FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape

[dbeach]

The Inspector General {IG) said NOBODY ever listened to the tape.

Does anybody ever get fired for incompetence NEVER mind the larger issues of complicity and they worry so so much about image of the boy/god/king occupant of the WH named bush.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6632-2004May6

FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes


Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

The report concluded that the FAA generally cooperated with the independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks by providing documents about its activities on Sept. 11, but the actions of two FAA managers "did not, in our view, serve the interests of the FAA, the Department or the public."

"We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

"The destruction of evidence in the Government's possession, in this case an audiotape -- particularly during times of national crisis -- has the effect of fostering an appearance that information is being withheld from the public." "

[MrSammo1]

1. FAA Tapes

those tapes were destroyed for the same reason the video tapes surrounding the Pentagon were confiscated. Not because of what they had on them...........but what they didn't have on them!

[MercutioATC]

2. An absolute NON-issue (here's why):

The six controllers that were taped still work there. They could have been (and were) interviewed repeatedly. This is ONE tape that was destroyed because (allegedly) the controllers were interviewed without union representation, in violation of the contract.

This "issue" is completely irrelevant.

[petgoat]

4. "The six controllers that were taped still work there."

So what? Different places I've worked, I've seen a whole lot of ways of
enforcing group-think. One can easily imagine a supervisor calling the
group together and cutting the tape into pieces in front of their eyes
saying: "Now I'm sure we all agree that none of us wants any of our
preliminary and mistaken impressions to turn up in the future to
embarrass the whole team." wink wink wink. "As a team we are relying
on every individual to keep his or her head and avoid running away with
speculations until All The Facts are in."

That being said, I thought the tape was made at the controllers' own
behest, and obviously if the tape involved interrogation by a
supervisor the union might have a point.

According to this (cached) NYT article, the union agreed to the making
of the tape and it was the quality-assurance manager who destroyed it
because he believed it violated FAA accident procedures. His comment
that the controllers could not properly consent to taping because they
were "not in the correct frame of mind" at the time certainly lends
itself to cynical interpretation.

http://summeroftruth.org/nyt_06may04.html

[MercutioATC]

5. Controllers just don't operate that way.

Maybe it's part of the psych exam they give us, but controllers are pretty independant thinkers. We do NOT work and play well with others.

The "teamthink" issue doesn't apply here.


I agree that the incident DOES foster a negative image of the government suppressing evidence, but I'd argue that destroying ONE tape made absolutely no difference. All of those controllers were interviewed numerous times.

[stickdog]

7. The evidence on the tape was CRUCIAL. That's why it was made,

and that's why it was destroyed.

People who have bosses always censor their thoughts to some degree to match their bosses' expectations. That's just Sociology 101. Furthermore, any ATCer who talked publicly about military maneuvers on 9/11 or any other time would be fired immediately and maybe even brought up on charges. That, in itself, proves that discretion is a prerequisite for the job, despite your unsupported opinion to the contrary.

[MercutioATC]

9. If it was "crucial" it could have been obtained any time afterwards.

That's my point. The same controllers were in terviewed numerous times. That one tape made no difference, the same information would have been obtained in any of the other interviews.

Again, you really don't understand controllers. Perhaps it's partly due to the fact that our supervisors have very little impact on our jobs, but I don't know of any controllers who "censor their thoughts to some degree to match their bosses' expectations".

Of course discretion is part of the job. Nobody is talking about controllers giving information without approval. However:

1) Those same controllers still worked there and were interviewed again.

2) Those same controllers were authorized to speak with Tom Brokaw on national TV to explain what they saw.

The loss of that ONE tape is just not a big deal.

[stickdog]

11. Disinformation alert.

Neither point #1 or point #2 is even remotely true.

[MercutioATC]

13. Oh? You're saying those controllers don't work there and Tom Brokaw

didn't interview them?

Interesting. What planet do YOU live on?

[stickdog]

15. Brokaw interviewed Cleveland Air Route Traffic Controllers.

You know, YOUR coworkers ...

