

a) why did the FAA tell NORAD false information re Flight 11,
b) who was it that called NORAD with the false information, and
c) why wasn't the 9/11 Commission able to identify the specific person who made the call?

OR...

Scenario 2: If the NORAD officials were correct in their sworn testimony, then why would the 9/11 Commission go to such great lengths to create an alterative story that totally contradicts the sworn testimony given by NORAD officials?

These scenarios are mutually exclusive -one of the above scenarios must be correct.

If scenario 1 is correct, then somebody at the FAA gave NORAD false information that led directly to the Pentagon being left vulnerable for attack, and the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate how this happened. I.e., somebody at the FAA could have intentionally caused the fighters to be scrambled away from the Pentagon so that Flight 77 could proceed unimpeded to its target.

If scenario 2 is correct, then the 9/11 Commission intentionally discounted direct and sworn testimony from witnesses from NORAD and concocted an alternative version of reality to explain why the Pentagon was left vulnerable for attack because of a "phantom" plane. I.e., the 9/11 Commission fabricated the story that the fighters were chasing a plane that didn't exist to explain how two hijacked planes were flying unimpeded towards their targets.

Any thoughts?

link to 9/11 Commission Report:
www.gpoaccess.gov...




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
From my blog: I'm not so sure now this is relevant, but it seemed so a while back anyway...

"The National Military Command Center (NMCC), beneath the Pentagon, is the command and control “nerve center” for the military leadership if America comes under attack. While this usually does not happen, the NMCC sits ready, watched over and coordinated by the Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) and is used for other activities requiring centralized coordination – like passing on requests for fighter assistance in case of a hijacking and, I’d guess, coordinating air-based War games, of which there were at least four on 9/11.

Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield was originally slated to be in charge of the NMCC that morning, but the previous day he had decided to take some time off, asking a recently qualified but inexperienced rookie, Navy Captain Charles Leidig, to stand in as DDO in the morning. This is confirmed by Leidig’s own testimony to the 9/11 Commission. His written statement was the shortest they received at just over one page, large font, double spaced. It stated blandly “on 10 September 2001, Brigadier General Winfield, US Army, asked that I stand a portion of his duty […] on the following day. I agreed and relieved Brigadier General Winfield at 0830 on 11 September 2001.” [3] At that very minute, the first plane was right between its hijacking (about 8:15) and its impact with the WTC (8:46).

As the 9-11 Commission’s final report explained “the job of the NMCC in such an emergency is to gather the relevant parties and establish the chain of command between the national command authority […] and those who need to carry out their orders.” [4] This includes, among others, the Defense Secretary and JCS Chairman."

[Myers finally is "gathered there" from across town at 10:00, Rumsfeld from across the building at 10:30]

"Leidig did try to do things on his own as Myers and Rumsfeld kept their distance, initiating a phone bridge and significant event conference at 9:29, a line that the 9/11 Commission clarified did not have FAA on it. One minute later, Leidig announced that he was just told American 11 was still airborne. [6] It was also precisely at 9:30 that the Langley fighter pilots finally took off, and so Leidig gave them this new ghost target, which wound up distracting them from the very real Flight 77 as it closed in on his own location and entered radar screens again. The fighter pilots were never informed of the attack plane until after they saw smoke rising from the Pentagon after 9:37. The Commission admitted the FAA was not on the line with Leidig, but blames them anyway: “we have not been able to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information,” and left it at that [emphasis mine]. [7]

Since that day, Leidig has been promoted – first to Commandant of Midshipmen in September 2003, then to U.S. Defense Representative to the Pacific micro-states. Later he assumed command of U.S. Naval Forces Marianas and Navy Region Marianas and advanced to Rear Admiral status. Leidig is recipient of numerous service medals over his distinguished career, none specifically for his service on 9/11, of which his official Navy bio makes no mention whatsoever. [8]"
they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Also relevant: location of call origin as per Popular Mechanics:
"Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking.
www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
So the source of the all the misinformation was the FAA at Boston Center? But later the 9/11 Commission says that Leidig wasn't on the phone with the FAA, but still blames the FAA for the phantom Flight 11 misinfo?

