Cheney's arrival time to PEOC

[tj15]

Can someone explain the discrepency between the time Norman Mineta said Dick Cheney was in the PEOC (9:20 or so) vs. the time the 9/11 Commission said (9:58)? Thanks.

[Matthew Best]

Somebody made a mistake?

[WildCat]

It's very simple - Mineta was wrong.

[tj15]

It's very simple - Mineta was wrong.

Do you have evidence that Mineta was wrong? What was he hearing when the "young man" said the airplane was just miles away before it hit the Pentagon? Wouldn't this put Cheney in the PEOC before flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

[CurtC]

The "young man" account is well-supported by others in the room, all who indicate that the conversation happened about 10:15 am, except Mineta, who is a confused old man.

[twinstead]

This has been done to death. IIRC, Mineta's account differs from every other single account, and then only by the times. Any rational person would assume that Mineta was simply mistaken. Beyond any rational person, I would imagine that any skilled investigator would also know this about witness accounts.

[SDC]

How come this silly, trivial error keeps popping back to life? Is the "search" function busted?

[Rob Lister]

Do you have evidence that Mineta was wrong?

What evidence would you accept?

[DGM]

How come this silly, trivial error keeps popping back to life? Is the "search" function busted?
Well actually, yes it is. (I don't think that's why this keeps coming up though)

http://forums.randi.org/announcement.php?f=64

[tj15]

The "young man" account is well-supported by others in the room, all who indicate that the conversation happened about 10:15 am, except Mineta, who is a confused old man.

What airplane was Mineta talking about? Flight 93? Is he mixing stories possibly? Because he said it was flight 77.

[tj15]

This has been done to death. IIRC, Mineta's account differs from every other single account, and then only by the times. Any rational person would assume that Mineta was simply mistaken. Beyond any rational person, I would imagine that any skilled investigator would also know this about witness accounts.

Who all supports the 9:58 time?

[tj15]

What evidence would you accept?

I would accept other people's accounts who were with Cheney. I am not a Truther. I am just trying to gain the correct information on that situation so that I can use it when I debate Truthers. They always bring up Norman Mineta's testimony.

[CurtC]

What airplane was Mineta talking about? Flight 93? Is he mixing stories possibly? Because he said it was flight 77.

Since we know from hard documentation that Cheney wasn't in the PEOC until about 10:00, and others in the room recall the conversation happening around 10:15, and we know that the FAA was notifying the Secret Service about the projected position of UAL93 even after it crashed, and this conversation happened just before the FAA notified the SS that UAL93 had in fact crashed, and it was impossible for this conversation to have been about AA77 because that had crashed more than 30 minutes before, then yes, Mineta was mixing his stories.

Have you seen the video of him speaking about it? He's clueless - he has no idea that his story, if his timing were true, would implicate the Vice President in the biggest conspiracy of all time.

[DGM]

tj15:

Some real good ammo for countering "truthers" can be had by reading the 9/11 commission report. Have you done this yet?

[tj15]

Since we know from hard documentation that Cheney wasn't in the PEOC until about 10:00, and others in the room recall the conversation happening around 10:15, and we know that the FAA was notifying the Secret Service about the projected position of UAL93 even after it crashed, and this conversation happened just before the FAA notified the SS that UAL93 had in fact crashed, and it was impossible for this conversation to have been about AA77 because that had crashed more than 30 minutes before, then yes, Mineta was mixing his stories.

Have you seen the video of him speaking about it? He's clueless - he has no idea that his story, if his timing were true, would implicate the Vice President in the biggest conspiracy of all time.

Interesting. So when the "young man" said the airplane (flight 93 it looks like) was 10 miles out, it was just a projection?

[tj15]

tj15:

Some real good ammo for countering "truthers" can be had by reading the 9/11 commission report. Have you done this yet?

I haven't read the whole thing, but I know what is in it. Truthers also seem to not accept the 9/11 Commission evidence (or at least some of it). I am looking for the names of people who were in the PEOC when Cheney arrived there. Are these eyewitness accounts of when Cheney arrived at the PEOC in the 9/11 Commission?

[DGM]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I know what is in it. Truthers also seem to not accept the 9/11 Commission evidence (or at least some of it). I am looking for the names of people who were in the PEOC when Cheney arrived there. Are these eyewitness accounts of when Cheney arrived at the PEOC in the 9/11 Commission?
The report does cover who was there and the watch logs. (that's where this came from, they disregarded Minetta's testimony as off on his times).

Whether "truthers" except it or not it's good reference that can be verified from many other sources.

[CptColumbo]

Must we go over this again? Is the search function not working?

[CurtC]

Interesting. So when the "young man" said the airplane (flight 93 it looks like) was 10 miles out, it was just a projection?

This is off the top of my head, but I don't think that it was ever said to be "10 miles out." They were using the projected position to inform Cheney that it was 80 and 60 miles out (or similar numbers), then they found out that UAL93 had crashed. Later, sometime around 10:30, there was a helicopter around the Pentagon which was briefly identified as a potential bad-guy, and Cheney was notified that there was something five miles away.

I'd suggest reading the 9/11 Commission Report - it's available online, has a pretty interesting narrative style, and all this is covered in the very first chapter.

[SDC]

Must we go over this again? Is the search function not working?

See above, #9. Yep, DGM got me too.

Still and all, wouldn't it be possible to review thread titles? The Minetta thing is so, well, 2006.

[tj15]

The report does cover who was there and the watch logs. (that's where this came from, they disregarded Minetta's testimony as off on his times).

Whether "truthers" except it or not it's good reference that can be verified from many other sources.

OK, I will look at it.

[tj15]

This is off the top of my head, but I don't think that it was ever said to be "10 miles out." They were using the projected position to inform Cheney that it was 80 and 60 miles out (or similar numbers), then they found out that UAL93 had crashed. Later, sometime around 10:30, there was a helicopter around the Pentagon which was briefly identified as a potential bad-guy, and Cheney was notified that there was something five miles away.

I'd suggest reading the 9/11 Commission Report - it's available online, has a pretty interesting narrative style, and all this is covered in the very first chapter.

OK, thanks for your help.

[CurtC]

Here's the relevant section from the report, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm :

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, "in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing." The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes.219

At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.220

The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.221

Minutes went by and word arrived of an aircraft down in Pennsylvania. Those in the shelter wondered if the aircraft had been shot down pursuant to this authorization.222

At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to "engage or "take out" the aircraft. At 10:33, Hadley told the air threat conference call: "I need to get word to Dick Myers that our reports are there's an inbound aircraft flying low 5 miles out. The Vice President's guidance was we need to take them out."223

Once again, there was no immediate information about the fate of the inbound aircraft. In the apt description of one witness, "It drops below the radar screen and it's just continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it." Eventually, the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter.224

[lapman]

Mineta also states that Bush was already headed for Louisiana. The decision to do that wasn't even made until after AF 1 was already in the air at just before 10am.

[theauthor]

Mineta could NOT have been talking about United 93. The military didnt even know that was a hijack until after it crashed. He must have been talking about Flight 77, in fact he and the BBC commentator both state as fact that he was talking about Flight 77 in the BBC documentary "Clear the Skies".

[SDC]

So the BBC commentator was another witness? Why hasn't he/ she come forward and spilled the beans?

[CurtC]

Mineta could NOT have been talking about United 93. The military didnt even know that was a hijack until after it crashed.

Yes, but the military didn't know it had crashed until several minutes after that. This conversation between Cheney and the young man happened between the times that the Secret Service had been notified that 93 had been hijacked, and when the SS was notified that 93 had crashed.

[theauthor]

tj15:

Some real good ammo for countering "truthers" can be had by reading the 9/11 commission report. Have you done this yet?

Isn't it fortunate that the "nutter" Jersey Girls pressed for a 911 commission so that you would have the report to hide behind.

[CptColumbo]

See above, #9. Yep, DGM got me too.

Still and all, wouldn't it be possible to review thread titles? The Minetta thing is so, well, 2006.In that case I beg your pardon.

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3167249&postcount=23
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3164617&postcount=9
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3167897&postcount=30

TAM:)

[Unchained Spirit]

tj15:

Some real good ammo for countering "truthers" can be had by reading the 9/11 commission report. Have you done this yet?

Wow! Are you talking about the same report that the co-chairs said they were "set up to fail" in? They wrote a book about it. It's titled "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission".

"In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials."

Bush appointed the members, some of whom were Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel & Phillip Zelikow, who reported to Karl Rove so he could authorize what was put in the report

Yeah, I'd recommend *that* report (9-11CR) to everyone seeking the truth. /sarcasm

[funk de fino]

Mineta could NOT have been talking about United 93. The military didnt even know that was a hijack until after it crashed. He must have been talking about Flight 77, in fact he and the BBC commentator both state as fact that he was talking about Flight 77 in the BBC documentary "Clear the Skies".

Mineta was wrong with his timings and now you have joined him in the wrong club

77 had already crashed when they had the conversation about 10 mile out

Mineta says Mrs Cheney was in the PEOC when he arrived and that the conversation took place a few minutes after that. Problem is Mrs Cheney did not get told to go to the PEOC until after flight 77 had crashed, she was downtown at the time. mineta arrived as the White House was evacuating which was around 10:45.

Instead of wasting time on this dead duck I suggest you go and look at how lifts work so you do not embarrass yourself like you did in the Bombs in the basement thread again

[funk de fino]

Wow! Are you talking about the same report that the co-chairs said they were "set up to fail" in? They wrote a book about it. It's titled "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission".

"In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials."

Bush appointed the members, some of whom were Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel & Phillip Zelikow, who reported to Karl Rove so he could authorize what was put in the report

Yeah, I'd recommend *that* report (9-11CR) to everyone seeking the truth. /sarcasm

Yes the very same one that they claimed was a success.

Now stop the derail, start another thread if you have anything that you can prove is wrong in the report that would indicate an inside job.

[tj15]

Wow, interesting information on this Mineta theory. Completely debunked. Thank you everyone for the information.

[Unchained Spirit]

Yes the very same one that they claimed was a success.

Now stop the derail, start another thread if you have anything that you can prove is wrong in the report that would indicate an inside job.

Quoting what the 2 chairmen of the commission said about it afterwards is "derailing"? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how a conversation flows. There's no derailing, someone else brought up the 9-11CR. I merely followed up on it. Please try to follow along and keep up...

As for proving an inside job, one merely needs to look at the ignored warnings in the months prior to 9-11. You know, like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack". If that isn't enough, how about the chimp telling an agent, who traveled all the way to Crawford to warn him, "ok, you've covered you ass now" .... ?

Edited to remove incivility.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[DGM]

Wow! Are you talking about the same report that the co-chairs said they were "set up to fail" in? They wrote a book about it. It's titled "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission".

"In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials."

Bush appointed the members, some of whom were Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel & Phillip Zelikow, who reported to Karl Rove so he could authorize what was put in the report

Yeah, I'd recommend *that* report (9-11CR) to everyone seeking the truth. /sarcasm
Why don't you start a new thread and impress us with YOUR facts that disprove it? Until a "truther" can do that (none have) I'll stay less than impressed with your comments. OK?

[MikeW]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I know what is in it. Truthers also seem to not accept the 9/11 Commission evidence (or at least some of it).
You don't need the Commission Report to tell you that Mineta's timings are out. You can figure that out something is wrong from his testimony alone:

#1, Mineta said the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, that "everyone" was running from the White House and Executive Building and moving over to Lafayette Park. No-one places this as happening prior to the Pentagon impact. The truthers point to a single CNN report saying evacuation began earlier but it wasn't early enough, it also says the scenes Mineta described only began after the Pentagon impact, and CNN appeared to abandon the idea of an early evacuation the very next day.

#2, Mineta assumed that Cheney and Bush had spoken about the shootdown order before he heard his "do the orders still stand" conversation, saying: "the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him". But if Mineta arrived at the PEOC by 9:20 then Bush was still at the Florida school: his timeline makes no sense.

#3, We Are Change filmed Mineta a while ago and he repeated his story, seemingly adding the detail that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC when he arrived. But she has consistently said she arrived after the Pentagon impact, which again places Mineta later.

Add Richard Clarke's account and the activities of Jane Garvey and the case gets stronger still. Way too much more here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mineta).

[theauthor]

Mineta was wrong with his timings and now you have joined him in the wrong club

77 had already crashed when they had the conversation about 10 mile out

Mineta says Mrs Cheney was in the PEOC when he arrived and that the conversation took place a few minutes after that. Problem is Mrs Cheney did not get told to go to the PEOC until after flight 77 had crashed, she was downtown at the time. mineta arrived as the White House was evacuating which was around 10:45.

