Why did the FAA Destroy Tape of 9-11 Controllers' Statements?

[Octafish]

I don't remember this being on the news, so I'm asking the experts here:

Why did the FAA official do that -- destroy the extemporaneous accounts of the six ATCs and 10 other employees?

FAA Supervisor Destroyed Tape Of 9/11 Controllers’ Statements

By Matthew L. Wald
The New York Times -- WASHINGTON

At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later 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 Thursday.

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., 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 of a few hours earlier. The recording included statements of five or 10 minutes each by controllers who had spoken by radio to people on the planes or who had tracked the aircraft on radar, the report said.

Officials at the center never told higher-ups of the tape’s existence, according to a report made public on Thursday by the inspector general of the Transportation Department.

A quality-assurance manager at the center destroyed the tape several months after it was made, crushing the cassette in his hand, cutting the tape into little pieces and dropping them in different trash cans around the building, according to the report. The tape had been made under an agreement with the union that it would be destroyed after it was superseded by written statements from the controllers, the report said.

CONTINUED...

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N25/faa_long3_25.25w.html

Here's another report, from the Washington Post:

FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape

And from AVWeb:

FAA Manager Mangled, Cut, Destroyed 9/11 Tapes

Searched the September 11 forum archive and I didn't see this posted. Hope no one gets upset.

So, even if it was against an agreement between labor and management, wouldn't the importance of the case supercede any contract?

Isn't that destroying evidence?

Wouldn't that constitute obstruction of justice?

[SDuderstadt]

1. It would only be "destroying evidence" or...

"obstruction of justice" if you automatically believed the Bush administration was behind it. Did you read this sentence from the source you cited?

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, the report said.

[procopia]

9. It was destruction of evidence

regardless of who the perpetrators were.

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, the report said.

And yet, disciplinary action was taken against the employee who decided, on his own, to destroy the tape.

[Octafish]

20. Here's why it's important, SDuderstadt...

Investigators never heard it.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Here's the reason why what you believe is important here is actually just more JAQing off BS.

BTW - JAQing off - Just Asking Questions.

"Investigators never heard it."

Your concern would hold more weight if the ATCs themselves were up in arms about the tape being destroyed. However, they aren't. After they completed their written statements, the manager destroyed the tape. Evidently they got everything they needed from the tape, a full and accurate account of their day, and then they submitted those to the investigators, who DID examine and use them.

So if the ATCs aren't all nuts about this (and if they are, feel free to link to their ire), then you have a choice, Octafish. They are in on the deception, or they feel the written reports are accurate.

Which is it, Octafish? Ready to accuse the ATCs of helping to cover up mass murder and treason? Or will you admit that there is no controversy here at all?

[lovepg]

30. So Bolo back up your version of these events please.

If that is indeed how it went down you must be privy to information on the sequence of events surrounding this tape and its destruction.
Sources please. And how do you know the ATCs are not upset about the tape being destroyed. Just because the publicly are not saying something means little.
You want to lose your job in this economy? Come on cough it up or STFU!

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Pay attention - IT. IS. IN. THE. OP.

So people don't want to "lose their jobs in this economy," and that means they're willing to cover up mass murder and treason?

Hey, lovepg, what was stopping them back before the economy crashed?

[jberryhill]

35. Did you read the OP?

The article posted already refers to the relevant contoller's union rule about taping employees.

We had a long thread about this a while back, including further statements of the controllers involved, but it is surprising you seem to have skipped over the reference to union rules in the article posted in the OP.

[JackRiddler]

57. Wow! An act of intimidation and obstruction, destroying evidence in the biggest crime of century...

in a fashion that clearly sent a message: STFU!

And the lack of an open uprising among the ATCs, according to you, shows that everyone thought it was just fine and dandy!

Because the only other option you'll allow to explain the lack of public complaint among the ATCs is that they must have been "in on it" or "helping to cover up mass murder and treason." As you write, "They are in on the deception, or they feel the written reports are accurate." A frequently seen false dichotomy.