And then Leidig gets promoted?

Is it me, or is there something seriously wrong here? Is it fair to say that this is either gross incompetence (which was rewarded by promoting Leidig) or a conspiracy to allow the Pentagon to be attacked and to cover it up?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Personally, yeah, I think this is a seam, but... it's right there in the open. We know of Leidig's schedule shift. We know about the "mistaken FAA info." Why is this not covered up better? We need to ask these kinds of questions. Is this another elaborate distraction? And if so, how did they know to plant the seed of with that request on 9/10?
And as far as the FAA Boston Center, I dunno. just stumbled across that yesterday by chance but it's quite interesting...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
We know about the "mistaken FAA info." Why is this not covered up better? We need to ask these kinds of questions. Is this another elaborate distraction? And if so, how did they know to plant the seed of with that request on 9/10?
And as far as the FAA Boston Center, I dunno. just stumbled across that yesterday by chance but it's quite interesting...


Personally, I think this is the seam that would unravel the whole story.

Flight 77 is hijacked, and is lost from radar for 30 minutes. NORAD claims fighters were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, but the fighters were sent away from Flight 77 because of a "phantom" jet reported to NORAD by some unidentified source at the FAA?

And the 9/11 Commission fails to find out who gave this misinfo to NORAD, and further concludes that the NORAD officers' testimony was incorrect, conveniently so it fits with the "official" story?

What's really amazing about this entire process is that the NORAD officers were not asked to clarify their testimony. Instead, the 9/11 Commission just decided that their testimony was wrong. Does this make any sense?

Out of the entire 567-page 9/11 Commission Report, only 1 page is covers how Flight 77 was able to avoid U.S. Air Defense and hit the Pentagon, and the explanation is that the fighters were sent to chase a "phantom" plane based on wrong info provided by the FAA.

To me, this is total b.s., and the complete lack of investigation of this is one of the strongest signs of a cover-up.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
First of all I would like to say nice homework man!
Both of you guys

This certainly looks very damning, and its great that people like you look deep into things to find names and promotions and such.
What are you going to do now? Pass this information on to Patrick Fitzgerald?
I dont mean this as a sarcastic question. Im sorry if I come across that way. Im just curious as to what you are going to do with this information.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

What are you going to do now? Pass this information on to Patrick Fitzgerald?
I dont mean this as a sarcastic question. Im sorry if I come across that way. Im just curious as to what you are going to do with this information.


Ironically, Patrick Fitzgeral actually testified in front of the 9/11 Commission for some bizarre reason. Fitzgerald was the U.S. Attornet for N. Illinois at the time, and he was called as a witness to testify about al-Qaeda. What would Fitzgerald have known about al-Qaeda???

Seriously, I'm not sure what to do with this information. The Democrats are in control now, and they don't want to investigate 9/11 any more than the Republicans. Cynthia McKinney and Curt Weldon, two representatives from the complete opposite sides of the political spectrum who questioned 9/11 were both run out of town.

At some point the masses of people in this country need to wake up. 99% of the people never even heard of WTC7 or understand the implications of the 9/11 Commission Report. We need the Democrats who are in control now to show some balls re 9/11 instead of drawing a line in the sand over Nancy Pelosi's plane.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Kinda interesting about Fitzgerald - as to what to do ith this and other such damning seams, share it. That's what I can do. I don't trust the higher-ups to do anything with it, and what we need is not more of that pansy-ass babysitting but an educated and (somehow) empowered public. This gets into the whole what's next line of discussion, and there's other threads for that and plenty of opinions to go around.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Oh and scratch what I said about yhe Leidig thing maybe not being relevant. What EXACTLY to make of it I still don't lnow, but it's clearly releevant.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Oh and scratch what I said about yhe Leidig thing maybe not being relevant. What EXACTLY to make of it I still don't lnow, but it's clearly releevant.


