FAA Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements

[Hamel]

To steal a phrase from Penny Arcade: Shitcock

May 6, 2004
F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements
By MATTHEW L. WALD

ASHINGTON, May 6 — At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that same day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said in a report today.

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, on Long Island, where about 16 people met in a basement conference room known as "the Bat Cave" and passed around a microphone, each recalling his or her version of the events a few hours earlier.

But officials at the center never told higher-ups of the tape's existence, and it was later destroyed by an F.A.A. official described in the report as a quality-assurance manager there. That manager crushed the cassette in his hand, shredded the tape and dropped the pieces into different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public today by the inspector general of the Transportation Department.

The tape had been made under an agreement with the union that it would be destroyed after it was superseded by written statements from the controllers, according to the inspector general's report. But the quality-assurance manager asserted that making the tape had itself been a violation of accident procedures at the Federal Aviation Administration, the report said.

The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, said that the officials' keeping the existence of the tape a secret and the decision by one to destroy it had not served "the interests of the F.A.A., the department or the public" and could foster suspicions among the public.

Mr. Mead had been asked by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, to look into how well the aviation agency had cooperated with what is widely known as the 9/11 commission, a bipartisan, independent panel investigating the terror attacks.

On the tape, the controllers, some of whom had spoken by radio to people on the planes and some who had tracked the aircraft on radar, gave statements of 5 to 10 minutes each, according to the report.

The tape's value was not clear, Mr. Mead said, because no one was sure what was on it, although the written statements given later by five of the controllers were broadly consistent with "sketchy" notes taken at the time by people in the Bat Cave. (The sixth controller who spoke on the tape did not give a written statement, apparently because that controller had not spoken to either of the planes or observed it on radar.)

One of the central questions about the events of that morning is how the F.A.A. responded to emerging clues that four planes had been hijacked. A tape made within hours of the events, as well as written statements given later, could help establish that.

A spokesman for the 9/11 commission, Al Felzenberg, said that Mr. Mead's report was "meticulous" and "came through the efforts of a very conscientious senator." He said the commission would not comment now on the content of the report but that it "does speak to some of the issues we're interested in."

The tape was made because the manager of the center believed that the standard post-crash procedure would be too slow for an event of the magnitude of 9/11. After an accident or other significant incident, according to officials of the union and the F.A.A., the controllers involved are relieved of duty and often go home; eventually they review the radar tapes and voice transmissions and give a written statement of what they had seen, heard and done.

People in the Ronkonkoma center at midday on Sept. 11 concluded that that procedure would take many hours, and that the controllers' shift was ending and after a traumatic morning, they wanted to go home.

The center manager's idea was to have the tape available overnight, in case the F.B.I. wanted something before the controllers returned to work the next day, according to people involved.

"It was never meant as a permanent record," said Mark DiPalmo, the president of the local chapter of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, who made the deal with the center manager.

He said the session was informal, and that sometimes more than one person at a time was speaking. "We sat everyone in a room, went around the room, said, `What do you remember?" Mr. DiPalmo said in an interview.

Mr. Mead's report said that it was conceivable that without that deal, the tape would not have been made at all.

The quality-assurance manager told investigators that he had destroyed the tape because he thought making it was contrary to F.A.A. policy, which calls for written statements, and because he felt that the controllers "were not in the correct frame of mind to have properly consented to the taping" because of the stress of the day, Mr. Mead reported.

Neither the center manager nor the quality-assurance manager disclosed the tape's existence to their superiors at the F.A.A. region that covers New York, nor to the agency's Washington headquarters, according to the report, which identified none of the officials or controllers by name.

Other tapes were preserved, including conversations on the radio frequencies used by the planes that day, and the radar tapes. In addition, the controllers later made written statements to the F.A.A., per standard procedure, and in this case, to the F.B.I. as well.

The quality-assurance manager destroyed the tape between December 2001 and February, 2002. By that time, he and the center manager had received an e-mail message sent by the F.A.A. instructing officials to safeguard all records and adding, "If a question arises whether or not you should retain data, RETAIN IT."

