9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; 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."

Kind of sad really.

[AlexRS]

I think this administration has severely underestimated what may happen when lack of proper oversight becomes the official government policy. You cannot just have the very top operate without oversight - that attitude quickly spreads all the way through the system...

[Thiebear]

but they wouldnt allow the able danger stuff...

the commission was pretty lame...

[cjcdaman]

I agree with the saying that our government had a lack of imagination before 9/11. We were almost helpless that day. I hope that never happens again.

[Cskin]

I don't think anyone in govt., in positions of decision making, whether they were democrat or republican had any idea this was possible and didn't have a clue how to react. They do now...thankfully.... but that day to me uncovered a weakness of a lack of imagination and creativity and more importantly.... the lack of a pure chain of command and inability for those capable of making sound decisions to do so without first checking with someone above who didn't themselves know what authority or ability they had. Kind of one of those....."pass the hot potato" .... "I don't want to make a decision like that because I like my cushy job" things.

[Sarge]

That day was definately messed up. Had we still been sitting alert with birds ont eh end of the runway, the response would have been a damn sight faster. But that ended in the early 90's.

That said, our military was still geared to the Cold War mentality and had a hard time reacting to a situation like this.

In the aftermath, no one wanted to look bad, although we all did. Generals especially don't like to have egg on their faces, so I really don't doubt some of them probably made bull**** up in regards to reaction times.

We (the military) all failed America that day

[Redskins Diehard]

That day was definately messed up. Had we still been sitting alert with birds ont eh end of the runway, the response would have been a damn sight faster. But that ended in the early 90's.

That said, our military was still geared to the Cold War mentality and had a hard time reacting to a situation like this.

In the aftermath, no one wanted to look bad, although we all did. Generals especially don't like to have egg on their faces, so I really don't doubt some of them probably made bull**** up in regards to reaction times.

We (the military) all failed America that day

I disagree with the statement that the military failed America that day. It isn't DoD's job to predict and prevent that type of event, and there probably wasn't even feasible for them to shoot down the "proper" planes. If we are going to blame someone it belongs on the intelligence community and federal law enforcement.

I am of the opinion that America failed America that day.

[Sarge]

I disagree with the statement that the military failed America that day. It isn't DoD's job to predict and prevent that type of event, and there probably wasn't even feasible for them to shoot down the "proper" planes. If we are going to blame someone it belongs on the intelligence community and federal law enforcement.

I am of the opinion that America failed America that day.

I'm not saying the military should take the whole hit, but our response was lacking IMO.

Case in point. I was away from my base the week of 9/11. When I came back that Friday,of course everything was locked down. Or so one would think.

I rolled up to the gate, out of uniform and presented my ID to the gate guard. She waived me on base. Ops normal, right?

However, I had my finger over the picture on the ID, on purpose.

How did she know that was me without seeing the picture?

The answer is.......... she didn't, but she still waived me on base

I absolutly reamed her ass, and her bosses ass too

How in the hell could I get on base three days after 9/11 doing something like that?

Say someone had knocked me in the head downtown and gotten my wallet. They would have been right on the base.

THAT was the kind of security mentality that lead to the slow response that day.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not saying the military should take the whole hit, but our response was lacking IMO.

Case in point. I was away from my base the week of 9/11. When I came back that Friday,of course everything was locked down. Or so one would think.

While your situation is an example of poor security I think my experiences that day show an "excellent" response. I was out of town on a casualty assistance case that morning. When I got back to Ft. Bragg around 1500 it took me over 3 hours to get through the gate, in Class A uniform, driving a GOV. There were gun trucks at each gate with either M2's or M240's with rounds chambered. EVERY vehicle was searched, no matter who was driving.

My BN was tasked with augmenting security. We had squads patrolling on base housing that night, key sites secured that night, and a company on ramp alert that night.

All this aside, I don't see what role DoD could have played in preventing that tragedy. I'm sure each Base/Post responded slightly differently

[Popeman38]

While your situation is an example of poor security I think my experiences that day show an "excellent" response. I was out of town on a casualty assistance case that morning. When I got back to Ft. Bragg around 1500 it took me over 3 hours to get through the gate, in Class A uniform, driving a GOV. There were gun trucks at each gate with either M2's or M240's with rounds chambered. EVERY vehicle was searched, no matter who was driving.

