High Fives for CT, Gererals Probed over 9/11 innaccuracies.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/pentagon-probed-over-911-inaccuracies/2006/08/03/1154198259390.html



The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating whether officials provided "knowingly false" information to a special commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks. A secret inspector general's report in May 2005 concluded that Defence Department officials provided inaccurate information about the air defence response to the attacks, but did not say whether it was "knowingly false," said Lieutenant Colonel Brian Maka.
The inspector general "will be issuing a report in the near future that will directly address the question of whether the testimony was knowingly false," he said.
Vanity Fair has published a detailed account of the air defence response drawn from audiotapes made in the northeastern command centre of the North American Aerospace Defence Command as the attacks unfolded.
The tapes show that no command was given to shoot down United Flight 93 as implied by Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials, the magazine said.





Drinks are on me.

[Gravy]

A correction to that story: the "official story" says that no shoot-down order made its way through the channels to the fighter pilots. The tapes appear to confirm that, so no surprise there. That's different from saying that no such order was given.

[Stellafane]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/pentagon-probed-over-911-inaccuracies/2006/08/03/1154198259390.html




Drinks are on me.

And this advances the theory that the WTC was a controlled demolition...how?

(Just trying to understand why the CT'ers deserve high fives.)

[a_unique_person]

The generals lied.

[Stellafane]

The generals lied.

I repeat: How does this advance the cause that WTC was a controlled demolition?

I don't think anyone here has ever said generals never lie...of course they do. But this particular lie (assuming it is one) has nothing to do with whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. It looks far more like a COY attempt to hide incompetence.

If this is the sort of stuff CT'ers give themselves high-fives about, their case must be incredibly weak.

[kookbreaker]

The generals lied.


I never knew geggy had a sock puppet with so many posts!

[pgwenthold]

I heard something about this on Randi Rhodes last night. The statement was something like, if an order had been given to NORAD immediately when the planes were hijacked, they could have shot down all 4 planes.

My response was, why is this relevant? Since when was it US policy to shoot down hijacked airliners? By the time they realized these were not normal hijackings, all the planes had already been hijacked, so it was after the time that NORAD says they could have shot them all down.

I'm tired of all this assessment based on what we know now. You have to consider what we knew THEN, right when it all was happening.

You can argue that we should have known more, but that doesn't change what we knew.

[Regnad Kcin]

Precisely, pgwenthold.

[Joytown]

The generals lied.

I'm going to repost a comment I made on a board elsewhere about this very topic. Note that I was talking to CT'ers, hence the direct "you" in my screed. The "you" isn't JREF'ers and other skeptics.

==============================================

After reading the news reports on how top US military brass misled the 9/11 commission, I'm as convinced as ever that they need to reopen 9/11 Commission investigation.

We need to *really* find out what happened. Those people in our government who ignored this threat, then covered up their ignorance to avoid being embarrassed (what a shock that it was in an election year - why do you think Bush and Co wanted to put the commission off in the first place?) need to be called to the carpet once and for all.

The bitter irony is that movies like Loose Change, and all the 9-11 Deniers, Truthers, etc are actually making it harder to get traction on this issue. The more you rail "Inside Job", the less likely we'll ever see another inquiry.

Why? Because you guys keep framing this discussion in these terms: "Inside Job", "Controlled Demolition", "Fake Phone Calls", "No Planes", "No Hijackers", "Demolition of WTC7", "Missle at the Pentagon", "Remote Control Planes", and "Vast Government Plots". And you are basing this stuff on absolutely flaky or mostly nonexistent scientific evidence , cherry picked quotes, 40 year old shadowy CIA plots, and with no agreement from any legitimate structural engineers, physicists, eyewitnesses. As long as you insist on making 9-11 into some deep-dark conspiracy, you're peeing in your own cereal. And you're letting both the people that did this, and the people that could have prevented but didn't due to their own hubris, off the hook.

You may not like to hear this, but the general narrative of what happened on 9-11, who did it, and how they did it is not really in question by the vast majority of people in the world. The narrative is both scientifically and logicially sound. Every piece of evidence pointing to "inside job" has been shown to have zero basis in fact. All you have are "questions" or have no real story. I asked in another thread for someone to give me an alternate plausible alternative to the standard 9/11 narrative and all I got was a bunch of claptrap about "find your own facts" and "we the people". I heard that according to some, certain 9/11 events as reported were "unlikely", but once that evidence was removed, I never heard their version of what was actually "likely". You guys just make it way too easy for detractors to lump the legitimate requests for a new investigation in with a bunch of Holocaust deniers, Moon Hoaxers, and other nutcases.

And that brings us back to the alleged NORAD lies. It shows that we really need to look into what the government did in the weeks and months leading up to 9/11, how they reacted on 9/11, and what their response after 9/11 was. This will allow us to hold those people responsable for their actions. And to be honest we really need to do it before the next presidential election, because I'm not sure how much more of the NeoCon wing of the Republican Party this country can take.

What the reopening the 9/11 commission won't do is change the physics of the collapse of the WTC towers, or the eyewitness reports, or the DNA of the passengers, or any of the NIST report.

And it won't change the fact that real people who really died in real hijackings on real planes with real hijackers that flew into real buildings causing them to really collapse, with passengers who really rebelled who really caused a real plane to plummet from the sky and to really crash into the ground.

Really.

[a_unique_person]

[foghorn leghorn voice] It's a joke son [/foghorn leghorn voice]

[gumboot]

Just a question...

IS the only lie regarding whether a shoot down order was given? Or maybe when it was given?

FACT: None of the 9/11 hijacked airliners were intercepted before hitting their targets (or in the event of UA93, before crashing)

Thus the existence of a shoot down order, and when it was given, is totally irrelevant.

(It's also irrelevant to the CTers, since they claim wargames on 9/11 made NORAD stand down so there was NO response to the hijackings).

-Andrew

[Cylinder]

Just a question...

IS the only lie regarding whether a shoot down order was given? Or maybe when it was given?

That Cheney issued the shoot-down order isn't really in question - it's in the transcripts. The real questions revolve around that order making into cockpits and the fact that some brass along with Sec. Mineta's testimony make it appear that NORAD reacted more quickly than they actually did. In fact, they report themselves reacting to flights before FAA notification.

I cannot tell if this is a result of the general confusion of the day or a serious attempt at CYA. One would think that the generals would have had the time to sort out the details before their appearance. By the same token, interpreting the discrepancies as lies makes no sense either - since it makes NORAD look like it should have been in position for a play when in fact, through no fault of its own, it was never in that position.