Based on the circumstantial evidence, it's not out of the question that Leidig single-handedly caused the fighters to be directed away from the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Okay one more post then I gotta go. I guess my main doubt was in implicitly pinning the "mistaken info" on Leidig - I'd thot no FAA on line, he passes on FAA info, clearly he made it up - maybe so, but now I see Boston Center has somehow taken credit - or been made to - for this call at a point 10 minutes before Leidig's (reported) relay. So I guess he was getting that info from someone else, but the way the commission set up these facts is a little odd and seems almost to lead to the Leidig seam, which is what makes me wonder why it's being hinted at and directed to instead of kept silent. Like Cheney issuing the shoot-down, they hinted at that too with the call from Bush that definitelt happened even though they couldn't find it. Limited hangout? It's just weird.
That and I'm not big on "smoking guns," seen 'em come and go. This is one of the most compelling ones I've seen, and good work Nick on starting this thread. It may unravel the whole story, but ultimately it unravels what it does. I'm curious to see...



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So I guess he was getting that info from someone else, but the way the commission set up these facts is a little odd and seems almost to lead to the Leidig seam, which is what makes me wonder why it's being hinted at and directed to instead of kept silent.


This reminds me of a website I saw that claimed to expose faked Pentagon photos. The guy who put up the website claimed that a lot of time people involved in conspiracies will leave "clues" rather than risk coming right out and exposing the conspiracy.

I'm not saying this is what's going on with the Leidig story, but it is odd how the 9/11 Commission sets the table with the FAA/Leidig story and then simply doesn't pursue finding the answer to the question, "Who was responsible for the "phantom" Flight 11 call?"



Like Cheney issuing the shoot-down, they hinted at that too with the call from Bush that definitelt happened even though they couldn't find it. Limited hangout? It's just weird.
That and I'm not big on "smoking guns," seen 'em come and go. This is one of the most compelling ones I've seen, and good work Nick on starting this thread. It may unravel the whole story, but ultimately it unravels what it does. I'm curious to see...


To me, the most compelling question re 9/11 is how Flight 77 was able to travel undetected on radar, and unimpeded, for 30 minutes heading directly into Washington D.C. without ANY air defense. The true answer to that question is the thread that will unravel the entire suit.

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing the explanation that an unidentified source at the FAA mistakenly called NORAD to report that Flight 11 didn't hit the WTC and was headed towards D.C.

Is the media complicit in the cover-up, or are they just too stupid to understand the significance of the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission? You would think that this would have been the top story when the 9/11 Commission Report was released.

"Pentagon Hit Because Figthers Were Chasing 'Phantom' Flight 11"



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
nick7261

this is very interesting and more people should seriously look into this. About the media being complicit in this, I think they just aren't connecting the dots.

So much attention is focused on the Towers and Blg 7 that people are forgetting things that are much more difficult to explain.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing the explanation that an unidentified source at the FAA mistakenly called NORAD to report that Flight 11 didn't hit the WTC and was headed towards D.C.


Final smoking gun or no, in case anyone doesn't know, FAA too was in weird hands - National Operations Manager and air traffic "chess master" Benedict Sliney - first day on the job?
(again from my First Day Jitters post):
"USA Today, which described Sliney as the nation’s “air traffic chess master,” reported that in his job interview he was told by the man promoting him he had “unlimited” authority. “Weeks later,” USA Today reported, “as Sliney orders every flight to land on his first day on the job, he recalls the conversation.” [1] While Sliney had superiors like FAA administrator Jane Garvey, he was called on to make major decisions that morning. He told the 9/11 Commission: “NORAD […] asked ME if I were requesting military intervention. And I indicated to NORAD that I’m advising you of the facts of this particular incident – I’m not requesting anything. I wasn’t sure I even had the authority to request such a thing.”

Of course the media will report these things one at a time. They don't put them together. That's for us to do. They hope we keep putting cases together until we all expire of old age. They seem pretty confident nothing will come of it...