Instead of wasting time on this dead duck I suggest you go and look at how lifts work so you do not embarrass yourself like you did in the Bombs in the basement thread again

Are you claiming that all lifts have interior and exterior doors? Think carefully before you answer....you will be embarassed if you are wrong.

[twinstead]

The fact that Mineta is even brought up is a testament that some people lack the most rudimentary investigative skills and shouldn't be allowed to investigate where they left their wallet last night much less the mass murder of 3000 people.

I predict we'll have another 100 page thread on 'pull it' again soon.

[Jonnyclueless]

Quoting what the 2 chairmen of the commission said about it afterwards is "derailing"? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how a conversation flows. There's no derailing, someone else brought up the 9-11CR. I merely followed up on it. Please try to follow along and keep up...

As for proving an inside job, one merely needs to look at the ignored warnings in the months prior to 9-11. You know, like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack". If that isn't enough, how about the chimp telling an agent, who traveled all the way to Crawford to warn him, "ok, you've covered you ass now" .... ?

Just because *you* can't read and comprehend something doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not true.

It most certainly IS derailing. You are using pure conjecture and speculation to try and dismiss the evidence which clearly proves Minetta was flat out wrong about his recollection of time which then destroys your little conspiracy theory.

Can you prove that everyone else BUT minetta was lying, which is the implication being made? Please show us these "facts" you so like to stick to. Show us this fact that shows the quote you were referring to includes specifically all the testimony of everyone there that day and all the phone records and the security logs.

Or perhaps you would like some quotes from people in the truth movement about the truth movement so as to dismiss all claims by anyone in the truth movement? I mean you started this childish game, do you really want to see the same tactic used against you?

And one can prove an inside job because of some vague warnings? Why don't you take the Bush administration to court on that one if you are so sure about it. Tell that to a court of law and see how far you get with that "fact".


By reading comprehension you mean using rhetoric, conjecture,, and speculation to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusion which isn't based on any facts to begin with.

[pomeroo]

Mineta could NOT have been talking about United 93. The military didnt even know that was a hijack until after it crashed. He must have been talking about Flight 77, in fact he and the BBC commentator both state as fact that he was talking about Flight 77 in the BBC documentary "Clear the Skies".



And yet they WERE talking about a projected flight path for Flight 93. Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong ALL THE TIME?

[pomeroo]

It is astonishing that people continue to recycle Norman Mineta myths without doing any reading. How many times has this link been posted?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

[Billdave2]

Are you claiming that all lifts have interior and exterior doors? Think carefully before you answer....you will be embarassed if you are wrong.

Why? Truthers are wrong all the time and they don't seem to be embarassed at all.

[Mr. Skinny]

Why? Truthers are wrong all the time and they don't seem to be embarassed at all.
Perhaps he was thinking of the old style freight elevators that just had wooden or steel grates instead of doors. I've been in really old ones that didn't have an interior grate. You actually did watch the wall go by.

Doubt they had those in the WTC though.

[Jonnyclueless]

Or a lazy Susan!

[Unchained Spirit]

Aww, did you think of that all by yourself or did mom help you out when she was getting you your fruit rollup and sippy cup?

Well aren't *you* the clever little boy? I just buried my mom monday, how's yours, Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Do not use personal attacks to argue your point. If someone else's post has violated the Membership Agreement, please use the report post feature and do not respond in kind.

[Billdave2]

Perhaps he was thinking of the old style freight elevators that just had wooden or steel grates instead of doors. I've been in really old ones that didn't have an interior grate. You actually did watch the wall go by.

Doubt they had those in the WTC though.

Even those type elevators had a gate on the inside. I would think an elevator that did not have both exterior and interior doors would be a huge safety violation in the eyes of OSHA and building inspectors.

[Mr. Skinny]

Even those type elevators had a gate on the inside. I would think an elevator that did not have both exterior and interior doors would be a huge safety violation in the eyes of OSHA and building inspectors.
Well, I was only in one elevator that didn't have an inside gate and it only moved between two floors. All the rest had two gates.

Also, gate does not equal door, so maybe that's the trick question, so to speak.

Edited to add: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if I actually rode in it. I think it was marked "FREIGHT ONLY" and was just used to move equipment up and down one floor. Bah, that was in the early 80's, so I can't really recall for certain.

[funk de fino]

Are you claiming that all lifts have interior and exterior doors? Think carefully before you answer....you will be embarassed if you are wrong.

I never made such a claim.

The doors in the Twin Towers did in fact have doors on the travelling part of the lift and at the floor levels. Most lifts do. No-one said all lifts do. I know the ones in the towers did becuase I travelled in them.

TThink very carefully before you troll again in this thread

[DGM]

Impressing *you* isn't my goal, but your concern is duly noted...
You have a goal? I do hope it will include verifiable facts. That would be a refreshing change from all the other lame "truthers".

[Unchained Spirit]

Attitudes, arrogance and insults like yours are also uncalled for. The mods will take appropriate action as they see fit.

Try bringing real evidence and facts instead of hearsay and bias.

Please point out this "hearsay and bias" of mine...

Thanks...

[Viper Daimao]

Comments like his are totally uncalled for. I think any rational moderator or administrator would understand my reaction...

They might let it go as an irrational outburst since you claim your mother just died, but please cease with the insulting and personal attacks. They will not stand around here. Keep it civil and attack arguments if you have any.

[SDC]

Comments like his are totally uncalled for. I think any rational moderator or administrator would understand my reaction...

Pfeh. And where the heck you propose we find one of these?

[tj15]

It is astonishing that people continue to recycle Norman Mineta myths without doing any reading. How many times has this link been posted?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

If this is directed toward me, I asked the question because I am somewhat new to researching 9/11 in depth. The answers to my question have been helpful.

[Viper Daimao]

Thanks for being a voice of reason here. I reacted badly, I admit. For what it's worth, I was attacked right out of the gate after my first post last night.

No, you weren't.

[SDC]

OK, here is my question. Where were Cheney and Mineta before the events? Drinking beer in Lafayette Park? Working their respective ways through the racks at the nearest Dunkin' Donuts? Singing "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" over in DuPont Circle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[pomeroo]

If this is directed toward me, I asked the question because I am somewhat new to researching 9/11 in depth. The answers to my question have been helpful.



911myths.com is an invaluable resource for any serious researcher.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Wow, interesting information on this Mineta theory. Completely debunked. Thank you everyone for the information.

Yep, completely debunked just like every other "truther" claim.

Now we wait for new ones..........

[pomeroo]

Quoting what the 2 chairmen of the commission said about it afterwards is "derailing"? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how a conversation flows. There's no derailing, someone else brought up the 9-11CR. I merely followed up on it. Please try to follow along and keep up...

As for proving an inside job, one merely needs to look at the ignored warnings in the months prior to 9-11. You know, like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack". If that isn't enough, how about the chimp telling an agent, who traveled all the way to Crawford to warn him, "ok, you've covered you ass now" .... ?

Just because *you* can't read and comprehend something doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not true.


You and your fellow liars keep pretending that Kean and Hamilton were frustrated in their attempts to uncover the existence of your imaginary conspiracy. Here on Earth, they were frustrated in their attempts to pinpoint the areas where intelligence agencies failed in their duty to the nation. Both Kean and Hamilton are sane. They don't swallow your evil movement's fantastic nonsense. They were looking at a real problem, one that holds no interest for you.

We'd all love to see the source of that quote from Bush.

[Par]

[T]he two co-chairs have spoken up against [the Commission Report], and said they were hampered by obstruction and were "set up to fail"...


While they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.


In short, whether or not they believe that the Commission was “set up to fail”, they don’t believe that it actually did fail.

[Jonnyclueless]

Another comment from the peanut gallery, wow! I'm impressed!

NOT!

If you had any kind of comprehension skills at all, you'd be able to read that I *never* mentioned a conspiracy, I only pointed out that the Commission Report wasn't the *best* place to send someone for information, as the two co-chairs have spoken up against it, and said they were hampered by obstruction and were "set up to fail".

You need to watch *your* smart mouth too, boy. I don't know who you think you're calling a liar, but rest assured, it ain't me.... you have no idea *who* I am, or *what* my interests are. Go spew your garbage on someone else, son.... I *live* around a bunch of slack-jawed, sloped foreheaded knuckle-draggers, I sure don't need to put up with any on a freakin' message board. If you fit that description, please exclude yourself from any further discussion with me.

If you'd like to see the source of the Bush quote, I suggest you learn to do some research. I'm here to do your homework for you. Do you know how to do a search? My 14 year old can do them, it's not hard. Try it... if you *really* want to know.

"As for proving an inside job, one merely needs to look at the ignored warnings in the months prior to 9-11. You know, like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack". If that isn't enough, how about the chimp telling an agent, who traveled all the way to Crawford to warn him, "ok, you've covered you ass now" .... ?"

No, never mentioned any conspiracy at all...Gosh Sally, you sure got us all fooled.

And again with the threats. What exactly are you going to do when you are called a liar again? Heck you just lied about not claiming a conspiracy and now you are threatening people? I am still waiting to hear what you are going to do. We know plenty about who you are. It's your posts that determine that. You think you can make up for a complete lack of evidence for your arguments which are nothing more than conjecture by throwing these tantrums?

[Par]

I'm here to do your homework for you.


Calculus. By Wednesday. I need at least seventy percent.

[Myriad]

You need to watch *your* smart mouth too, boy. I don't know who you think you're calling a liar, but rest assured, it ain't me.... you have no idea *who* I am, or *what* my interests are. Go spew your garbage on someone else, son.... I *live* around a bunch of slack-jawed, sloped foreheaded knuckle-draggers, I sure don't need to put up with any on a freakin' message board. If you fit that description, please exclude yourself from any further discussion with me.


Hi Unchained Spirit.

The way this forum works, you have four options when you find someone's tone, demeanor, "smart mouth," choice of words, attitude, whatever you want to call it, objectionable.

1. You can put the member on your ignore list.

2. If you believe that the member has violated a forum rule, you can click the little exclamation-point-in-a-triangle icon at the lower left corner of the post, to report the violation to the moderators. (Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with the actual forum rules before making a habit of doing this. Reporting posts based on what you think the rules should be will not be taken very kindly by the moderators, who don't like their time wasted.)

3. You can go away.

4. You can post empty whining threats and tell people to watch their mouths or shut up. This will be ignored or ridiculed, and will also likely get your post (and responses to it, including perhaps this one) moved to the Against All Hope forum, where it will be read by a few members for amusement and then quickly forgotten.

So far you have chosen option #4, the least effective of the four options.

Oh, wait, there's another one I forgot:

5. You can attempt to argue your position where you disagree. That's actually the preferred option, generally speaking.

Please pick again.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[funk de fino]

Please point out this "hearsay and bias" of mine...

Thanks...

Flight 93 thread. The word overhead springs to mind kiddo

You really need to drop the attitude and bring some facts, thats how it should work here

[Unchained Spirit]

Hi Unchained Spirit.

The way this forum works, you have four options when you find someone's tone, demeanor, "smart mouth," choice of words, attitude, whatever you want to call it, objectionable.

1. You can put the member on your ignore list.

2. If you believe that the member has violated a forum rule, you can click the little exclamation-point-in-a-triangle icon at the lower left corner of the post, to report the violation to the moderators. (Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with the actual forum rules before making a habit of doing this. Reporting posts based on what you think the rules should be will not be taken very kindly by the moderators, who don't like their time wasted.)

3. You can go away.

4. You can post empty whining threats and tell people to watch their mouths or shut up. This will be ignored or ridiculed, and will also likely get your post (and responses to it, including perhaps this one) moved to the Against All Hope forum, where it will be read by a few members for amusement and then quickly forgotten.

So far you have chosen option #4, the least effective of the four options.

Oh, wait, there's another one I forgot:

5. You can attempt to argue your position where you disagree. That's actually the preferred option, generally speaking.

Please pick again.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you... I haven't found the "ignore" function yet, although I really don't like to use it, but will if necessary. I'll just try to ignore what I can and focus on the issue...

[Myriad]

Thank you... I haven't found the "ignore" function yet, although I really don't like to use it, but will if necessary. I'll just try to ignore what I can and focus on the issue...


Yeah, I can understand being reluctant to use Ignore. I've never used it, not once on any forum. But it's there as an option.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Jonnyclueless]

Look Nancy, the ignored warnings aren't a "conspiracy theory", nor is repeating the words spoken by Bush. Please point out where I've threatened anyone. I'll be waiting. Please try to shed your persecution complex before you reply again...