The tape was made by the controllers at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center in Ronkonkoma, NY.

[MercutioATC]

17. You have your facts completely wrong.

Air-traffic controllers from Boston, New York, Washington and Cleveland were interviewed by Tom Brokaw for "America Remembers: 9/11 Air Traffic Controllers".

Have you ever heard of Google? It's a great way for people to make sure they know what they're talking about before they embarrass themselves on internet forums...

[stickdog]

19. You're right. However, Brokaw interviewed exactly TWO

NY ARTCC controllers for about two minutes each. That's not quite the same thing as what was on the tape that was destroyed.

[MercutioATC]

22. I didn't claim that Brokaw's interview was comprehensive.

I stated that these controllers were interviewed by Tom Brokaw.

I'm sure they were also interviewed by the FAA and other agencies after the tape was destroyed.

Thus, my assertion that that ONE tape's loss was immaterial to the investigation.

[spooked911]

39. somehow I doubt that Brokaw was going to break open the official story

with his interviews on that show.

Give me a break. This is a non-issue-- no major mainstream journalist would dare question the official story at this point.

[MercutioATC]

41. I'm not making an issue of the Brokaw interview.

I simply mentioned that the controllers had been interviewed by him.

The issue is that these controllers would have gone through multiple interviews, so the loss of a tape of ONE of those interviews is immaterial.

[spooked911]

45. I don't think it is immaterial, because we don't know what was said

yes, it could be harmless stuff that was said at the meeting. On the other hand, maybe something came out that was deeply suppressed and this was discussed by several ATCs, and it was something they would be loath to talk about it again. The way the tape was disposed was highly suspicious.

Moreover, like you, most ATCs probably want to believe the official story. But who knows what might have come out from that meeting that might have been very interesting and important to us.

[MercutioATC]

46. You don't know what was said in ANY of the interviews.

It's a matter of security. You'll only know what the government decides to release.

That's the case in ANY investigation like this, especially when it has anything to do with military aircraft movements. It doesn't have to be a 9/11 incident...

You expected different?

[stickdog]

6. So it would have been OK for Nixon to destroy his tapes, since he

still worked for us when he was President?

[MercutioATC]

10. I didn't say that it was O.K, I said that it didn't harm the investigation

The information was readily available at any time from controllers who had absolutely no reason to lie.

[stickdog]

12. So what did they say then?

Please guide me to their interview transcripts.

[MercutioATC]

14. I have no idea

(just like I'd have no idea what they said on the tape that was destroyed if it had, instead, been kept)

That's immaterial. The point is that even though ONE tape was destroyed, the actual people were still there to give testimony.

[stickdog]

16. No. The point is that the tape was the BEST EVIDENCE of what

happened that day, as it was made before anyone could get to the controllers and advise them as to what they could and could not say and before the newspapers made it seem sacrilegious to question the Flight 93 survivor myth.

If you were contacted by the Secret Service and told a limited hangout story about what you saw and told that if you spoke the truth about it to anyone, you would be severely compromising national security and subject to secret arrest under new anti-terrorism laws, you would shut up about what you saw.

That's why this tape was so important. It was made BEFORE anyone (including the mass media) could get to these people. At this point, they were like a jury that hadn't been biased. THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO DESTROY IT THAT IT WAS CUT INTO 100 PIECES AND PUT INTO 100 DIFFERENT GARBAGE CANS.

And even if one of these air traffic controllers is so iconoclastic that he or she would risk job and freedom to come forward, what good is the testimony of one disgruntled ex-employee without the tape?

[MercutioATC]

18. "100 pieces"? "100 garbage cans"? Got a link for that tripe?

Your post has a few fundamental flaws (quelle surprise).

1) Regardless of when the controllers were interviewed, they would have given the same story. We have absolutely ZERO incentive (and huge DISincentives) to falsify any statements.

2) The "new anti-terrorism laws" your hypothetical Secret Service agents used to threaten ATCs didn't exist when they were being interviewed.

3) I still wanna see the "100 garbage cans" link....