Also typical is the emotional manipulation: Take this slice-and-dice logic to its conclusion, and anyone who challenges any aspect of official mythology is leveling murder accusations at everyone in the US government, every civil servant or cop or fireman! They're also desecrating the graves of the dead and Helping Our Enemies Kill Us.

Of course, the OP isn't even an explicit challenge to the official mythology. It's reporting the undeniable fact that these tapes were destroyed in a theatrical display meant to send a message to everyone in that office. But you're not allowed to ask why, say the debunkers, because the question admits answers other than those of the official mythology, and that's "sinister insinuation" which automatically implicates mom and apple pie in murder and treason!

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Have the courage of your convictions.,

Go ahead and accuse the people who must be covering up of actually doing so.

The way to disprove what I say is to produce actual statements from the ATCs that the written statements misrepresent what was on the tapes. Without that, you've got your choices - participating in the coverup or affirming the written testimony (the written testimony that they themselves submitted).

You don't have evidence of intimidation. You don't have evidence that the ATCs disagree with what's on the written statements and that the tape would have proved otherwise. All you've got is your sinister implications.

In short, ya got nothing. As usual.

[Octafish]

78. FUQ-U: From Unlimited Questions - Understanding

Otherwise, by telling people they're just stirring shit by asking questions, is really a case of:



BTW: To me, destruction of evidence suggests someone doesn't want someone else to know about something.
That's why it's so important to ask questions regarding the destroyed FAA tape --
as well as in most other regards concerning the attacks of September 11.

Why? Because, we don't know, even with the jumbo-sized 9-11 Commission Report.

Who gives a shit? In a democracy, we're supposed to know. We -- as in We the People.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Why aren't the ATC's up in arms about this?

Hint: Because it's another red herring being flogged by "truthers".

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Time to call the WHAAAAAAAAAAmbulance. n/t

[JackRiddler]

83. Your implicit admission of moral and logical bankruptcy is acknowledged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=269528&mesg_id=269788

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Hey, here's a thought, Jack - why don't you get some evidence for anything you're saying?

Then you'd have something.

[Octafish]

87. Why don't you?

In post after post, you pile it on plenty thick, but it's all your opinion.

Why IS that?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. The evidence for what I'm saying is in the OP. n/t

[Octafish]

85. FUQ-U Archive -- Do we really know what happened to the FAA tape?

It gets even weirder. Do we really know when the tape was destroyed or even if it was destroyed?

Here's something I learned today, thanks to a point raised downthread by Ghost in the Machine:

Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed

SNIP...

The quality-assurance manager destroyed the tape sometime in December 2001, January 2002 or February 2002. By that time he and the center manager had received an e-mail message from 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."

BTW: We the People have gotten few answers to important questions. And there are lots of questions, millions in fact.

Thank you for understanding what it's all about, JackRiddler.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Do we really know that Easter Island exists?

I mean, who here has actually been there?

[Octafish]

89. It would depend who told me. If it was Poppy or Junior Bush -- No, I wouldn't believe them.

If it was someone whose opinion I respected, I'd more likely believe them.

Edit: Typo kindly caught by SDuderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Minor note....

do you know the difference between "who's" and "whose"?

[Octafish]

94. Sorry. I made a mistake.

Thanks for being so quick and kind to respond.

[Bolo Boffin]

97. How exactly did Poppy or Junior tell you about the tape in the OP? n/t

[Octafish]

98. You wrote about Easter Island.

That's off-topic, BTW.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. An illustration of the point I was making.

Your point taken too far, you could undermine how anyone knows anything in this world.

[Octafish]

100. So, what do you think was on the tape the FAA manager destroyed?

So, what do you think was on the tape the FAA manager destroyed?

I don’t know, but it must've been very interesting.

What the FAA spokesman said:

"We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The Washington Post, May 6, 2004

What the FAA Inspector General wrote:

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.

The New York Times, May 6, 2004

Unfortunately, now that the tape recording the extemporaneous remarks of six ATCs and 10 other FAA employees has been destroyed, we'll never really know.