Thanks


You're right, the warnings aren't a conspiracy theory, that's the point. You trying to us it to suggest one or to dismiss anyone who disagrees with the arguments of one is dishonest.

Please try to shed your victim complex before you go on another whining rant again.

[tanabear]

Yep, completely debunked just like every other "truther" claim.

Now we wait for new ones..........

It is the testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission that "skeptics" are attempting to debunk. It is not a "truther" claim, as Norman Mineta is not a truther as far as I know.

Pomeroo had previously written this regarding the controversy,

"As you could find out from several threads on this forum, if you were not prevented by your unwillingness to look, the 9/11 Commission determined that Norman Mineta's timeline was off by at least a half-hour. Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel for the commission, explained to me that Mineta's testimony was left out of the official report for a simple reason: although he tells the same stories as other witnesses, he has every event occurring much earlier than everyone else. As a fantasist, you must reject the consensus as inconvenient to the myths you promote. But, understand that the timeline was established not only by testimony but by the examination of phone logs."

Who are these other witnesses? Did anyone else who was in the PEOC that morning testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission that they were tracking the hypothetical route of a no longer existing plane(i.e. Flight 93) or when this scenario with the young airman occurred? The 9/11 Commission Report states,

"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218"

What is the source for this? Note 218 reads: White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001;White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001.

So are we to believe the wife of the Vice-President Lynne Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, a convicted perjurer, over Norman Mineta?

Note 219 reads: "For Libby's characterization, see White House transcript, Scooter Libby interview with Newsweek, Nov. 2001. For the Vice President's statement, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the second authorization, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001; White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001"

Note 220 reads: "Joshua Bolten meeting (Mar. 18, 2004); see also White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001 ("10:15-18:Aircraft 60 miles out, confirmed as hijack-engage? VP:Yes. JB [Joshua Bolten]: Get President and confirm engage order."

All of this information seems to come from people loyal to the Vice-President. We certainly know how honest this bunch was in the lead up to the Iraq War.

pomeroo continues, "But, understand that the timeline was established not only by testimony but by the examination of phone logs."

This is not entirely true. According to the 9/11 Commission, Cheney called the President when he arrived in the tunnel. The 9/11 Commission report states,

"Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected...210."

Note 210 reads: "White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4; President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting."

So there actually is no log for this call. It is based solely on the word of the Vice-President and President. The same goes for the call that Cheney apparently made to Bush right after he entered the PEOC. The 9/11 Commission even makes note of this fact,

"We believe this call would have taken place sometime before 10:10 to 10:15...Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete."

The Commission does reference an actual log for the call that occurred between the President and Vice-President from 10:18AM to 10:20AM.

So to say that this "truther" claim has been completely debunked sounds rather premature. These other "witnesses" are loyal to the Vice-President and two of phone calls have no documentary record. It seems the story that the 9/11 Commission Report told is the one on shaky ground, not Norman Mineta's.

[pomeroo]

It is the testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission that "skeptics" are attempting to debunk. It is not a "truther" claim, as Norman Mineta is not a truther as far as I know.

Pomeroo had previously written this regarding the controversy,

"As you could find out from several threads on this forum, if you were not prevented by your unwillingness to look, the 9/11 Commission determined that Norman Mineta's timeline was off by at least a half-hour. Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel for the commission, explained to me that Mineta's testimony was left out of the official report for a simple reason: although he tells the same stories as other witnesses, he has every event occurring much earlier than everyone else. As a fantasist, you must reject the consensus as inconvenient to the myths you promote. But, understand that the timeline was established not only by testimony but by the examination of phone logs."

Who are these other witnesses? Did anyone else who was in the PEOC that morning testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission that they were tracking the hypothetical route of a no longer existing plane(i.e. Flight 93) or when this scenario with the young airman occurred? The 9/11 Commission Report states,

"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218"

What is the source for this? Note 218 reads: White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001;White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001.

So are we to believe the wife of the Vice-President Lynne Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, a convicted perjurer, over the Norman Mineta?

Note 219 reads: "For Libby's characterization, see White House transcript, Scooter Libby interview with Newsweek, Nov. 2001. For the Vice President's statement, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the second authorization, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001; White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001"

Note 220 reads: "Joshua Bolten meeting (Mar. 18, 2004); see also White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001 ("10:15-18:Aircraft 60 miles out, confirmed as hijack-engage? VP:Yes. JB [Joshua Bolten]: Get President and confirm engage order."

All of this information seems to come from people loyal to the Vice-President. We certainly know how honest this bunch was in the lead up to the Iraq War.

pomeroo continues, "But, understand that the timeline was established not only by testimony but by the examination of phone logs."

This is not entirely true. According to the 9/11 Commission, Cheney called the President when he arrived in the tunnel. The 9/11 Commission report states,

"Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected...210."

Note 210 reads: "White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4; President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting."

So there actually is no log for this call. It is based solely on the word of the Vice-President and President. The same goes for the call that Cheney apparently made to Bush right after he entered the PEOC. The 9/11 Commission even makes note of the fact,

"We believe this call would have taken place sometime before 10:10 to 10:15...Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete."

The Commission does reference an actual log for the call that occurred between the President and Vice-President from 10:18AM to 10:20AM.

So to say that this "truther" claim has been completely debunked sounds rather premature. These other "witnesses" are loyal to the Vice-President and two of phone calls have no documentary record. It seems the story that the 9/11 Commission Report told is the one shaky ground, not Norman Mineta's.


Stop lying and do some reading. I get tired of posting the same link over and over.

Fantasists claim that Cheney confessed publicly to his complicity in a monstrous and unprecedented crime. No reporter anywhere in the world noticed this story.

[tanabear]

Stop lying and do some reading. I get tired of posting the same link over and over.

Fantasists claim that Cheney confessed publicly to his complicity in a monstrous and unprecedented crime. No reporter anywhere in the world noticed this story.

Please specify where I was lying? I did do some reading. You had previously written that there was testimony that contradicted Norman Mineta's and that there were phone logs as well. A lot of this "testimony" comes from the "notes" of Lynne Cheney and a convicted perjurer named "Scooter" Libby. Also there is no documentary evidence for two of these phone calls. It sounds like you are the one who needs to do some reading, not me. Where in Norman Mineta's testimony does he have the Vice-President confessing to a monstrous and unprecedented crime?

[Profanz]

Can someone explain the discrepency between the time Norman Mineta said Dick Cheney was in the PEOC (9:20 or so) vs. the time the 9/11 Commission said (9:58)? Thanks.


David Ray Griffin covers all of the problems with the official version and Cheney's whereabouts very thoroughly in the first few chapters of “9/11 Contradictions”. And there are many more problems then just Mineta and his account.

[MikeW]

So are we to believe the wife of the Vice-President Lynne Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, a convicted perjurer, over Norman Mineta?
The White House photographer David Bohrer is believed enough in truther circles to be regularly quoted as evidence that Cheney was evacuated "shortly after 9am" (although there's actually no evidence that he said anything of the kind). So presumably you'll find it rather more convincing that he also talks about the incident as relating to Flight 93:

04:21:55 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS
(VO) Cheney personally compiles a list of possible threats from the air.

04:21:58 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS (CONTINUED)

(OC) Of the flights that you didn't know where they were?

04:22:02 VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY, UNITED STATES

That we couldn't account for.

04:22:04 DAVID BOHRER, WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER

At first it was one of a few planes that they had questions about.

04:22:07 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(VO) White House photographer David Bohrer watches the tense moment and records it on film.

04:22:13 DAVID BOHRER, WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER

Eventually it narrowed to Flight 93. That was the biggest threat at that point.

04:22:19 KARL ROVE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSELOR

If you take the trajectory of the plane, of Flight 93 after it passes Pittsburgh and draw a straight line, it's gonna go to Washington, DC.

04:22:27 NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY

You just had to do something instantaneously.

04:22:30 DAVID BOHRER, WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER

There was a, a PEOC staffer who would keep coming in with updates on Flight 93's progress towards DC.

04:22:40 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(OC) Did you have any thoughts at the time as to what the target of that airplane might be?

04:22:44 VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY, UNITED STATES

I thought probably White House or Capitol. We found out later from interviewing people who were detained Al Qaeda members, that said the fourth plane was intended for the White House.

04:22:55 BRIGADIER GENERAL W MONTAGUE WINFIELD, US ARMY

The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93.

04:22:59 VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY, UNITED STATES

The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down that plane full of Americans, is a, you know, it's an order that had never been given before.

04:23:10 ANDREW CARD, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF

Very, very tough decision. And the President understood the magnitude of that decision.

04:23:30 CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER

The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane, if it was not responding properly. And it was authority requested through channels, by Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President passed the request, the President said, "yes."

04:23:32 DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

It was a totally different circumstance for our country, the thought of having to shoot down one of our own civilian aircraft.

04:23:40 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(OC) Do you remember your own thoughts as to what you were thinking?

04:23:43 VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY, UNITED STATES

Yeah, that this was a very difficult, difficult proposition, but it had to be done. If we had been able to intercept the planes before they hit the World Trade Center, would we? And the answer was, absolutely yes.

04:23:55 DAVID BOHRER, WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER

And the President gave the, the VP authority to make that call. It was a chilling moment, chilling moment.<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/abcnews091102_jenningsinterviews.html

Richard Clarke is also regularly quoted by truthers in support of Mineta's timeline. So I guess when in his book he reports regular updates like this...

Ralph Siegler stuck his head around the door: "Secret Service reports a hostile aircraft ten minutes out." ...

Siegler was back: "Hostile aircraft eight minutes out."...

...as only occurring after the Pentagon is hit, you'll also wonder when Mineta's 9:20-something information came from.

Then there's the Arlington County After Action report, which reported this:

At about 10:15 a.m. on September 11, the WFO Command Center was notified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that another airliner, United Airlines Flight #93, was hijacked after taking off from Newark, NJ, and was flying on a course from western Pennsylvania toward the Washington Metropolitan Area. The FAA estimated it would reach Washington, DC, in 20 minutes. The Command Center relayed the information to Special Agent Combs at the ACFD ICP who alerted Chief Schwartz. Special Agent Combs located a Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (WMAA) firefighter equipped with a radio and confirmed the information about Flight #93. Chief Schwartz ordered a complete area evacuation, directing the response force to relative safety beneath nearby highway overpasses. Special Agent Combs stayed at Chief Schwartz’ side, giving him updates as the FAA tracked the course of Flight #93. The last update came when the airliner was 4 minutes away from the Pentagon. Five minutes later, Special Agent Combs reported to Chief Schwartz that Flight #93 had crashed into Camp David in Maryland. In fact, it crashed in a field near Shanksville, PA. Chief Schwartz sounded the all clear.
http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/fire/edu/about/FireEduAboutAfterReport.aspx

Here we have a non-Commission source reporting that they were receiving regular updates on the position of what was thought to be Flight 93, some time after it had crashed. So as I said, you don't need to trust the Commission report to know there's something wrong with the Mineta story. There are plenty of issues with it to be found elsewhere.

[LashL]

David Ray Griffin covers all of the problems with the official version and Cheney's whereabouts very thoroughly in the first few chapters of “9/11 Contradictions”.

How inconvenient, then, that Griffin is a complete and utter fraud (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey). He's just selling snake oil to the gullible. Don't be one of the gullible.

And there are many more problems then just Mineta and his account.

Are there? Please elaborate.

[Jonnyclueless]

David Ray Griffin covers all of the problems with the official version and Cheney's whereabouts very thoroughly in the first few chapters of “9/11 Contradictions”. And there are many more problems then just Mineta and his account.

Perhaps you could elaborate on them for us. For those of us who don't support giving money to con artists and known frauds. If it is so well covered, then bring up your favorite problems.

[gumboot]

Mineta could NOT have been talking about United 93. The military didnt even know that was a hijack until after it crashed. He must have been talking about Flight 77, in fact he and the BBC commentator both state as fact that he was talking about Flight 77 in the BBC documentary "Clear the Skies".


Well that's stupid logic. The military never knew that AA77 was a hijack.

The Secret Service were getting their information from the FAA, not the military.

[T.A.M.]

Please point out this "hearsay and bias" of mine...

Thanks...

Here is your bias...that the BUSH admin tainted the commission purposely by placing people in it that would sekritly hide any damaging information...implied in your posts here...

Wow! Are you talking about the same report that the co-chairs said they were "set up to fail" in? They wrote a book about it. It's titled "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission".

"In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials."