I know one of the 9/11 controllers personally (Stacey Taylor). I've known her for the past 14 years. She was never pressured to tell any "story", just asked what she observed. She did what any of us would do...accurately relate as much information as she could remember.

Dude, nobody is "leaning on" air traffic controllers...they're telling what they saw.

[stickdog]

20. Stacy's story makes no sense. Who did she ask to descend

to see if Flight 93 crashed? What was the plane's number? Who was the pilot?

Since y'all can be and always are so free and easy with information and you've known her 14 years, getting the answers to these questions should be a piece of cake for you.

[MercutioATC]

21. Again, PLEASE learn to use Google...

The plane that checked on UAL93 was ExecJet 56 (EJA56).

It's not uncommon to ask a plane to check on a possible crash. In fact, there are written procedures to have one plane attempt to locate a lost plane and guide it to an airport.

How's that for "free and easy"?

[stickdog]

23. Who was the pilot? And why was his plane tailing Flight 93?

From the 9/11 Commission's report:

http://pocket-pc-ebook-reader.com/en/911/15.01.NOTES_TO_CHAPTER_1.htm

At 9:31:48, ExecJet 56 also called in, reporting that "we're just answering your call. We did hear that, uh, yelling too." The FAA responded at 9:31:51,"Okay, thanks. We're just trying to figure out what's going on." FAA memo,"Full Transcript;Aircraft Accident; N591UA (UAL93); Somerset, PA; September 11, 2001


Who from the FAA is talking in this account? Why did ExecJet 56 tail Flight 93 from at least as early as 9:30 to at least after 10:03?


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:bvosRQO702QJ:www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/080902/new_080902020.shtml

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- Jurors in the trial of accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn back to the day of the attacks through videos of the burning and collapsing World Trade Center and family pictures of victims.

...

Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11, according to written proposals subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema.

...

The government said it would play the cockpit voice recordings from Flight 93 and the executive jet in open court, but asked Brinkema to keep both recordings and their transcripts from dissemination outside the courtroom. An official for NetJets (stickdog's note: ExecJet's parent corporation) , a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company.

The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not say who made the request.


So who asked this official not to comment? For what reason, considering that all air traffic controllers have supposedly always been free to tell us everything they know about 9/11?


And tell us, was Bill Crowley of the FBI telling the truth when he said this just days after 9/11:

http://www.flight93crash.com/OtherAircraft.htm

FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said Saturday that a civilian business jet flying to Johnstown -- about 20 miles north of the crash site -- was within 20 miles of the low-flying airliner, but at an altitude of 37,000 feet.

Officials Crowley didn't identify asked the business jet's pilot to descend to 5,000 feet -- an unusual maneuver -- to help locate the crash site for responding emergency crews. That could explain why some witnesses have said they saw another plane in the sky shortly after Flight 93 crashed about 10 a.m. Tuesday in a grassy field about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, killing all 45 aboard.

"It's obvious a lot of people would have seen" the business jet, Crowley said.

Crowley also said there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away flying at 24,000 feet when Flight 93 crashed. The military plane had no weapons on board. Crowley said he did not know where it was coming from or going, but said its crew reported seeing smoke or dust near the crash site. Crowley didn't say what, if anything, people on the business jet saw, declining to identify them or the owner of that plane.

On Friday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that the military had been monitoring the plane.


Was Crowley lying when he said this was an unusual maneuver? Why would he lie about this?

Was he lying when he said the jet was flying to Johnstone? Why would he lie about this?

Was he lying when he said the plane was flying at 37,000? Why would he lie about this?

Was he lying when he said that there was a closer C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet when Flight 93 crashed? Why didn't your friend send the military plane to scout the scene? Did she even attempt to contact the closer military plane? If not, why not?

Remember, this was over 60 minutes after tens of millions of Americans knew there was a coordinated, multiplane attack on the United States underway. Was Paul Wolfowitz lying when he said that the military was in fact monitoring Flight 93 before 10:03? If not, why was your friend even in charge of the situation at this time? Why wasn't the military -- who admittedly had a closer plane and were admittedly MONITORING Flight 93 -- handling this military reconnaissance mission, a maneuver that was admittedly unusual to entrust to a civilian plane?