The inspector general attributed the tape's destruction to "poor judgment."

"The destruction of evidence in the government's possession, in this case an audiotape particularly during times of a national crisis, has the effect of fostering an appearance that information is being withheld from the public," the inspector general's report said. "We do not ascribe motivations to the managers in this case of attempting to cover up, and we have no indication that there was anything on the tape that would lead anyone to conclude that they had something to hide or that the controllers did not carry out their duties."

The inspector general also noted that the official who destroyed the tape had no regrets or second thoughts: "The quality-assurance manager told us that if presented with similar circumstances, he would again take the same course of action."

Mr. Mead wrote that this attitude was "especially troubling" and that supervisors should take "appropriate administrative action."

Although the matter had been referred to the Justice Department, the Mead report added, prosecutors said they had found no basis for criminal charges.

An F.A.A. spokesman, Greg Martin, said that his agency had cooperated with the 9/11 commission and that that was how the tape's existence had become known at the agency's headquarters.

"We believe it would not have added in any way to the information contained in all of the other materials that have already been provided to the investigators and the members of the 9/11 commission," he said.

Nonetheless, Mr. Martin said that "we have taken appropriate disciplinary action" against the quality-assurance manager. For privacy reasons, he said, he could not say what those actions were or identify any of the employees involved.

We may never know if that fool was simply a dumbass or had something to hide. The fact that we're only hearing about this now pisses me off. How can you sit on information like that for almost two years?

[BoredShirtless]

We may never know if that fool was simply a dumbass or had something to hide.

He disposed of the tape in several different bins. I think it's safe to assume he was hiding something. Probably his workmates poor performance.

[Meest]

Way too many suspicious things involved around it to simply think it was coincidence. Been speculated that the tapes would show that standard procedure in hijackings would mean the planes would be followed by fighter jets, but they were not, the Air Force was told to stand down.

Its just ridiculous that this shit happened.

[Ma Deuce]

Been speculated that the tapes would show that standard procedure in hijackings would mean the planes would be followed by fighter jets, but they were not, the Air Force was told to stand down.

But fighter jets were sent to intercept them (but they were ANG, not Air Force aircraft). They were just unable to reach the airliners before they crashed into their targets. At the time the fighters were scrambled, it was assumed that it was a "normal" hijacking.

[EmperorMing]

If he shredded the tape into several different bins, there was something to hide.

[Meest]

But fighter jets were sent to intercept them (but they were ANG, not Air Force aircraft). They were just unable to reach the airliners before they crashed into their targets. At the time the fighters were scrambled, it was assumed that it was a "normal" hijacking.

Wrong, officials contradicted themselves first saying they had no idea they were coming, then after trying to say they did know and sent planes too late.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. None of this requires presidential approval.

Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers from the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the Pentagon can take charge.

On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter took off (or scrambled) to protect the city.

The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

[Meest]

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001.

THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING

"…as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force"
--DC Military (7)

THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)

"In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB.

"Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "
--DC Military (7)

So squadrons designed to specifically protect that area scamble after the Pentagon gets hit, being "late" is overstating a bit.

[Montcalm]

[Tinfoil hat on]Its another conspiracy just like for JFKs murder[Tinfoil har off]

Seriously it look like there is something big they want to hide,last time i looked an F-15 could have reach the planes before they hit their targets,or maybe someone didn't want to stop them

[phongn]

Yes, there are very curious issues with the timing of intercept (and hell, didn't we just have a similar thread to this?) but there is no indication that the USAF was told to stand down.

As for if they could intercept in time, well, the USAF hadn't stood on ready-alert since the end of the Cold War, IIRC (and normally if an airplane is hijacked there is time to get some birds in the air). I'm wondering how long it'd take to get them into the air and then what their fuel state would be for an intercept.