My BN was tasked with augmenting security. We had squads patrolling on base housing that night, key sites secured that night, and a company on ramp alert that night.

All this aside, I don't see what role DoD could have played in preventing that tragedy. I'm sure each Base/Post responded slightly differently

This was basically the response we had at Ft Drum also. I was at Ft Polk ramping up for a Kososvo rotation, and we occupied the old post part where units rotating into the box stayed. They had it set up like Bondsteel in Kosovo with concertina wire as the perimeter. We had to patrol the perimeter 24 hrs/day even though we were inside Ft Polk, which was secure. And when the President landed at the AFB in La., it was nuts....

[Predicto]

I wonder how the conspiracy theorists will take this news. I don't see a thing in the story that actually supports their views, but I imagine they will see it differently.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think the bottom line of the story wasn't what happened, it was what they were told happened.

I don't know. For whatever reason. They believed the story had been changed after the fact. Did it? I don't know. But, that was the topic here.

[Popeman38]

I have mixed views on this. If the Pentagon put out a statement that made us look better prepared and able to respond to attacks, even if it is disinformation, actually helps to present a strong united front. And I caveat that with: As long as there is behind the scenes meetings and lines of comms are open and working to increase our actual preparedness.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think the bottom line of the story wasn't what happened, it was what they were told happened.

I don't know. For whatever reason. They believed the story had been changed after the fact. Did it? I don't know. But, that was the topic here.

It seems like they have only said that there is the potential that knowingly false statements were made. If they got somethings wrong that is one thing, if they presented a picture that they knew was false that is another thing.

[@DCGoldPants]

It seems like they have only said that there is the potential that knowingly false statements were made. If they got somethings wrong that is one thing, if they presented a picture that they knew was false that is another thing.

exactly.

[skinstzar]

The 9/11 Commision was a reactive measure. It was put in place to analyze data and assist in the prevention and reactive measures of another attack. These goals hinge solely on the accuracy of the data in which they were provided. The sole blame for 9/11 falls on the terrorists themselves. No military, law enforcement or civilian American citizen is to blame for the attacks or the reactions to the attack. What is reprehensable is anyone lying about their actions. We can only prevent mistakes if we know what mistakes where made and how they were made. Any person who purposely misled the 9/11 Commision with the intent of saving face is a disgrace to America, and they did every citizen a grave injustice. For that they should be punished severely.

[Redskins Diehard]

The sole blame for 9/11 falls on the terrorists themselves. No military, law enforcement or civilian American citizen is to blame for the attacks or the reactions to the attack.

I disagree with this statement. While the terrorists are certainly to blame for the attack there are literally thousands of people that we the taxpayer pay to prevent stuff like this from happening. If they are unable to do so because of negligence or incompetence then they hold a piece of the blame. Certainly not all of it, or most of it, but definitely some of it.

[@DCGoldPants]

True, but how do you fix the problems if you're not sure what really happened with responding?

[Sarge]

While your situation is an example of poor security I think my experiences that day show an "excellent" response. I was out of town on a casualty assistance case that morning. When I got back to Ft. Bragg around 1500 it took me over 3 hours to get through the gate, in Class A uniform, driving a GOV. There were gun trucks at each gate with either M2's or M240's with rounds chambered. EVERY vehicle was searched, no matter who was driving.

My BN was tasked with augmenting security. We had squads patrolling on base housing that night, key sites secured that night, and a company on ramp alert that night.

All this aside, I don't see what role DoD could have played in preventing that tragedy. I'm sure each Base/Post responded slightly differently

Oh there was security everywhere afterwards, but is it the same today?

Nope

You can't stay eternally vigilant.

What I was saying was it was the old mindset that lead to reactions, or lack thereof

I was at Langley on 9/11. It took them well over an hour from the first hit to launch their first F-15's.

That's not a slam, that's just the way we were configured back then

[Redskins Diehard]

You can't stay eternally vigilant.

...

I was at Langley on 9/11. It took them well over an hour from the first hit to launch their first F-15's.