Finally, is Popular Mechanic's 9/11 Myth Debunking article completely full of shit?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

The White Jet

CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.


If not, how do you explain the discrepancies? What reason would Newell have to lie about this?

[MercutioATC]

24. No offense, but I'm NOT dealing with that many issues in one post.

I'd be happy to handle them a couple at a time if you'd care to do it that way.

[stickdog]

29. What a surprise that when you claim to have the wherewithal

to actually clear up a highly inconsistent portion of the official 9/11 narrative -- rather than just blithely assure us of its general veracity, you simply decline the invitation.

[MercutioATC]

30. Not declining, just break it into reasonable chunks.

There are 6 or 7 questions in there (with links to examine).

I'm simply not spending the time to do that in one sitting. Hit me with a couple of questions at a time and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

[stickdog]

28. deleted dupe post (nt)

[petgoat]

26. "the actual people were still there to give testimony."

Apparently six people were on the tape. According to stickdog only
two of them appeared on Brokaw. Actually, do we even know that the
people interviewed were the same ones who made the tape?

It seems to me that ATCs who've invested years in their careers don't
have a whole lot of employment options (unless they're willing to move
overseas) because their experience doesn't translate well to other
fields of work. Professionalism of any kind involves a great deal of
self-censorship in terms of word, deed, and thought. I'd submit that
under the circumstances the people involved are even more
self-censoring than the rest of us.

I don't mean this as a personal attack on Mercutio; I mean it to
suggest that the fact that he's heard nothing untoward doesn't mean
that there's nothing untoward to hear.

Bottom line: the tape was shredded, NOT because of union rules, but
because of an unnamed official's concerns that it violated FAA rules.
Of the six who made the tape, how many "testified" to Brokaw? There's
been a whole lot of destruction of evidence surrounding these events,
and this is more of it--in the midst of the most evidence-destroying
administration in this country's history.

[Ferry Fey]

27. National security vs union rules?

Seems to me that possible matters of national security ought to trump union rules, no?

[MercutioATC]

31. I'm not talking about being interviewed by Brokaw...

The six on the tape would have been interviewed a few times even IF the tape had been saved. I'm sure they were all interviewed more than once by government investigators (FAA and possibly FBI and others).

[Ferry Fey]

32. Guessing vs. actual facts

I doubt that anyone here is interested in your being "sure" they were interviewed more than once.

We'd be happy if you gave us actual information on how many times they were interviewed and by whom, backed up by verifiable sources.

[MercutioATC]

33. Riiiiiight....

As an ATC at a different facility, I'm hardly on their list of people to explain things to.

What I CAN tell you is that it's SOP to conduct interviews (multiple interviews for more serious incidents). I see no reason why this situation would be different.

[petgoat]

34. So they conducted interviews, and therefore everything is a-okay?

All out in the open? The 9/11 Commission conducted interviews, too.
They rewrote the testimony of General Arnold, they ignored the testimony
of Don Mineta and Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar. Where are the
transcripts of these FAA interviews?

Are we supposed to be comforted by the fact that the people involved had
an opportunity to be intimidated?

[MercutioATC]

35. No, they conducted interviews, so the lost tape is immaterial.

The tape was ONE interview. Others were conducted. There's no reason to believe that the controllers said anything different in the subsequent interviews.

Had the tape been kept, you STILL wouldn't have been able to read a transcript, so the fact that you can't read a transcript of the later interviews is nothing surprising.

Some people seem to think that once these controllers said what they saw, they were somehow unable to say it again. That's just silly.

[StrafingMoose]

44. It's hard to back up your statements...

When you know the piece of evidence that would vindicate you has been destroyed in quite an abrupt way. It also sends a message, IMHO.

[MercutioATC]

49. Oh, I agree that it LOOKS bad...

...I just don't see where it makes any difference. Those controllers were interviewed more than once anyway.