Unless a copy was made. Or it wasn't destroyed.

And that brings up more questions to ask and to hope that we get to see answered.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. It was a group interview of ATCs and others about what had happened on 9/11

After all the people on the tapes submitted separate written statements on what had happened, the tape was destroyed as per the union agreement.

That's in the OP. You answered your own question, decided the answer wasn't good enough, and here we are.

[Octafish]

102. No. That's precisely what we don't know -- because the tape was destroyed.

From The Washington Post link in the OP:

It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

So, no, we don't know what was on the tape, including whether it corroborated what the ATCs later wrote or not.

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude...

seriously...what reason do you have to believe that any ATC later omitted anything that might have been said on the tape? Has there been any outcry from any of the ATC's? No? Why do you think that is?

[KDLarsen]

2. Would you look at the time..

2004 already, time goes by so quick :eyes:

[Octafish]

5. LOL - brilliant!

So tell me, do you believe Bush and Cheney have told the truth regarding 9-11?

I sure don't.

And even though it has been eight years, I sure won't stop searching for answers.

One more thing: I won't belittle those who do or don't.

[KDLarsen]

7. I couldn't care less about Bush and/or Cheney

I don't base my knowledge of 9/11 on what either of them have said.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Octafish M.O.: Ask a question, provide the answer, hate on the answer, sinister insinuations.

And then when people call him on his implications, pretend he never said any such thing and bewail his being attacked for just asking questions, should he be allowed to just ask questions, why do we hate it when people ask questions?

Get down off the cross, Octafish. 9/11 isn't about you.

[Octafish]

4. True, I often ask questions.

Your M.O., Bolo Boffin, is to tell people you don't agree with to shut up.

As for the quality of what we post, I invite anyone to read my journal and compare it with yours. One thing people will notice, I can't stand traitors, war profiteers, gangsters, NAZIs and all they represent.

Like I said, I invite people to learn. That's why I ask questions.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Could you please point precisely to where...

Bolo has told you to ''shut up''?

[whatchamacallit]

56. Does the term "In so many words"

mean anything to your bizarrely binary mind?

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. that you're moving the goalposts, perhaps? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

61. Please

Even *you* understood Octafish was speaking to Bolo's general demeanor and style. Apparently, some people are incapable of the processing the nuances of the english language.

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. y'know...

it's sort of hard to empathize with the complaints about Bolo's "general demeanor and style" when they're bracketed by gratuitous personal attacks.

I'm just reporting.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Okay, dude...

I'd love for you to provide an example of Bolo telling someone to ''shut' up' ''in so many words''. I'd also love for you to show me how my mind is ''bizarrely binary''. One example will suffice.

Why is it when people merely debate ''truthers'', said ''truthers'' typically whine that we are trying to ''silence them''? What a racket.

[procopia]

6. 9/11 is about all of us...(nt)

[wildbilln864]

8. exactly! Thank you. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Wave that flag. n/t

[procopia]

11. Wave that flag?

I'm not waving that flag, I'm simply pointing out there isn't a person in the country, maybe the world, that is untouched by the events of 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Cue the anthem! n/t

[procopia]

13. Aww,

It's the Comeback Kid.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Start the Two Minute Hate! n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Stop hijacking this thread with your usual inane, irrelevant bullshit...

do you have anything intelligent to offer?


I didn't think so...

[Bolo Boffin]

17. The fucking OP provided the answer to his fucking stupid question in his fucking OP.

Might as well talk about the cheerleading techniques of the other posters here. Octafish comes pre-debunked.

[Octafish]

19. Remember: All criticism is self-criticism.

I did not answer my question. I asked a question.

As far as I can tell, you have only stated that I answered my own question. You have provided no proof or evidence to support your statement.

So, please, feel free to de-bunk or otherwise shit on my posts. You make it obvious you can't find fault with what I write.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. I'm sure you're able to point where, exactly, he answered his own question, right?

