Here is what I feel is the strongest evidence of some sort of government cover-up:

1) According to the 9/11 Commission Report, page 34, NORAD officials testified under oath that at 9:16 am NEADS received notification from the FAA that Flight 93 was hijacked.

2) NORAD officials also testified that they received notification at 9:24 am that Flight 77 was hijacked.

3) NORAD officials also testified that they scrambled Langley fighters in response to the hijackings of Flights 77 and 93.

However, rather than accept the specific testimony under oath of NORAD officials, the 9/11 Commission concluded that all three of the above statements made during the hearings were false.

Instead, the 9/11 Commission claims that the NORAD officials were told by an unidentified FAA employee that Flight 11 did not hit WTC1 and was heading south towards Washington D.C. The 9/11 Commission stated that they were unable to identify who it was at the FAA who gave NORAD this misinformation.

This means that there are only two possible scenarios, both of which imply a government cover-up of some sort:

Scenario 1: If the 9/11 Commission report is correct, then

a) why did the FAA tell NORAD false information re Flight 11, b) who was it that called NORAD with the false information, and c) why wasn't the 9/11 Commission able to identify the specific person who made the call?

OR...

Scenario 2: If the NORAD officials were correct in their sworn testimony, then why would the 9/11 Commission go to such great lengths to create an alterative story that totally contradicts the sworn testimony given by NORAD officials?

These scenarios are mutually exclusive -one of the above scenarios must be correct.

If scenario 1 is correct, then somebody at the FAA gave NORAD false information that led directly to the Pentagon being left vulnerable for attack, and the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate how this happened. I.e., somebody at the FAA could have intentionally caused the fighters to be scrambled away from the Pentagon so that Flight 77 could proceed unimpeded to its target.

If scenario 2 is correct, then the 9/11 Commission intentionally discounted direct and sworn testimony from witnesses from NORAD and concocted an alternative version of reality to explain why the Pentagon was left vulnerable for attack because of a "phantom" plane. I.e., the 9/11 Commission fabricated the story that the fighters were chasing a plane that didn't exist to explain how two hijacked planes were flying unimpeded towards their targets.

Any thoughts?

link to 9/11 Commission Report: www.gpoaccess.gov

Personally, I think this is the seam that would unravel the whole story.

Flight 77 is hijacked, and is lost from radar for 30 minutes. NORAD claims fighters were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, but the fighters were sent away from Flight 77 because of a "phantom" jet reported to NORAD by some unidentified source at the FAA?

And the 9/11 Commission fails to find out who gave this misinfo to NORAD, and further concludes that the NORAD officers' testimony was incorrect, conveniently so it fits with the "official" story?

What's really amazing about this entire process is that the NORAD officers were not asked to clarify their testimony. Instead, the 9/11 Commission just decided that their testimony was wrong. Does this make any sense?

Out of the entire 567-page 9/11 Commission Report, only 1 page is covers how Flight 77 was able to avoid U.S. Air Defense and hit the Pentagon, and the explanation is that the fighters were sent to chase a "phantom" plane based on wrong info provided by the FAA.

To me, this is total b.s., and the complete lack of investigation of this is one of the strongest signs of a cover-up.

To me, the most compelling question re 9/11 is how Flight 77 was able to travel undetected on radar, and unimpeded, for 30 minutes heading directly into Washington D.C. without ANY air defense. The true answer to that question is the thread that will unravel the entire suit.

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing the explanation that an unidentified source at the FAA mistakenly called NORAD to report that Flight 11 didn't hit the WTC and was headed towards D.C.

Is the media complicit in the cover-up, or are they just too stupid to understand the significance of the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission? You would think that this would have been the top story when the 9/11 Commission Report was released.

"Pentagon Hit Because Figthers Were Chasing 'Phantom' Flight 11"

Flight 11 crashed into WTC1 at 8:46 am on 9/11. There was no longer any radar blip on the screen corresponding to Flight 11 after that time.

Flight 77 and Flight 93 were both hijacked AFTER both Flight 11 and Flight 175 had already crashed into the WTCs. At about 9:02 am, the FAA and NORAD knew that the WTC crashes were hijackings. This is about 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon being hit.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, Flight 77 wasn't seen on radar until it was about 50 miles west of the Pentagon. At this time the fighters were over the Atlantic Ocean, only because the FAA told NORAD that Flight 11 did not hit the WTC and was heading SW.

So by approximately 9:30 am, everybody knew that Flight 77 was a hijacking and heading towards Washington. And at about the same time, Flight 93 was a hijacking and turning around near Cleveland to head towards Washington. And yet no fighters were directed to Flight 93.

According to the official story, 3 planes had already attacked the WTCs and the Pentagon by 9:40 am, and yet no fighters were sent to stop Flight 93. Flight 93 crashed at about 10:00 am, about 1 hour after WTC2 was hit.

First, this goes beyond the realm of human error.

Second, even if it were human error, why wasn't the human who errored ever identified?

It's very convenient for the 9/11 Commission to label this human error, but then why didn't they find out WHO it was that caused the error?