Bush appointed the members, some of whom were Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel & Phillip Zelikow, who reported to Karl Rove so he could authorize what was put in the report

Yeah, I'd recommend *that* report (9-11CR) to everyone seeking the truth. /sarcasm

Here is some more bias, and heresay. You have no proof that the warnings were ignored. Simply because they were unable to prevent 9/11, does not mean that vague non specific warnings about attacks on America from OBL etc..were IGNORED.

ANd what is this "chimp" you are referring to?

Quoting what the 2 chairmen of the commission said about it afterwards is "derailing"? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how a conversation flows. There's no derailing, someone else brought up the 9-11CR. I merely followed up on it. Please try to follow along and keep up...

As for proving an inside job, one merely needs to look at the ignored warnings in the months prior to 9-11. You know, like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack". If that isn't enough, how about the chimp telling an agent, who traveled all the way to Crawford to warn him, "ok, you've covered you ass now" .... ?

Edited to remove incivility.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

TAM

[boloboffin]

tanabear, you're really good at digging through 911CR footnotes. Try these on for size:

208. USSS memo, interview of Gregory LaDow, Oct. 1, 2001, p. 1. Shortly after the second attack in New York, a senior Secret Service agent charged with coordinating the President's movements established an open line with his counterpart at the FAA, who soon told him that there were more planes unaccounted for-possibly hijacked- in addition to the two that had already crashed.Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time. See Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004); USSS memo, interview of Nelson Garabito, Oct. 1, 2001; see also Terry Van Steenbergen interview (Mar. 30, 2004).

209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004).

This is the documentation used in determining that Dick Cheney was evacuated from his office by the Secret Service around 9:37 a.m.

[Clippy]

The "young man" account is well-supported by others in the room, all who indicate that the conversation happened about 10:15 am, except Mineta, who is a confused old man.

So was Cheney also a confused old man when he told Tim Russert that he arrived in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack?

[Profanz]

Are there? Please elaborate.

CHAPTER TWO PAGE 20 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report contradict the combined testimony of David Bohrer, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, ABC, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, and even Dick Cheney himself (in at least one interview) with regard to the time of Cheney’s arrival in the PEOC?

Griffin covers all of their accounts about where Cheney was claimed to have been or not and none of them match what was put in the commission report. After this chapter he moves on to Meyers and before this chapter he cover Bush and the classroom. Griffin demolishes the 9/11 commission report.

[twinstead]

Griffin demolishes the 9/11 commission report.

In my opinion this http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey demolishes Griffin's report. So. Where does that leave us now? Is this a matter of opinion, or can you pick a couple things that Griffen cannot be debunked on?

[Shrinker]

So was Cheney also a confused old man when he told Tim Russert that he arrived in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack?

He said no such thing.

[boloboffin]

CHAPTER TWO PAGE 20 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS


Griffin covers all of their accounts about where Cheney was claimed to have been or not and none of them match what was put in the commission report. After this chapter he moves on to Meyers and before this chapter he cover Bush and the classroom. Griffin demolishes the 9/11 commission report.

Griffin is wrong about almost all of those people. Cheney has never contradicted himself, for example. Griffin is speaking about Tim Russert's September 17th (I think) interview with Cheney, and Cheney's story is completely consistent with his story after this.

[Clippy]

He said no such thing.

No?


VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.

But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

[Shrinker]

No?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

Highlight the part where he says he arrived before the Pentagon was hit.

[Clippy]

Highlight the part where he says he arrived before the Pentagon was hit.

Does it need to be highlighted in order for you to understand it? Please read the paragraph I quoted, paying particular attention to the last sentence.

[boloboffin]

Clippy, you need to read that full interview. Cheney wasn't evacuated until after he'd spoken to President Bush. That had to wait until Bush left the classroom at the very earliest.

Cheney says that he was evacuated in response to Flight 77 just as the Secret Service logs show. But that was at 9:36, as the SS logs show.

Cheney says he was taken not directly to the PEOC but to a corridor outside the PEOC, where he again got in touch with Bush. This is consistent with all other evidence. Lynne Cheney joined him there well after 9:50, according to White House logs.

Then they enter the PEOC. Then they get word that the Pentagon's been hit. Get word, not see it on television.

Griffin is wrong. Mineta is mistaken.

[Shrinker]

Does it need to be highlighted in order for you to understand it? Please read the paragraph I quoted, paying particular attention to the last sentence.

I understand it just fine. It doesn't say he arrived before the plane crashed.

[twinstead]

Griffin is wrong. Mineta is mistaken.

Mineta is mistaken, but Griffin is more than wrong; he's a charlatan.

[Clippy]

Clippy, you need to read that full interview. Cheney wasn't evacuated until after he'd spoken to President Bush. That had to wait until Bush left the classroom at the very earliest.

Cheney says that he was evacuated in response to Flight 77 just as the Secret Service logs show. But that was at 9:36, as the SS logs show.

Cheney says he was taken not directly to the PEOC but to a corridor outside the PEOC, where he again got in touch with Bush. This is consistent with all other evidence. Lynne Cheney joined him there well after 9:50, according to White House logs.

Then they enter the PEOC. Then they get word that the Pentagon's been hit. Get word, not see it on television.

Griffin is wrong. Mineta is mistaken.

So you're agreeing that Cheney was a 'confused old man', at least in this instance.

But weren't there reports of a third aircraft heading to Washington at 9:21? Would the Secret Service wait almost 15 minutes and then whisk him away to the PEOC?

Mineta was under oath, the Zelikow account of Cheney's timeline is based on notes by his wife and a convicted liar.

[Shrinker]

Here's a reading comprehension test:

CHENEY: But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit. We had word the State Department had been bombed, that a car bomb had gone off at the State Department.

QUESTION 1: When was the Pentagon hit?
A: After Cheney arrived at the PEOC
B: Before Cheney arrived at the PEOC
C: The quote does not have enough information to be sure

QUESTION 2: When did the bomb go off at the State Department?
A: After Cheney arrived at the PEOC
B: Before Cheney arrived at the PEOC
C: The quote does not have enough information to be sure

[Clippy]

I understand it just fine. It doesn't say he arrived before the plane crashed.

So you think he was out of the loop? Or you think he was perhaps refering to a missile? ;)

[Shrinker]

So you think he was out of the loop? Or you think he was perhaps refering to a missile? ;)

Just answer Qs 1 & 2 above. It's kids stuff...

[WildCat]

Reading comprehension is clearly not Clippy's strong suit. It's a common ailment among truthers.

[Mr. Skinny]

Just answer Qs 1 & 2 above. It's kids stuff...
*raises hand and waves it wildly*

I know. Pick me. Pleeeeaase!!!!!

[Clippy]

Answer to both questions is C. That's why I quoted more than those 2 sentences.

[boloboffin]

So you're agreeing that Cheney was a 'confused old man', at least in this instance.

No. There is no reason to ascribe such a statement to me. You are demonstrating your inability to understand what people are saying by making that statement. Please read without prejudice. It's the fast route to actual comprehension.

[WildCat]

Answer to both questions is C. That's why I quoted more than those 2 sentences.
Then why did you claim:
So was Cheney also a confused old man when he told Tim Russert that he arrived in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack?

You now admit he didn't say he arrived at the PEOC prior to the crash?

[Mr. Skinny]

Answer to both questions is C. That's why I quoted more than those 2 sentences.
Then please explain how the rest of the material you quoted supports your conclusion.

It was you, after all, who pointed to the last sentence of the quote as being critical.

[Shrinker]

Answer to both questions is C. That's why I quoted more than those 2 sentences.

Oh, I paid particular attention to the last sentence of your quote. Does some other part of the quote state that he arrived before the plane hit the pentagon? See, this is why I asked you to highlight it.

[Clippy]

Oh, I paid particular attention to the last sentence of your quote. Does some other part of the quote state that he arrived before the plane hit the pentagon? See, this is why I asked you to highlight it.

You're right that it's not a verbatim quote. I'm assuming that the SS was keeping him up to date on what was happening (after all, they supposedly evacuated him in response to a threat from this plane).

To reconcile his story with a 9:58 arrival, one would have to assume it took him 22+ minutes to learn about the attacks and that no one told him when he arrived. If you think that's reasonable, I don't think we're going to find much common ground.

[Jonnyclueless]

"But when I arrived there within a short order, we HAD word the Pentagon's been hit."

Isn't that past tense. Meaning that when he got there they already HAD word? As opposed when he got there he GOT word?

Why do all these twoofer arguments boil down to trying to argue an interpretation of witness testimony in order to dismiss all other evidence? Ah, con artists...

[ref]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: The president was on Air Force One. We received a threat to Air Force One--came through the Secret Service...

MR. RUSSERT: A credible threat to Air Force One. You're convinced of that.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...

snip

But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit. We had word the State Department had been bombed, that a car bomb had gone off at the State Department. Turned out not to be true, but we didn't know that at the time. We had a report that Norm had provided that there were six airplanes that might have been hijacked, and that's what we started working off of, was that list of six.

Cheney does not indicate he got into PEOC before flight 77 hit. He says he got the word of this and other events. Of course, the credible threat to Air Force One took place at 09:43 (before Cheney entering PEOC), and the State Department fire incident took place around 10:00 and the car bomb speculations were around 10:20.

[tj15]

This might sound stupid, but are the PEOC phone records available to the public?

[Jonnyclueless]

I would imagine that could be a major security issue. The YMCA might be one thing, but a emergency operations center for the president? But I have no idea.

[tj15]

I would imagine that could be a major security issue. The YMCA might be one thing, but a emergency operations center for the president? But I have no idea.

The 9/11 Commission had them (the phone records) though, right?

[Clippy]

boloboffin,

Sorry, you're right, it was a careless choice of words.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Does it need to be highlighted in order for you to understand it? Please read the paragraph I quoted, paying particular attention to the last sentence.


1. Cheney is evacuated.
2. Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
3. Cheney arrives at the PEOC.
4. Cheney is told about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

What do you think the sequence of events was based on the quote you provided?

[Shrinker]

You're right that it's not a verbatim quote. I'm assuming that the SS was keeping him up to date on what was happening (after all, they supposedly evacuated him in response to a threat from this plane).

To reconcile his story with a 9:58 arrival, one would have to assume it took him 22+ minutes to learn about the attacks and that no one told him when he arrived. If you think that's reasonable, I don't think we're going to find much common ground.

What I do doubt is that there's a single moment when Cheney was told a plane had hit the pentagon. It was almost certainly a gradual process of information aquisition, the details of which he didn't bother to relay. ie smoke->explosion->aircraft->plane->airliner. That said, read your quote again. Where was Cheney getting the best access to info - outside the PEOC, or inside?

[Jonnyclueless]

1. Cheney is evacuated.
2. Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
3. Cheney arrives at the PEOC.
4. Cheney is told about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

What do you think the sequence of events was based on the quote you provided?

1) Cheney is evacuated
2) Cheney Arrives at the PEOC
3) Flight 77 hits the Pentagon
4) SS activates time machine which sends warning back in time to Cheney to be evacuated.
5) Cheney is told about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

[MikeW]

What I do doubt is that there's a single moment when Cheney was told a plane had hit the pentagon. It was almost certainly a gradual process of information aquisition, the details of which he didn't bother to relay. ie smoke->explosion->aircraft->plane->airliner.
Exactly. Here's a clip from Cooperative Research:

9:43 a.m.-9:53 a.m. September 11, 2001: Associated Press First to Report a Plane Hit the Pentagon; CNN Still Unsure What Happened for Ten More Minutes

An Associated Press news alert at 9:43 a.m. states, “An aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon, witnesses say.” [Associated Press, 2001 ; Broadcasting and Cable, 8/26/2002] This is apparently the first news of the crash. Initial television reports stated there had been an explosion at the Pentagon, but not that a plane caused it (see 9:39 a.m.-9:44 a.m. September 11, 2001). Minutes later, there is still uncertainty over what caused the explosion. At 9:49, CNN’s Chris Plant reports from the Pentagon, “[I]nitial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses I’ve spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion” (see (9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001] It is not until 9:53 that CNN confirms, “it was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon.” [CNN, 9/11/2001]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a943apreports#a943apreports

So here we have disagreement over what happened until 9:53. But as you say, that's not the end of the story. There would be later confirmations that it was a commercial airliner, an American Airlines jet, Flight 77, which could also have been what Cheney was talking about.

Anyway, what we can say for sure is that even the earliest interpretation of Cheney's comments (news arriving that something has happened at the Pentagon) doesn't put him in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit. And the interview flatly contradicts Mineta's claim that he was there by 9:20.

