UQ Wire: Statement from FAA Contradicts 911 Report
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
5/22/03 Statement from FAA Contradicts 9/11 Report
From Kyle F. Hence – 911Citizenswatch.org
Kyle F. Hence is also a co-founder of UnansweredQuestions.org
The following statement was sent in an WORD attachment to an email from Laura Brown following former head of the FAA Jane Garvey's inability or unwillingness to answer simple questions about the timeline of events on the morning of September 11th 2001.
It was sent to members of the press whose business cards she had collected following Garvey's embarrassing ignorance, as head of a key agency, regarding what happened that morning. NOTE from the editor: The 9/11 Commission staff had helped NORAD with their presentation and reportedly getting their timeline straight (according to NORAD officials themselves) but by all appearance left Garvey blowing in the wind.
Subject: FAA statement
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 19:25:12 -0400
From: laura. brown
FAA communications with NORAD
On September 11, 2001
Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies.Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line.
The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges, in turn, shared information about actions they were taking.
NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.
For the Commission findings in this area see Chapter 1 of their report. Or search www.vivisimo.com/911 using appropriate keywords.
When asked about the contradictions over the FAA Statement in May of 03' Laura Brown referred me to the 9/11 Commission Report saying that they had access to records the FAA didn't which helped clarify what they did and when.
However, she did contradict the Commission findings by confirming that they began building the 'phone bridges' as elucidated in the statement, "within minutes after the first aircraft hit the WTC." [This would have been within minutes of 8:46AM, though the Commission says it was 9:20AM]
She reiterated the Commission's finding that the FAA conference did not reach the NMCC (National Military Command Center) at the Pentagon where command decisions should have been made immediately regarding the unfolding attack.
However, numerous press accounts have the President informed of the first attack prior to leaving his hotel on the morning of the September 11th. And the Secret Service at their own command in D.C. have a mirror of the FAA radar (see Clarke, Against All Enemies, p. 7) so they would be tracking the second plane as it turned and headed to NYC once they were informed per the FAA 'within minutes of the first strike.'
Ben Sliney, National Coordinator at the FAA, insisted after his testimony in June that in every other case he was familiar the FAA had no problem coordinating a NORAD response to an air emergency.
This contradiction and 'change of story' pushing back the timeline, just one example of many we are currently documenting. So while the chorus shouts for reccomendations to be implemented, the omissions, errors and contradictions in the 9/11 report are being overlooked or ignored by both the press and the 9/11 families.
More critique and analysis forthcoming in our next report to be released at the end of August.
- Kyle F.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.