That's not a slam, that's just the way we were configured back then

I think the top line explains the slow response time of the F-15's and is why I don't hold DoD responsible for 9-11.

[Baculus]

I am not sure if this supports any "conspiracy" theories, but this demonstrates that someone, for whatever reason, did in fact conspire to hide or bend the truth and present false testimony to the 9-11 commission. Which, BTW, I thought was against the law - isn't that the case?

What I find odd is that, once again, this shows the dishonest nature of government, especially the current administration, who, in the first place, attempted to prevent, via direct stonewalling or under funding, the commission from even investigating 9-11 in the first place.

For some reason, though, this detail of certain members of government and the military presenting this false and misleading information appears to be ignored by administration supports. It demonstrates that these supporters have, I suppose, become so accustomed to government falsehoods that they either don't care who lies or what happens.

I agree with the saying that our government had a lack of imagination before 9/11. We were almost helpless that day. I hope that never happens again.

Is this a serious post? There had been, previous to 2001, exercises that involved hijacked planes striking buildings as well as the Pentagon. We had the imagination as far back as 1977 when a military unit, with purported anti-terrorist efforts, suggested the idea that the WTC could be a terrorist target and attackable by hijacked airlines.

We were not almost helpless. Heck, AFB, across the river from D.C., had a squadron of fighter jets - even its website said that its duties included protecting D.C. Not only that, but whatever happened to D.C.'s and the Pentagon's AA system? Was the entire system, that incompetent? Is that why this was covered up to hide the sheer incompetence of being unable to respond to a single one of the hijacked planes, in spite of FAA and NORAD SOP for hijacked planes?

This must just have been the crossroads and the apex of inability, if this is what’s being suggested. And not only that, but, this demonstration of deceit does not exactly endear me to believe and have faith in those in charge. It matters to me, and it should matter to you as well.

[Baculus]

I think the top line explains the slow response time of the F-15's and is why I don't hold DoD responsible for 9-11.

The slow response time of the F-5's is not well explained. Even when they were in flight, they were not travelling at top speed, which has not been explained. Once again, the events of that day did not exactly create a situation for which there were rules already in place to deal with hijacked aircraft or planes deviating from their flight paths.

If we do not point some blame toward the Department of DEFENSE, then I guess no one has any responsibility, eh?

[Sarge]

The slow response time of the F-5's is not well explained. Even when they were in flight, they were not travelling at top speed, which has not been explained. Once again, the events of that day did not exactly create a situation for which there were rules already in place to deal with hijacked aircraft or planes deviating from their flight paths.

If we do not point some blame toward the Department of DEFENSE, then I guess no one has any responsibility, eh?

Again, we were in an old mentality, and ICBM metality, an invasion of another country mentality, not a "plane of hijakers" mentality and definately not a plane of hijackers using them to ram buildings mentality

Prior ot 9/11 and even today, we have contigency plans to invade Canada and just about every other country on the planet. But you can't train for EVERY contigency, nor or we geared to respond to EVERY contigency. It's just not possible

I'm sure prior to 9/11 we had a contingency for something along those lines on a dusty disk somewhere, but most folks would never have dreamed it would go down like it did. Most things hijacking entailed following a plane to an airport and going through the inevitable hostage stuff there

Basically, we got caught with our pants down

[AbleDanger]

but they wouldnt allow the able danger stuff...

the commission was pretty lame...

Exactly. Something that occured during the Clinton administration...

Able Danger

[Redskins Diehard]

The slow response time of the F-5's is not well explained. Even when they were in flight, they were not travelling at top speed, which has not been explained. Once again, the events of that day did not exactly create a situation for which there were rules already in place to deal with hijacked aircraft or planes deviating from their flight paths.

If we do not point some blame toward the Department of DEFENSE, then I guess no one has any responsibility, eh?

Didn't read my other posts, eh?

I disagree with the statement that the military failed America that day. It isn't DoD's job to predict and prevent that type of event, and there probably wasn't even feasible for them to shoot down the "proper" planes. If we are going to blame someone it belongs on the intelligence community and federal law enforcement.

I am of the opinion that America failed America that day.