[quicknthedead]

Calculus. By Wednesday. I need at least seventy percent.

Everything else aside, it's post like yours that make JREF a scream!

Sometimes you guys knock 'em out of the chair! :pythonfoot:

Thanks!

[Clippy]

What I do doubt is that there's a single moment when Cheney was told a plane had hit the pentagon. It was almost certainly a gradual process of information aquisition, the details of which he didn't bother to relay. ie smoke->explosion->aircraft->plane->airliner. That said, read your quote again. Where was Cheney getting the best access to info - outside the PEOC, or inside?

Cheney only speaks of when the Pentagon was hit. That would be pretty early in your chain of events.

He does say that in the PEOC he had simultaneous access to other administration officials, but this does not mean that he was ex communicado on his way to the PEOC. And I have a hard time believing that he (or the SS who were with him) were.

Exactly. Here's a clip from Cooperative Research:

So here we have disagreement over what happened until 9:53. But as you say, that's not the end of the story. There would be later confirmations that it was a commercial airliner, an American Airlines jet, Flight 77, which could also have been what Cheney was talking about.

Anyway, what we can say for sure is that even the earliest interpretation of Cheney's comments (news arriving that something has happened at the Pentagon) doesn't put him in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit. And the interview flatly contradicts Mineta's claim that he was there by 9:20.

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the SS was learning things at the same time as the AP and CNN?

[boloboffin]

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the SS was learning things at the same time as the AP and CNN?

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney put more stock in information coming from government sources rather than the TV?

[DGM]

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the SS was learning things at the same time as the AP and CNN?

Would you be surprised if the AP or CNN knew before the SS? With all the sources they (MSM) have it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[pomeroo]

You're right that it's not a verbatim quote. I'm assuming that the SS was keeping him up to date on what was happening (after all, they supposedly evacuated him in response to a threat from this plane).

To reconcile his story with a 9:58 arrival, one would have to assume it took him 22+ minutes to learn about the attacks and that no one told him when he arrived. If you think that's reasonable, I don't think we're going to find much common ground.


Good idea--let's find some common ground. After Mineta presented to the 9/11 Commission a timeline that included incidents recounted by others, but placed them 30-40 minutes earlier than everyone else and the phone logs placed them, his testimony was judged unworthy of inclusion in the final report. Mineta to this day gives every impression of being unaware of any controversy surrounding his testimony. He understands the order Cheney discussed with the military aide as a shoot-down order.

The fantasy movement pretends that Mineta has quoted Dick Cheney confessing to his complicity on a monstrous crime. Curiously, no one on the commission noticed. Assuming the members were all shills and accomplices to a mass murder, what about the journalists? Why didn't any reporter anywhere in the WORLD smell a story here?

[Clippy]

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney put more stock in information coming from government sources rather than the TV?

He didn't wait for a TV report before leaving for the PEOC.

[Clippy]

Would you be surprised if the AP or CNN knew before the SS? With all the sources they (MSM) have it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I don't think the MSM was privy to FAA communications.

[DGM]

I don't think the MSM was privy to FAA communications.
Sure they do. It's called a scanner.

I've been at accident scene and fires that the news crews beat the emergency responders. This is what the do best. Be the first to report the story.

[MikeW]

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the SS was learning things at the same time as the AP and CNN?
It takes time to find witnesses, discover what they know and pass that on to the PEOC. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't get confirmation it was an American Airlines jet until 10-ish.

But again, what matters here is that the quote does NOT say that Cheney was in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit, as people like Griffin and Peter Dale Scott claim. They've got it wrong. Again.

[Clippy]

Good idea--let's find some common ground. After Mineta presented to the 9/11 Commission a timeline that included incidents recounted by others, but placed them 30-40 minutes earlier than everyone else and the phone logs placed them, his testimony was judged unworthy of inclusion in the final report. Mineta to this day gives every impression of being unaware of any controversy surrounding his testimony. He understands the order Cheney discussed with the military aide as a shoot-down order.

The fantasy movement pretends that Mineta has quoted Dick Cheney confessing to his complicity on a monstrous crime. Curiously, no one on the commission noticed. Assuming the members were all shills and accomplices to a mass murder, what about the journalists? Why didn't any reporter anywhere in the WORLD smell a story here?

Richard Clarke's agreed with him on this point. If Mineta is lying, then perhaps he should be charged with perjury? Or would that mean Dick Cheney would be forced to testify?

[TexasJack]

Richard Clarke's agreed with him on this point. If Mineta is lying, then perhaps he should be charged with perjury? Or would that mean Dick Cheney would be forced to testify?

Do you understand the difference between perjury and being mistaken? Is Mineta intentionally lying?

[Jonnyclueless]

Richard Clarke's agreed with him on this point. If Mineta is lying, then perhaps he should be charged with perjury? Or would that mean Dick Cheney would be forced to testify?

He wasn't lying and no one ever claimed he was. The guy simply mis-remembered the time. It happens to people all the time.

And even the FAA got a lot of their info form CNN that day. Heck, that's how they figured out the plane hit the WTC, they watched CNN.

[MikeW]

Richard Clarke's agreed with him on this point.
Richard Clarke provides more evidence against Mineta's timeline than for it.

[boloboffin]

He didn't wait for a TV report before leaving for the PEOC.

LOL!

Like he was given a choice about that.

Again, did the Secret Service wait for it to show up on TV or did they get that information from the tower at Reagan National?

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you understand the difference between perjury and being mistaken? Is Mineta intentionally lying?
He wasn't lying and no one ever claimed he was. The guy simply mis-remembered the time. It happens to people all the time.


I'm still blown away by the truther idea that people don't make mistakes; they're either telling the truth or lying. Period.

Clippy, you do see the inherent insanity in that position, don't you?

[Clippy]

I'm still blown away by the truther idea that people don't make mistakes; they're either telling the truth or lying. Period.

Clippy, you do see the inherent insanity in that position, don't you?

It would have been straightforward to figure out if he was incorrect or lying. Seems there wasn't much sensible effort made to determine which it was.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It would have been straightforward to figure out if he was incorrect or lying. Seems there wasn't much sensible effort made to determine which it was.


Sensible by whose determination?

[stilicho]

It would have been straightforward to figure out if he was incorrect or lying. Seems there wasn't much sensible effort made to determine which it was.
Norman Mineta and Van Romero are the darlings of the conspiracy set because both of them said incorrect things about 9/11. So did the President when he claimed to have seen the hit on the North Tower on live TV.

Almost forgot the BBC announcing the collapse of Salomon Bros before it happened. That Jane Standley ought to be hanged!

[Clippy]

Sensible by whose determination?

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.

[gumboot]

It would have been straightforward to figure out if he was incorrect or lying. Seems there wasn't much sensible effort made to determine which it was.


Because it doesn't actually matter. He's wrong. End of story.

[zorro99]

Don't forget this Washington Post article published in January 2002:

America's Chaotic Road to War

9:32 a.m.

The Vice President in Washington: Underground, in Touch With Bush

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.

Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary.

"[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those goddamn planes down."

Sitting at the other end of the table, Cheney snapped his head up, looked squarely at Mineta and nodded in agreement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html

[gumboot]

Don't forget this Washington Post article published in January 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html


Another good piece of evidence that Norman Mineta's timeline is wrong.

[boloboffin]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about Mineta's mistaken account inspiring a lot of erroneous news articles as they tried to fit it with other accounts. No one thinks he's lying.

[zorro99]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about Mineta's mistaken account inspiring a lot of erroneous news articles as they tried to fit it with other accounts. No one thinks he's lying.

Erroneous? That article was published in January 2002, long before Mineta gave his testimony. It's his testimony that was erroneous.

[CptColumbo]

Is it just beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that Mineta is just mistaken about the sequence of events and the exact time at which they occured on a highly stressful day?

[boloboffin]

Erroneous? That article was published in January 2002, long before Mineta gave his testimony. It's his testimony that was erroneous.

So you think that Mineta only started being mistaken when he gave his testimony? Or is that what you think we're saying?

It's my opinion that Norman Mineta has been mistaken as to the timing of that day and the identification of Flight 77 as the "callout" plane since September 11, 2001. That's what he told the reporters, that's what he told the 9/11 Commission. The evidence does not bear him out.

[Alt+F4]

For the "truthers" people can only be mistaken if it supports their cause. To them, Mineta, Bush and that FEMA guy who said he arrived in NYC on September 10 can't possibly have been confused or mistaken because that doesn't support an inside job!

[zorro99]

So you think that Mineta only started being mistaken when he gave his testimony? Or is that what you think we're saying?

It's my opinion that Norman Mineta has been mistaken as to the timing of that day and the identification of Flight 77 as the "callout" plane since September 11, 2001. That's what he told the reporters, that's what he told the 9/11 Commission. The evidence does not bear him out.

The Washington Post article I cited above, and the 9/11 commission timeline, are generally consistent. According to the WaPost article, there were TWO "callout" plane conversations.

The first, occuring about 9:32, involved Flt 77 (described above). That conversation was between Mineta and FAA.

The second, which occured between 10:10 and 10:15 am, involved Flt 93. This conversation was between Cheney and the military aide. I don't believe that Mineta was the reporters' only source for this second conversation.

The following is from the WaPost article linked above:

9:55 a.m.

The Vice President in the Bunker: 'Should We Engage?' 'Yes.'

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

The only item incorrect is the time. This conversation took place 15 - 20 minutes later than what the WaPost reported here, according to the Commission, but clearly after Flt 77 had crashed.

My conclusion is that Mineta simply confused the two conversations when he testified before the commission.

[boloboffin]

Mineta was not in the PEOC at 9:32 having a conversation with anyone about Flight 77, especially not Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney was not evacuated down there until 9:36, in response to the spiralling decent of Flight 77.

The way the Washington Post resolved the discrepancy is reporting it as two different incidents (thinking also that Mineta was responsible for the national ground-stop order). The 9/11 Commission saw that there was no evidence supporting Mineta's account and resolved it accurately, reporting only one callout incident.

[Clippy]

Mineta was not in the PEOC at 9:32 having a conversation with anyone about Flight 77, especially not Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney was not evacuated down there until 9:36, in response to the spiralling decent of Flight 77.

The way the Washington Post resolved the discrepancy is reporting it as two different incidents (thinking also that Mineta was responsible for the national ground-stop order). The 9/11 Commission saw that there was no evidence supporting Mineta's account and resolved it accurately, reporting only one callout incident.

This is called cherry picking.

[boloboffin]

This is called cherry picking.

Really? What overwhelming amount of evidence am I ignoring? My version lines up with ALL contemporaneous logs, interviews with Secret Service personnel, everyone else in the room, and the FDR of Flight 77.

You've got Mineta.

And I'm cherry-picking. :dl:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.


That's not an answer to my question.

[Clippy]

Really? What overwhelming amount of evidence am I ignoring? My version lines up with ALL contemporaneous logs, interviews with Secret Service personnel, everyone else in the room, and the FDR of Flight 77.

You've got Mineta.

And I'm cherry-picking. :dl:

Don't forget Clarke. And not all your cherries are of particularly high quality, at least the ones from Cheney's wife and the convicted liar.

[boloboffin]

Don't forget Clarke. And not all your cherries are of particularly high quality, at least the ones from Cheney's wife and the convicted liar.

So, in response to my query about all the overwhelming evidence I'm ignoring, you mention only Clarke.

Someone who poked his head into Cheney's office, talked to him a moment, walked away, saw some SS agents outside his office, and had nothing else to contribute to the timeline of where Cheney was.

:dl: :dl:

Pull the other one!

ETA: Perhaps you could pick up here where tanabear seems to have absconded:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756626&postcount=77

When you do so, please give us all a count of how many times either Lynne Cheney or Scooter Libby appear in that documentation. You can combine the numbers to make them as big as possible.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

I'm the one cherry-picking. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Oh, man, that's rich.

[Clippy]

I was responding to:

You've got Mineta.

What about the warnings of an incoming flight at 9:21? Does it make sense to you that they would have waited another 15 minutes before madly hurrying him down to the PEOC?

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah the presumption that if there is a period of time, it must have been spent doing absolutely nothing. What is the exact time that differentiates between an inside job or not? That way we can go to a judge and say "See judge, it was over the 10 minutes needed to establish an inside job".

Let me understand this, if it wasn't an inside job, he would have gotten there sooner, but if it was an inside job, then they would hang out for a few extra minutes. Someone explain how this works.

[MikeW]

Don't forget Clarke.
You have Clarke saying he started his video conference before 9:28, yes, and Mineta wasn't there at the time. CooperativeResearch place the beginning of the conference at 9:10 which could fit the Mineta timetable. Trouble is, the content of what Clarke says happened at the beginning of the teleconference couldn't possibly have happened that early.

For instance,

a) Clarke says he spoke to Garvey first, but she was in Mineta's office close to a quarter of a mile away less than 7 minutes earlier. Implausible for 9:10, fits for 9:40

b) Clarke says the FAA were frantically looking for Mineta. Absurd for 9:10 when Garvey had been with him less then 7 minutes earlier, and he'd been speaking to Belger, but could work for 9:40

c) Clarke says Garvey told him that Flight 175 had hit the second tower. Even UA were still figuring this out at 9:10

d) Clarke says Garvey told him there were 11 suspected hijacks. At 9:10? I don't think so - the earliest time I've got for that is around 9:37.

So: the time he gives puts the teleconference before 9:28, but the content says later. And I think the content is more likely to be accurate (you might get a time wrong, but not the idea that the FAA were looking for Mineta, say), which means the pre-9:28 claim is a mistake, and Clarke on balance does not support Mineta's timeline.

[boloboffin]

In addition to b), Mineta says he first went to Clarke who told him to go to the PEOC. If the FAA was frantically looking for Mineta, why wouldn't Clarke say he was down in the PEOC?

Because Mineta wasn't there at 9:40 yet. It's absurd that the FAA is frantically looking for Mineta at 9:10, but perfectly rational if it's 9:40 and Mineta hasn't even gotten to the Situation Room yet.

Tell you what, Clippy. You deal with all the documentation that Cheney was evacuated at 9:36 and I'll look at your "warnings at 9:21." Get cracking.

[MikeW]

IIt's absurd that the FAA is frantically looking for Mineta at 9:10, but perfectly rational if it's 9:40 and Mineta hasn't even gotten to the Situation Room yet.
It also seems to be confirmed by media stories that say Mineta didn't know about the 9:45 "land all the planes" order until some 15 minutes later when he and the FAA finally got in touch.

[T.A.M.]

933AM - SS at white house warned of oncoming plane, but did not evacuate Cheney to the PEOC, as last minute the plane changed course (flight 77). He was evacuated from the White House, into the tunnel leading to the PEOC at 937AM.

Sources (As found at back of commission report):
208. USSS memo, interview of Gregory LaDow, Oct. 1, 2001, p. 1. Shortly after the second attack in New York, a senior Secret Service agent charged with coordinating the President's movements established an open line with his counterpart at the FAA, who soon told him that there were more planes unaccounted for-possibly hijacked- in addition to the two that had already crashed.Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time. See Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004); USSS memo, interview of Nelson Garabito, Oct. 1, 2001; see also Terry Van Steenbergen interview (Mar. 30, 2004).

209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004).


937 - 955AM: Cheney stops in tunnel to PEOC in order to try and make contact with POTUS.

Sources (notes at back of commission report):
210.White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4; President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004).

952AM - Lynn Cheney arrives in tunnel
955AM The Cheney's leave the tunnel for the PEOC.

Sources (notes at back of commission report):
211. On Mrs. Cheney, see USSS report, "Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2 (time of arrival);White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2 (joining the Vice President). For the contemporaneous notes, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the content of the Vice President's call, see White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 5.According to the Vice President, there was "one phone call from the tunnel. And basically I called to let him know that we were a target and I strongly urged him not to return to Washington right away, that he delay his return until we could find out what the hell was going on." For their subsequent movements, see White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 5;White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek,Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2.

958-1000AM - VP Cheney arrives at PEOC

Sources (notes at back of commission report):
213. On the Vice President's call, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the Vice President's time of arrival in the shelter conference room, see White House record, PEOC Shelter Log, Sept. 11, 2001 (9:58); USSS memo, OVP 9/11 Timeline, Nov. 17, 2001 (9:52; Mrs. Cheney arrived White House and joined him in tunnel);White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes (9:55; he is on phone with President);White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2 ("And when I got there, he was on the phone with the President . . . But from that first place where I ran into him, I moved with him into what they call the PEOC"); White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4

(9:35 or 9:36 arrival; he estimated a 15-minute stay); Carl Truscott interview (Apr. 15, 2004) (arrived with Rice and the Vice President in conference room; called headquarters immediately; call logged at 10:00); President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting,Apr. 29, 2004 (Vice President viewed television footage of Pentagon ablaze in tunnel);White House transcript, Rice interview with Evan Thomas, Nov. 1, 2001, p. 388 (Rice viewed television footage of Pentagon ablaze in Situation Room). For the Vice President's recollection about the combat air patrol, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004); White House transcript, President Bush interview with Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, Dec. 17, 2001, p. 16.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

So in essence, the entire truther theory hinges on a single report from CNN's John King, who stated in a report at 952AM, that the white house had begun slowly evacuating 30 minutes earlier (922AM). This reported "slow evacuation" occurring earlier, has no other documenting proof, and on the contrary, most other reports have the evacuation occuring at 945AM.

Is this the entirety of this ridiculous claim? A single CNN report in the chaos of the moment?

In that case, the Washington monument was also destroyed, as reported by CNN and others that day as well...lol

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Richard Clarke's agreed with him on this point. If Mineta is lying, then perhaps he should be charged with perjury? Or would that mean Dick Cheney would be forced to testify?


For the thousandth time, NOBODY thinks Mineta is "lying." What would he be lying about? His timeline is wrong. He is not lying. He is mistaken.

[pomeroo]

Because it doesn't actually matter. He's wrong. End of story.


Conspiracy liars must ignore the essential point here. The 9/11 Commission reviewed Mineta's testimony, determined that he was hearing what others heard but was placing events 30-40 minutes earlier than they could have actually happened, and concluded that it wasn't worthy of inclusion in the final report. Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel to the commission, explained that Mineta's testimony had been discredited. It was not ignored; it was not censored; it was not hidden--it was discredited. To the people who perform real work, there is no mystery here. The job of the commission was to establish an accurate timeline, not to conceal the existence of a gigantic, mathematically-impossible, and ultimately purposeless conspiracy.

[MikeW]

So in essence, the entire truther theory hinges on a single report from CNN's John King, who stated in a report at 952AM, that the white house had begun slowly evacuating 30 minutes earlier (922AM). This reported "slow evacuation" occurring earlier, has no other documenting proof, and on the contrary, most other reports have the evacuation occuring at 945AM.
That's the main evidence to support an early evacuation, yes. Unfortunately it actually proves them wrong. Here's King at 9:52:

Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park, directly across the White House, perhaps about 200 yards away from the White House residence itself. The Secret Service has pushed most people all the way back to the other side of the park. I'm trying to avoid having that done to me at the moment.

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html

Now here's Mineta:

And so anyway, we drove into the White House on West Executive Drive. People were coming out of the White House, pouring out of the Executive Office Building, running over towards Lafayette Park, and I said to my driver and security person, I said, "Hey, is there something wrong with this picture, cause here we are driving in and everybody else is running out."
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp?0cb=-31a105678&cp1=1

So King says people have come running out of the White House and Executive Building, and are being moved across Lafayette Park at 9:47-ish.

And Mineta says people were coming out of the White House, pouring out of the Executive Building, running over towards Lafayette Park when he arrived.

Seems to me that they're obviously describing the same event...

[boloboffin]

Which also fits with Mineta not being placeable at 9:40, because at about 9:45 he's still outside, driving up and seeing the mass exodus about that time. At that point, he still has to park the car, make his way inside (everybody running out and he's going in?), see Clarke and then get down to the PEOC where he sees Cheney and Lynne already there.

His account makes more sense if you ignore his efforts at timing it.

[Clippy]

So: the time he gives puts the teleconference before 9:28, but the content says later. And I think the content is more likely to be accurate (you might get a time wrong, but not the idea that the FAA were looking for Mineta, say), which means the pre-9:28 claim is a mistake, and Clarke on balance does not support Mineta's timeline.

But if we apply this logic to Mineta's testimony, doesn't it support Cheney's presence in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit?

[jhunter1163]

Clippy:

If Cheney is complicit in the murders of 3,000 people, what makes you think he would have any qualms whatsoever about lying under oath, even if some new investigation managed to get him under oath?

[boloboffin]

Clippy, are you ever going to deal with all that non-Cheney related evidence that shows why he was evacuated at 9:36, not before?

[gumboot]

The elephant in the room here is that at 0925 no one knew where AA77 was, let alone was tracking it on radar. Not the FAA, not the military, not the Secret Service, and not the Media.

In fact at 0925 only the staff at the FAA ARTSCC and Indianapolis ARTCC even suspected that AA77 had been hijacked.

Quite simply, the conversation Mineta heard cannot have been in regards to AA77. And his assumption that it was AA77 (and his timeline based on that assumption) is based solely on learning about the impact at the Pentagon after the conversation - but he has made the understandable mistake of assuming that when he heard about the impact at the Pentagon it had just happened.

Here's how Mineta's thought process went.

Mineta arrived at the White House.
Mineta observed a conversation about an incoming plane.
Mineta found out the Pentagon had been hit.

From this he concluded the incoming plane had been AA77 and therefore that the conversation must have taken place before 0930.

In reality, what most likely happened was as follows:

AA77 hit the Pentagon.
Mineta arrived at the White House.
Mineta observed a conversation about an incoming plane.
Mineta found out the Pentagon had been hit.

In this instance Mineta's conclusion is not going to change, because he's unaware of point 1, but for anyone else it's obvious that the incoming plane cannot have been AA77.

Simply put, Mineta observed the conversation after AA77 had crashed but before he knew it had crashed. The mistake is as simple as that.

[MikeW]

But if we apply this logic to Mineta's testimony, doesn't it support Cheney's presence in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit?
The logic is the idea that your memory of events is more likely to be correct than your memory of when they occurred. It applies to the Clarke situation and neatly resolves the issues of his conversation with Garvey.

If we apply it to Mineta then the results aren't so neat, that's true. If we say the "do the orders still stand" issue related to Flight 93 then we're contradicting his assertion that it was Flight 77. But that doesn't mean the logic is wrong, just that it's not a complete solution here: Mineta's story is more complicated.

So if you want to complain we've not explained every detail, then feel free, but if that's your standard then hopefully you'll also apply it to the 9:20 arrival time case. Because claiming that introduces far more unexplained problems and contradictions, and there's much less evidence to support it.

[Clippy]

MikeW,

I think you've raised enough issues with Mineta's testimony that honest people can disagree as to whether what he said under oath is true. As far as I know, there is agreement amongst truthers that Mineta's timeline may be off by several minutes. There are a few ways to resolve this. Getting people back under oath to testify and providing access to the tape of Clarke's conference being two obvious ones.

[MikeW]

I think you've raised enough issues with Mineta's testimony that honest people can disagree as to whether what he said under oath is true. As far as I know, there is agreement amongst truthers that Mineta's timeline may be off by several minutes. There are a few ways to resolve this. Getting people back under oath to testify and providing access to the tape of Clarke's conference being two obvious ones.
To believe what he's said is true requires throwing out a considerable amount of evidence, though. And moving his arrival to 9:27, say, doesn't explain the evacuation problem or many of the other issues.

Anyway, the point of raising all these points is just to say that the standard truther position I see - "there's more evidence supporting Mineta's timeline than Cheney's" - simply isn't true. If you're not claiming that and simply saying you'd like more definitive proof then that's fine with me. So would I. That's why, amongst other things, I've an FOIA request in for Mineta's 9/11 visitor logs at the White House. That's stalled at the moment because there's a debate about whether they're releasable under the FOIA, and that's rumbling through the courts, but if they are then I'll get them eventually. (Of course if they say "9:45" or something then we'll just hear they're faked, but I can't do anything about that.)

[gumboot]

MikeW,

I think you've raised enough issues with Mineta's testimony that honest people can disagree as to whether what he said under oath is true. As far as I know, there is agreement amongst truthers that Mineta's timeline may be off by several minutes. There are a few ways to resolve this. Getting people back under oath to testify and providing access to the tape of Clarke's conference being two obvious ones.


Since when did Mineta testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath? :confused:

[boloboffin]

I think we should all recognize that when a member of the 9/11 Truth movement resorts to saying we need a new investigation to find out what happened, that means they realize they're wrong.

Clippy, there is no controversy here. The evidence for Mineta being mistaken is overwhelming.