I'll ask again... do you have anything intelligent to add, or are you going to just keep engaging in your usual histrionics? :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

28. SDuderstadt did that in post #1 of this bullshit thread.

And your obsessive stalking of me is intelligent? If you have problems with the way I post here, alert the moderators. It's not your job to fix how I post. Leave that to the moderators. Anything else is unwelcome and breaks DU rules.

Got that? DO NOT RESPOND to this post if all you have to say is another comment on me. Alert the moderators to what you perceive as my bad behavior and then take a chill pill.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. you think Bolo should copy and paste post #1?

Gracious. Can we get on with it, already?

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. No, I think he should copy-n-paste from the OP exactly where the OP answered his own question

I see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved any with time.. keep working on that, ok?

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. let me see if I can make this really simple for you

Question: "Why did the FAA Destroy Tape of 9-11 Controllers' Statements?"

Answer: "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, the report said."

As far as anyone here can tell, the manager (not "the FAA") destroyed the tape in order to comply with that agreement. Whether or not we think that was an adequate reason, no one has presented an iota of evidence that it wasn't the reason.

[Ghost in the Machine]

49. You really enjoy showing off your lack of reading comprehension skills, don't you?

The first paragraph in the first link of the OP states that:

"At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later 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 Thursday."

You *can* read, can't you? Try reading for comprehension this time...


"As far as anyone here can tell, the manager (not "the FAA") destroyed the tape in order to comply with that agreement. Whether or not we think that was an adequate reason, no one has presented an iota of evidence that it wasn't the reason."

If you bothered to follow the other links you would notice that:

"an FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who communicated or tracked two of the hijacked planes and recorded in a one-hour interview their personal accounts of what occurred, the report stated."

snip

The tape's existence was never made known to federal officials investigating the attack, nor to FAA officials in Washington. Staff members of the 9/11 panel found out about the tape during interviews with some controllers who participated in the recording.

One controller said she asked to listen to the tape in order to prepare her written account of her experience, but one of the managers denied her request.

The New York managers acknowledged that they received an e-mail from FAA officials instructing them to retain all materials related to the Sept. 11 attacks. "If a question arises whether or not you should retain the data, RETAIN IT," the report quoted the e-mail as saying.

But the managers decided not to include the tape in a November 2001 "Formal Accident Package" report the office prepared because one manager said he did not want to break his word to the union official and he did not think the tape should ever have been made.



An FAA Manager is, by proxy, "the FAA" since "the FAA" isn't a living, breathing human being. Tell me, if you read that "the White House destroyed evidence", do think the actual *structure* destroyed it, or do you presume that a *person connected to the White House* destroyed it?

It might do you some good to actually read something before you comment on it instead of sounding like a simpleton offering up a "simple", yet wrong, opinion on something...

Thanks,

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Madness. Madness. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. hey, whatever

I made a simple point, which you've simply disregarded in this response. So, hey, rant on.

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. No, I didn't "disregard" anything, dude... I destroyed your simpleton comment

... with, you know, facts... and stuff.


Don't feel bad, man.. I've had my ass handed to me on here before, too. There's no shame in it.. as long as you learn something from it.

:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. not at all

There's a question, and there's an answer. And then there's your attempt to provoke a flame war. That's pretty much all there is. I should be beyond disappointment by now, but nevertheless, I'm disappointed.

[Ghost in the Machine]

60. Pointing out facts is an attempt to start a flame war?

How do you figure that?

I'll check back with you later, it's my son's 16th birthday today, and I just got done cooking over 100 hot wings for him and his friends.. time to go start the party....


Peace,

Ghost

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. maybe someone else can explain this to you

I'm giving up. Your version of "peace" is beyond me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. You think they'll try to make it "really simple"??

:rubshandstogether:

I'll give you credit for one thing you said:

"There's a question, and there's an answer."

This is very true. Given that, can you see the fallacy in your "really simple" answer?

Here's another version of a "really simple" answer:

Q: Why is the sky blue?

A: Because God made it that way...

