"Do the orders still stand?" - Person identified

[Childlike Empress]

Finally we know who the person was who asked Cheney if "the orders still stand", as reported by Norman Mineta. It was naval aide Douglas F. Cochrane. Here (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181511.0)'s the research leading to his identification.

Our friend Jeff Hill aka shure called him already. Cochrane has nothing to add and doesn't want to tell what Cheney's orders were. His interview with the 9/11 commission is still classified. The phone call:

-O0TP_7UWok

[leftysergeant]

Glad to see someone stand up to the Canadian nut job like that.

He got the answer he deserved.

[T.A.M.]

Jeff hill is a psychotic stalker. Imo he should be arrested for harrassment. As for this "order still stands" crap...welcome back to 2006...move on.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

If he'd said that the order in question was a shoot-down order and the whole exchange referred to the projected track of flight 93, would any conspiracy theorists believe him?

Dave

[TexasJack]

He must have said "I have nothing further to add" about 10 times. He showed more patience than I would.

Somebody also needs to explain to this guy that he needs to tell the other party that the phone call is being recorded, otherwise, it is worthless.

[JimBenArm]

"This phone call may be recorded for quality control."

[AJM8125]

Big deal. Find the "What's the frequency Kenneth" guy. Then I'll be impressed.

[Thunder]

9-11 Truthers fail to grasp this very simple fact:

NO ONE CARES

[Childlike Empress]

I love how he repeats the mantras "the 9/11 commission report is the authorative narrative" and "i have nothing further to add" over and over again, but doesn't hang up. What he says at the very end of the call* is kind of spooky in that light, don't you think?

*edit: "... and i would really appreciate it if you would find it in your heart ... to ... get the truth out about what really happened that day. It would help 6.5 billion people in this world right now."

Oh oh.

edit2: It was Hill who said that, not Cochrane. Sorry about that.

[JimBenArm]

No, not really.
Especially since I didn't listen to it.

[R.Mackey]

Jeff hill is a psychotic stalker. Imo he should be arrested for harrassment. As for this "order still stands" crap...welcome back to 2006...move on.

I have it on good authority (second-hand with a reliable intermediary) that Jeff Hill has renounced Trutherism, and now thinks the whole thing was silly. Good for him if it's true.

The last few holdouts will eventually figure it out. Some people just need a little time. OK, a lot of time. :D

[Thunder]

I love how he repeats the mantras "the 9/11 commission report is the authorative narrative" and "i have nothing further to add" over and over again, but doesn't hang up. What he says at the very end of the call* is kind of spooky in that light, don't you think?

you do realize that except for on the internet, no one cares...right?

[ergo]

My comments would be maybe not have Jeff Hill doing this kind of calling. He does not have a professional manner. Why not write a letter first. Less confrontational. Maybe they're going for the Michael Moore effect. I think that can be really useful in certain situations but not in this one.

I'm a little confused as well: Mineta talked about a "young man", but we see at 1:50 a picture of an obviously older man. What are we to make of this?

Final comment: I agree. Why doesn't Cochrane just hang up on him? If I really had "nothing more to add", I would. If you're unwilling to explain what you meant by "do the orders still stand?" then you might as well hang up. Repeating the words "The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative..." like it's a line you've been fed isn't terribly convincing, either.

[Childlike Empress]

Mineta was 71 when he made his testimony. "Young man" is a relative term.

[T.A.M.]

My comments would be maybe not have Jeff Hill doing this kind of calling. He does not have a professional manner. Why not write a letter first. Less confrontational. Maybe they're going for the Michael Moore effect. I think that can be really useful in certain situations but not in this one.

I'm a little confused as well: Mineta talked about a "young man", but we see at 1:50 a picture of an obviously older man. What are we to make of this?

Final comment: I agree. Why doesn't Cochrane just hang up on him? If I really had "nothing more to add", I would. If you're unwilling to explain what you meant by "do the orders still stand?" then you might as well hang up. Repeating the words "The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative..." like it's a line you've been fed isn't terribly convincing, either.

What you should make of it, is that recollecting what occurred in the heat of the moment with such an event is not likely reliable unless backed up with numerous other witnesses, and physical evidence.

The issue is so old, I had almost forgotten it...not that it deserved much attention in the first place.

Mackey:

If what you say about Hill is true, then good for him...there is hope that maybe the rest of the turds will wake up and realize what crap they are spewing.

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

Mineta was 71 when he made his testimony. "Young man" is a relative term.

Yes, and so is "tall". As well as "well-dressed" and "intelligent".

"Pointless", however, is fairly obvious to most people.

[Childlike Empress]

If what you say about Hill is true, then good for him...


It isn't true. Mackey's source missed some details.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey:

If what you say about Hill is true, then good for him...there is hope that maybe the rest of the turds will wake up and realize what crap they are spewing.

There is. But keep in mind this is unverified.

From his latest "work" I'd say he's still a bit suspicious, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a full-blown, raving, Illuminati-or-Space-Lizards Truther anymore. Some inquiry is healthy (although cold-calling people and publicizing their names and phone numbers based on unfounded suspicions is definitely not).

However, he certainly doesn't support CE's pet insanity any longer, namely Craig Ranke's delusions. Interesting how quickly those rifts get paved over, isn't it?

[Horatius]

I love how he repeats the mantras "the 9/11 commission report is the authorative narrative" and "i have nothing further to add" over and over again, but doesn't hang up.


He also mentions that Shure was calling his official government cell phone. It's generally frowned upon to just hang up on people when it's your official phone, even if the person you're talking to is clearly insane.

He'd also be aware that anything he says may be quoted and/or misquoted. In that case, it's best to not say anything substantive.

What he says at the very end of the call* is kind of spooky in that light, don't you think?

*edit: "... and i would really appreciate it if you would find it in your heart ... to ... get the truth out about what really happened that day. It would help 6.5 billion people in this world right now."

Oh oh.


Of course, the "he" who said that was Shure.....

[Childlike Empress]

Of course, the "he" who said that was Shure.....


Oops. Indeed. I confused their voices. I'm sorry about that.

[kookbreaker]

Big deal. Find the "What's the frequency Kenneth" guy. Then I'll be impressed.

Ummm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tager)

[CompusMentus]

From his latest "work" I'd say he's still a bit suspicious, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a full-blown, raving, Illuminati-or-Space-Lizards Truther anymore. Some inquiry is healthy (although cold-calling people and publicizing their names and phone numbers based on unfounded suspicions is definitely not).


My impression was that he had merely abandoned the "no-plane" aspect to his trutherism.

I remember an interview at the end of last year where he outlined his objections to the no-plane tenet. Fetzer the host, was apoplexicly aghast at such heresy :=]

I think you can still find him haunting creepy hidey-holes such as the Ikce forums giving it large as they say.....


Compus

[AJM8125]

Ummm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tager)

Now that's impressive! Thanks! :D

[Dog Town]

Now that's impressive! Thanks! :D

Luckily, Twoofers don't really believe their own nonsense! If they did, things like this would be rampant. Though, their need for attention, of any kind, doesn't rule this out entirely. Sad, really.

[TexasJack]

I just hope Jeff Hill is taking his medication for his mental disorder which landed him into some trouble in the past when he was off them.

I know he upset many private citizens near Shanksville by making the calls public that he recorded without permission. All these type of calls are completely unethical and worthless.

[beachnut]

Finally we know who the person was who asked Cheney if "the orders still stand", as reported by Norman Mineta. It was naval aide Douglas F. Cochrane. Here (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181511.0)'s the research leading to his identification.

Our friend Jeff Hill aka shure called him already. Cochrane has nothing to add and doesn't want to tell what Cheney's orders were. His interview with the 9/11 commission is still classified. The phone call:

-O0TP_7UWok Telling an idiot he is nice man; very polite.
Jeff, he told you the official account is correct! How stupid is Jeff? And is it true he is cured? He told you the truth.

"The text book on math is the authoritative narrative for math." Jeff says, "but they are saying 2+2 is eleventeemillion!" reality says, "Jeff, the math text book is the authoritative narrative on math". Jeff says, "tell me truth"... Open the book Jeff.

Prank calls from an idiot. Jeff Hill is dumber than dirt and posts proof on the Internet. Has he recovered from the terminal stupidity of 911 truth?

[WildCat]

Didn't Jeff Hill once admit he was supposed to be on anti-psychotic meds and hadn't been taking them?

Not that being mentally ill is a requirement for being a truther, but it sure helps!

[Sam.I.Am]

<truther>

He was obviously just repeating what he was ordered to say if ever asked about his testimony. COVERUP!!1!

</truther>

<reality>

As someone who had to deal with the public on a daily basis while in uniform I can tell you that just about anything, classified or not, is kept as limited in scope as possible when dealing with obvious idiots. This is not because of some nefarious scheme but because people often hear what they want to hear (Case in point: CE originally thought that the officers central PA accent and lower voice sounded the same as the snow loons higher pitched Canadian accent).

I'd also like to point out that the officer didn't start out with "The 9/11 commission report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11. I have nothing further to add" and didn't go there until being polite was shown to be pointless (over 8 minutes into the clip).

I had a few cut and dried answers for certain questions as well and if the idiot kept persisting, after being politely told several times that I wasn't going answer their questions (for whatever reason), I would re-direct them to the OIC. This officer did the same basic thing by referring him to the 9/11 CR. Sounds like standard naval procedure to me.

</reality>

[ProBonoShill]

Finally we know who the person was who asked Cheney if "the orders still stand", as reported by Norman Mineta. It was naval aide Douglas F. Cochrane. Here (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181511.0)'s the research leading to his identification.

Our friend Jeff Hill aka shure called him already. Cochrane has nothing to add and doesn't want to tell what Cheney's orders were. His interview with the 9/11 commission is still classified. The phone call:



So? Who cares?

[Childlike Empress]

Why do you ask?

[Horatius]

So? Who cares?



Well, I do. Now we can see that this guy wasn't some brain-dead automaton who would simply accept orders to help murder thousands of his countrymen. He's a real guy, who really dealt with a really bad situation, and even after all that, can still remain civil whist being hounded by a clearly insane person.

So that's nice to know.

[jammonius]

Finally we know who the person was who asked Cheney if "the orders still stand", as reported by Norman Mineta. It was naval aide Douglas F. Cochrane. Here (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181511.0)'s the research leading to his identification.

Our friend Jeff Hill aka shure called him already. Cochrane has nothing to add and doesn't want to tell what Cheney's orders were. His interview with the 9/11 commission is still classified. The phone call:

-O0TP_7UWok

You know what. Jeff Hill conducted a very good interview with this Douglas Cochran fellow. Oddly enough, I think Cochrane actually WANTED to say more than he did.

He has cards he ain't showin' and that is for sure.

Here's a very rough partial summary of some of the important parts of what was said:

0:40 the young man
1:54 Doesn't look that young.
2:36 I'm not prepared to talk about this subject at all.
3:00 That was a long long time ago Most of the work I did as Naval aide to the vice president
3:52 Man in black going in opposite direction of everyone else.
4:55 Commission Report is official I don't really have anything to add beyond that
5:55 History buff, nothing further to add
6:12 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative of that day of that series of days. I answered every question the commission had in a public forum and later in a classified forum.
6:39 Q. Well sir do you believe we have been told the truth about 9/11
[PREGNANT PAUSE]
A. I have nothing further to add...
<8:00 Conversation continues with reliance placed on 9/11 Commission Report, how'd you get my military cell phone, I have nothing further to add, etc.
9:00 Q. If you were to answer my question about the orders do you think that would get Cheney in trouble?
[PREGNANT PAUSE]
9:52 Goodnight Jeff

I think Cochrane knows that the planes aspect was simply a part of the MILITARY EXERCISE and that there were no planes involved in 9/11. That is what he wants to be able to say and cannot say.

Jeff Hill is one of the best 9/11 investigators there is.

The conversation with Cochrane is a splendid piece of work. It is noteworthy for what was said, how it was said, voice inflection and so on. There's more to Cochrane than meets the eye here, folks. That man is on the verge of blowing the whistle. Mark my words.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/cochrane.jpg?t=1282335164

[grandmastershek]

Why would anyone be shocked by the fact that someone wouldn't want to answer some CT nut's questions? Like every other interview it would either be quote mined or a reason for truthers to harrass him for lying because he didn't confirm their beliefs.

[jammonius]

Why would anyone be shocked by the fact that someone wouldn't want to answer some CT nut's questions? Like every other interview it would either be quote mined or a reason for truthers to harrass him for lying because he didn't confirm their beliefs.

Thank you for your speculation about the interview conducted by Jeff Hill with Douglas F. Cochrane. Your opinion concerning why Cochrane did not answer questions is as good as anyone else's.

I, for one, have a different view on the interview. I think Cochrane wants to be able to say more than he did. I have elsewhere given my impression about what he wants to say.

all the best

[grandmastershek]

Thank you for your speculation about the interview conducted by Jeff Hill with Douglas F. Cochrane. Your opinion concerning why Cochrane did not answer questions is as good as anyone else's.

I, for one, have a different view on the interview. I think Cochrane wants to be able to say more than he did. I have elsewhere given my impression about what he wants to say.

all the best

Except we can give a million examples of truthers, you included, doing what I stated. The difference between you and I is mine has evidence...yours is your belief in mind reading.

He has cards he ain't showin' and that is for sure.

Or he doesn' t want to answer right off the top of his head and make a mistake which kooks will cling to as "evidence".

[Redtail]

Thank you for your speculation about the interview conducted by Jeff Hill with Douglas F. Cochrane. Your opinion concerning why Cochrane did not answer questions is as good as anyone else's.

I, for one, have a different view on the interview. I think Cochrane wants to be able to say more than he did. I have elsewhere given my impression about what he wants to say.

all the best
Why do you think Cochrane is a coward?

[jammonius]

Why do you think Cochrane is a coward?

Redtail,

Oh, alright, let me give a hint about proper process, yet again:

If you want to attribute to me a thought, claim, inference or interpretation that I or anyone else has not said, it is best to check for accuracy of understanding before attributing to the person something not said.

Had you double checked with me for accuracy of understanding I would have said as follows:

No, I do not think Cochrane is a coward. Instead, I think he is brave astute and is biding his time.

That said, you might get additional disagreement about cowardice out of Dtugg who had something interesting to say about such matters over in the SAIC-ARA thread. There, you might want to take a look at this post by Dtugg:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6204174&postcount=293

Based on Dtugg's post, it is possible that Dtugg would attribute a certain fear to Cochrane that would be well founded and not, therefore, consistent with cowardice.

Do you agree with the implications of Dtugg's post?

[jammonius]

Except we can give a million examples of truthers, you included, doing what I stated. The difference between you and I is mine has evidence...yours is your belief in mind reading.



Or he doesn' t want to answer right off the top of his head and make a mistake which kooks will cling to as "evidence".

Your post is not very clear to me. Would you consider revising it to make whatever point you are seeking to make a bit more cogent?

Meanwhile, do I understand you to claim your speculation is better than that of others, including mine? If so, I think it fairer to say that "speculation is speculation." You might be right and you might be wrong; and, vice versa as it applies to me.

all the best

[Childlike Empress]

Oddly enough, I think Cochrane actually WANTED to say more than he did.


That's the impression that i got, too. The way in which he repeated his mantras was very odd. That's what led to my confusion about who said the last sentence. I'm actually quite embarrassed about that mistake, because it shows my confirmation bias/wishful thinking. Thanks for catching it, Horatius. It was in time that i was able to edit my earlier post.

[TexasJack]

Yes, I think he did want to say more. He wanted to call Hill a loon.

[Sam.I.Am]

There was nothing odd in his "Mantras". He didn't go into that mode until after the caller started asking the same (reworded) questions over again. If anything I was surprised it took him that long to get there. I would've been there about a minute into the call.

[CompusMentus]

That's the impression that i got, too. The way in which he repeated his mantras was very odd. That's what led to my confusion about who said the last sentence. I'm actually quite embarrassed about that mistake, because it shows my confirmation bias/wishful thinking. Thanks for catching it, Horatius. It was in time that i was able to edit my earlier post.


Did someone open a window? I smell fresh air.

Compus

[Horatius]

That's the impression that i got, too. The way in which he repeated his mantras was very odd. That's what led to my confusion about who said the last sentence. I'm actually quite embarrassed about that mistake, because it shows my confirmation bias/wishful thinking. Thanks for catching it, Horatius. It was in time that i was able to edit my earlier post.


Thank you for acknowledging your mistake.

Of course, the rest of it ends up in personal interpretation. I'm inclined to agree that:


Yes, I think he did want to say more. He wanted to call Hill a loon.



In my job, I occasionally have to talk to less-than-rational people who call me, and sometimes I get into the mode that you see in this video. It starts off quite genially - "Hey, someone's calling to ask a question, I'll tell them what I can!", but, as it becomes clear that the caller has an agenda, it evolves into "How can I get off the phone without saying something that will blow up in my face, if this weirdo complains to my boss/his member of Parliament/Congress/The Press?"

The fall back onto excessive politeness and stonewalling is simply a means of denying the caller any good reasons for registering a complaint.

[jammonius]

jam;

cold calling people demanding answers to questions you have, and pestering them over and over again does not make you an investigator, it makes you a stalker.

TAM:)

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks

[Horatius]

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks



So you excuse ******* truthers, because no one else has approached him in a respectful manner?


Nice.

[jammonius]

Let's go about this the right way.

First, let's provide a link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O0TP_7UWok&feature=player_embedded

Next, let us take what might be considered the single most important question and answer segment and give it a time signature and a quote of its content. That segment might well be as follows:

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.

Posters, that is a serious piece of information. In response to whether or not the truth has been told, the answer could easily have been yes. But it was not. Douglas Cochrane said, instead, he had nothing further to add.

That is remarkable.

Certainly, a remark like that can and should be interpreted as one casting doubt on the truthfulness of the common storyline of 9/11. This Capt. Cochrane, if that is what his rank is, may turn out to be an important source for cracking open the falsity of 9/11.

Once again, Jeff Hill has done a splendid piece of investigative work here.

What have debunker websites developed concerning Cochrane? Surely they are interested in this individual and in his part in the events of 9/11, right?

Frankly, I have looked a bit and have not found hardly any mention at all of Cochrane in debunker sources. Admittedly, I am not the best one to go searching in debunker websites because I think those websites are stupid, but perhaps those who trust them and rely on them and praise them can point us all to debunker-based information about Douglas Cochrane.

Can someone do that please?

As things now stand, it appears Jeff Hill has taken an important investigative step that is not only uncontradicted, it is also unmatched.

What do debunkers have to show in this respect?

[Lyrandar]

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.

Posters, that is a serious piece of information. In response to whether or not the truth has been told, the answer could easily have been yes. But it was not. Douglas Cochrane said, instead, he had nothing further to add.

That is remarkable.

Certainly, a remark like that can and should be interpreted as one casting doubt on the truthfulness of the common storyline of 9/11. This Capt. Cochrane, if that is what his rank is, may turn out to be an important source for cracking open the falsity of 9/11.

... Actually, just about any government official would almost certainly rather say nothing than answer a question like that. Since he's in the Navy, he may well have specific orders not to talk to the press (or anyone else who might quote him and put it on the Internet). Also, that's standard policy, as far as I know - this wouldn't be a specific ban on him talking about 9/11 for some malicious reason.

Even that speculation is rather pointless, though - while we can say whatever we like and draw whatever conclusions we like from what he says, ultimately saying we should draw any conclusion about what he intended to imply is difficult given that the only person who knows what Cochrane intended to imply is Cochrane himself.

[Sam.I.Am]

... Actually, just about any government official would almost certainly rather say nothing than answer a question like that. Since he's in the Navy, he may well have specific orders not to talk to the press (or anyone else who might quote him and put it on the Internet). Also, that's standard policy, as far as I know - this wouldn't be a specific ban on him talking about 9/11 for some malicious reason.

Even that speculation is rather pointless, though - while we can say whatever we like and draw whatever conclusions we like from what he says, ultimately saying we should draw any conclusion about what he intended to imply is difficult given that the only person who knows what Cochrane intended to imply is Cochrane himself.

When I was in the Navy (and not at the duty station where I was expected to interact with the general public on a daily basis) the general rule was to decline any interview as it related to my job and direct them to the base PAO (Public Affairs Office) or other higher authority. I already related above what we did at my duty station where I did interact with the general public in the situation where someone insisted on an answer I either couldn't or wouldn't give. Point them to a higher authority, which in this case is what was done by directing him to read the 9/11 CR for his answers.

This falls under SOP for almost anything like this.

[jammonius]

There goes Jam off the deep (or is that Derp?) end again.

Tell me Jam, at what point did the officer ask any questions, much less "How'd you get my military cell phone"? What makes you think that you can ever be taken seriously if you can't get the most basic facts correct but instead listen to what the voices in your head tell you what was said instead of actually listening to what was said.

Lurkers and posters. This is a good example of what I meant above when I stated "This is not because of some nefarious scheme but because people often hear what they want to hear". The most prudent recourse is to just say nothing or, when that's not an option, refer them to the record as to what happened. Then again people like Jammy can't even do that without adding in things that aren't there either.

Take it easy, Sam, we're all just trying to do the best we can, right? This thread is new, we haven't really had a chance to do a lot with the information we have been presented here with. You are quite right that I misquoted Douglas Cochrane. However, there were a number of ways you could have treated that error, including merely correcting it.

You chose, however, to turn the error into a form of "gotcha" and that is alright if that is how you view the posting process. As you may know, I don't play "gotcha games" because I don't think they add anything useful.

We all make mistakes. Here, I will now correct the one I made concerning Douglas Cochrane's reference to his cell phone. He said "government cell phone" not military cell phone as I previously posted.

Here's a better transcription of what he said with a little more context. Mind you, even this one might not be totally verbatim, but it is closer than I had posted previously:

5:04 - 5:29 "...Like I said I appreciate your inquisitive nature, ah, I am somewhat of a history buff myself. I appreciate your quest for knowledge, but I don't have anything else to add. And, and frankly this is kind of an imposition to call me on my government cell phone. I'm really not, I don't think it's appropriate, certainly not appreciated."

There is much food for thought contained in the foregoing investigative information made possible by the efforts of Jeff Hill.

Permit me to suggest we treat this matter as "information" and that we take a cooperative approach to assessing it.

Does anyone have the capacity to provide an entire transcript that can be posted up for common usage?

[TexasJack]

Cochrane repeats a half dozen times that the 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative of the events that happened that day, and repeats over a dozen times that he has nothing further to add. It sounds pretty obvious that he is backing up the "official story" truthers, correct?

Cochrane remained polite and professional, and I commend him for it, despite having to repeat himself so often.

[Horatius]

Permit me to suggest we treat this matter as "information" and that we take a cooperative approach to assessing it.



If "we" are to take a "cooperative" approach to analyzing this video, then such biased accounts as this:


Next, let us take what might be considered the single most important question and answer segment and give it a time signature and a quote of its content. That segment might well be as follows:

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.




...should have no part of it. On the basis of nothing more than your own desire to inflate the importance of this exchange, you've declared it "the single most important question and answer segment", without noting that it takes place about 4 minutes after he first said he wasn't prepared to talk about this issue (time about 2:32)*, and about 3:15 after he first said he didn't have anything else to add to it (time 3:15). For you to latch onto a repetition that far along in the conversation, and declare it "the single most important question and answer segment" is purely dishonest, disingenuous, and dismaying.




*Which was pretty much the first substantive thing he said in the whole conversation.

[Reheat]

Any attempt to draw inferences from this "interview" (other than that this Jeff Hill is a jackass) is both humorous and asinine. As has already been pointed out Cochrane's responses are really SOP for questions of this nature to a military person of any and all ranks.

I commend him for not getting annoyed after having to repeat himself several times and saying what he would have preferred to say which most likely would been something along the lines of "FO and don't bother me again you obnoxious bastid"!

[Childlike Empress]

Frankly, I have looked a bit and have not found hardly any mention at all of Cochrane in debunker sources. Admittedly, I am not the best one to go searching in debunker websites because I think those websites are stupid, but perhaps those who trust them and rely on them and praise them can point us all to debunker-based information about Douglas Cochrane.


Look at the title of this thread - the news is that Cochrane was identified. I linked to a thread on prisonplanet forum where the research was done. Hill's call first of all confirmed that Cochrane is indeed the person in question.

So MikeW here has some work to do to update his site.

[MikeW]

So MikeW here has some work to do to update his site.
>shrug< - most truthers have yet to even acknowledge the existence of the first document referring to logs of Mineta's arrival time, which I pointed out in February 2009:

http://911myths.com/images/thumb/c/cd/Mineta_peoc.png/600px-Mineta_peoc.png
(hotlinked from my own site)

So if anyone has significant site updates to make, I really don't think it's me.

[T.A.M.]

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks

Who here claims to be an investigator. That was my only point. You can call him curious, you can call him brave (though I prefer creepily stalkish), but he is not an investigator in any accepted term of the word that I can see.

He is a stalker.

TAM:)

[AJM8125]

Let's go about this the right way. <blather snipped>

My impressions, now that I've actually watched the ambush:

1. High level government employees aren't likely to give impromptu phone interviews.

2. Mr. Cochrane very likely and correctly deduced he was being recorded.

3. His demeanor was 100% professional.

Now then jammonius, the above aside, where the hell do you get off finding fault with Mr. Cochrane for refusing to answer those questions? By your own standards you yourself would've hand waved those questions away because you don't play "20 questions" or "Gotcha".

THAT is rich, you hypocrite. Gotcha.

[ArcanumNoctis]

So the naval officer was suppose to say on a government cell phone that he thinks the government is lying?

LOL, so stupid.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181511.0)'s the research leading to his identification.

Your link is a prisonplanet.com forum post.

[Oystein]

...
Now then jammonius, the above aside, where the hell do you get off finding fault with Mr. Cochrane for refusing to answer those questions? By your own standards you yourself would've hand waved those questions away because you don't play "20 questions" or "Gotcha".

THAT is rich, you hypocrite. Gotcha.

Hehe *thumbs up*

[beachnut]

Thank you for your speculation about the interview conducted by Jeff Hill with Douglas F. Cochrane. Your opinion concerning why Cochrane did not answer questions is as good as anyone else's.

I, for one, have a different view on the interview. I think Cochrane wants to be able to say more than he did. I have elsewhere given my impression about what he wants to say.

all the best
... wrong again. The best you can do is call jet engine parts Plymouth wheel-covers. You have delusion on 911, it is no wonder you think when the guy says the official story stands, you have to make up lies based on your delusions.

[LashL]

Discussion about the Norman Mineta timeline has been moved to a previous thread dealing with that subject matter here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161469&page=6).

[jammonius]

Cochrane repeats a half dozen times that the 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative of the events that happened that day, and repeats over a dozen times that he has nothing further to add. It sounds pretty obvious that he is backing up the "official story" truthers, correct?

Yes, you are quite correct that Cochrane stands on the 9/11 Commission Report. And, therein lies the food for thought.

I don't think there is any poster who would frequent this thread, and very few lurkers who do the same, that do not know, full well, that the 9/11 Commission Report has been almost thoroughly discredited, disowned, disavowed and "dissed" in so many ways that one would run out of "dis" words before doing justice to how thoroughly "dissed" the 9/11 Commssion Report has been dissed.

So, best I call do is to call it the DIS-9/11 Report.

Cochrane must be presumed to know as well as any other intelligent, cogent person on planet earth that the DIS-9/11 Report is NOT an authoritative account of the events of 9/11 and is, instead, the opposite; namely, an aspect of the 9/11 coverup.

Texas, I do not understand why you would leave yourself vulnerable to a refutation of this nature.

Your post as quoted above, assumes an almost total ignorance of the way in which the DIS-9/11 Report is regarded.

So, instead of acknowledging that Cochrane's response is a complete dodge and therefore likely an admission that he is withholding information, you chose to go down the path of least resistance and merely say Cochrane relied on something that is, in reality, a nonentity.

You have to do better than that.


Cochrane remained polite and professional, and I commend him for it, despite having to repeat himself so often.

Cochrane was revealing and helpful. I think he may be on the verge of becoming a true whistleblower. IMHO, his reponses reveal a person who knows something that he'd like to disclose if he could only figure out how to do it so without risk of personal harm.

[sheeplesnshills]

So, instead of acknowledging that Cochrane's response is a complete dodge and therefore likely an admission that he is withholding information.

So when you dodge questions it means you are withholding information?:eek: Here I was just thinking you didn't have a clue and didn't know the answers. All along you knew the answers and were merely withholding them from us! Who knew????:rolleyes:

[ProBonoShill]

Well, I do. Now we can see that this guy wasn't some brain-dead automaton who would simply accept orders to help murder thousands of his countrymen. He's a real guy, who really dealt with a really bad situation, and even after all that, can still remain civil whist being hounded by a clearly insane person.

So that's nice to know.

Yes Horatius that is true.

My sense though, is that truthers think by revealing his identity they've found another piece to fit into their bizarre puzzle, when in reality it means nothing and nobody really cares.

[Horatius]

Yes Horatius that is true.

My sense though, is that truthers think by revealing his identity they've found another piece to fit into their bizarre puzzle, when in reality it means nothing and nobody really cares.



Well, yes, but if that were enough to make us ignore something they say, we'd be ignoring everything!

[jammonius]

Well, yes, but if that were enough to make us ignore something they say, we'd be ignoring everything!

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11. :boggled:

all the best

[BigAl]

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11. :boggled:

all the best

word salad.

[Horatius]

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11. :boggled:

all the best



No, I was implying that you had never found anything of any meaning.

[Lyrandar]

There's no reason for why he should be so angry in the first place -- consider that everything he knows about Jeff Hill at that point (presumably) is:
a) He's seen some stuff on the Internet.
b) He's got some questions based on said Internet stuff.

If someone like that gave me a call and I had nothing to hide, I wouldn't have played my cards like that. Would you have?

I don't have anything to hide about how my organization conducts affairs, but I'd still refer queries of this type to the public affairs department. It's best for an organization to speak with one voice to avoid creating mistaken perceptions, particularly the US government. Cochrane knows this; it's part of US Navy policy when dealing with anything which might be posted for public consumption. Hence why he refused to give any answer to those questions.

Clear that they have an agenda? How is wanting to know about a controversial issue surrounding the 9/11 attacks evidence of "having an agenda"?

The way he phrased his question and the fact that he feels more information about 9/11 is necessary would have made me suspicious that he had a point to prove. Repeatedly asking the same questions after getting an answer he dislikes is clear evidence that he's got an axe to grind.

[Tricky]

Two key words/phrases. On-topic. Civil. Stick to those and your posts will not end up in AAH like several others here.

[Thunder]

Yes!! The orders still stand!!

9-11 was not an inside job.

[BCR]

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

Well, I can't speak for debunkers, only for myself. But no, I'm not intrigued at all.

[jammonius]

Well, I can't speak for debunkers, only for myself. But no, I'm not intrigued at all.

Am I to understand that you also do not question any aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, never have and never will?

[beachnut]

Am I to understand that you also do not question any aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, never have and never will?
BCR is the only real truther in the world. He debunks your delusions without posting! lol

How hard is it to debunk your delusions Plymouth Wheel-covers are jet engine parts. He is right, this topic means nothing and you have no input.

The orders still stand scenario of 911 truth makes no senses, when I hear the "orders" delusion I know the person spewing the nonsense has no capability to understand reality, or express what the "orders" nonsense means in their fantasy version of 911. Like Judy Wood and her idiotic Beam Weapon, the "orders still stand" junk exposes the poster as a fraud and unable to comprehend the events of 911. And you posted nothing to help the failed "orders" scam by 911 truth. You can't explain it, you don't know what it means, and you turning off topic.

[Obviousman]

When I was in the Navy (and not at the duty station where I was expected to interact with the general public on a daily basis) the general rule was to decline any interview as it related to my job and direct them to the base PAO (Public Affairs Office) or other higher authority. I already related above what we did at my duty station where I did interact with the general public in the situation where someone insisted on an answer I either couldn't or wouldn't give. Point them to a higher authority, which in this case is what was done by directing him to read the 9/11 CR for his answers.

This falls under SOP for almost anything like this.

As an active, serving Officer, I can concur. Even the most innocuous comments, just trying to be helpful whilst directing them to the proper spokepeople, can be turned into an adverse comment.

We have a Defence Instruction telling us we are not to comment at all to the media, as Defence members, unless clear to do so. "No comment; please direct your enquiry to Defence media relations" (or something like that) is the correct response. Speaking as a private citizen is one thing; speaking as a member of the Defence Forces is a totally different situation.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Glad to see someone stand up to the Canadian nut job like that.

He got the answer he deserved.

A brass-knuckled shot in the teeth is generally not deliverable via phone lines.

[jammonius]

Glad to see someone stand up to the Canadian nut job like that.

He got the answer he deserved.

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.

The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.

[fess]

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.
That, and I put it mildly, is total bunk without any proof whatsoever. The military exercise of that day had nothing to do with 911.
The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.
You may be indebted to Jeff Hill, but I certainly refuse to align myself with a lying cheat who will stoop to any level to try and trap someone.

[Jackanory]

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.

The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.

'Interview'??? What interview? Do crank calls by crackpots constitute an 'interview' in your book?

I get cold called or knocks at the door by crackpots most weeks trying to sell me double glazing or trying to convert me into a Jehova Witness. After the first few calls/knocks its a pleasant and polite 'NO THANKS'. After the 4th call is a polite 'Stop Calling Me Please I'm not interested'. After the unteenth time the politeness is out the window. I guess that Chochrane has had it the unteenth time but has to remain civil and polite in public. I can only imagine what he was saying and thinking once the call ended.

Had he just hung up without saying a word then I am sure you would have him hanged for that too. By not saying anything he would have incriminating evidence in your deluded mind. You were much more interesting discussing Plymouth hubcaps ya fruitcake.

[rsalinger]

"I don't have anything else to add" usually means just that. The man has nothing to add beyond what's in the 9/11 Commission Report. That's what he says. If you can accurately prise nuanced meanings out of simple statements, please explain how you do it.

[TruthMakesPeace]

"I don't have anything else to add"
He would simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor." This indicates he feels he is above the law, and does not have to answer to the people who pay his salary or pension. He should remember his oath to protect the American people, not the Neocons. At least he showed some conscience and doubt by asking "do the orders still stand?" Better to ask "do the orders stand for public safety and truth?"

[16.5]

He would simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor." This indicates he feels he is above the law. He should remember his oath to protect the American people, not the Neocons. At least he showed some conscience and doubt by asking "do the orders still stand?" Better to ask "do the orders stand for public safety and truth?"

"I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That's why I came to this Forum, to get alternative views, not to be insulted. If it turns out, from a new investigation, that my Government was not complicit in 9/11, then I would be very happy and relieved."

cicorp could simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor." This indicates he feels he is above the law. He should remember his oath to protect the American people, not the Truther bots. He could not even show some conscience and doubt by not lying that he was here just asking questions. Better to ask "hey cicorp how much bull **** you got left"?

[TruthMakesPeace]

cicorp could simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide.
What questions do you have SFB? I'm here for my own purpose, not yours, and not anyone else's, to find out the truth. This forum topic is not about me. Get a life.

I was hoping Douglas Cochran would simply answer the questions, clear himself and Cheney, and put an end to speculation. He only fueled it by taking the 5th. Citizens have the right to know exactly what was said that day over 9 years ago. The military works for the citizenry not vice versa. He sounded guilty and it was disappointing.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Silence is not an acceptable response for skeptics.

If the "orders" were innocuous, like "do the pizza delivery orders still stand?"
then Cochran should have cleared it up once and for all.

[beachnut]

Silence is not an acceptable response for skeptics.

If the "orders" were innocuous, like a pizza delivery order, then Cochra should have cleared it up once and for all.
What orders? Like all of 911 truth claims, the "orders" is the sure sign of woo, pure nonsense, and after 9 years of failure, the sign of possible insanity.

You never served in the military did you?

http://www.afmentor.com/ceremony/Oath_Of_Office.htm Judgment, knowledge? I don't need no stink-en orders... to stop terrorists. Did the Passengers on Flight 93 need orders? LOL, you are lost in the pit of 911 truth, the woo is sticky, need a solvent called knowledge and judgment to clean up...

[16.5]

What questions do you have SFB? I'm here for my own purpose, not yours, and not anyone else's, to find out the truth.

OH I have one!!!

The put options, that you utterly failed to research! That one.

Oh, I just thought of another one! The fact that cell phones in 2001 were more powerful than in 2011. And the fact that discussion has been researched extensively here and on other web sites, the links that you have been provided.

And the videos at the Pentagon? That one? Yeah, that's another.

And whether an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy? Look up that answer, champ.

And here's another that you should answer, if you are so interested in the truth, why are you supporting no planers that even your heroes in the truth movement have already rejected as ridiculous frauds?

the fact that you are ignoring the answers indicates to me what the detectives would call a "guilty demeanor."

[Dave Rogers]

He would simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor." This indicates he feels he is above the law, and does not have to answer to the people who pay his salary or pension. He should remember his oath to protect the American people, not the Neocons. At least he showed some conscience and doubt by asking "do the orders still stand?" Better to ask "do the orders stand for public safety and truth?"

He was a serving military officer being asked to comment on what orders he was acting under during a time of national emergency. He is under no obligation to respond to this request. In particular, refusing to answer pointless questions asked by strangers of no official standing does nothing to indicate that he "feels he is above the law"; whatever their delusions, conspiracy theorists are not agents of the law. The fact that he is unwilling to make public statements off-the-cuff means nothing more than that he is respecting the confidence under which he was automatically placed by virtue of his oath, other than possibly that he has no cause to suspect that the orders were anything other than legal and honourable.

Dave

[BCR]

He would simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor."

No, sounds more like 'it is none of your :rule10 business demeanor' to me.

[Captain_Swoop]

If he had answered differently would you have believed him if you didn't like the answer?

If it's such a deep dark conspiracy why would being 'on oath' make him suddenly spill the beans if he had already conspired to murder thousands of people?

[TruthMakesPeace]

What orders?
You are uninformed on something easily found on the web.
Norman Mineta said that Cochran asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?"

You never served in the military did you?
You make a lot of assumptions that turn out to be wrong.
I volunteered for the USMC and took the oath you refer to.

[TruthMakesPeace]

OH I have one!!!
And the videos at the Pentagon? That one? Yeah, that's another.
And here's another that you should answer, if you are so interested in the truth, why are you supporting no planers
the fact that you are ignoring the answers
Yes, what about the videos at the Pentagon. Why can't we see more than a few fuzzy frames?

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. You write like a junior high school student, making false assumptions (there are plenty of witnesses to a plane) and ad hominems. Fact? What evidence do you have I'm "ignoring the answers". If you write as an adult, I'll read your responses.

[DGM]

Yes, what about the videos at the Pentagon. Why can't we see more than a few fuzzy frames?

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. You write like a junior high school student, making false assumptions (there are plenty of witnesses to a plane) and ad hominems. Fact? What evidence do you have I'm "ignoring the answers". If you write as an adult, I'll read your responses.
You can't see more than "fuzzy frames" because security cameras are not made to capture really fast moving objects. This is old news.


BTW: What orders do you think he meant. The long standing orders that the military would not use deadly force against civilian targets without presidential authorization? What does this all mean, considering the fact we had no assets in position to do anything anyway?

[TruthMakesPeace]

You can't see more than "fuzzy frames" because security cameras are not made to capture really fast moving objects. This is old news.
Ok. But there is still an old question. How about the 84 other security cameras? Why not show the videos, satisfy the skeptics, and dissolve the 9/11 truth movement? No one is calling for a new investigation of the Challenger, because NASA answered the questions.


What does this all mean, considering the fact we had no assets in position to do anything anyway?
Fact? We had F15s at Otis, F16s at Langley, and aircraft at Andrews.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

[Dave Rogers]

You are uninformed on something easily found on the web.
Norman Mineta said that Cochran asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?"

I think beachnut probably knows that. It's one of the less fashionable truther points to obsess on at the moment, but a couple of years ago it was more popular. Truthers seem convinced that "the orders" must have been not to shoot down the target, even though (a) not shooting down airliners is the default, so specific orders not to shoot down an airliner would be superfluous, and (b) Mineta himself said he thought, from the expressions and general demeanour of those involved, that the orders must be that the airliner was to be shot down.

I volunteered for the USMC and took the oath you refer to.

So, when you were given an order, did you go out of your way to tell every random stranger what it was?

Dave

[DGM]

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. .


About this. Do you plan to go back to the other thread you bumped? Ideas for discussion are still up in the air waiting for your input.

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, how about the 84 other security cameras?

Didn't somebody already point out to you that they exist only in the wilful misinterpretations of idealogues? The FBI collected videos pertaining to the Pentagon attack from 85 different security cameras. Of these, only a very small number actually showed the Pentagon, and only one was pointed such that the impact was visible. This, too, is old news.

Dave

[16.5]

Yes, what about the videos at the Pentagon. Why can't we see more than a few fuzzy frames?

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. You write like a junior high school student, making false assumptions (there are plenty of witnesses to a plane) and ad hominems. Fact? What evidence do you have I'm "ignoring the answers". If you write as an adult, I'll read your responses.

Oh stop it. We've seen your kind come and go, dozens of times. Whining that you are only interested in the "truth" but failing to do even one iota of objective research before regurgitating the tired old canards that have been debunked a dozen times.

You are not ignoring the answers? You want proof?

Ok, here ya go, from a zombie thread that you bumped, you ask two ancient questions, got answers, didn’t respond and now you are back in this thread repeating the same old garbage about “the videos at the Pentagon.”

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188089&page=2

Our intrepid hero in the search for the truth bumps the thread at post 55 and gets at least a dozen responses, and IGNORES EVERY ONE OF THEM, and comes here and repeats the same damn nonsense here.

[BCR]

Ok. But there is still an old question. How about the 84 other security cameras? Why not show the videos, satisfy the skeptics, and dissolve the 9/11 truth movement? No one is calling for a new investigation of the Challenger, because NASA answered the questions.


Fact? We had F15s at Otis, F16s at Langley, and aircraft at Andrews.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

What other 84 security camera? You just pulled that out of your rear end my friend.

[TruthMakesPeace]

The FBI collected videos pertaining to the Pentagon attack from 85 different security cameras. Of these, only a very small number actually showed the Pentagon, and only one was pointed such that the impact was visible.
Great. Then there is no national security issue in releasing the photos of a parking lot thousands of people drive by every day.

[16.5]

Great. Then there is no national security issue in releasing the photos of a parking lot thousands of people drive by every day.

You don't even know what was already released, do yourself a favor and stop posting, particularly as you are thread jacking this old thread.

[Dave Rogers]

Great. Then there is no national security issue in releasing the photos of a parking lot thousands of people drive by every day.

That, presumably, is why several of them have been released. However, there is another consideration: these videos are private property. If their contents contain nothing presenting a national security issue, then the FBI does not have the legal authority to publish them.

So there's your answer. How do you plan to ignore it?

Dave

[16.5]

That, presumably, is why several of them have been released. However, there is another consideration: these videos are private property. If their contents contain nothing presenting a national security issue, then the FBI does not have the legal authority to publish them.

So there's your answer. How do you plan to ignore it?

Dave

Dude, we are wasting our time with this guy. There is a thread and links containing copies of all the even potentially responsive videos on the first page of this section, which this guy has not even bothered to review.

He is really interested in the "truth" as you can see.

[fess]

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. You write like a junior high school student, making false assumptions (there are plenty of witnesses to a plane) and ad hominems. Fact? What evidence do you have I'm "ignoring the answers". If you write as an adult, I'll read your responses.

Perhaps if you acted like an adult, others might respond in kind.
Maybe you will feel better when Mommy slides your lunch under the door. Until then, you respond like you just graduated from “Truther School of Arrogance 101”.

[fess]

You make a lot of assumptions that turn out to be wrong.
I volunteered for the USMC and took the oath you refer to.

Did you ever make it out of basic training?

[MikeW]

Re: the 85-odd videos, a truther obtained some of these and posted them at http://penttbom.com. He wasn't happy with the FBI, who he said just put a digital camera in front of a TV to transfer the videos, which were therefore of a very low quality. But he also had to concede that it wouldn't really matter anyway:

i thought long about litigating further to have them go back and transfer the videos in decent quality, but what was actually recorded in the rest of the videos was really nothing of interest. many of the recordings were home videos that had nothing to do with the events - many of them well after 9/11 and completely irrelevant; i mean nothing.

i've been working on this project for so many years, and if there was anything on those videos that may have possibly shed further light on the event, i would have fought for the higher quality. it was all basically random stuff and shaky camera work revealing nothing. that may be hard to accept (my personal judgement) but you're going to have to trust me or hate me.
http://penttbom.com/

Of course as he then goes on to recommend people "stay away from no-plane theories and groups and sites that suggest anything other than a 757 impacted the pentagon" I suppose he'll just be classed as "disinfo", "cointelpro" or something similar... Truthers like to pretend they're "awake", but in my experience no-one leaves in a deeper dream world, and most seem extremely reluctant to leave.

[beachnut]

You are uninformed on something easily found on the web.
Norman Mineta said that Cochran asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?"


You make a lot of assumptions that turn out to be wrong.
I volunteered for the USMC and took the oath you refer to.
You can't explain what it means; why? Did the orders stop Flight 93 passengers? What did the orders mean? A marine acting all anti-government. Why?

You believe in nonsense, did you learn that being a marine? The videos? You failed to do a FOIA? darn

[BCR]

Re: the 85-odd videos, a truther obtained some of these and posted them at http://penttbom.com.

Yes, that would be Scott Bingham. He is the guy who sent me the VHS tape for the Citgo camera provided to him by the FBI. There were also a few other videos taken by tourists and media types that I obtained from the FBI. But I am not aware of "84 security cameras" that exist and being withheld.

Judicial Watch provided me with the full DVD set from the Doubletree that they obtained, but lawsuits by Bingham, Judicial Watch and myself have failed to find a list of "84 security cameras". Quite the contrary, the Navy and DoD deny the existence of video records from the multiple security cameras located at the Navy Annex and around the Pentagon. Of course if you believe that I suspect you would be interested in buying this bridge I own that crosses the Mississippi River here in Memphis.

If I have a 'list' of such videos that actually exist, then we can put the pressure on for their release. Unfortunately, because of the sensitivity of that area, all DoD has to do is invoke the national security exemption and deny their existence. Nothing really sinister here, as I would find out by sitting in the back of a DoD police car back in 2007, they really are funny about photographs and videos being taken in that area.

[funk de fino]

You are uninformed on something easily found on the web.
Norman Mineta said that Cochran asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?"

Mineta can't tell the time it seems.

[Jackanory]

You make a lot of assumptions that turn out to be wrong.
I volunteered for the USMC and took the oath you refer to.


What is a servicemans response to an incident that requires immediate action?

Does he/she ask for permission to react?
Does he/she await orders to continue?

"contact, wait, out".

Then sit awaiting orders?????? lol. I think not!

[Animal]

He would simply answer the questions if he had nothing to hide. Detectives call his elusive behavior "guilty demeanor." This indicates he feels he is above the law, and does not have to answer to the people who pay his salary or pension. He should remember his oath to protect the American people, not the Neocons. At least he showed some conscience and doubt by asking "do the orders still stand?" Better to ask "do the orders stand for public safety and truth?"

"Elusive behavior"? more like professional behavior toward an undeserving moron. Claiming the pentagon was "the most secure airspace in the whole world" would have had me laughing in his face for being such an idiot.

[Dog Town]

Quite the contrary, the Navy and DoD deny the existence of video records from the multiple security cameras located at the Navy Annex and around the Pentagon. Of course if you believe that I suspect you would be interested in buying this bridge I own that crosses the Mississippi River here in Memphis.

So...you have some EVIDENCE they had recorders, and weren't live monitored?

Maybe you'd like to buy the bridge, I'm selling instead?:D

[BCR]

You know, I must not be too smart. For the life of me I can't figure out what the significance of the whole "Do the orders still stand?" thing in the first place. At the time this took place, the twin towers and the Pentagon had been attacked by suicide pilot types with hijacked commercial aircraft. OTIS fighters were stationed over NYC with Langley fighters racing to put a cap over DC and Andrews scrambling to catch up. The TSD is still showing UAL93 on a course for the DC area although the plane had crashed earlier in Pennsylvania. If I recall correctly, the context of all of this was the 'count-down' based on the TSD track that resulted in the Pentagon area being evacuated after it had already been hit. So I can only assume that the question is related to the shoot-down order that had just been given.

So what is the big deal? I would certainly hope that by this time the President had issued such an order. How many more planes and buildings were we willing to deal with that day? I would also expect that the guy who asked the darn question does not have the authority to discuss things related to national defense and the PEOC unless it has been cleared by higher-ups for him to do so.

Nothing to see here ... move along.

[DGM]

You know, I must not be too smart. For the life of me I can't figure out what the significance of the whole "Do the orders still stand?" thing in the first place.

OK, Now I don't feel so bad. "Truthers" (John, you can skip this part :D) would you like to explain?

[Jackanory]

You know, I must not be too smart. For the life of me I can't figure out what the significance of the whole "Do the orders still stand?" thing in the first place. At the time this took place, the twin towers and the Pentagon had been attacked by suicide pilot types with hijacked commercial aircraft. OTIS fighters were stationed over NYC with Langley fighters racing to put a cap over DC and Andrews scrambling to catch up. The TSD is still showing UAL93 on a course for the DC area although the plane had crashed earlier in Pennsylvania. If I recall correctly, the context of all of this was the 'count-down' based on the TSD track that resulted in the Pentagon area being evacuated after it had already been hit. So I can only assume that the question is related to the shoot-down order that had just been given.

So what is the big deal? I would certainly hope that by this time the President had issued such an order. How many more planes and buildings were we willing to deal with that day? I would also expect that the guy who asked the darn question does not have the authority to discuss things related to national defense and the PEOC unless it has been cleared by higher-ups for him to do so.

Nothing to see here ... move along.

Simply lines to fill the chapters in a fairytale for the woo society. Sadly it will continue long after we are gone.

[Horatius]

So what is the big deal?



The big deal is, it feeds into their Hollywood fantasies of how the world works. Here we have a fellow who is just following orders (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustFollowingOrders), but those orders are so morally repugnant, he keeps asking, "Do they stand?"


Of course, in a dramatic failure of personal integrity, he ends up carrying out his orders - but, just maybe possibly, he feels guilty enough about that failure that our Plucky Heroes can get him to confess his crime, and reveal the Truth about what really happened that day.


And that's what the Big Deal is.

[Dog Town]

The big deal is, it feeds into their Hollywood fantasies of how the world works. Here we have a fellow who is just following orders (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustFollowingOrders), but those orders are so morally repugnant, he keeps asking, "Do they stand?"


Of course, in a dramatic failure of personal integrity, he ends up carrying out his orders - but, just maybe possibly, he feels guilty enough about that failure that our Plucky Heroes,and their dog can get him to confess his crime, and reveal the Truth about what really happened that day.


And that's what the Big Deal is.

ftfy

[Horatius]

ftfy



Sorry, I'm a cat person, and cats couldn't care less about the "truth".

[TruthMakesPeace]

You are not ignoring the answers?

I'm not ignoring intelligent answers, like BCR and MikeW's very helpful post about PentTBom .com which I much appreciate and am in the process of viewing. New info is what I came to JREF for.

However, I have other forums and news sources to check, to get different viewpoints to evaluate, my own YT channel, plus a life outside JREF. So it may take me a week to get back here.

You don't own this forum. You just have more time to hang out here and "claim" it. If people "come and go", it is because they found no useful information here.

Some of you try to make me the topic of the forum, and make childish comments, evidently trying to get me to leave. Get a life. Look at the OP and stick to it. Focus on and debate the message, not the messenger.

do yourself a favor and stop posting

Maybe you will feel better when Mommy slides your lunch.

A Marine acting all anti-government. Why?

Not anti-government. Anti-corruption. I want the truth and to fulfill our oath "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

There are many suspicious things about 9/11. No one should be criticized for being a skeptic. If the wars were for oil profits for corporations who don't want us to develop solor energy or electric cars, resulting in dead or no-legged soldiers, then they are not friends of the American public.

[alienentity]

I'm not ignoring intelligent answers, ....

There are many suspicious things about 9/11. No one should be criticized for being a skeptic. If the wars were for oil profits for corporations who don't want us to develop solor energy or electric cars, resulting in dead or no-legged soldiers, then they are not friends of the American public.

Spare us the soapbox speech. You can buy an electric car today, and put solar panels on your house as well.

Question: have you bothered to do either, or do you just like complaining about 'the man' while sitting on your butt? Your comments reek of hypocrisy.

[R.Mackey]

"Do the orders still stand?"

"Have you heard anything to the contrary? We've GOT to keep a lid on the 200 MPG carburetor at all costs!"

:p

[The Platypus]

There are many suspicious things about 9/11.

No there aren't.

[beachnut]

... Not anti-government. Anti-corruption. I want the truth and to fulfill our oath "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

There are many suspicious things about 9/11. No one should be criticized for being a skeptic. If the wars were for oil profits for corporations who don't want us to develop solor energy or electric cars, resulting in dead or no-legged soldiers, then they are not friends of the American public.
Gaining knowledge before spewing nonsense and misleading fellow Americans is part of your oath. Don't use your oath like McVeigh. If you don't like war, making up and supporting lies about 911 is not living up to your oath. Protest the wars, don't' support lies on 911.

Electric cars? Go get Physics for future Presidents!!! quick! Education is the cure for fantasy on 911. http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html

There is nothing suspicious about 911, that knowledge can't cure.

different viewpoints to evaluateYou are looking for viewpoints and ignoring the evidence. You are manufacturing suspicious things on 911 due to ignorance.

[gumboot]

You know, I must not be too smart. For the life of me I can't figure out what the significance of the whole "Do the orders still stand?" thing in the first place. At the time this took place, the twin towers and the Pentagon had been attacked by suicide pilot types with hijacked commercial aircraft. OTIS fighters were stationed over NYC with Langley fighters racing to put a cap over DC and Andrews scrambling to catch up. The TSD is still showing UAL93 on a course for the DC area although the plane had crashed earlier in Pennsylvania. If I recall correctly, the context of all of this was the 'count-down' based on the TSD track that resulted in the Pentagon area being evacuated after it had already been hit. So I can only assume that the question is related to the shoot-down order that had just been given.

So what is the big deal? I would certainly hope that by this time the President had issued such an order. How many more planes and buildings were we willing to deal with that day? I would also expect that the guy who asked the darn question does not have the authority to discuss things related to national defense and the PEOC unless it has been cleared by higher-ups for him to do so.

Nothing to see here ... move along.



To understand the significance you have to know the entire claim. Because it's not just about what the order is, and who said it. It's when it happened, and what aircraft it related to.

The people who blindly claim it's important also cling desperately, like drowning men, to the Mineta account that this happened in relation to AA77 some time around 0920ish.

If the conversation relates to AA77 the ramifications are obvious. But therein lies the problem; we don't need to know about the conversation because we have ample other evidence to eliminate the possibility that it was AA77. In fact, once you go through all the data, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that this was a ghost track for UA93 on the TSD.

Given that, clearly the conversation is irrelevant; who cares what the "order" was for an aircraft that didn't even exist anymore?

The "Do the orders still stand?" claim is a classic example of Conspiracy Theorists not being able to see the forest for the trees.

[Dave Rogers]

There are many suspicious things about 9/11.

If so, you have failed to identify any of them correctly so far.

Dave

[Sabrina]

IIRC, in CE's initial post in this thread, it is clearly stated that the debriefing done during the 9/11 Commission on this topic to this individual (can't be bothered to go back and find out his name right now) is still classified. It is entirely possible that Mr. Mineta overstepped the bounds of his clearance in mentioning that episode, and it is also entirely possible that this individual is merely obeying the dictates of the classification of his interview in declining to elaborate further as to the "orders" in question. If the interview is classified, then the individual is likely bound by that classification to not comment further on it, hence him stating clearly "I have nothing further to say on that".

Very little that is sinister about that extremely likely possibility; instead we merely have someone obeying the dictates he was bound by when he swore an oath to protect the US Government from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact that truthers see something sinister in that is entirely on them. There are laws that protect whistleblowers; if this gentleman truly felt the orders were unlawful, he'd be protected if he chose to violate the classification and state what the orders were. Clearly that is not the case.

An old thread was bumped for THIS? That is so ridiculous.

[A W Smith]

Silence is not an acceptable response for skeptics.

If the "orders" were innocuous, like "do the pizza delivery orders still stand?"
then Cochran should have cleared it up once and for all.


You realize of course that it was a damn phone call and he wasn't on the stand in federal court. correct? He could have easily responded thus.

What questions do you have Jeff? I'm here for my own purpose, not yours, and not anyone else's, to find out WTF is up with the stupid truth movement.

[alienentity]

"Do the orders still stand?"

"Have you heard anything to the contrary? We've GOT to keep a lid on the 200 MPG carburetor at all costs!"

:p

RR :)
200mpg? Hell, according to the internet you can run your car on water vapour for free!

[16.5]

I'm not ignoring intelligent answers, like BCR and MikeW's very helpful post about PentTBom .com which I much appreciate and am in the process of viewing. New info is what I came to JREF for.

You don't own this forum. You just have more time to hang out here and "claim" it. If people "come and go", it is because they found no useful information here.

Some of you try to make me the topic of the forum, and make childish comments, evidently trying to get me to leave. Get a life. Look at the OP and stick to it. Focus on and debate the message, not the messenger.



Man, that is a lot of words to justify why you posted questions in another thread, got answers, ignored them, raised the same points here a couple of days later, got more answers and then started whing up a storm.

Hey sport, don't tell me to stick to the OP, which has nothing to do with your rank ignorance of the status of the videotapes at the pentagon with which you have hijecked this thread.

And truthers left because (like you) we exposed their bull **** lies about "having an open mind."

By the way, completely irrelevant appeal to emotion and poisoning the well in your last paragraph noted, and ignored. We don't cotton to logical fallacies around here, champ, so I suggest you start confining yourself to real argument.

Thanks.

[achimspok]

If he'd said that the order in question was a shoot-down order and the whole exchange referred to the projected track of flight 93, would any conspiracy theorists believe him?

Dave
Of course, given the 8 mile debris field. But the order wasn't about flight 93.

[DGM]

Of course, given the 8 mile debris field. But the order wasn't about flight 93.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744bf6cae2c5dc1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19995)

Sorry but, a chorus was needed. (It's better than my first choice )


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744ba3d44d08b89.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19470)

[BCR]

If the conversation relates to AA77 the ramifications are obvious. But therein lies the problem; we don't need to know about the conversation because we have ample other evidence to eliminate the possibility that it was AA77. In fact, once you go through all the data, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that this was a ghost track for UA93 on the TSD.

I notice the original video linked by CE is no longer active, so for reference here is Mineta's testimony.

bDfdOwt2v3Y

I was going to save this for the book, but I guess I really need to get some feedback since the "ramifications are obvious". If this has been discussed already and I missed it, then my bad.

Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta's testimony.

9:26 - AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC
9:30 - 30 nautical miles out
9:33 - 10 nautical miles out

If this is what Mineta was talking about, then the question to the VP would be after this at some point.

Here are the notes from a Secret Service log done for the 911 Commission and recently released by NARA.

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n525/John_Farmer/ss_log3.jpg

I hate to say it, but at first glance this seems to confirm Mineta's account that the plane in question was AAL77.

Original Document (http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/t8-b16-misc-work-papers-fdr-secret-service-timeline.pdf)

[DGM]

I was going to save this for the book, but I guess I really need to get some feedback since the "ramifications are obvious". If this has been discussed already and I missed it, then my bad.



Were they (the bunker) actually aware of where flight 77 was at the time? I was under the impression they were not (along with the FAA).

You don't have to "hate to say it". My understanding is there was no assets in the area anyway (so it's still a wash).

[alphahelix]

Yes, what about the videos at the Pentagon. Why can't we see more than a few fuzzy frames?

I came to this forum expecting to find critical thinking, new ideas, and interesting information. You write like a junior high school student, making false assumptions (there are plenty of witnesses to a plane) and ad hominems. Fact? What evidence do you have I'm "ignoring the answers". If you write as an adult, I'll read your responses.

Well there are several part to a security system but I'll give you the short version.

If the recording device (tape recoder, security recoder, DVR) is taking raw video and directly recording it, the camera's shutter speed determines frames/images/pictures per second

Or you can have a camera with a high shutter speed with the recording device only recording so many fps/ips/pps.

Or you can have a combination of the above setups.

Also depending on how many cameras, colors, resolution, scan lines, interlacing and how the recording device stores the video, its not cost effiecient to record multiple videos, full resolution, full color, full frame rate all of the time.

And some recorders average out a overall recording rate over all cameras (ie 240 max fps divided among x number of cameras)

So unless someone knows the models of the cameras, recorders, storage space options and sizes. Nobody can tell you exactly why a video is low resolution low frame rate.

Except maybe that back in 2001 it was cheaper to have a setup like we see in the pentagon video so that it can record slow moving vehicles and persons and not a honking jet tearing thru.

Which somewhere in another thread they did all the neccessary calculations to show why the camera never got the "clear" shot of the jet

[MikeW]

I hate to say it, but at first glance this seems to confirm Mineta's account that the plane in question was AAL77.
Well, I don't think it's definitive enough to say confirms... More "is consistent with", in some areas.

In others, maybe not. What does "9:37 - VP" mean, for instance? In the "official story" this would mark his arrival at the PEOC. If that's what it means here then it contradicts, rather than confirms Mineta's account.

[BCR]

Were they (the bunker) actually aware of where flight 77 was at the time? I was under the impression they were not (along with the FAA).

You don't have to "hate to say it". My understanding is there was no assets in the area anyway (so it's still a wash).

Well, I hate to say it because I was pretty much convinced that what Mineta was referring to was the UAL93 TSD track. This pretty much shows that no, there was a feed of information to the SS which would of course be conveyed to other interested parties.

I have additional support for the earlier observations of AAL77, but I do have to save something for the book :)

[BCR]

Well, I don't think it's definitive enough to say confirms... More "is consistent with", in some areas.

In others, maybe not. What does "9:37 - VP" mean, for instance? In the "official story" this would mark his arrival at the PEOC. If that's what it means here then it contradicts, rather than confirms Mineta's account.

Confirms his 'countdown' account. As far as his being in the PEOC at the time and hearing it there, I agree, 'consistent with'.

[DGM]

I have additional support for the earlier observations of AAL77, but I do have to save something for the book :)

Did you're publisher tell you to "release" this fact?

;)

Hurry you're ass up and finish it!

(old joke: How do you keep a moron in suspense? I'll tell you later)

:D

[BCR]

Did you're publisher tell you to "release" this fact?

;)

Hurry you're ass up and finish it!

(old joke: How do you keep a moron in suspense? I'll tell you later)

:D

No, my publisher told me to "Hurry your ass up and finish it!" I am so far behind schedule :(

[DGM]

No, my publisher told me to "Hurry your ass up and finish it!" I am so far behind schedule :(
Well, put me in for a copy (I planned on it anyway), You know how to get in touch with me.

:)

[Animal]

Well there are several part to a security system but I'll give you the short version.

If the recording device (tape recoder, security recoder, DVR) is taking raw video and directly recording it, the camera's shutter speed determines frames/images/pictures per second

Or you can have a camera with a high shutter speed with the recording device only recording so many fps/ips/pps.

Or you can have a combination of the above setups.

Also depending on how many cameras, colors, resolution, scan lines, interlacing and how the recording device stores the video, its not cost effiecient to record multiple videos, full resolution, full color, full frame rate all of the time.

And some recorders average out a overall recording rate over all cameras (ie 240 max fps divided among x number of cameras)

So unless someone knows the models of the cameras, recorders, storage space options and sizes. Nobody can tell you exactly why a video is low resolution low frame rate.

Except maybe that back in 2001 it was cheaper to have a setup like we see in the pentagon video so that it can record slow moving vehicles and persons and not a honking jet tearing thru.

Which somewhere in another thread they did all the neccessary calculations to show why the camera never got the "clear" shot of the jet

Back in 2000ish time frame, I remember storage costs being the issue WRT security systems for a few of my clients. They would spend money on the better cameras but save on storage by reducing the FPS that were stored.

[Reheat]

Here are the notes from a Secret Service log done for the 911 Commission and recently released by NARA.

John, before this spirals out of control into another "twoofer blockbuster" it should be noted that at the top of the page (cut off from the posted excerpt) it is noted as an "extract". That means someone copied from the SS log as opposed to that being an original exact copy.

We know there was a lot of false information coming from the SS, so is there anyway to know if those notes were made real time or was it simply produced at a later date after the time line was widely known? What part of that was from an original SS Log and what part was simply notes by whomever made the notes and knew the timeline?

ETA: Even if we ASSUME this is directly from original notes WHO was "standing down" as truthers insist happened. There was NO ONE even near DC at the time, although they were on the way.

[beachnut]

Of course, given the 8 mile debris field. But the order wasn't about flight 93.
The 8 mile debris field is made up by morons. Only paper, and things that travel on the wind made it 8 miles away, like in a large fire, ash falls for miles. Your paranoia knows no bounds due to ignorance. Like you learned about the FMC, you could learn about aircraft accidents, but will it cure your paranoia and fantasy conspiracy theories?

[twinstead]

...will it cure your paranoia and fantasy conspiracy theories?

Nope. He's got the hand wavin' pneumonia and the boogie woo woo flu.

[BCR]

John, before this spirals out of control into another "twoofer blockbuster" it should be noted that at the top of the page (cut off from the posted excerpt) it is noted as an "extract". That means someone copied from the SS log as opposed to that being an original exact copy.

Yes it is, that is why the original is also linked for those who want it. And they are notes of what the original said, because the last I checked the originals are still 'classified'. And also, note this is supposedly information coming from the FAA to the SS, not information they are generating on their own.

Mineta is clear that at the time he is on the phone getting clarification and it is specifically a primary target they are watching, not a TSD artifact.

I have posted it for you guys to debate. I do however again reiterate and clarify. The account recorded here describes AAL77's approach, including the distances described by Mineta in his version of events and the 'countdown'.

I personally believe that Mineta did confuse some of the details of his recall. That is of course my belief based on my experience with witnesses (such as the NoC folks). But in fairness, this does agree with his account of events very well.

So, am I now to believe that the person who took notes off the original record messed up? I never gave much credence to Mineta's account before. Reckon I'll have to look at it a little closer.

[Björn Toulouse]

....
I have posted it for you guys to debate. I do however again reiterate and clarify. The account recorded here describes AAL77's approach, including the distances described by Mineta in his version of events and the 'countdown'.

I personally believe that Mineta did confuse some of the details of his recall......



Both Scooter Libby (http://www.911myths.com/images/7/77/NYC_Box10_FarmerMisc-ScooterLibbyInterview.pdf)and Eric Edelman (http://www.911myths.com/images/a/a6/NYC_Box10_FarmerMisc-EricEdelmanInterview.pdf)describe a "countdown" of sorts, Libby's in terms of "miles out" and Edelman's in terms of "minutes out". Obviously Mineta was present as well when this situation occurred.

The scenario they are recalling is after Flight 77 has crashed.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2008/01/deciphering-norman-mineta-kerflaffle.html

"I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

“A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot [the Pentagon plane] down."

"’The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. And the aide then asked a third time. He said, “Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?” And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, “I said yes.”'

Go ahead Truthers, quote mine the hell out of it. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

The scenario they are recalling is after Flight 77 has crashed.

Anyone who looks at all the evidence and thinks otherwise is a moron.

The VP and his wife being there when Mineta arrives debunks the whole kit and kaboodle about Mineta account.

If I remember correctly Cheney was able to watch smoke at the Pentagon on a monitor in the corridor prior to entering the PEOC.

[BCR]

Anyone who looks at all the evidence and thinks otherwise is a moron.

So now I am a moron :jaw-dropp

[gumboot]

Mineta is clear that at the time he is on the phone getting clarification and it is specifically a primary target they are watching, not a TSD artifact.


Mineta is clear that the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, too. There's all sorts of things that Mineta was "clear" about that don't fit his timeline.

[Captain_Swoop]

Don't we already have thread about Mineta and his 'timeline'?

[BCR]

Don't we already have thread about Mineta and his 'timeline'?

Captain Swoop to the rescue :D

[gumboot]

Don't we already have thread about Mineta and his 'timeline'?

Threads.

[Captain_Swoop]

oops, meant threads but seem to have lost my s

[Childlike Empress]

I notice the original video linked by CE is no longer active, so for reference here is Mineta's testimony.


The video in the OP was not Mineta's testimony but a record of Jeff Hill's phone call to Cochrane. Any idea why he deleted it? Well, he joined (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=45947) this forum in January, maybe he can tell us the reason.

edit: sent him a PM quoting the above.

[shure]

Basically I decided to delete it yesterday because I think Mr. Cochrane is a good man and just wanted to take it down.

[Childlike Empress]

Basically I decided to delete it yesterday because I think Mr. Cochrane is a good man and just wanted to take it down.


Yesterday? Gee, what a coincidence.

[Childlike Empress]

Jeff, among us twoofies - assuming that you were honestly fooled by Simon Shack and associated goons, did it ever occure to you that the videos the anti-CIT crowd produces these days are quite in the same style, using the same mind manipulating tools? You fell for the same nonsense again, only under a different mask, buddy. Just saying.

[shure]

Twoofie, sure. Someone who cares about the truth, you are not!!!

What you are is a perfect example of one reason I decided to take it down :(

[Childlike Empress]

Mean. :(

[16.5]

Jeff, among us twoofies - assuming that you were honestly fooled by Simon Shack and associated goons, did it ever occure to you that the videos the anti-CIT crowd produces these days are quite in the same style, using the same mind manipulating tools? You fell for the same nonsense again, only under a different mask, buddy. Just saying.

The anti-CIT crowd?

bwhahha!! Ohhh, CE, you remain a true treasure.

Speaking of CIT videos, did they ever release the raw videos?

Ha! Just kidding again, we know they won't do that, otherwise they could not sucker folks like you in with their lies.

[Reheat]

Mean. :(

I'll tell you what's really mean. That is that neither CIT or you as their sponsor here won't inform eager readers of the stats of Project Accountability. I mean, after all NSA was such a blockbuster the results should be overwhelming by now......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11810)

[Childlike Empress]

You'll get informed in due time. In the meantime, why not retract your deceptive junk science piece and make it disappear from 911myths?

[Reheat]

You'll get informed in due time.

Gee, I can't wait! The suspense is sometimes just too much to bear....:D

In the meantime, why not retract your deceptive junk science piece and make it disappear from 911myths?

Just because you have no clue doesn't mean it is junk. How many more slap downs do you see to see before you finally do get a clue?

I know, I know......

[Childlike Empress]

Meh.

[R.Mackey]

Twoofie, sure. Someone who cares about the truth, you are not!!!

What you are is a perfect example of one reason I decided to take it down :(

:D Well done, Jeff.

ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!!

[TruthMakesPeace]

Basically I decided to delete it yesterday because I think Mr. Cochrane is a good man and just wanted to take it down.
I agree, and apologize for criticizing Mr. Cochrane. At least he tried to question Cheney, even getting him angry. Cochrane had no way to know for sure whether the incoming flight would kill people or land at DCA. Hindsight is 20/20. He did his duty and obeyed his commanding officer, the Vice President.

[gumboot]

Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta's testimony.

9:26 - AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC
9:30 - 30 nautical miles out
9:33 - 10 nautical miles out

If this is what Mineta was talking about, then the question to the VP would be after this at some point.



You've just proven yourself that Mineta's timeline is wrong. According to him the "does the order still stand?" happened at about 0925/26. Even just taking the basic facts of that specific event, it could not have occurred when he claimed it occurred, therefore we must accept that his times are wrong.

Once we accept that, we can look further afield for clues as to the actual time. Bear in mind that Mineta's belief that it was AA77 being discussed is a post-event determination he made based on the time he thinks this happened. If his time is wrong (which it must be), the entire basis on which he concluded it was AA77 is wrong.

The reality is numerous factors eliminate AA77.

According to Mineta's own testimony, at the time that the conversation took place:

1. The White House had been evacuated
2. Air Force One had left Sarasota
3. The VP was inside the bunker

All three of these events happened after AA77 crashed.

[Senenmut]

Mineta is clear that at the time he is on the phone getting clarification and it is specifically a primary target they are watching, not a TSD artifact.



i remember arguing that same point. what do you think about the approach.

mineta-
So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."

And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

[Dog Town]

You've just proven yourself that Mineta's timeline is wrong. According to him the "does the order still stand?" happened at about 0925/26. Even just taking the basic facts of that specific event, it could not have occurred when he claimed it occurred, therefore we must accept that his times are wrong.

Once we accept that, we can look further afield for clues as to the actual time. Bear in mind that Mineta's belief that it was AA77 being discussed is a post-event determination he made based on the time he thinks this happened. If his time is wrong (which it must be), the entire basis on which he concluded it was AA77 is wrong.

The reality is numerous factors eliminate AA77.

According to Mineta's own testimony, at the time that the conversation took place:

1. The White House had been evacuated
2. Air Force One had left Sarasota
3. The VP was inside the bunker

All three of these events happened after AA77 crashed.

Excellent points!


@BCR
Do you have ANY info on recording devices, used by cams mounted on the Pentagon? Besides the parking lot, of course!

[Reheat]

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

Congratulations, you've just proven that Berger WAS NOT looking at a radar screen and referencing AA 77. AA 77 was approaching from the West and WAS NO WHERE NEAR THE DRA.

However, a TSD display predicting the path of UA 93 would have been very near the DRA.

Thanks.......you've been a great help in finally resolving this issue.....

[Senenmut]

Congratulations, you've just proven that Berger WAS NOT looking at a radar screen and referencing AA 77.
a tsd is on a different machine. he is specifically speaking of a "target" and a "bogey".
from a mineta interview-

And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

AA 77 was approaching from the West and WAS NO WHERE NEAR THE DRA.
very good observation. now what?

However, a TSD display predicting the path of UA 93 would have been very near the DRA.
just like bcr stated "Mineta is clear that at the time he is on the phone getting clarification and it is specifically a primary target they are watching, not a TSD artifact."



Thanks.......you've been a great help in finally resolving this issue.....[/QUOTE]

[Reheat]

For the edification of those who would like a better understanding of the FAA and it's facilities and also for the record:

The facility at Hearndon, VA is known as the FAA Command Center. Their function is to manage the overall National Airspace System. They are NOT ENGAGED in the direct control of individual "real time" Air Traffic. They DO NOT have actual "real time" radar displays at that location. They manage future traffic conflict, etc via large wall mounted TSD type displays. The TDS is a prediction of Air Traffic, not real time radar. I have confirmed this as FACT via people who have worked there over the years to include some of those there in 2001.

FAA Headquarters is also a MANAGEMENT Facility and are not engaged in "real time" traffic control. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is no radar at FAA Headquarters either. Their only real time information is via telephone with the facilities currently controlling "real time" traffic. This is shown to be the case from numerous tape recorded conversations and/or transcripts thereof. Many of those tapes or transcripts are available at NARA. Berger was at FAA Headquarters during the conversation he had with Mineta.

Cheap Shot, if you stop by your comments on this are welcome.....

[BCR]

Person feelings on Mineta's account is that just like the NoC eyewitnesses, recall is a funny (and unreliable) thing. I am not convinced that he was in the PEOC until after the Pentagon event. I do not think he is lying or senile, just victim of information overload with various events and conversations getting mingled together in recall.

As far as the video issue, still unresolved. The Navy and DoD claim they do not have the Pentagon and Navy Annex camera footage, implying they gave it to the FBI. The FBI claims they don't have it either. So into the vast wasteland of government they did go and whether they will ever surface is anyones guess.

[Reheat]

just like bcr stated "Mineta is clear that at the time he is on the phone getting clarification and it is specifically a primary target they are watching, not a TSD artifact."

That is BCR's opinion, not fact. Your other opinions don't need a response.

[BCR]

That is BCR's opinion, not fact. Your other opinions don't need a response.

I'm on my Blackberry so I can't link his recorded account, but it is NOT my opinion. He states clearly that it was a radar return that was being tracked. Now whether he is getting two things mixed up together is another story entirely.

[Reheat]

Congratulations, you've just proven that Berger WAS NOT looking at a radar screen and referencing AA 77. AA 77 was approaching from the West and WAS NO WHERE NEAR THE DRA.

very good observation. now what?

The now what? is that words DO NOT describe what is a matter of public records. The actual path and position of AA 77 at all times is available from not just one, but multiple radars and from the FDR. That record DOES NOT match the words you interpret to mean what you desire them to mean. One or the other is WRONG!

It's not surprising you choose the words rather than the location. Other information shows you wrong anyway, so in the end it not very significant.....

[Reheat]

I'm on my Blackberry so I can't link his recorded account, but it is NOT my opinion. He states clearly that it was a radar return that was being tracked. Now whether he is getting two things mixed up together is another story entirely.

Yes John, I know. The words used and the location described are in conflict. It's a matter of choosing which one to believe and that indicates we need to use other evidence to clarify.

[Senenmut]

For the edification of those who would like a better understanding of the FAA and it's facilities and also for the record:

The facility at Hearndon, VA is known as the FAA Command Center. Their function is to manage the overall National Airspace System. They are NOT ENGAGED in the direct control of individual "real time" Air Traffic. They DO NOT have actual "real time" radar displays at that location. They manage future traffic conflict, etc via large wall mounted TSD type displays. The TDS is a prediction of Air Traffic, not real time radar. I have confirmed this as FACT via people who have worked there over the years to include some of those there in 2001.

FAA Headquarters is also a MANAGEMENT Facility and are not engaged in "real time" traffic control. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is no radar at FAA Headquarters either. Their only real time information is via telephone with the facilities currently controlling "real time" traffic. This is shown to be the case from numerous tape recorded conversations and/or transcripts thereof. Many of those tapes or transcripts are available at NARA. Berger was at FAA Headquarters during the conversation he had with Mineta.

Cheap Shot, if you stop by your comments on this are welcome.....

i guess you wouldnt want to believe monte belger either:
from a monte belger interview-
[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

[Senenmut]

Yes John, I know. The words used and the location described are in conflict. It's a matter of choosing which one to believe and that indicates we need to use other evidence to clarify.

or there is something behind both...

[Reheat]

i guess you wouldnt want to believe monte belger either:
from a monte belger interview-
[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

This is funny if you think it shows anything other than you're grasping at straws. How did Berger monitor the system? You have no clue and it shows.....

[Reheat]

or there is something behind both...

Ah, the ever widening/expanding conspiracy. Yes, that's it for sure. :rolleyes:

[BCR]

Yes John, I know. The words used and the location described are in conflict. It's a matter of choosing which one to believe and that indicates we need to use other evidence to clarify.

I agree entirely. Mineta is kinda like Lagasse. Both have their recall of what the experienced. If you try to tell Lagasse he did not see an AA plane on the north side of the Citgo he would probably punch you out for calling him a liar. Human memory is a strange bird, and that is why empirical evidence is so important.

Too bad CNN did not have camera's rolling when Mineta arrived. I do have the footage from the evac showing someome arriving (black sedan) after the evac (raw mystery plane footage), but no way of knowing who it was. Darn media ... Won't do their jobs right :(

[Senenmut]

This is funny if you think it shows anything other than you're grasping at straws. How did Berger monitor the system? You have no clue and it shows.....
and it shows your pretty dense to not understand what belger said....