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Thot this was odd: interview with Ben Sliney regarding "his surprise role in the film United 93. Sliney reveals that the first person for the job wasn't working out and he was called in to finish the job." At the very last minute I suspect. www.blackfilm.com...
"Q: You hold a lot of the responsibility to tell the story. Do feel extreme pressure?
Ben Sliney: No. We shot the scene. It's like a one hour take from start to finish. You do it all at once. All it is a recreation of the actual events of that day. We do it 7 different ways. I don't think we did it the same way twice."

Kinda funny, at first I didn't read the intro to realize it was about him being in a movie, so I thought this was about his testimony to the 9/11 Commission.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Final smoking gun or no, in case anyone doesn't know, FAA too was in weird hands - National Operations Manager and air traffic "chess master" Benedict Sliney - first day on the job?


I've reached the conclusion after reading the 9/11 Commission Report that if there is a conspiracy the FAA had to be at the center of it. It seemed way to convenient that it was Sliney's first day on the job, and that of all things, he played himself in "Flight 93," which, imo, was primarily a propaganda piece.

I also never realized how dependent the military was on the FAA in the case of an air attack on U.S. soil. What's up with that? Why are NORAD and NEADS commanders waiting on the FAA to tell them what's going on?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Someone at the FAA screwed-up, plain and simple..they misread (11) and (77)..got them confused. The scrambled jets were then out of position.

Human Error.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Okay, I'll have to look into that, but right off the top of my head, let's suppose that was the case. The call was reportedly placed at 9:21 I believe (BTW Nick and everyone, the audio is around - it's not secret and I may have a cipy myself.) Flight 77 was unknown until about that time, 9:20-25-ish, an unidentified blip entering Washington airspace and their primary radar coverage from the West, headed east towards the Pentagon and the Capital, just minutes away, oh #, protect the capital. This is then by pure mistake misreported as Flight 11 headed from New York, from the North, an interpreatation passed on to the THREE Langley pilots as they take off at 9:30.

The fighter were sent out over the ocean, to the ADIZ area, then north towards New York to intercept it. They were not told about ANY threat to the capital until they saw smoke from the northwest, and were asked then to confirm if the Pentagon was burning and told to go scope it out. They weren't even told it was a plane, and thought a truck bomb had gone off.

They didn't just attach the wrong name to the radar blip. They effectively ignored the only relevant blip, and directed the fighters to something else entirely that may or may not have existed but certainly never crashed into anything I'm aware of. If this isn't disempowering the defense, I don't know what is, and I don't see how this can all be accident.

Again, that's off the top of my head, but I can get exact facts and citations for you if you like.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Someone at the FAA screwed-up, plain and simple..they misread (11) and (77)..got them confused. The scrambled jets were then out of position.

Human Error.


It's not that plain or simple.

Flight 11 crashed into WTC1 at 8:46 am on 9/11. There was no longer any radar blip on the screen corresponding to Flight 11 after that time.

Flight 77 and Flight 93 were both hijacked AFTER both Flight 11 and Flight 175 had already crashed into the WTCs. At about 9:02 am, the FAA and NORAD knew that the WTC crashes were hijackings. This is about 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon being hit.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, Flight 77 wasn't seen on radar until it was about 50 miles west of the Pentagon. At this time the fighters were over the Atlantic Ocean, only because the FAA told NORAD that Flight 11 did not hit the WTC and was heading SW.

So by approximately 9:30 am, everybody knew that Flight 77 was a hijacking and heading towards Washington. And at about the same time, Flight 93 was a hijacking and turning around near Cleveland to head towards Washington. And yet no fighters were directed to Flight 93.

According to the official story, 3 planes had already attacked the WTCs and the Pentagon by 9:40 am, and yet no fighters were sent to stop Flight 93. Flight 93 crashed at about 10:00 am, about 1 hour after WTC2 was hit.

First, this goes beyond the realm of human error.

Second, even if it were human error, why wasn't the human who errored ever identified?

It's very convenient for the 9/11 Commission to label this human error, but then why didn't they find out WHO it was that caused the error?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join