Yes, it's a very simple answer, but it's also wrong... just like your really simple answer was. There's a difference between simple answers and simple facts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. thanks for the part of this that belatedly concedes the obvious

As for the rest, well, die Gedanken sind frei.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Jesus Fucking Christ.

In your world "God made it that way" and "the manager destroyed the tape because of an agreement between the union employees about tapes" is equivalent.

You don't give a shit about the truth.

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. I know you're not as dumb as this post makes you look, Bolo...

The manager agreed to destroy the tape AFTER it was superseded by written statements. That never happened, it was destroyed before it could be transcribed.. or even LISTENED to. It was also destroyed after FAA officials in Washington told them to RETAIN it...

I guess you don't have a problem with that at all, do you? Maybe you should try reading all the links in the OP before letting your fingers wander across the keyboard...

[Bolo Boffin]

69. The tapes were superceded by written statements. All the ATCs submitted their written statements.

Then the tape was destroyed.

Get your facts straight before you start sniffing around my ass, Ghost.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. The tapes were superceded by written statements. All the ATCs submitted their written statements.

It is you that is wrong, and you that continues to foist off your own feelings of inadequacy onto me so you can hammer them down.

YOU concentrate on the facts, little man. And try not to flip out at your son's birthday party, alright?

[Ghost in the Machine]

72. How pathetic...

This tape, the tape in question in the OP, was superceded by NOTHING. As I pointed out, it was DESTROYED BEFORE IT WAS EVEN LISTENED TO.

One controller said she asked to listen to the tape in order to prepare her written account of her experience, but one of the managers denied her request.

The New York managers acknowledged that they received an e-mail from FAA officials instructing them to retain all materials related to the Sept. 11 attacks. "If a question arises whether or not you should retain the data, RETAIN IT," the report quoted the e-mail as saying.

But the managers decided not to include the tape in a November 2001 "Formal Accident Package" report the office prepared because one manager said he did not want to break his word to the union official and he did not think the tape should ever have been made.

You've shown your depths of your willful ignorance. And you wonder why you're considered a joke around here...


Flipping out at my son's party? Let me tell you something, little boy.. I've been a single father for over 13 years. I generally have 4 to 6 other kids in my house every weekend. I've got 11 here now.. I don't "flip out". Now go crawl back under your rock and cry into your pillow some more....

Pathetic... simply fucking pathetic

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Tell that to someone who hasn't been on the recieving end of your flip-outs here.

Because I'm tired of your bullshit.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. How, exactly, does one "flip out" on the internet?

How do you tell one's tone, inflection or demeanor on the internet?

Hint: I'm usually laughing my ass off when responding to you because you come across like a cartoon character. I always imagine myself as debating with Sponge Bob when I engage you.

Pssst... your projection is showing...

[Twist_U_Up]

33. There you have it.... boffin telling someone to shut up.

dude

[RedSock]

18. the ignore button is your friend

in a flash, whole threads get cleaned up! it's wonderful!

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't use the ignore feature..

I prefer actually debating people with differing opinions, as long as facts are involved. I also give give a lot of leeway for some speculation, as long as that speculation is backed up by at least some circumstantial evidence.


Peace,

Ghost

[Octafish]

22. What do you think could've been on the tape, Ghost in the Machine?

In addition to its investigative value, the tape was an essential official and historic document.

To afford some plausibility to their rationale, they have the fig leaf of a union contract. Remember, these are the same repuke turds who fired the last Air Traffic Controllers' union: PATCO.

So, what information was so crucial that the tape had to get the ziggy? That, no matter what anybody says, is the question.

One guess is that they reveail the exact time of events, including when someone said they discovered hijackings had taken place. Another one would what time was the first call to NORAD. Knowing the answer to that would open up a lot of questions, but it would go a long way toward telling us what could have been done that wasn't.

I guess that would come under the rubric, "national security." That's the same one the Bushes use when anyone like Wolf Blitzer or Chief Justice Robers asks them about crony capitalism and Machiavellian politics.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. I couldn't even venture to guess, Octafish.. it's hard to tell

I can go along with the theory that it may have been some info that didn't jibe with the official narrative, but I think that that scenario might be a bit of a stretch of the imagination given the first paragraph of your link:

At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later 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 Thursday.

The same article, however, makes a huge blunder, imho:

The quality-assurance manager told investigators that he had destroyed the tape because he thought making it was contrary to Federal Aviation Administration 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.

I find that a rather odd statement, considering the statement in the 2nd paragraph:

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., 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 of a few hours earlier. The recording included statements of five or 10 minutes each by controllers who had spoken by radio to people on the planes or who had tracked the aircraft on radar, the report said.

These two paragraphs totally contradict one another. Was someone *forced* to say anything? Were they forced to take the microphone?

Something in this story doesn't sound right. Have these 16 people ever said any more about the events they witnessed or were a part of, or did they just let the story die with the crushed tape?


Peace,

Ghost

[Octafish]

80. It gets weirder. There are reports the tape survived until December -- or later.

From the NYT, via Common Dreams:

Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed

SNIP...

The quality-assurance manager destroyed the tape sometime in December 2001, January 2002 or February 2002. By that time he and the center manager had received an e-mail message from 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."

Dunno how all this fits together, Ghost-san. Really appreciate that you give a damn, though.

[SDuderstadt]

27. See, dude? This is precisely what I mean when I say that...

you go off half-cocked.

So, what information was so crucial that the tape had to get the ziggy? That, no matter what anybody says, is the question.

One guess is that they reveal the exact time of events, including when someone said they discovered hijackings had taken place. Another one would what time was the first call to NORAD. Knowing the answer to that would open up a lot of questions, but it would go a long way toward telling us what could have been done that wasn't.

First of all, why would you assume that there was anything on the tapes so damning that they had to be destroyed other for the reason given? As you can see by your own source, the tapes were superseded by written statements from the controllers. Do you really think the controllers would omit materially critical detail in their written statements? Have any of them come forward and complained that their written statements have been edited to exclude damaging information? Of course not.

More importantly, your post to Ghost seems to clearly indicate that you believe we now have no contemporaneous taped accounts of the chronology of events at the FAA from that day. But, of course, you would be dead wrong, as usual. Of course, not only were the real time tapes of that day from the FAA not destroyed, you can access transcripts of them, which you would know if you remotely knew what the fuck you're talking about. Why can't you do basic research into the facts of 9/11 instead of asking stupid questions, making ridiculous claims and spreading misinformation?

Here's a link to just one of the transcripts:

http://911myths.com/images/8/8c/Team8_Box1_ATSSCTapeTranscript-Position14_Parts1Thru4.pdf

[Subdivisions]

37. Transcripts can be doctored. Chances are the audio tapes could not

be doctored because the doctorization would be detectable.

Throughout this whole 9/11 ordeal, you and your cohorts steadfastly refuse to accept that the possibility exists that there was both witness and evidentiary tampering. You won't even consider it for one second. Suspicious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. not sure who you intend to attack here, but FWIW

Throughout this whole 9/11 ordeal, you and your cohorts steadfastly refuse to accept that the possibility exists that there was both witness and evidentiary tampering.

I haven't seen anyone do that. However, here is something I read from the original poster upthread:

To afford some plausibility to their rationale, they have the fig leaf of a union contract. Remember, these are the same repuke turds who fired the last Air Traffic Controllers' union: PATCO.

So, what information was so crucial that the tape had to get the ziggy?

No one has presented evidence that the manager who destroyed the tape was a "repuke turd," or that his or her stated reason was a "fig leaf." As SDuderstadt pointed out, no one has presented evidence that the tape had crucial information. In the post I've quoted, the OPer wasn't arguing that "the possibility exists" that crucial evidence was willfully suppressed; the OPer simply assumed it.

I think it's pretty nasty business to call people "repuke turds" without knowing the first thing about them. It has nothing to do with denying the possibility of tampering. What do you think?

[Octafish]

41. Allow me to but in: ''repuke turd'' is shorthand for Ronald Wilson Reagan and his ilk.

Reagan's vice president was George Herbert Walker Bush or Poppy.
Poppy Bush bridges Nixon and Reagan's administrations to Poppy's dim son, George Walker Bush.
Richard Nixon ordered, at the beginning of his second term, to "fire everyone except Bush. He'll do anything for our cause."
Nixon owes a lot to Poppy Bush's father, Prescott.
These all are or were repuke turds.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. OK, what's your point?

What I see on the record is that an FAA manager destroyed a tape -- purportedly and plausibly in an attempt to comply with union rules -- and the DoT inspector general issued a rebuke, and also the FAA took some unspecified disciplinary action against the manager. I don't know the party affiliation or political loyalties of any of these people.

[Octafish]

44. Point: repuke turd administrations have never let the constitution get in the way of their wants.

Wiretapping America. Outing NOC CIA agents because a spouse spoke the truth. Starting two immoral, unnecessary and illegal preemptive wars.

Stuff like that, one would think, should stop law-abiding people in high office, but not repuke turds. So, a little thing like a union contract isn't going to get in the way of what they want.

In the present case, destroying the tape which may have contained important information about what the FAA controllers experienced on September 11. I don't know if it did contain important information, but the major point is we will never know what was on it because it was destroyed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. but I don't think that is much of a point

It's not that anyone here would be shocked if the Bush Administration had arranged for an incriminating tape to be destroyed. It's just that no one has presented any reason to think that this tape was destroyed because it was incriminating.

I don't know why I try to explain this.

[Octafish]

52. Sorry you feel that way. The constitution matters to me.

It's been a long time since we've been a nation of laws, however.

From the time I'm talking about:

FBI Agent Hosty destroys note from Lee Harvey Oswald two weeks before assassination.

We didn't learn about the note until 1975 when the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated the assassination.

What, really, was on that note we most likely will never know. What's also criminal is that the Warren Commission, from its records, did not hear about the note, let alone review it or otherwise enter it into evidence.

So, yeah. Not hearing what's on that FAA tape is not a minor point.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. yes, it matters to me, too

However, your unsupported speculations about the tape matter very little to me. The distinction between the Constitution and your unsupported speculations does seem worth making.

[lovepg]

47. I love this argument..

nobody has presented evidence what was on the tape was important. Well of course that is impossible because the tape is destroyed.
Its just like the metal shipped away. NOBODY can prove there case one way or the other.
ITS WHY YOU DO NOT DESTROY EVIDENCE and why court cases get dropped when it is found out the police department has tampered with or destroyed evidence.
In the law destruction of evidence means something and its not a good implication. For official story people to be presented with the governments destruction of evidence especially a government that
has been proven to coverup the truth as a matter of course and ascribe nothing but the most innocent of motives to this destruction. Well lets just say it does nothing for your credibility when you talk of critical thinking skills.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. actually, it isn't impossible at all

If any one of the air traffic controllers in question had said to the inspector general, or anyone else, that s/he had said something important on the tape that was then destroyed, that would be evidence that what was on the tape was important.

Instead, all available evidence indicates that the ATCs recorded some comments pending their written statements, then they wrote written statements, then a manager destroyed the tape, then people said (reasonably) that under the circumstances the tape shouldn't have been destroyed.

As far as I can tell, there isn't much more to say than that. The question of what was on the tape seems to pale next to the question of whether and why the ATCs are now participants in a cover-up.

[lovepg]

105. What makes you think they have seen the statements they have made in the record as it is now?

They would have to read there own statements in the files to know whats in there is accurate. Who knows how they are redacted?
Thats why you keep the original as a template to make sure there have been accurate transcriptions made.
Plus they made that tape hours after 911. When they would have the most accurate recollections.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. How do you even know that there's an ATC office in Indianapolis???

Have you been there before? Have I? Maybe Bush is just fucking with us.

