Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ From the Cabin... _ Section XIII.J of the ACSSP

Posted by: waterdancer Oct 22 2006, 05:02 AM

In the http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf of the 9/11 Ommission (released a year after the report came out), there is a reference to Section XIII.J of the ACSSP (note 627- page 118 of 121 in the .pdf) which apparently, from what I can tell, dealt with air carrier's responsibilities for security and anti-hijacking training for flight crews. Now, I'm guessing that things have changed in the post 9/11 world as far as this goes (I would certainly hope so, at least). So my question is, why was the information in that portion of the document redacted? Security reasons? Liability reasons? Looked bad on paper? I dunno. I'm just putting the question out there.

Posted by: waterdancer Oct 22 2006, 05:26 AM

Oh, and the text that note 627 is a note for seems to be gone also from what I can see- page 81 appears blank to me on the pdf, so the notes go from 626 to 636 with a blank page in the middle. Looks like sensitive info, for whatever reason.

Posted by: v2rot8 Oct 31 2006, 06:34 PM

Hmmm. First, I will tell you that most definitely procedures have changed since 9/11.

I am a flight attendant, and prior to 9/11, how we handled hijackings and sabotage was not to be shared with anyone, including our families. Though the procedure has changed dramatically for us, there are still little things that probably would have been in that report that are still in use. Especially true for pilots, I would assume.

I think the redaction was done as a precaution. Better safe than sorry, you know?

Posted by: waterdancer Oct 31 2006, 11:17 PM

QUOTE (v2rot8 @ Oct 31 2006, 10:34 PM)
Hmmm. First, I will tell you that most definitely procedures have changed since 9/11.

I am a flight attendant, and prior to 9/11, how we handled hijackings and sabotage was not to be shared with anyone, including our families. Though the procedure has changed dramatically for us, there are still little things that probably would have been in that report that are still in use. Especially true for pilots, I would assume.

I think the redaction was done as a precaution. Better safe than sorry, you know?

You may well be correct. I have no doubt that there is some sensitive information in there. I'm just left to wonder, though, the way that information which used to be unclassified prior to 9/11 has now become sensitive. It would be nice if someone we could trust to tell the truth (with a high enough security clearance, of course) could tell us the specifics on why stuff is classified, labelled for official use only (or redacted) on these things.

Posted by: v2rot8 Nov 2 2006, 07:51 PM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Nov 1 2006, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE (v2rot8 @ Oct 31 2006, 10:34 PM)
Hmmm. First, I will tell you that most definitely procedures have changed since 9/11.

I am a flight attendant, and prior to 9/11, how we handled hijackings and sabotage was not to be shared with anyone, including our families. Though the procedure has changed dramatically for us, there are still little things that probably would have been in that report that are still in use. Especially true for pilots, I would assume.

I think the redaction was done as a precaution. Better safe than sorry, you know?

You may well be correct. I have no doubt that there is some sensitive information in there. I'm just left to wonder, though, the way that information which used to be unclassified prior to 9/11 has now become sensitive. It would be nice if someone we could trust to tell the truth (with a high enough security clearance, of course) could tell us the specifics on why stuff is classified, labelled for official use only (or redacted) on these things.

Ahhh, we can dream of transparency in government, can't we?

When something is redacted it arouses suspicion automatically...even if the information was really nothing at all.

Posted by: waterdancer Dec 1 2006, 01:53 AM

I think I see why that kind of thing might have been redacted now...

http://www.webcitation.org/5KndRJYRk

http://www.webcitation.org/5KneBMdV2

http://www.webcitation.org/5KneVdhwc

http://www.webcitation.org/5KneghVo3

Posted by: bionecrology Sep 12 2007, 03:02 PM

Hello
Have your readings shown the decrease in hijackings prior to 911. My dear technology forced hijackers to consider it a suicide mission well before 911. The government would like you to believe the terrorists are things not people, but they do communicate and word gets around.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)