[jenat-lai]

4 planes were hijacked

at the time of hijacking, one was in Boston ARTCC, one in Indianopolis ARTCC, and I think 2 in Cleveland ARTCC. The first aircraft of the day was hijacked in cleveland artcc, and never squawked the Hijack transponder code, and no communications were heard from it. In fact it was difficult to determine if it was a radio malfunction or a hijacking untill it hit the World Trade Centre. The second was in Boston ARTCC. It's transponder was turned OFF just before it's top of climb and maintained it's planned course for a time, whyle descending. at this time the Cleveland aircraft was still airborne in New York ARTCC but officially was 'under controll' of Cleveland as it hadn't been handed off. New york was notified of an aircraft with a 'situation' possibly trying to divert to New York and not responding to calls, but squawking normal. The aircraft missing from Boston could be radar painted, but no altitude information was available on it because the transponder was off. This aircraft went south of New York and then made a sharp turn to the north and of course hit the second world trade centre (whyle in a side-slipped non-co-ordinated turn doing over 350 knots no less)

It is really only at THIS point that the air traffic situation becomes really dire. however the air traffic centres in both New York (Newark, JFK, La Guadia, etc) and Boston (logan etc) decide of their own will to stop all takeoffs. Holding aircraft on the taxiway and sending some back to gates back when the first aircraft impacted the WTC 1. The second impact (live on national TV) finally lets people know the worst. It was not an aircraft with multipule malfunctions hitting a building at random (I can't believe people actually believed that.. but then would you, on 10th of september 2001, think "A plane has lost it's transponder and is not communicating. Probably not a radio failure, probably a TERRORIST TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE BY DRIVING A PLANE INTO A BUILDING!!" No, Pre 9/11 even a full Hijack situation was usually "Land the plane where he sais he wants to go, then we can negotiate on the ground." Never before had a terrorist hijacked a plane and flown it into a skyscraper at 350 knots full of fuel.


Jets at Andrews AFB where then prepped and were actually taking off as the Pentagon plane hit (not too long after the second hit of the WTC) that aircraft was lost contact with in Indianopolis centre and made it's way into the Washington ARTCC and hit pentagon. 10 minutes after the hit of the pentagon (and say, 8 to 5 minutes after the jets took off and did mach 2 over residential at full afterburner) the United 93 (contact lost in Cleveland ARTCC) hit the ground in Philly in an empty field. some of it's debree being scattered over about 5 miles long, 1/2 mile wide.

It's my belief that there was ample time to hit the UA93 with an Aamram... not that it neccicarily happened. but because of the debris field's shape (note this is a third party source so it may not be completley accurate, but the timing is from multiple documented sources) I believe only 3 possibilities work out

worst possibility: The USAF shot UA93 down.
best possibility: Passengers uprise and break into the cockpit, in the insuring mess the aircraft gets knocked into noze down at high throttle setting and overspeeds, bits of the aircraft come off and the aircraft crashes to the ground.
another possibility: The Terrorists, not trained in Aircraft well, accidently transmit on the VHF radio twice (you can find audio of this on the net at www.airdisaster.com), get spooked that theyv been found out, and that the other aircraft have already hit their targets, so get overzealous with the speed and overspeed, loosing parts of the aircraft (like elevators, stabalizers, wings, engines etc) and loose controll and crash.

[Meest]

Well if most of what you're saying is true, still shows that they didn't follow normal operating procedures that day, another curious coincidence, is Marvin Bush was a "significant shareholder" and was on the board of the security company for WTC and some airports that the planes were hijacked from. Its just all too suspicious.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/background_45.php

1) At 8:13am, Flight 11 from Boston stops responding (by radio) with Air Traffic Control.

2) By 8:20am, transponder contact is lost and the plane begins to go, (or is already) dramatically off-course.

3) Each of these instances, taken separately, constitutes an emergency according to FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5.

4) According to Bob Arnott of MSNBC, "Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour." "Routine" response to such emergencies is to order "fighter-intercepts" into the air, to regain contact with the pilot, (NORAD spokesman, Boston Globe, 9/15/2000). Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times.