De lange neus van NORAD
Is 911 complotdenkers soms een spreekbuis voor Bush, zijn we partijdige verkondiger van de officiële versie? Als je sommige reacties mag geloven is dit blog inderdaad niet te vertrouwen.
Daarom voor de verandering vandaag eens een ander verhaal. Complotdenkers beweren dat de vliegautoriteiten (FAA) en de wakers over het Amerikaanse grondgebied NORAD hebben zitten liegen over het feit dat ze veel te laat in actie kwamen om de kapers te onderscheppen. De conspiratoren vinden het wel erg verdacht dat er op 9/11 aanvalsoefeningen gaande waren en veel straaljagers helemaal naar Canada waren gestuurd, en dus niet in staat waren om in te grijpen. Die laatste conclusies laten we nu maar even voor wat het is, maar er blijkt wel te zijn gelogen, zo meldt de Washington Post vandaag. Ook Vanity Fair heeft het falen van de autoriteiten aan de kaak gesteld.
Uit geluidsbestanden die de Commissie 9/11 heeft opgevraagd blijkt dat NORAD nooit de vliegtuigen in zicht heeft gehad, en zelfs een verkeerd vliegtuig najoeg dat zich allang in een van de WTC torens had geboord. NORAD zelf beweerde aanvankelijk iets heel anders. De commissie, die door complotdenkers nogal eens partijdigheid is verweten, blijkt nu in het geheim in 2004 het Ministerie van Justitie te hebben geïnformeerd over de merkwaardige discrepanties in de verklaringen van FAA en NORAD. De zaak is overgedragen aan inspecteurs voor de departementen voor Defensie en Transport. "We weten tot op de dag van vandaag niet waarom NORAD deze verklaringen uitgaf," zegt Thomas J Keane van de commissie tegen de Washington Post. Een rapport hierover is in voorbereiding.
Complotdenkers zullen deze kwestie dankbaar aangrijpen om de betrokkenheid van de regering Bush bij de aanslagen van 9/11 te aan te tonen, maar waarschijnlijker is het dat FAA en NORAD hun eigen falen hebben willen verdoezelen. Dat gebeurt wel vaker als er een schuldige moet worden aangewezen. Waarmee dit allerminst is goedgepraat. Vindt blijkbaar ook de commissie.
posted by Billythekid @ 22:21
9 comments
9 Comments:
"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defense Command] and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances," The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
"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," according to The Washington Post.
Lees het volledige artikel: CNN
Uit geluidsbestanden die de Commissie 9/11 heeft opgevraagd blijkt...
De 9/11 Commissie? Nee hoor het was de Vanity Fair
Beter lezen de volgende keer billy....
Seven Traits of the Disinformationalist (dat ben jij dus billy&co)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
De 9/11 Commissie? Nee hoor het was de Vanity Fair
Beter lezen de volgende keer billy....
Jij ook: "These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said."
De link staat er nota bene nog bij ook.
9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes
How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up. VF.com exclusive: Hear excerpts from the September 11 NORAD tapes. Click PLAY after each transcript to listen
By MICHAEL BRONNER
Vanity Fair
Kijk bij mij staat er ook een link bij.
Gewoon even de stukjes lezen. De commissie vroeg de tapes aan onder dreiging van rechtszaken ivm met eigen onderzoek. Vanity deed dat ook, maar voor zijn publicatie. Het stukje hierboven gaat volgens mij over het eerste. Zijn we er nou uit jongens, dit gaat nergens over.
Gelukkig, ik kan het officiele rapport weer vertrouwen en rustig gaan slapen, net zoals de wetenschap van de niet verder uitgezochte Mineta getuigenis die niet in het rapport te bekennen is.
Nederland, slaapt u zacht.
Kijk eens in het forum ;)
Tip: zeer goed radio-interview met Michael Bronner, de schrijver van het Vanity Fair-artikel (http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/03.php#11705), die ook onderzoek deed voor de film United 93, waarin ook Colin Scoggins (military specialist, Boston Air Route Traffic Controller, FAA) aan het woord komt. Geeft m.i. een nuchtere kijk op de zaak.
Een reactie posten
<< Home