The Air Force had no communication with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) until 51 minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, '01, but the FAA originally told the 9-11 Commission that it had contacted the Air Force right after the first plane hit. And the Air Force originally claimed it "scrambled" quickly on 9-11 and had a chance to shoot down flight 93 over Pennsylvania, which, according to the now accepted timeline, was also not true. Flight 93 had crashed by the time Air Force jets took off.  After two years of stonewalling the 9-11 Commission by the FAA and Air Force the truth was put on the table. It is obvious that the Air Force and FAA were lying during this time. And yet, after two more years of study, the Air Force attributes it's miscommunication to poor record keeping.  And the Dept. of Transportation's inspector general has now concluded that three FAA officials who knew this false account had been given to the 9-11 Commission and said nothing about it, did not knowingly or deliberately withhold the truth. This is scary stuff. It is scary that the agencies lie and then say it was a mistake, while the press lays low and bloggers are called "conspiracy theorists." We better hope this is a conspiracy because if it's not the stupidity of the national defense apparatus  is beyond comprehension. For a 2004 statement on this issue by Senator Dayton, outlining the startling findings of the 9-11 Commission, click here ......Also, the flight controllers told the FAA before the first plane hit that there were apparent hijackings, and that's when the FAA should have contacted the Air Force, not after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. So the against-regulation delay in communication was longer than 51 minutes. .......In the previous months dozens of uncertain situations (flights deviating from planned flight path or loss of communication between air traffic controllers and pilots) had resulted in jets being scrambled according to procedure. But in this case, when there was no doubt that flight controllers had  lost contact with these flight crews there was no action taken......Note: the New York Times just deadpans this release, not citing any skeptical voices the way they usually do, except for citing a 9-11 Commission member troubled that it took two years for the Dept. of Transportation to study this issue and release a statement. The Post article is much stronger.

Below is the Washington Post article, followed by the New York Times article.  These are very weak articles for such a serious lapse. These articles show the Times and Post covering for the government. The articles are brief and shallow.  The refusal of the Washington FBI office to act on reports from FBI offices in Arizona and Minnesota about suspected terrorists learning to fly airliners is a similar matter. It requires, but has not received, more government and press investigation. There is much to suggest the government pulled its 9-11 punches. And, no, we don't mean accidentally.

No Intent to Mislead Panel Found In Aviation Officials' 9/11 Errors

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 2, 2006; Page A04

Investigators found no evidence that aviation officials intentionally misled the Sept. 11 commission when they made inaccurate statements about their response to the 2001 terrorist attacks but recommended that two officials face "appropriate administrative action" for failing to correct the record, according to a report released yesterday.

The findings by the Transportation Department's acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, address a lingering question about the response on Sept. 11 by military and civilian aviation officials, who initially portrayed the reaction as swift and efficient. It was later shown to be neither.

An inquiry at the Defense Department found no evidence that authorities at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) intended to mislead the Sept. 11 panel.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials at NORAD and the Federal Aviation Administration suggested in public statements and testimony that air defenses and aviation officials had reacted quickly to the hijackings and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. That aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to retake control from the hijackers.

In fact, the Sept. 11 commission found, audiotapes and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

The FAA had said on its Web site and in statements to the commission that it informed the Pentagon at 9:24 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked. The commission found that the FAA never notified defense officials of the hijackings but did label the plane missing after it had crashed into the Pentagon.

The FAA also omitted from official timelines the fact that it notified NORAD about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m., after the airliner had crashed in Pennsylvania. It gave an earlier than actual time for the moment when an Air Force official joined an FAA "phone-bridge" focused on the hijackings.

Zinser's report blames the erroneous statements on a series of innocent mistakes, including an erroneous entry in an early FAA timeline and an assumption by some officials that others would correct the record once the errors became clear.

"We did not find evidence to conclude that FAA officials knowingly made false statements," the report said.

At the same time, it said, two unidentified FAA officials should have notified the commission when it became clear that the information was wrong. The report recommended that the FAA consider unspecified administrative action against them.

Although the inaccurate statements have been publicly known for several years, it has only become clear more recently how much the issue had strained relations between the Sept. 11 panel and the FAA and NORAD. They were the only two agencies to receive subpoenas from the commission.

Some commission members and staffers were so angered by the inaccuracies that they advocated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. The panel settled on a compromise, referring the complaints to the two inspectors general.

In their new book, "Without Precedent," the commission's chairman and vice chairman, Thomas H. Kean (R) and Lee H. Hamilton (D), said the panel was "exceedingly frustrated" by the FAA and NORAD.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all the after-action reports, accident investigation, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," they wrote.

The FAA said in a statement that Zinser's report "clarified the record and found no evidence that FAA officials knowingly made false statements or intentionally failed to correct any inaccurate statements while providing more than 6,000 documents and materials to the commission." The FAA also has "made major improvements to its communications capabilities" since the Sept. 11 attacks, the statement said.

Staff writer Del Quentin Wilber contributed to this report.

The following Times article is is a soft pedal compared to the Post. The Times does not express doubt over the ridiculous claims of innocent errors made the the two inspector generals (or is it inspectors general?). It is sad to see the times covering for the government by pulling its punches this way.

New York Times, Sept. 2, 2006

Philip Shenon

FAA and Air Force Did Not Knowingly Give False Accounts of 9-11, Investigators Have Ruled.

The Transportation Department's inspector general urged the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday to consider disciplinary action against two executives who failed to correct false information provided to the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, whose office acts as the department's internal watchdog, found in a new report that the F.A.A. executives, as well as a third official who is now retired, learned after the fact that false information was given to the commission in May 2003 about the F.A.A.'s contacts with the Air Force on the morning of Sept. 11.

The false information suggested that the aviation agency had established contact with its Air Force liaison immediately after the first of the four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the commission's investigators found, the Air Force's liaison did not join a conference call with the F.A.A. until after the third plane crashed, at 9:37 a.m. The 51-minute gap is significant because it helps undermine an initial claim by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for domestic air defense, that it scrambled quickly on Sept. 11 and had a chance to shoot down the last of the hijacked planes still in the air, United Airlines Flight 93.

The inspector general's report, prepared in response to complaints from the independent Sept. 11 commission, found that the three F.A.A. executives failed to act on an ''obligation'' to correct the false information provided to the commission, which found widespread confusion within the aviation agency and the military on the morning of the attacks.

The F.A.A., part of the Transportation Department, declined to identify the three executives, whose names and titles were not revealed in the inspector general's report. Nor did the agency say whether it would consider disciplinary action.

The inspector general's office found that while false information was given to the Sept. 11 commission, there was no evidence that F.A.A. executives had done it knowingly or had intentionally withheld accurate information about the agency's actions on the morning of the attacks.

That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the ''inspector general's investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.'' The Pentagon's inspector general issued a similar finding last month about military officers who provided inaccurate testimony to the commission, saying their inaccurate statements could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.

Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said in an interview on Friday that he was troubled that it had taken the inspector general two years to complete his investigation -- ''more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work'' -- and that he released the report ''on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend.''

Mr. Ben Veniste said he was convinced that the failure of the aviation agency and the North American Aerospace Defense Command to provide early, accurate information about their performance had ''contributed to a growing industry of conspiratorialists who question the fundamental facts relating to 9/11.''

Mr. Zinser, the acting inspector general, said in an interview that the investigation had taken so long because of ''the very complicated issues'' his office reviewed.