[StrafingMoose]

43. I'd like to see a link for these statements...

And if this is so much of a non-issue, this is a weird reaction to it:

"Instead, the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said."

If you have their names, have they been called to testify on the 9-11 Commission? Under oath?

[dbeach]

3. absolute

another amazing story about 9/11

its a old story ..

its another coincidence if true..

FAA officer said it in last paragraph 'fostering an image' that the govt is blocking info..

and the bushies cling to his image as the moral war time presdient

an image that is still working

[Old and In the Way]

8. I'll bet there were references to Vigilent Guardian and all those

strange inserts....or maybe 11 flying to Washington. Stuff that was awkward for the OCT to explain.

The nation just experiences the worst attack in our history and this mid-level flunkie decides to destroy crucial firsthand accounts taken immediately after the event because of quality control? Hmmmm.

[Ferry Fey]

25. Testimony?

"I didn't claim that Brokaw's interview was comprehensive. I stated that these controllers were interviewed by Tom Brokaw.
I'm sure they were also interviewed by the FAA and other agencies after the tape was destroyed."

"That's immaterial. The point is that even though ONE tape was destroyed, the actual people were still there to give testimony." -MercutioATC

But I believe the point is that they may have spoken with television news presenter Tom Brokaw for two minutes, they did not give testimony. Testimony being information given under oath.

You are just guessing that they were interviewed by the FAA and other agencies, but you don't know it any more than we do.

[MercutioATC]

36. I think that was addressed to me and not the post you responded to...

"You are just guessing that they were interviewed by the FAA and other agencies, but you don't know it any more than we do."

It's not a "guess", it's standard operating prodedure for ANY incident. It happens EVERY time.

[Ferry Fey]

37. Standard operating procedure

Kind of like it's standard operating procedure to send someone up to check out planes which have their transponders go off and you can't reach their pilots?

[Ferry Fey]

38. No adherence to standard operating procedure can be assumed

Think about the President, known to be at that elementary school that morning, minutes away from an airport, when it becomes obvious that America is under attack, no-one yet knowing how many other planes might be hijacked and where they are headed.

He's a sitting duck. The kids are potential collaterol damage. As far as we know, standard Secret Service operating procedure would be to get him the hell out of any situation where his security (and thus national security) could be compromised.

But nope, he just sat there as cool as a cucumber. Screw SOP.

We can take nothing for granted, and all statements and assumptions must be examined. You say your mother loves you, we should verify it.

[MercutioATC]

42. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with...

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the same interview procedures that are followed in EVERY incident weren't followed in this case.

Is there PROOF of it? There is somewhere, but I don't have it. None of us here has PROOF either way.

However, it's irresponsible (and self-serving to the CTists here) to base the importance of an event on the assumption that other interviews weren't conducted when that would be the standard procedure.

[MercutioATC]

40. Yep, like that.

I've explained it before...it's not an unusual request to make of a pilot. There's even a written procedure for having a plane intercept a lost aircraft and guide it to an airport.

[Ferry Fey]

47. Following Crustimoney Proseedcake

That's really nice that they had a written procedure. Really, really nice.

We had four lost aircraft wandering around until they ended up killing thousands of people. Who lost their jobs for not following written procedures and not having a plane intercept them and having the blood of hundreds of people on their hands?

"What does Crustimoney Proseedcake mean " said Pooh."For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words Bother me."
"It means the Thing to Do."
"As long as it means that, I don't mind,"said Pooh humbly.

[MercutioATC]

48. I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.

If we get a call from a lost aircraft, there's a written procedure to ask another plane to intercept it and help guide it to an airport.

Likewise, it wouldn't be considered unusual to ask a plane to fly over the area of a suspected crash to look for smoke (I've actually seen a controller do this, though, thankfully, I haven't had to do it myself).

Those are both actions that MAY be taken. They're not mandated.

To answer your question, no controllers lost their jobs because they didn't do anything wrong. Just because there's a voluntary procedure for dealing with a lost aircraft that's asking for help doesn't mean that that procedure applies to the 9/11 planes.

Sheesh...

:eyes: