7 ms·

9/11 Material Released in Response to Executive Order 14040

128 points by FridayoLeary 5y ago

egypturnash 5y ago
Some context, perhaps? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/09/2021-19578/declassification-reviews-of-certain-documents-concerning-the-terrorist-attacks-of-september-11-2001 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/09/2021-19... - the text of Executive Order 14040 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-releases-first-911-document-after-biden-order-cnn-2021-09-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-releases-first-911-docu... - mostly it sounds like this first piece is about connections to Saudi Arabia? And that it essentially says "this was not an official Saudi action"? https://www.kezi.com/content/news/575294492.html https://www.kezi.com/content/news/575294492.html or at least that's the summary I get from a statement from "9/11 Families United", connecting dots through these redactions is not a skill I have. There is only one document in there at present; Order 14040 suggests there should be more showing up in the next six months, with a chunk of stuff required to be up by 60 days after the date of the order (which was the 9th), another, larger chunk by 120 days after, and even more by 180 days after. So if you are interested in seeing how much the FBI is willing to let you see of what they discovered (assuming none of these documents are actually disinformation) then you probably want to make one of your systems check this URL regularly.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  "assuming none of these documents are actually disinformation" that is always a possibility, the government does not have a good history of telling the truth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse Goto controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airst... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    More saliently, the NORAD timeline of events was dodgy enough that the 9/11 commission referred the matter to the Inspector General of the DoD and DOT. "Commission staff believes there is sufficient evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately false. The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#NORAD_timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608
    - boibombeiro 5y ago
      The FAA NORAD tapes from 9/11 is available on YouTube. I found it shocking how unprepared everyone seemed to be. I'm reading the Vanity Fair article, it adds context missing from the raw communication. It helps to understand why it sounded so chaotic. Is the movie worth watching? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYBhgEm3j7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYBhgEm3j7A
      - AndrewBissell 5y ago
        A major reason for that "unpreparedness" is that an improbably large number of exercises and drills just happened to be scheduled on that day: https://twitter.com/marina0swald/status/1435727546834989058 https://twitter.com/marina0swald/status/1435727546834989058
        patentatt 5y ago
        I’ve always heard this line of reasoning/evidence, but never seen a break down of how improbable all of these events were, or how publicly known any of these could have been. For example, was the one large training exercise the impetus for many of the smaller exercises to be done simultaneously, and also somewhat knowable to an interested outsider? If so, it could be that the attack was planned at that time to take advantage of it. Or, is it the case that all of these exercises were super secret, rare, and independently planned, which would be much stranger and/or more suspicious. Seems like this is still somewhat knowable and relevant analysis that some enterprising journalist could undertake.
- orwin 5y ago
  Basically, what the FBI told us about their fault: "We did not have enough agent speaking arabic" and "if the CIA shared those files, we would have had the ability to prevent this". What i've heard from someone who worked with the DGSE at that time: the US gov was actually told by at least three agencies to be careful, and that the MI6 actually had details about trained pilots.
- badRNG 5y ago
  Honest question, what value would it have provided the Saudis to support the 9/11 bombings? The US has had a long, largely positive relationship with the Kingdom to include extensive economic investment as well as military support since at least the '50s (to sometimes an unconscionable degree considering some of the Saudi excesses in the war with Yemen.) It seems like maintaining this relationship with the US is in the best interests of both the Kingdom and its ruling class. The US seemingly continues to support Saudi Arabia at least in part as a check on the influence of Iran in the region. There are some tensions and differences in ideology between the very religious rural areas and wealthy urban elites, so even the participation of individual Saudis doesn't seem to say much about the position of the Saudi government and the ideology of the state.
  - darig 5y ago
    Everyone hates Isreal, bro.
  - Lammy 5y ago
    > since at least the '50s Since at least 1944: https://archive.org/details/chi_00005 https://archive.org/details/chi_00005 (Seek to 12:28, sorry can't deep-link)
  - sasaf5 5y ago
    Not all Saudis are happy with their authocratic government. Especially because it is allied with Israel's ally.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Internal and regional politics for SA Weakening a very powerful ally to get more favorable treatment Surreptitiously convincing an ally to start wars with SA rivals Reenforcing SA’s necessity to the US as a ally in the region Ordinary corruption In general not “to attack” but for the various chains of effects expected from that attack
  - ncphil 5y ago
    What? You think Dick Cheney was the only shareholder of the major military manufacturers and suppliers who would (literally) make a killing after 9/11?
ngomez 5y ago
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501901
lettergram 5y ago
Regarding WTC7 https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structur... See page 109 for conclusions
- CPLX 5y ago
  "In addition to the university and its personnel, we would like thank Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) for providing the funding to conduct this research. We also want to thank John Thiel for approaching Dr. Hulsey to conduct this research. We also want to thank independent, external reviewers and the public who provided comments during a two- month review period." Pass
  - c0nducktr 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with any of these people or groups. Why is this a "pass"?
    - h2odragon 5y ago
      Because these groups are often painted as or perceived as having an agenda other than truth; unlike say when the WWF says a species is endangered or when people who have issues with "urban sprawl" happen to be large urban landholders. In other words its a "these people can't be heard because of who they've been accused of being" argument.
      - Bud 5y ago
        No, it's because they are fucking wackjobs. That's a fact. It's not an accusation. And it's not because of any bullshit about "who they are accused of being"; it's because of their wackjob argument. They are promoting a conspiracy theory that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9...

128 points by FridayoLeary 5y ago

Some context, perhaps? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/09/2021-19578/declassification-reviews-of-certain-documents-concerning-the-terrorist-attacks-of-september-11-2001 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/09/2021-19... - the text of Executive Order 14040 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-releases-first-911-document-after-biden-order-cnn-2021-09-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-releases-first-911-docu... - mostly it sounds like this first piece is about connections to Saudi Arabia? And that it essentially says "this was not an official Saudi action"? https://www.kezi.com/content/news/575294492.html https://www.kezi.com/content/news/575294492.html or at least that's the summary I get from a statement from "9/11 Families United", connecting dots through these redactions is not a skill I have. There is only one document in there at present; Order 14040 suggests there should be more showing up in the next six months, with a chunk of stuff required to be up by 60 days after the date of the order (which was the 9th), another, larger chunk by 120 days after, and even more by 180 days after. So if you are interested in seeing how much the FBI is willing to let you see of what they discovered (assuming none of these documents are actually disinformation) then you probably want to make one of your systems check this URL regularly.

literallyaduck 5y ago
"assuming none of these documents are actually disinformation" that is always a possibility, the government does not have a good history of telling the truth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse Goto controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airst... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  More saliently, the NORAD timeline of events was dodgy enough that the 9/11 commission referred the matter to the Inspector General of the DoD and DOT. "Commission staff believes there is sufficient evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately false. The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#NORAD_timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608
  - boibombeiro 5y ago
    The FAA NORAD tapes from 9/11 is available on YouTube. I found it shocking how unprepared everyone seemed to be. I'm reading the Vanity Fair article, it adds context missing from the raw communication. It helps to understand why it sounded so chaotic. Is the movie worth watching? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYBhgEm3j7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYBhgEm3j7A
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      A major reason for that "unpreparedness" is that an improbably large number of exercises and drills just happened to be scheduled on that day: https://twitter.com/marina0swald/status/1435727546834989058 https://twitter.com/marina0swald/status/1435727546834989058
      - patentatt 5y ago
        I’ve always heard this line of reasoning/evidence, but never seen a break down of how improbable all of these events were, or how publicly known any of these could have been. For example, was the one large training exercise the impetus for many of the smaller exercises to be done simultaneously, and also somewhat knowable to an interested outsider? If so, it could be that the attack was planned at that time to take advantage of it. Or, is it the case that all of these exercises were super secret, rare, and independently planned, which would be much stranger and/or more suspicious. Seems like this is still somewhat knowable and relevant analysis that some enterprising journalist could undertake.
orwin 5y ago
Basically, what the FBI told us about their fault: "We did not have enough agent speaking arabic" and "if the CIA shared those files, we would have had the ability to prevent this". What i've heard from someone who worked with the DGSE at that time: the US gov was actually told by at least three agencies to be careful, and that the MI6 actually had details about trained pilots.
badRNG 5y ago
Honest question, what value would it have provided the Saudis to support the 9/11 bombings? The US has had a long, largely positive relationship with the Kingdom to include extensive economic investment as well as military support since at least the '50s (to sometimes an unconscionable degree considering some of the Saudi excesses in the war with Yemen.) It seems like maintaining this relationship with the US is in the best interests of both the Kingdom and its ruling class. The US seemingly continues to support Saudi Arabia at least in part as a check on the influence of Iran in the region. There are some tensions and differences in ideology between the very religious rural areas and wealthy urban elites, so even the participation of individual Saudis doesn't seem to say much about the position of the Saudi government and the ideology of the state.
- darig 5y ago
  Everyone hates Isreal, bro.
- Lammy 5y ago
  > since at least the '50s Since at least 1944: https://archive.org/details/chi_00005 https://archive.org/details/chi_00005 (Seek to 12:28, sorry can't deep-link)
- sasaf5 5y ago
  Not all Saudis are happy with their authocratic government. Especially because it is allied with Israel's ally.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Internal and regional politics for SA Weakening a very powerful ally to get more favorable treatment Surreptitiously convincing an ally to start wars with SA rivals Reenforcing SA’s necessity to the US as a ally in the region Ordinary corruption In general not “to attack” but for the various chains of effects expected from that attack
- ncphil 5y ago
  What? You think Dick Cheney was the only shareholder of the major military manufacturers and suppliers who would (literally) make a killing after 9/11?

ngomez 5y ago

dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501901

lettergram 5y ago

Regarding WTC7 https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structur... See page 109 for conclusions

CPLX 5y ago
"In addition to the university and its personnel, we would like thank Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) for providing the funding to conduct this research. We also want to thank John Thiel for approaching Dr. Hulsey to conduct this research. We also want to thank independent, external reviewers and the public who provided comments during a two- month review period." Pass
- c0nducktr 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with any of these people or groups. Why is this a "pass"?
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    Because these groups are often painted as or perceived as having an agenda other than truth; unlike say when the WWF says a species is endangered or when people who have issues with "urban sprawl" happen to be large urban landholders. In other words its a "these people can't be heard because of who they've been accused of being" argument.
    - Bud 5y ago
      No, it's because they are fucking wackjobs. That's a fact. It's not an accusation. And it's not because of any bullshit about "who they are accused of being"; it's because of their wackjob argument. They are promoting a conspiracy theory that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9...