[Clippy]

Anyway, the point of raising all these points is just to say that the standard truther position I see - "there's more evidence supporting Mineta's timeline than Cheney's" - simply isn't true. If you're not claiming that and simply saying you'd like more definitive proof then that's fine with me. So would I. That's why, amongst other things, I've an FOIA request in for Mineta's 9/11 visitor logs at the White House. That's stalled at the moment because there's a debate about whether they're releasable under the FOIA, and that's rumbling through the courts, but if they are then I'll get them eventually. (Of course if they say "9:45" or something then we'll just hear they're faked, but I can't do anything about that.)

Accepting the Zelikow timeline would require that the following are reasonable:

* that Cheney was rushed to the PEOC at 9:36 despite reports of an incoming plane at 9:21.

* that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened.

I'm having a hard time with those.

[Clippy]

Since when did Mineta testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath? :confused:

My understanding is that he was, though I may well be mistaken. Perhaps I am confusing it with his testifying before Congress.

[gumboot]

Accepting the Zelikow timeline would require that the following are reasonable:

* that Cheney was rushed to the PEOC at 9:36 despite reports of an incoming plane at 9:21.


Source for the "incoming plane" reports at 09:21?



* that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened.

You're making an assumption that when Mineta learned of the attack at the Pentagon that was the first time anyone in the PEOC learned about it. Having said that, while 22 minutes before knowing anything had happened at the Pentagon is implausible, 22 minutes before knowing an airliner had flown into the Pentagon, or perhaps 22 minutes before knowing an American Airlines jet had flown into the Pentagon is entirely within the realm of reason.

[boloboffin]

Accepting the Zelikow timeline would require that the following are reasonable:

* that Cheney was rushed to the PEOC at 9:36 despite reports of an incoming plane at 9:21.

* that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened.

I'm having a hard time with those.

You know what? Real life doesn't have to be "reasonable" to you. Real life consists of the actual evidence, and the actual evidence in the matter, far beyond the control of Darth Cheney, shows that he was evacuated at 9:36 in response to Reagan National calling the Secret Service and telling them about the airplane they'd picked up.

Deal.

[MikeW]

Well, I thought you were finishing up, but I'm not leaving these as the last word:

Accepting the Zelikow timeline would require that the following are reasonable:

* that Cheney was rushed to the PEOC at 9:36 despite reports of an incoming plane at 9:21.

* that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened.

I'm having a hard time with those.

a) calling it the Zelikow timeline is just an attempt to minimise what we've been saying. The reality is that you can throw the entire report away, the evidence still says Mineta is wrong.

b) a single report of an incoming plane that they couldn't locate. When did that report reach the Secret Service, care to tell us that? If there was a concern that it would hit the White House at, say, 9:24, why wasn't the White House not evacuated until 9:40-ish? Doesn't the 9:36 move of Cheney, everyone else a few minutes later, make more sense?

c) "that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened" - no-one says that happened and we've comprehensively explained why that's untrue.

It's also interesting that none of your points support the idea of Mineta in the PEOC at 9:20, nor have you countered or explained the many problems with his timeline that we've raised here. You can hold on to your belief that maybe an investigation would uncover something, but right now the balance of evidence says, quite clearly, that Mineta is wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Ummm I dunno about the PEOC, but Cheney was made aware of the Pentagon attack shortly after entering the tunnel leading to the PEOC. He entered at 937AM.

TAM:)

[MikeW]

Source for the "incoming plane" reports at 09:21?
I guess clippy is referring to this, from Vanity Fair's NORAD tapes piece:

Mo Dooley's voice erupts from the ID station on the operations floor.

09:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: ****** Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=5

[Clippy]

Source for the "incoming plane" reports at 09:21?.

MikeW has posted it.

You're making an assumption that when Mineta learned of the attack at the Pentagon that was the first time anyone in the PEOC learned about it. Having said that, while 22 minutes before knowing anything had happened at the Pentagon is implausible, 22 minutes before knowing an airliner had flown into the Pentagon, or perhaps 22 minutes before knowing an American Airlines jet had flown into the Pentagon is entirely within the realm of reason.

You're right about the assumption if you switch Mineta for Cheney. It is possible that some of those there already knew that the Pentagon had been hit. But that would mean no one bothered to tell him when he arrived. Seems bizarre. And Cheney does not say anything about an American Airlines jet.

[boloboffin]

MikeW has posted it.

Unbelievable. That is it? That's the single reference to a plane incoming at 9:21?

Really?

It's amazing to me that the government is viewed as this monolithic, all-knowing entity that instantly diffuses all knowledge it obtains from all sources perfectly as soon as a single person in that government learns that knowledge.

Unbelievable.

[gumboot]

MikeW has posted it.


That "incoming plane" was AA11 which had crashed into the WTC. A misunderstanding in an FAA teleconference led to the military being told AA11 was still airborne and headed for Washington DC. The FAA never thought AA11 was still airborne, and neither did the US Secret Service. The "AA11 still airborne" report never went beyond NEADS.




You're right about the assumption if you switch Mineta for Cheney. It is possible that some of those there already knew that the Pentagon had been hit. But that would mean no one bothered to tell him when he arrived. Seems bizarre.

Not really. Let's not forget this conversation supposedly only occured 5 minutes or so after he arrived, and he learned about the crash at the Pentagon immediately after that. So it's possible he learned of the Pentagon crash 15 minutes or less after he arrived. Seems totally plausible to me.


And Cheney does not say anything about an American Airlines jet.

Huh?

[Clippy]

b) a single report of an incoming plane that they couldn't locate. When did that report reach the Secret Service, care to tell us that? If there was a concern that it would hit the White House at, say, 9:24, why wasn't the White House not evacuated until 9:40-ish? Doesn't the 9:36 move of Cheney, everyone else a few minutes later, make more sense?

Were there sensible evacuation procedures in order at the Pentagon?

c) "that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened" - no-one says that happened and we've comprehensively explained why that's untrue.

I must have missed that, could you please give me the relevant post numbers?

[gumboot]

Were there sensible evacuation procedures in order at the Pentagon?


Yes. That's one of the major reasons so few people were killed.

[Clippy]

Not really. Let's not forget this conversation supposedly only occured 5 minutes or so after he arrived, and he learned about the crash at the Pentagon immediately after that. So it's possible he learned of the Pentagon crash 15 minutes or less after he arrived. Seems totally plausible to me.

I think we're referring to different conversations. I'm referring to Cheney's interview with Tim Russert (posted above, #83).

[CurtC]

There are a few ways to resolve this. Getting people back under oath to testify and providing access to the tape of Clarke's conference being two obvious ones.

What's the deal with Truthers' obsession with accounts that were taken under oath? They seem to have the impression that any account from a person under oath trumps any other information not gathered under oath. I really don't understand that mindset.

[boloboffin]

I suppose Clippy has me on ignore. That's a most excellent way of not having to deal with inconvenient facts.

[gumboot]

I think we're referring to different conversations. I'm referring to Cheney's interview with Tim Russert (posted above, #83).


I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but here we go again. Just because Mineta didn't learn about the impact at the Pentagon until after he arrived doesn't mean that others in the PEOC didn't already know about it - including Cheney.

Cheney claims to have learned about the impact at the Pentagon shortly after entering the PEOC (Actually the tunnel leading to the PEOC) which, according to his own timeline, would have been a matter of minutes after it happened.

Mineta, meanwhile, appears to have arrived some time after this, and therefore would have been in his car travelling to the White House when AA77 struck. He then enters the PEOC, where everyone else (including Cheney) already knows about the Pentagon strike, and within 15 minutes mention is made of the Pentagon strike which becomes the first time Mineta hears of it.

And indeed, if you read the interview you yourself cited, there's a clue there that suggests that precisely what I claimed is what actually happened:

Now we could account for two of them in New York. The third one we didn't know what had happened to it. It turned out it had hit the Pentagon. But the first reports on the Pentagon attack suggested a helicopter, and then later, a private jet, and it was only after we got ahold of some eyewitnesses that we knew it was an American Airlines flight. So then we had three planes accounted for, but we still have had three outstanding.

In other words the sequence of events is as follows:

1. Aircraft is detected approaching Washington DC
2. VP evacuated to tunnel under White House
3. VP talks to President
4. VP relocates to PEOC
5. PEOC learns that Pentagon was hit
6. Norman Mineta arrives
7. "Do the orders still stand" conversation occurs
8. PEOC learns that it was an American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon

8 is Mineta's first awareness that anything happened at the Pentagon, and as a result he wrongly assumes that 7 was in reference to the same aircraft. Because the PEOC (understandably) react with shock and horror when they learn that it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon (rather than a helicopter or a private jet) Mineta wrongly assumes their shock and horror is in response to learning of the incident at the Pentagon for the first time.

Speculation of course, but speculation that fits all of the known facts and makes sense - unlike the speculation Conspiracy Theorists offer up.

[Clippy]

Unbelievable. That is it? That's the single reference to a plane incoming at 9:21?

Really?

It's amazing to me that the government is viewed as this monolithic, all-knowing entity that instantly diffuses all knowledge it obtains from all sources perfectly as soon as a single person in that government learns that knowledge.

Unbelievable.

And what would you expect? That they would be following DGM's scanners too?

The 'dog at my homework' excuse might work with some vehicle registration office, but with the US military and SS, it becomes suspicious very quickly.

[boloboffin]

And what would you expect? That they would be following DGM's scanners too?

The 'dog at my homework' excuse might work with some vehical registration office, but with the US military and SS, it becomes suspicious very quickly.

Ah, good, you don't have me on ignore. Please start dealing with all the evidence that Dick Cheney was evacuated at 9:36 in response to Reagan National's call to the Secret Service.

[Clippy]

Ah, good, you don't have me on ignore. Please start dealing with all the evidence that Dick Cheney was evacuated at 9:36 in response to Reagan National's call to the Secret Service.

Sorry to disappoint you boloboffin, but I am not going to be able to produce evidence that the SS officers who were interviewed were lying. I will say that the log of him entering the tunnel does not specify from which end and IIRC, part of the SS timeline is based on alarm data that is no longer retrievable. I'm sure there are others. This is the beauty though of contradictory accounts. You can build different timelines by being selective.

[boloboffin]

Sorry to disappoint you boloboffin, but I am not going to be able to produce evidence that the SS officers who were interviewed were lying. I will say that the log of him entering the tunnel does not specify from which end and IIRC, part of the SS timeline is based on alarm data that is no longer retrievable. I'm sure there are others. This is the beauty though of contradictory accounts. You can build different timelines by being selective.

Who has to be more selective, Clippy? The guy using Mineta to overthrow everything else, or the guy using everything else to overthrow Mineta's timing?

[Clippy]

boloboffin,

Would you provide your interpretation of the Cheney-Russert interview in #83?

[Clippy]

Cheney claims to have learned about the impact at the Pentagon shortly after entering the PEOC (Actually the tunnel leading to the PEOC) which, according to his own timeline, would have been a matter of minutes after it happened.

But that's not what he says in the interview.

[boloboffin]

boloboffin,

Would you provide your interpretation of the Cheney-Russert interview in #83?

Yes. Instead of cherrypicking a single statement, I read the whole thing.

[Clippy]

Yes. Instead of cherrypicking a single statement, I read the whole thing.

This is your interpretation? I'll check back in a while...

[funk de fino]

But that's not what he says in the interview.

There are some mistakes in that interview and also some points ripe for cherry picking.

Big deal. Does not prove Mineta is correct or there was an inside job.

[boloboffin]

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the events of Tuesday. Where were you when you first learned a plane had struck the World Trade Center?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I was in my office Tuesday morning. Monday, I had been in Kentucky, and the president had been in the White House. Tuesday, our roles were sort of reversed. He was in Florida, and I was in the White House Tuesday morning. And a little before 9, my speechwriter came in. We were going to go over some speeches coming up. And my secretary called in just as we were starting to meet just before 9:00 and said an airplane had hit the World Trade Center, and that was the first one that went in. So we turned on the television and watched for a few minutes, and then actually saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. And the--as soon as that second plane showed up, that's what triggered the thought: terrorism, that this was an attack...

MR. RUSSERT: You sensed it immediately, "This is deliberate"?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah.

Time established by mention of second plane crashing: 8:58 a.m.

Then I convened in my office. Condi Rice came down. Her office is right near mine there in the West Wing.

MR. RUSSERT: The national security adviser.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: National security adviser, my chief of staff, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, who works for me, convened in my office, and we started talking about getting the Counterterrorism Task Force up and operating. I talked with the president. I'd given word to Andy Card's staff, who is right next door, to get hold of Andy and/or the president and that I wanted to talk to him as soon as they could hook it up. This call came in, and the president knew at this point about that. We discussed a statement that he might make, and the first statement he made describing this as an act of apparent terrorism flowed out of those conversations.

