This thread is about the NORAD TAPES specifically and how they caused the rewriting of the official account of the military response to the attack on 9/11.

********* Pasted from another thread...


The tapes had been used by the 9-11 commission in 2004 to give a new account of the military's response to the hijackings. The account that had been given in NORAD'S timeline of September 18, 2001, which was used as the basis for the military's testimony to the Commission in 2003, had left the military open to the charge that its failure to intercept the airliners resulted from a standdown order.

That account also led to the charge that the military had shot down United Flight 93. The Commission, on the basis of these tapes, constructed a new account, which put all the blame on the FAA.

Constructing this new story required accusing the military of having told a false story. Some members of the Commission even suggested that the military told this false story knowingly.

But this new story protects the military from the more serious charge of orchestrating or at least complicity in the attacks.

Michael Bronner was the journalist to write this story because he was the first one to be given access to these tapes. Why? This may have something to do with the fact that he was an associate producer of the movie "United 93" which faithfully portrayed the Commission's new account to which the military could not possibly have shot this flight down.

I remember, and there is still a video on youtube of the announcement by I think, Rumsfield, that flight 93 had been intercepted and shot down. This story was later changed. "oops... no we didn't shoot flight 93 down.. that was a mistake..."

But my whole point of bringing any of this up is this: THE OFFICIAL STORY CHANGED to absolve the military of being complicit in or orchestrating the attacks.

Now, with the introduction of the mysterious NORAD TAPES, the story is that the military did not know about the hijackings until after the flights had crashed, so fighters could not have intercepted them and could not have shot down United 93.

According to Bronner, The NORAD tapes, by finally revealing the real truth about what happened, shot down the conspiracy theorists.

Now in all seriousness, would you like me to go into more detail about what the NORAD tapes indicate?

They don't prove a "conspiracy." But they beg this question:

The earlier claims and testimony before the 9-11 commission by Major General Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD'S Continental Region, and Colonel Alan Scott, who had worked closely with Arnold, are the basis of the so-called "conspiracy theories" of the order to stand-down and allow the attacks to occure, and the shooting down of UA flight 93.

The NORAD TAPES (if they reflect the true time line) disproves those conspiracy theories.

So what was their motivation to lie if the Norad tapes are the true timeline? It has been explained that the motivation to lie was to cover up confusion and incompetence.

However even though this explanation has been widely accepted, it is not really believable. If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9-11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves to the charge that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner -- that they, while being guilty only of confusion and perhaps a little incompetence, told a lie that could have led to charges of murder and treason.

Nevertheless, we have to conclude that they acted in this irrational way-- as long as we accept Bronner's presupposition that the tapes contain "the authentic military history of 9-11."

That presupposition has been accepted by stories in the mainstream press, such as the New York Times story that refers to what "the tapes demonstrate."
IF this is false, then the tapes do not demonstrate anything except that the military, perhaps in collusion with members of the 9-11 Commission, went to extraordinary lengths to fabricate audiotapes that would seem to rule out the possibility that the military and members of the Bush-Cheney administration were complicit in the 9-11 attacks.

But is there any reason to suspect the truth of this alternative hypothesis? Is there any reason to believe that the 9-11 Commission, as well as the military, would have engaged in such deceit? Are there reasons to beleive that this new story, reflected by the tapes is false? Could these tapes have been altered?

The answer to all of these questions is Yes.

So for now I am going to bed.

I will address the reasoning for "yes" tomorrow.

(As far as your question of "lack of communication..." (incompetence and confusion).. that is basically the gist of the new story reflected by the tapes that clears the military of standing down, but that simplistic answer still leaves many questions not answered. More tomorrow.)

It is my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11.

It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve someone of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack.

The reason is, that the first official account of 9-11 was far more obviously damaging and was the fuel to the flames of numerous conspiracy theories and there were too many questions that could not be answered.

So the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA. And yet no one in the FAA was fired.

I think the events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story gets really interesting.

.Some more Conspiracy-Theories,debunked long ago!
You all have been disproven in so many different ways,it's pitiful,yet always come back for more!
Maybe NORAD couldn't see those Phantom-Planes!
Who cares!

We are discussing only the FACTS HERE. You need to do some research if you want to discuss this subject intelligently.

More Conspiracy?
Maybe by now there is about a Million People involved,yet not one cracked!
That whole thing is becoming extremely ridiculous!
And how come you even are discussing the Evidence,since you think it is tainted?
Tainted by THEM!
Besides,any Airliner turning off it's Transponder becomes invisible,even to NORAD,or extremely difficult to locate!

actually,it is the CTs New Story,since all the other ones have suffered a painful Demise!
And as I suspected!
SNAFU at NORAD on 9/11,and then it went FUBAR!
Lucky it wasn't a full Attack by China or Russia!
No gigantic Conspiracy,just simple Confusion!
Only Conspiracy taking Place is on the Conspiracy-Sites!

The Norad tapes!!



All there is on the Norad tapes is a bunch of military guys finding
out too late to do anything that there have been hijackings all
morning. All the info shows that the planes had beacons off and could
not be easily tracked and flew into the buildings or (in the case of
flight 93) were taken down by the passengers before NORAD could
scramble jets to their locations.

It is a fascinating story and it does look like some of it was
misrepresented possibly as face saving or possibly by accident
but there is absolutely nothing on those tapes which conflicts in
any way with all the existing other evidence that al-Qaeda planned
and carried out the attacks.

Does not matter at all what Norad was doing as they found out
about each of the hijackings too late to do anything about them.
In the end all the evidence is crystal clear. Everyone knows now
what happened, how it happened and that al-Qaeda was responsible.

Here is an interesting report on the Norad tapes though:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

yep,just punched that one up too!
As I said before,caught with the Pants down!
PANCED!(Pantsed)

I can see you people have nothing intelligent to contribute to the facts.

The official story was rewritten when the NORAD tapes were introduced to the 9/11 commission and given first to Michael Bronner who was also the associate producer of the movie "United 93" which faithfully portrayed the Commission's new account to which the military could not possibly have shot this flight down.

For two years the official story was completely different and suggested that the military was complicit in allowing the attack to happen after a stand-down order, and they had plenty of time to shoot down flight 93, which I believe IS THE TRUE ACCOUNT.

Therefore if anyone wants to actually discuss or debate this particular issue intelligently, here is my position:

It is my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11.

It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve "someone"(the military?) of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack.


So, I believe that the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten, whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA.

I don't believe that it is possible for the FAA to have been so totally and completely incompetent when they have a normal procedure which they always follow religiously in notifying the Military when there is any deviation of any airplane flight.

And if they were THAT incompetent just this one time, then why was someone not investigated or fired or arrested for treason?

And I think the true events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story could get really interesting!! But that will probably never be revealed.

I do think it is very possible that flight 93 was shot down.

there IS NO Conspiracy!
Your "Story is six years old,and been debunked long ago!
It's a Non-Story,regardless of what you might think!

what Facts?
Yours?

that's why it made such a Hole in the Ground!

The facts that are ON RECORD. If you have done any research at all.
But you haven't so you have nothing to contribute.

so far all I have seen from you is Conjecture!
If you start out with the Idea that there was a Conspiracy,you can always sort the Facts to find one!
That's what you Guys have been doing for several years now!
You are simply rehashing another Conspiracy-Theory that has been put out to Pasture long ago!

The 9/11 Commission

The work of the 9-11 Commission was carried out by ten commissioners led by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, most of the actual research, the writing of reports was carried out by a staff of about 75 people, over half of whom were former members of the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and other governmental agencies.

Most important, this staff was directed by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the Bush administration. He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council in the administration of George H.W. Bush. He later co-authored a book with her; then Rice, as National Security Advisor for President George W. Bush, brought Zelikow on to help make the transition from the Clinton to the Bush National Security Council; he was then appointed to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Finally, Rice brought him on to be the principal drafter of the Bush administrations 2002 version of the National Security Strategy, which used 9-11 to justify a new doctrine of preemptive (technically “preventive”) war, according to which the United can attack other countries even it they pose no imminent threat.

This was hardly the man to be in charge of an investigation that should have been asking, among other things, whether the Bush-Cheney administration, which had benefited so greatly from the 9-11 attacks, was itself complicit in them.

And yet in charge Zelikow was. As executive director, he decided which topics would be investigated by the staff and which ones would not. The staff was divided into eight investigative teams and one disgruntled member reportedly said at the time, seven of these eight teams “are completely controlled by Zelikow.” “Zelikow is calling jthe shots. He’s skewing the investigation and running it his own way.”

As executive director, Zelikow was able to largely control control what would appear in, and be excluded from, the 9-11 Commission Report.

Another fact is that Zelikow’s specialty and major in college was all about creating and writing public myths.

If you want any response from me then you should actually contribute to the discussion and topic at hand.

If you actually have any questions that are not for the purpose of being obnoxious I will try to answer them. Otherwise I won't.

and all that proves that Bush dood it?

The 9-11 Commission cannot be assumed to be above deceit.

At the Commissions’ hearing on May 23, 2003, Norman Mineta testified that on the morning of 9-11, after arriving at the White House and stopping to see Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism), he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then told Vice Chair Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the order still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes.” Which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26.

This story was very threatening to the account that would be provided in the 9-11 Commission Report. According to that account, Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.

According to Mineta’s testimony, Cheney had arrived some time prior to 9:20. Mineta’s time is consistent with many other reports about Cheney’s descent to the PEOC.

The Zelikow-led Commission even contradicted Cheney’s own account. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press five days after 9-11, Cheney said: “ After I talked to the president, I went down into…the Presidential Emergency Operations Center…When I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagons’ been hit.

In an Interview for a CNN story a year later, Cheney repeated that he was in the PEOC before word about the Pentagon strike was received,.(which reportedly occurred at about 9:38).

This fact was also confirmed by Condoleezza Rice on ABC news television program one year after 9-11 based on interviews by Peter Jennings.

The 9-11 Commission’s time of 9:58 is clearly false and cannot be considered anything other than an outright lie. This shows that nothing the Commission says can be accepted on faith.

According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. The Commission’s claim is that the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it had at most one or two minudtes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington.

So the 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED Mineta’s testimony from the final report.

One can understand such an omission of course because the purpose of the Zelikow-led Commission was to protect the Bush administration’s account of 9-11.

This omission is not consistent with the claim that the Commission’s purpose as stated by Kean and Hamilton was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9-11.