When the 9/11 Commission was wrapped up, the Federal Aviatiation Agency (FAA) was blamed for failing to quickly relay information of the hijackings to the military.
Now, years later, the finger is being pointed at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad). As revealed in an article in the Washington Post (free subscription required):
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.
“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.”
* * *
“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.”
* * *
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.”
These statements confirm Senator Mark Dayton’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission that Norad intentionally deceived the Commission.
But what the Washington Post article, and Senator Dayton, fail to mention is that 5 or more war games were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including:
– At least one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes
– At least one “plane into building” exercise
– Injection of false radar “blips” onto the screens of air traffic controllers
– Monitoring of the exercises and the 9/11 events by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Indeed, Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta testified to the 9/11 Commission that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon, and was in charge of the military’s (non) response to flight 77.
So the Washington Post article completely misses the other half of the story: that the dedicated rank-and-file personnel at Norad were misled, intentionally, by the planners of 9/11. Specifically, the good and dedicated lower-level military people were confused by the events of 9/11 because 9/11 occurred at the same time as the multiple war games with their live fly exercises, plane into building scenarios, false radar inserts, and apparent interference by Cheney.
The prevailing spin from the Washington Post article and the related Vanity Fair article is that Norad lie to the Commission simply to cover up its incompetence on 9/11.
But stop and think about it for one minute. Is it more likely that a government agency would lie to an official government commission simply to cover up incompetence? Or to hide classified information regarding 5 military war games occuring that day, and the the interference which those war games caused with FAA and Norad’s normal response to hijackings? Remember that this administration routinely lies, and in fact authorized governmental agencies to lie about 9/11.
Reinforcing the argument that Norad lied to cover up the role of the war games and Vice President Cheney in the military stand down on 9/11 are two facts:
– False flag terror attacks almost always take place during governmental exercises, so that resources to carry out the attack can be put in place under cover of the exercise and so that — if the perpetrators get caught — they can say “oh, I was just part of the exercise, not the terror attack” (see this book)
– It is beyond the statistical probabilities of coincidence that the 9/11 hijackers got lucky by carrying out the attacks on the same day that 5 major war games (including live fly exercises, plane into building scenarios, false radar injects, and Cheney at the helm) were taking place. As Navy Historian Barbara Honegger has pointed out, either the hijackers had a mole inside the military, or the government itself orchestrated 9/11.
Indeed, Norad has already changed its story numerous times, apparently to address impossibilities with the official story pointed out by 9/11 skeptics.
Therefore, it is obvious that Norad lied for more important reasons that covering up incompetence. Norad lied in a desperate attempt to save the official story from that myth’s glaring inconsistencies and, moreover, to cover up treason by certain people within the U.S. government and military.
It is vital that we talk about this half of the story with as many people as possible.
See also this email from Kyle Hence outlining 11 key questions, this analysis of the new Vanity Fair and Washington Post and Vanity Fair articles, this message from 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson showing that Norad’s current “confession” is also incomplete. And as to claims of incompetence in general regarding 9/11, see this.
Thoughtful reaction to the recent and bizarre “Oh, my god, NORAD lied!?!” tempest. Definitive deconstruction of Bronner’s Vanity Fair apologetics still awaited…
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.