Time established by mention of president's phone call. President Bush could not have called Cheney before leaving the classroom. That was at the earliest 9:12.

So sometime after 9:12, Bush calls Cheney and they then discuss his speech and other matters.

While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and...

MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically.

Time established by SS interviews: 9:36.

After the phone call from Bush is complete, Cheney waits in his office "watching developments" and "figur out what to do", the Secret Service evacuate him.

Where?

But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.

MR. RUSSERT: This is Flight 77, which had left Dulles.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Which turned out to be Flight 77. It left Dulles, flown west towards Ohio, been captured by the terrorists. They turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down in Ohio, but it really hadn't. Of course, then they turned back and headed back towards Washington. As best we can tell, they came initially at the White House and...

MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...

MR. RUSSERT: Tracking it by radar.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement. The plane obviously didn't hit the White House. It turned away and, we think, flew a circle and came back in and then hit the Pentagon. And that's what the radar track looks like.

Not to the PEOC, but to the underground facility (the PEOC is a room in the facility), specifically to a corridor. He's down here by 9:38.

The result of that--once I got down into the shelter, the first thing I did--there's a secure phone there. First thing I did was pick up the telephone and call the president again, who was still down in Florida, at that point, and strongly urged him to delay his return.

MR. RUSSERT: You told him to stay away from Washington.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I said, `Delay your return. We don't know what's going on here, but it looks like, you know, we've been targeted.'

This phone call experienced some delays in being hooked up. This is sourced in the 9/11 Commission report to the [i]Newsweek interview with Cheney in November 2001, and the Bush-Cheney interview by the Commission.

This is corroborated by Cheney's statement during the next part (a justification for warning Bush away from Washington):

The president was on Air Force One. We received a threat to Air Force One--came through the Secret Service...

MR. RUSSERT: A credible threat to Air Force One. You're convinced of that.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me.

The President didn't board Air Force 1 until after 9:43. That's when the motorcade arrived. So that's about seven minutes from when Cheney picked up the phone until he was able to speak to the President.

Lynne Cheney arrived according to White House logs at 9:52. According to her, when she joined her husband in the tunnel, he was still on the phone with Bush.

Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.

But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit. We had word the State Department had been bombed, that a car bomb had gone off at the State Department. Turned out not to be true, but we didn't know that at the time. We had a report that Norm had provided that there were six airplanes that might have been hijacked, and that's what we started working off of, was that list of six.

The time Cheney entered the PEOC is just before 10:00.

This is completely consistent with every other time Cheney has been interviewed.

ETA: And despite your assertion to gumboot of the contrary, that is precisely what the interview says.

[pomeroo]

Accepting the Zelikow timeline would require that the following are reasonable:

* that Cheney was rushed to the PEOC at 9:36 despite reports of an incoming plane at 9:21.

* that news of the attack on the Pentagon reached the PEOC 22+ minutes after it happened.

I'm having a hard time with those.


There is, as you know, no such animal as a "Zelikow timeline." You and your fellow liars have been caught again and are, as usual, reduced to pretending that a convenient devil-figure magically manipulated the conclusions of a group that included several highly partisan Democrats.

The elephant in the parlor continues to be the total lack of interest shown by worldwide news media in the biggest story of all time. Why was Cheney's "confession" ignored by everyone except a handful of disturbed adolescents and the charlatans who lead them by their noses?

[Clippy]

There is, as you know, no such animal as a "Zelikow timeline." You and your fellow liars have been caught again and are, as usual, reduced to pretending that a convenient devil-figure magically manipulated the conclusions of a group that included several highly partisan Democrats.

The elephant in the parlor continues to be the total lack of interest shown by worldwide news media in the biggest story of all time. Why was Cheney's "confession" ignored by everyone except a handful of disturbed adolescents and the charlatans who lead them by their noses?

pomeroo, your naivety is touching.

[Clippy]

boloboffin,

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that your timeline is correct, I want you to interpret that last paragraph for me.

[boloboffin]

boloboffin,

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that your timeline is correct, I want you to interpret that last paragraph for me.

If we assume for the sake of argument that my timeline is correct (supported as it is by all evidence but Mineta's timing), then the argument is over.

[Clippy]

If we assume for the sake of argument that my timeline is correct (supported as it is by all evidence but Mineta's timing), then the argument is over.

boloboffin, your timeline requires an absurd interpretation of the paragraph. Your evasion tells me how interested you are in honest debate. Have a good day.

[boloboffin]

boloboffin, your timeline requires an absurd interpretation of the paragraph. Your evasion tells me how interested you are in honest debate. Have a good day.

Mind demonstrating how?

Your "absurdity" doesn't negate the evidence. I know you want it to. I know you're pretending it does, possibly to the point that you think you aren't pretending.

When you're ready to face reality, I'll be here.

[Clippy]

boloboffin,

Please review a logic text. Buh bye

[boloboffin]

Next!

[gumboot]

And what would you expect? That they would be following DGM's scanners too?

The 'dog at my homework' excuse might work with some vehicle registration office, but with the US military and SS, it becomes suspicious very quickly.


NORAD had no interaction with the USSS during the 9/11 attacks.

[CurtC]

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that your timeline is correct, I want you to interpret that last paragraph for me.

I'm not boloboffin, but what's to interpret? It means what it says. Apparently you must think it says something incriminating, so please tell us specifically what you mean.

[gumboot]

It's worth pointing out that the secure bunker under the White House is not a single room with an entry tunnel, but actually a facility with various rooms. The two main rooms are the PEOC at one end of the White House and the Situation Room at the opposite end (which is where Richard Clarke was during the attacks). The two major sections are connected by an underground corridor which is what Cheney entered before moving to the PEOC. The entire complex constitutes the "secure bunker" not just the PEOC.

Of course it doesn't matter at all whether Cheney was told about the incident at the Pentagon when he was in the PEOC specifically or just the bunker generally. But's important and relevant to note is that he wasn't evacuated to the bunker until after AA77 was detected above Washington DC, and that was when it was 6 miles from the White House.

Let me restate for you Clippy, because you ignored me earlier. At 0925 - when Mineta claims to have witnessed a conversation about the approaching AA77 - no one on the ground in the entire United States knew where AA77 was.

Simply put, regardless of when Mineta witnessed this conversation (and I have no doubt that it did in fact occur), and regardless of what aircraft it was in reference to, it cannot have been AA77. Mineta's testimony, therefore, is in error.

[SDC]

So Clippy surrendered? That's how it appears. Good work. Kudzus to youse guys.

[tanabear]

Let me restate for you Clippy, because you ignored me earlier. At 0925 - when Mineta claims to have witnessed a conversation about the approaching AA77 - no one on the ground in the entire United States knew where AA77 was.

The fact that no one on the ground knew that Flight 77 was hijacked before it hit the Pentagon only became the "official story" with the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report in July of 2004. From September of 2001 till July of 2004, they did know about Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. NORAD released their official response times on 09/18/2001 and it stated that they were notified of Flight 77 at 9:24AM.

tanabear, you're really good at digging through 911CR footnotes. Try these on for size:

"209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004)."

This is the documentation used in determining that Dick Cheney was evacuated from his office by the Secret Service around 9:37 a.m.

What documentation? The evacuation of the Vice-President is based on a Newsweek article. The Secret Service timeline is based on, "alarm data, which is no longer retrievable." So there is no hard documentation to suggest this version of events. The Secret Service timeline data is not "retrievable"; the call between Bush and Cheney in the tunnel has no documentation; the first call between Bush and Cheney after Cheney enters the PEOC has no documentation. It sounds like this story isn't based on much.

The White House photographer David Bohrer is believed enough in truther circles to be regularly quoted as evidence that Cheney was evacuated "shortly after 9am" (although there's actually no evidence that he said anything of the kind). So presumably you'll find it rather more convincing that he also talks about the incident as relating to Flight 93:

From 2001 until the publication of the 9/11 Commission report, the "official story" was that they knew about Flight 93 before it crashed. Since the new story has them not knowing about Flight 93 until after it crashed, they had to create another story. Note 216 of the Commission states, "In reconstructing events that occurred in the PEOC on the morning of 9/11, we relied on (1) phone logs of the White House switchboard; (2) notes of Lewis Libby, Mrs. Cheney, and Ari Fleischer; (3) the tape (and then transcript) of the air threat conference call; and (4) Secret Service and White House Situation Room logs, as well as four separate White House Military Office logs (the PEOC Watch Log, the PEOC Shelter Log, the Communications Log, and the 9/11 Log)."

They do not rely on the testimony of David Bohrer. As Karl Rove stated, "If you take the trajectory of the plane, of Flight 93 after it passes Pittsburgh and draw a straight line, it's gonna go to Washington, DC." This is a story about them tracking Flight 93 before it crashed. Since the 9/11 Commission said this never happened, they had to effectively rule out all claims to the contrary. Someone continually changing their story does not enhance their credibility. Norman Mineta's timeline is internally consistent.

[gumboot]

The fact that no one on the ground knew that Flight 77 was hijacked before it hit the Pentagon only became the "official story" with the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report in July of 2004. From September of 2001 till July of 2004, they did know about Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. NORAD released their official response times on 09/18/2001 and it stated that they were notified of Flight 77 at 9:24AM.


Except we don't need to rely on "official stories". NORAD got their initial account wrong. Everyone knows that. I've listened to their recordings though, so I don't need to rely on what officials tell me.


From 2001 until the publication of the 9/11 Commission report, the "official story" was that they knew about Flight 93 before it crashed.

Where have you been for the last five years? Everyone knows NORAD's initial timeline of the attacks was totally wrong. Get with the play.


Norman Mineta's timeline is internally consistent.

No it isn't.

[pomeroo]

pomeroo, your naivety is touching.


Why do twoofers who get everything wrong and are unable to think their way out of a paper bag pretend that other people are naive? Nobody believes you. Tell us why not a single reporter anywhere in the world finds your fantasy newsworthy. Tell us why nobody except a few low-IQ dunces on the net imagine that Cheney confessed to a monstrous crime.

You people would look less ridiculous if you took a backward step occasionally, instead of clinging desperately to every single discredited myth. Your Mineta falsehood has been exposed: live with it.

[Jonnyclueless]

You now these guys are going through a lot of work just to try and prove circumstantial evidence. If we were to remove all rational thought and assume that Mineta's time proves that everyone else was lying, based on a lack of evidence only, then how does this prove 9/11 was an inside job?

[boloboffin]

tanabear, that's amusing how you clipped out 3/4ths of what I typed and pretended it was the entire quote. Perhaps you felt that enough thread had occurred between then and now that no one would go back and check it. Silly tanabear.

The evacuation of the VPOTUS is not just based on the Newsweek interview. It's also based on the Delmonico interview and Matalin's notes.

Lynne confirms the call in the tunnel, but NOT the call on entering the PEOC.

[gumboot]

The call from the President to the VP was also documented at the President's end by (I think) his press secretary who made notes of the conversation. That's how the 9/11 Commission were able to determine what time it occured.

[Clippy]

CurtC,

Sorry, I'm not going to spell it out for you. Kindly reread the posts. If you need a hint, look at gumboot's post. He's at least trying to deal with the issue. All I can say about boloboffin is that he's either dishonest, or dim-witted.

[boloboffin]

CurtC,

Sorry, I'm not going to spell it out for you. Kindly reread the posts. If you need a hint, look at gumboot's post. He's at least trying to deal with the issue. All I can say about boloboffin is that he's either dishonest, or dim-witted.Translation: "Whaaaaaaa! Boloboffin won't step into my carefully laid trap that's all in my mind! Whaaaaaa!"

Sheesh. Get ova yaself.

[Clippy]

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee147/S1kun1t/SecretServiceFOIA.jpg?t=1210070036

[WildCat]

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee147/S1kun1t/SecretServiceFOIA.jpg?t=1210070036
So in this gigantic conspiracy you propose they couldn't fake a record showing the time of Cheney's entry into the PEOC?

[T.A.M.]

OMG;

so they were smart enough to pull off the greatest conspiracy of all time, but too dimwitted to fake SS records of Cheney's entry into the PEOC.

Doh!, done in by investigooglists and the damn FOIA!!

TAM;)

[twinstead]

...and we would have got away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog!

[lapman]

Are you sure the SS would have that info? Who really runs the PEOC?

[boloboffin]

It's not many groups that run around, proudly displaying signs of their ignorance. That's got to be the worst worded FOIA I've seen, especially considering that the 911CR lists out the actual names of the documents they want. A little legwork would get you a number of likely places to submit a FOIA request to, and then you list the specific documents you want.

:boggled: