Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat likely&q

by **NewKid** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.911blogger.com/2006/08/new-poll-results-from-ohio-university.html" target="top">www.911blogger.com/2006/08/new-poll-results-from-ohio-university.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/2/06 12:14 am

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:26 am

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01300.html</a> 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon Allegations Brought to Inspectors General By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03 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. 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. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said. "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." Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday. A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry. In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night. For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel. John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral. "My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." ______________________ Fuck the prayers for rain, if anyone here prays for anything, let it be the smashing open of the lies and a reckoning for the War ghouls and Fascist profiteers.. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:36 am

""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." WTF?????????????????

by **robertdreed** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:42 am

"NORAD" did not tell the Tom Kean and the members of the 9-11 Commission anything. Individual human beings with actual locations in space-time, popularly known nominal identities, and real estate addresses did. This is what I do not get about the supposedly professional reporters at places like the Washington Post. That statement begged for a follow-up- on the order of "care to provide a specific example? Who lied to you?" etc. But the next question was not asked. For that matter, "NORAD" was not deposed and interviewed by "the 9-11 Commission." Specific individuals pursued specific lines of inquiry with their written and verbal statements. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/2/06 12:44 am

by **Corvidaerex** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:43 am

ScrippsNews.com is *hammered* ... can't get anything. Oh, and add this to the sh*tstorm: Tomorrow's Washington Post: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...00_pf.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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. 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. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said. "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." Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday. A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry. In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night. For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.<hr></blockquote>

by **Corvidaerex** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:45 am

While I was waiting & waiting for that Scripps story to load, I found the WaPo thing ... and in the meantime you had posted it. Crazy stuff ... I really wonder what the hell is going on right about now. Who is "letting" this stuff out, and who is nervous, and who is getting set up to take the fall?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:46 am

"are your palms startin to get a little bit slippery?" Gil Scot-Heron, "Fast Lane"

by **HMKGrey** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:19 am

Wow. This feels like a major break to me. Anyone else ever wonder if the current all-war-all-the-time stance isn't already a great big sign of desperation? I'd wager that those in the know of 9/11 are pretty few and far between but even so, it's very possible that none of the planners expected the internet to flush so much information in to the open and also to create an environment for making links. Let's face it, nothing we've seen since gives us any reason to believe that they would have been anything but staggered and possibly terrified by this new power in our hands. In that case, and assuming, let's say, 100 people know, you can imagine a lot of very nervous people somewhere in the chain thinking that this is all getting too damn close to call as an outcome and so they'd better either have a rock solid alibi OR have a rock solid acyion they can point to that proves that they wanted out from pretty much the moment they realized the full picture. Maybe I'm dreaming. 'Still believe in the ultimate good of humans.

by **BannedfromDU** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:56 am

"willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know"..."going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." Um... WTF? Time to get a comission to investigate the comission.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:59 am

The thing that cracks me up is the 9/11 Commission was composed of CFR guys, was it not? I mean, doesn't that make this whole commission thing like a misnomer? ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **NewKid** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:34 am

"Just say this is a comedy of errors... bizarre...without getting into it. Say NORAD believes it's gonna open up the whole Balkans thing again. And tell Goss he should call the F.B.I., call Kean, and say that we wish, for the sake of the country... that, uh, don't go any further into this hanky-panky, period. Balkans? That was Clinton's screw-up. Why would that threaten us? Just do what I say, Bob. The only problem with that, sir. It does get us into obstruction of justice. It's got nothing to do with justice, Bob. It's national security. How is this national security? The president says it is. Now, this isn't a moral issue, Bob. My job is to protect this country from its enemies, and its enemies are inside the walls. We gotta keep our enemies at bay, or our whole program goes down the tubes. Uh, Mid East, China, Russia. When you look at the big picture, Bob...damn. We end up doing good in this world. So let's not screw it up with a shit-ass, third-rate false flag operation." <a href="http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/nixon-script-transcript-oliver-stone.html" target="top">www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/nixon-script-transcript-oliver-stone.html</a>

by **BannedfromDU** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:34 am

..."Sen Mark Dayton charged Friday the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the American Aerospace Defense Command NORAD have covered up catastrophic failures that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept 11th hijackings"... <img src="http://www.willthomas.net/images/tn-standdown.gif"/> *Listen To STAND DOWN *- Windows Media <a href="http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Stand_Down.htm">***AUDIO WAV FILE LINK***</a> =================== Transcript of Sen. Dayton's remarks on NORAD Edited by William Thomas Congressional hearings on "The 9/11 Commission Report" July31/04 Transcribed by Kyle Hence of 9/11 Citizens' Watch [www.911truth.org] “ It is a profoundly disturbing report because…of the utter failure to defend them [American citizens] by their federal government, by their leaders, and the institutions that were entrusted to do so and because of serious discrepancies between the facts that you've set forth and what was told to the American people, to members of Congress, and to your own Commission by those, some of those authorities. ”According to your report the first of the four airliner hijackings occurred on September 11th at 8:14 Eastern time. At 10:03 AM, almost two hours later, an hour and forty-nine minutes to be exact, the fourth and last plane crashed before reaching its intended target…During those entire 109 minutes to my reading of this report this country and its citizens were completely undefended. According to your findings, FAA authorities failed to the inform military command, NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, about three of the four hijackings until after the planes had crashed into their targets at the second World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the ground in Penn Sylvia... [When the] plane struck the second World Trade tower…] It was five more minutes before NORAD's mission commander learned about that explosion; which was five minutes after thousands - probably millions - of Americans saw it on live television. By this time the third plane's transponder was off; communication had been severed, yet it was fifteen minutes before the flight controller decided to notify the regional FAA center which in turn did not inform FAA headquarters for another fifteen minutes. So at that point 9:25 AM FAA's National Command Center knew that there were two hijacked planes that had crashed into the two World Trade Centers, and a third plane had stopped communicating and disappeared from its primary radar - yet no one in FAA headquarters asked for military assistance with that plane either. NORAD was unaware that the plane had even been hijacked until after it crashed into the Pentagon at 9:34. This is just unbelievable negligence. It doesn't matter if we spend $550 billion annually on our national defense, if we reorganize our intelligence or if we restructure congressional oversight if people don't pick up the phone to call one another. The NORAD mission commander ordered his only three other planes on alert in Virginia to scramble and fly north to Baltimore. Minutes later when he was told that a plane was approaching Washington he learned that the planes were flying East over the Atlantic Ocean away from Baltimore and Washington so that when the third plane struck the Pentagon NORAD's fighters were 150 miles away, farther than they were before they took off. …at 9:46AM the FAA Command Center updated FAA headquarters that United Flight 93 was "29 minutes out of Washington, D.C." Three minutes later your document records this following conversation between the Command Center and FAA headquarters: Command center - 'Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?' FAA headquarters - 'Oh God, I don't know.' Command center - 'Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.' FAA headquarters - 'Uh, yeah, you know, everybody just left the room." The fighter planes that reached Washington seven minutes after that crash they were told by the Mission Commander, "negative clearance to shoot the aircraft" over the nation's Capitol. Yet one week after 9/11, in response to initial reports that the military failed to defend our domestic airspace during the hijacks NORAD issued an official chronology that stated that the FAA notified NORAD of the second hijacking at 8:43. Wrong, FAA notified NORAD of the third hijacking at 9:24, according to your report. Wrong, FAA notified NORAD of the fourth hijacking at an unspecified time and that prior to the crash in Pennsylvania Langley F-16 combat air patrol planes were in place, remaining in place, to protect Washington, D.C. All untrue. [In May 2003] NORAD officials stated that at 9:16 they had received the hijack notification of United Flight 93 from the FAA. That hijacking did not occur until 9:28; there was a routine cockpit transmission recovered at 9:27. NORAD officials stated also that at 9:24 they received notice of the hijacking of the third plane, American flight 77, also untrue according to your report; which states that NORAD was never notified that flight was hijacked. NORAD officials testified that they scrambled the Langley, Virginia fighters to respond to those two hijackings…yet taped recordings of both NORAD and FAA both reportedly documented that the order to scramble was a response to an inaccurate FAA report that American Flight 11 had not hit the first World Trade tower and was headed to Washington. That erroneous alert was transmitted by the FAA at 9:24AM, thirty-eight minutes after that airplane had exploded into the World Trade tower. Yet NORAD's public chronology of 9/18/01 and their Commission testimony 20 months later covered up those truths. They lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission to create a false impression of competence, communication, coordination and protection of the American people. And we can set up all the oversight possible at great additional cost to the American taxpayers and it won't be worth an Enron pension if the people responsible lie to us; if they take the records and doctor them into falsehoods, and if they get away with it. For almost three years now NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history. …on January 27th 2002, the Washington Post's Dan Balls and Bob Woodward authored an insider's retrospective on top administration officials' actions on 9/11 and thereafter. They reported that very shortly after the Pentagon was struck at 9:34 quote “Pentagon officials ordered up the airborne command post used only in national emergencies; they sent up combat air patrol in the Washington area and a fighter escort for Air Force One.” Secretary Rumsfeld was portrayed as "taking up his post at the National Military Command Center." And all that reportedly occurred before 9:55AM. Right thereafter "Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow before firing on attack planes. With Bush's approval Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command." …however, according to your commission, President Bush spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10AM. Based on White House notes and Ari Fleischer notes of the conversation the Commission's report states that it was a brief call in which the subject of the shootdown authority was not discussed. ============ COMMENTARY by Kyle F. Hence Edited by William Thomas http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607August 1, 2004 Mark Dayton has become the first U.S. senator to challenge the establishment consensus that "The 9/11 Commission Report" settles the open questions of Sept. 11, 2001. Democrat Dayton is a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. In hearings held on July 31, the senator from Minnesota raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government. Evolution of the Official Story: <a href="http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Stand_Down.htm">***LINK***</a>

by **BannedfromDU** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:04 pm

<img src="http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/vanityfair_2.jpg"/> Vanity Fair: What the Air Force DIDN'T do on 9/11  Hits newsstands August 8th <a href="http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/vanity-fair-what-air-force-didnt-do-on.html">www.911blogger.com/2006/07/vanity-fair-what-air-force-didnt-do-on.html</a>

by **4911** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:06 pm

Think its possible that, whoever did carry out those attacks, a massive security loophole was exploited? So massive in fact that if it were let out then it would give all kinds of people the info needed to do the same thing again? Maybe that could explain the current deception. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 8/2/06 11:07 am

by **HMKGrey** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Think its possible that, whoever did carry out those attacks, a massive security loophole was exploited? So massive in fact that if it were let out then it would give all kinds of people the info needed to do the same thing again? Maybe that could explain the current deception.<hr></blockquote> yeah. But how did these losers know about the loop hole? Had to be inside information, right? And that's where LIHOP comes in.

Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat likely&q

Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat likely&q

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

"NORAD"

Can someone post that Scripps news story?

Agh, sorry Et in Arcadia ego

Re: Can someone post that Scripps news story?

Re: Can someone post that Scripps news story?

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

Re: Poll: 36% think LIHOP/MIHOP at least "somewhat like

brainstorm

Re: brainstorm

Who is online