| Tweet |
〔重要ＮＥＷＳ〕 ペンタゴン（国防総省）が意図的に「９・１１」調査委員会を騙（だま）す？！ ハイジャック機への対応でストリーを捏造 刑事告発を求める声も ワシントン・ポスト紙が報道
http://onuma.cocolog-nifty.com/blog1/2006/08/post_9b70.html
「９・１１」が「やらせ」だった疑いが、米紙ワシントン・ポストの８月２日付け報道でますます強まった。
ハイジャック機への対応に関する、ペンタゴン（米国防総省）などによる調査委員会などへの報告が、「意図的にミスリードしようとした」ものとの指摘が、一部の調査委員員（コミッショナー）や事務局のスタッフから出ていたことが確認された。
調査委は昨年夏に解散したが、解散前にペンタゴンなどの当局者を偽証の罪で刑事告発すべきかどうかをめぐって部内で激論が交わされ、結局、国防総省と運輸省の監察室に、犯罪にあたるかどうかの審判を委ねることで妥協したという。
同紙によると、９・１１同時多発テロ発生後、ペンタゴンが直轄するＮＯＲＡＤ（北米航空司令部）と、ＦＡＡ（連邦航空局）の当局者は、
「米国の防空は素早く反応し、ハイジャック機のうち最後に２機に対してはスクランブルをかけ、そのうちＵＡ９３便については首都ワシントンを脅かすときは撃墜する準備ができていた」
と、２年間にわたって主張し続けた。
アーノルド中将らの、調査委員会に対する証言によると、ＮＯＲＡＤがＵＡ９３便の追尾を開始したのは、当日朝の「９時１６分」。この時刻は、同機がハイジャックされた（と調査委が認定した）時刻より、１２分も前だった。
ペンタゴンはさらに同機がペンシルバニア州内に墜落するまで、同機の存在に気づかなかったという。
こうしたペンタゴンの「公式ストーリー」の矛盾点が明らかになったのは、調査委がＮＯＲＡＤとＦＡＡの交信記録を入手してから。
入手した録音テープやメールなどを分析した結果、何人かの調査委員や事務局スタッフが、「９・１１」に何が起きたかについて、当局が調査委をミスリードしようとしたと信じる事態になった。
当時、調査委の事務局にいてスタッフを指揮していた元ニュージャージー州の司法長官、ジョン・ファーマー氏は、インタビューに答え、「録音テープは、われわれや国民が２年間にわたって聞かされ続けていたものと、根本的に違うストーリーを告げていた」と言明した。
両省監査室の報告は、間もなく発表されるという。
（大沼・注）
ペンタゴンによる「公式ストーリー」とは「根本的に違う（真実の）ストーリー」とは何かについて、ポスト紙は何も書いていない。
調査委のなかから「刑事告発」を求める声が上がるくらいだから、よほどのことがあったのだろう。
「９・１１」の防空をめぐる、ペンタゴンの欺瞞とは何か？ ペンタゴンはなぜ嘘をつき通そうとしたのか？
世界を「テロとの戦い」に動員するための、壮大なトリックとしての「９・１１」……。
ハイジャック機がどんどん出ているというのに、なぜかその日だけ、「機能麻痺」に陥っていた、米国の防空体制……。
事件の再調査による、真相究明が求められる。
⇒
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.
In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. 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.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。