[Octafish]

107. SPAM much?

OT, too.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. I bow to the Master. n/t

[lovepg]

109. Its a little harder to coverup an office building than a few written statements...

but your right .. what reason would Bush have to coverup and lie?
He has no reason to Screw with us.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. But have YOU been there? How do you really know it's there? n/t

[lovepg]

111. How do i know your there?

[SDuderstadt]

76. ''Doctorization''?

is that even a word?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. wrong place

[defendandprotect]

26. Heard about this and obvious it was never going to be released . . .

obviously dangerous to the perps --

but destroying it -- really wild!

[Octafish]

91. GOOGLE turned up this DU Gem from 2004...

NY ARTCC Manager Mile McCormick talks about Flights 175 & 11

Only one respondent, but nevertheless a mighty thread.

[jberryhill]

34. Because of Union rules designed to protect employees

...from having casual statements not made in a proceeding used against them.

What do I win?

[Subdivisions]

38. Once that recording was made, it became evidence in a crime. Therefore,

despite the union rules, it was destruction of evidence. Period.

[jberryhill]

48. No, it wasn't evidence of a crime

You go wandering into a court sometime with a tape recorded unsworn recollection of a person alive and able to testify, then come back and tell us what you learned about "evidence".

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. yes, but it seems this wasn't handled very well

(according to the WaPo article linked in the OP)

"FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape"

The report concluded that the FAA generally cooperated with the independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks by providing documents about its activities on Sept. 11, but the actions of two FAA managers "did not, in our view, serve the interests of the FAA, the Department or the public."...

The FAA said it was cooperating fully with the 9/11 panel. The agency said it took disciplinary action against the employee who destroyed the tape but declined to elaborate on what kind of action they took.

"We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The story concludes by citing the IG's criticisms in further detail (I've stopped at 3 paragraphs for fair use). It all sounds reasonable to me, apart from the reference to the FAA as "they."

[zinnisking]

77. I remember hearing about this years ago

but didn't read about it in a mainstream newspaper until now.

Whenever I come across something benign and uninteresting that I no longer need, I always rip it into several pieces, and distribute it across various dumpsters in town. It's really quite exhausting.

:sarcasm:

[Octafish]

90. ''If a question arises whether or not you should retain data, RETAIN IT.''

It's pretty clear: The FAA manager went against direct orders not to destroy evidence, recordings, etc.

Most every manager I've met who gets orders from higher-ups do what they say. It's how they get to be managers -- they can be counted on to follow orders.

"If a question arises whether or not you should retain data, RETAIN IT."

Then, again, there may have been a conversation that wasn't recorded in which the guy was given unofficial orders to get rid of the tape.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Or, you could be making a mountain out of a...

molehill. That's my bet.

[Octafish]

95. Without the tape, we won't know if you or I or neither one of us is correct.

That is why, when it comes to investigating the deaths of 3,000 people, the destruction of the tape itself is a crime -- figuratively and perhaps literally.

Edit: Typo -- wouldn't want to enrage the grammar pixie.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Jesus, dude...

It's not a crime, as JBerryhill correctly pointed out. Serious question. Is a SINGLE ATC making noise about this or is it just 9/11 "truthers" to whom every anomaly or piece of missing information somehow proves Bush did it? I hate the guy, but you guys are seriously barking up the wrong tree.

[zinnisking]

104. As it turns out, I'm not a good satirist.

What I was getting at is that the manager used a seemingly unnecessary amount of energy to discard what government believers automatically refuse to judge as anything but benign audio void of anything important.

Obviously anyone who has the ability to be ambivalent would be suspicious as to why someone would go to such lengths when discarding audio of ANY sort, let alone first-hand unscripted accounts from FAA EMPLOYEES of the events on the day of Sep.11.

"Then, again, there may have been a conversation that wasn't recorded in which the guy was given unofficial orders to get rid of the tape."

Funny. I was going to say this same thing to you until I reread your post.

If I'm still being too cryptic, I'm sorry. To sum it up: I agree with you.