IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Section XIII.J of the ACSSP, as referenced in the 9/11 Ommission

waterdancer
post Oct 22 2006, 05:02 AM
Post #1


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



In the redacted staff report 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 22 2006, 05:26 AM
Post #2


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
v2rot8
post Oct 31 2006, 06:34 PM
Post #3





Group: Guest
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 22



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 31 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #4


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
v2rot8
post Nov 2 2006, 07:51 PM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 22



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Dec 1 2006, 01:53 AM
Post #6


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



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

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Dec 1 2006, 02:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_bionecrology_*
post Sep 12 2007, 03:02 PM
Post #7





Guest






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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 08:40 AM