[Reheat]

I agree entirely. Mineta is kinda like Lagasse. Both have their recall of what the experienced. If you try to tell Lagasse he did not see an AA plane on the north side of the Citgo he would probably punch you out for calling him a liar. Human memory is a strange bird, and that is why empirical evidence is so important.

Correct. Berger was quite obviously either talking to someone else in the system and PERHAPS assumed that person was looking at a radar scope or looking at a TSD to get information and absent mindedly used radar terminology. Mineta was not aware of that or didn't recall it years after it occurred.

This all illustrates your comments precisely. Depending upon someone's recall or attempting to interpret words that conflict with other information is not the most reliable way to determine FACT. That's the fallacy of discussing this ad nauseum on Internet Forums. At the end of the day it's useless.....

[Reheat]

and it shows your pretty dense to not understand what belger said....

Oh, make no mistake about it I understand what he said perfectly, very likely better than you do. However, in my case the forest is not obscured by the trees.....

[Captain_Swoop]

How would any of this show anything other than in confused situations peoples memories of events can be confused?

What are people trying to prove here?

[Reheat]

What are people trying to prove here?

They......are searching for the twoof! See how easy that was. :D

[Senenmut]

Oh, make no mistake about it I understand what he said perfectly, very likely better than you do. However, in my case the forest is not obscured by the trees.....

so what would you like mineta be doing about 945? in the mineta interviews, only after he knows that the pentagon got hit is when he ordered everything down.

from a monte belger interview-
[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

[BCR]

They......are searching for the twoof! See how easy that was. :D

You betcha :D

[Reheat]

from a monte belger interview-
[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

Are you really trying to imply this was the same conversation as previously discussed? Or are you trying to tell us WHERE Mineta was located during this conversation.

Mineta didn't really decide to bring everything down UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. Ben Sliney from FAA Headquarters did. FAIL

[MikeW]

Ben Sliney from FAA Headquarters did. FAIL
And Sliney said that Mineta's recollection of events was a "fiction", one that the FAA pressured him to go along with, for what he called reasons of "political vanity".

Which I'd guess means the FAA would rather it appear that Mineta was in control of events, than didn't even know about the order until it happened.

It's funny, really. Here we have one of the key players in Sliney providing first-hand evidence of an attempted cover-up by the FAA... But are the truthers interested? For the most part, no. They need Mineta's evidence to try and implicate Cheney, so rather than highlight the cover-up they'll go along with it.

[Senenmut]

Are you really trying to imply this was the same conversation as previously discussed? Or are you trying to tell us WHERE Mineta was located during this conversation.

Mineta didn't really decide to bring everything down UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. Ben Sliney from FAA Headquarters did. FAIL

and what time did sliney do that? what time did monte belger state that mineta brought everything down? you might find out that the times are the same!!

[Senenmut]

And Sliney said that Mineta's recollection of events was a "fiction", one that the FAA pressured him to go along with, for what he called reasons of "political vanity".

Which I'd guess means the FAA would rather it appear that Mineta was in control of events, than didn't even know about the order until it happened.

It's funny, really. Here we have one of the key players in Sliney providing first-hand evidence of an attempted cover-up by the FAA... But are the truthers interested? For the most part, no. They need Mineta's evidence to try and implicate Cheney, so rather than highlight the cover-up they'll go along with it.

the belger interview goes along with what mineta stated. first the pentagon got hit, then he ordered the planes down.

from a monte belger interview-
[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

[MikeW]

the belger interview goes along with what mineta stated.
Except Belger says he got on the phone to Mineta AFTER he heard of the crash, while Mineta says he was speaking to him before the crash occurred.

Oh, and you forgot to mention that Belger said he didn't recall talking to Mineta about an incoming target before the crash.

Not the most convincing of corroborations, really. Even the FAA officials trying desperately not to reveal Mineta's absence at a key moment can't manage to cover it up properly.

[BCR]

It's funny, really. Here we have one of the key players in Sliney providing first-hand evidence of an attempted cover-up by the FAA... But are the truthers interested? For the most part, no. They need Mineta's evidence to try and implicate Cheney, so rather than highlight the cover-up they'll go along with it.

Ah yes, more 'he said, she said'. That again shows what Reheat and I have been saying. Witness recall can be so bias and tainted.

By the way, I do care about the FAA 'cover-up'. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence that they attempted to 'revise' the history. To what extent they succeeded is certainly open to debate.

You guys have danced all around the big issue and focused on Mineta. The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out? Isn't the 'official' FAA story that O'Brien spotted the plane first and set off the alarm bells to SS and DCA with the old 'six miles out' scenario?

Now that is the interesting aspect of this whole thing for me. That it coincides with Mineta's 'countdown' simply raises the issue you just raised. Where did Mineta get his 'lines' from (which distance wise matches this log) if Sliney is correct?

[Senenmut]

Except Belger says he got on the phone to Mineta AFTER he heard of the crash, while Mineta says he was speaking to him before the crash occurred.
what does that 945 mean to you in the belger interview?

Oh, and you forgot to mention that Belger said he didn't recall talking to Mineta about an incoming target before the crash.
link please?

Not the most convincing of corroborations, really. Even the FAA officials trying desperately not to reveal Mineta's absence at a key moment can't manage to cover it up properly.
haha...yeah, i bet that is exactly what the faa is doing!!!

[Reheat]

You guys have danced all around the big issue and focused on Mineta. The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out? Isn't the 'official' FAA story that O'Brien spotted the plane first and set off the alarm bells to SS and DCA with the old 'six miles out' scenario?

What is the source for this, John?

Now that is the interesting aspect of this whole thing for me. That it coincides with Mineta's 'countdown' simply raises the issue you just raised. Where did Mineta get his 'lines' from (which distance wise matches this log) if Sliney is correct?

I do not recall anything specifically published or in any interview that identified exactly WHERE O'Brien first identified AA 77. I gather she was so shocked that she called other controllers to look at the return and confirm what she/they were seeing. It was sometime after this that she or a colleague got on the phone and started notifying folks. Who they notified, I don't know. More info would be certainly more interesting that this rehashed crap previously under discussion.....

[MikeW]

Ah yes, more 'he said, she said'. That again shows what Reheat and I have been saying. Witness recall can be so bias and tainted.
Sliney? He's not the only person making the accusation.

By the way, I do care about the FAA 'cover-up'.
I know, that's one of the reasons I qualified my statement with "for the most part.

The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out?...

Now that is the interesting aspect of this whole thing for me. That it coincides with Mineta's 'countdown' simply raises the issue you just raised. Where did Mineta get his 'lines' from (which distance wise matches this log) if Sliney is correct?
That's more interesting, yes.

Re: coincidences, there are a few we could look at here. Mineta's description of the evacuation matches well with what CNN reported after the Pentagon was hit, for instance. If he didn't see it then that seems a surprising coincidence.

And from memory the reported log time of Mineta's arrival (10:07) plus his "5 or 6 minutes" matches up well with the countdown for the supposedly approaching Flight 93.

So there are issues to deal with, whether Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 or 10:07. The best we can do I guess is figure out where the weight of evidence lies.

[MikeW]

link please?
"Belger does not believe he heard reports of an aircraft headed to Washington, DC. Further, he believes he was informed that AAL 77 [Pentagon, 038] had crashed...

Belger clearly recalled reports of a "high speed VFR" headed eastward, though Belger does not recall speaking with the Secretary about this. The aircraft was characterized as an unidentified primary radar track that air traffic had identified east of Dulles.
http://www.911myths.com/images/c/cc/Team8_Box6_FAA_HQ_MonteBelger.pdf

haha...yeah, i bet that is exactly what the faa is doing!!!
Here's Sliney's comment:

...my recollection of what transpired was not secretary Menetta's recollection of what had transpired. It may have been the fact that my recollection of what transpired was not the same as Administrator Garvey's recollection of what had transpired in terms of their involvement in the decision making process with respect to the National Ground Stop and the order to land.

I was asked at one point by a nameless face 'why couldn't I just go along with it?'"

Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC assertion that Herndon CC personnel were asked to inaccurately represent the ground stop to match the story that Secretary Menetta ordered the ground stop: "I was asked to go along with a fiction." Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC personnel's assertion that upon analysis Herndon CC's "good story" of the day of 9/11 (Ground Stop and order to land all aircraft regardless of destination) became FAA Headquarter's "bad story", and that is why Herndon CC personnel were told to stop working on their reconstruction of the events of 9/11...

Sliney commented that an analysis of the actions of Herndon CC on 9/11 validates the importance of its creation, but instead what was presented could have been to serve "political vanity".

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:15877913-FO-B6-Public-Hearing-61704-2-of-2-Fdr-Tab-618-Ben-Sliney-Bio-MFR-Written-Testimony-Testimony-Request.pdf

Both Sliney and an unnamed other seem to think that FAA HQ wanted to cover up something here.

[BCR]

Reheat, please. National Geographic and just about anywhere else in the poplar media. The 911 Report gives the time at around 9:32 with notification made by DCA to the SS at 9:34.

You know darn well this is the poplarized version for public consumption. Now you may want to buy it, but I don't.

[Reheat]

Reheat, please. National Geographic and just about anywhere else in the poplar media. The 911 Report gives the time at around 9:32 with notification made by DCA to the SS at 9:34.

You know darn well this is the poplarized version for public consumption. Now you may want to buy it, but I don't.

Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't agree with the SS log. I simply wanted to make sure I was aware of what's been said and what's a matter of public record. I'll leave the speculation about nefarious activity to you.....

[Senenmut]

Here's Sliney's comment:
...my recollection of what transpired was not secretary Menetta's recollection of what had transpired. It may have been the fact that my recollection of what transpired was not the same as Administrator Garvey's recollection of what had transpired in terms of their involvement in the decision making process with respect to the National Ground Stop and the order to land.
it looks as though belger agrees with sliney in respects to the ground stop. i dont know what sliney is thinking with regards to mineta and the national ground stop?

MR. GORTON: It wasn't the formal protocol for Mr. Sliney to
have gotten headquarters permission before he put in these
ground stops?
MR. BELGER: I don't agree with that personally. I think -- I
agree with Mr. Sliney completely. I think they had the authority
to make that decision. I think they made the right call.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.pdf

as for the "order to land", sliney says this:
"As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and
women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the
supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something
more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus
for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave
that order."


I was asked at one point by a nameless face 'why couldn't I just go along with it?'"
???? he is speaking about the involvement of individuals in a decision making process. i havent read anything about sliney speaking to mineta around this time.

Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC assertion that Herndon CC personnel were asked to inaccurately represent the ground stop to match the story that Secretary Menetta ordered the ground stop: "I was asked to go along with a fiction."
got any links to suggest that anyone tried to make it look like mineta ordered the ground stop???? or is sliney just blowing smoke up someones buttt! .

Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC personnel's assertion that upon analysis Herndon CC's "good story" of the day of 9/11 (Ground Stop and order to land all aircraft regardless of destination) became FAA Headquarter's "bad story", and that is why Herndon CC personnel were told to stop working on their reconstruction of the events of 9/11...

many "assertions." who is this "personnel?" not even belger disputes sliney ordering the national ground stop. but belger also states mineta ordered the planes down around 945. it does NOT sound like belger is trying to "cover" anything up. he is just telling us what happened. it sounds like the interviewer is leading sliney into a desired statement.

[pgimeno]

I don't know if this idea will be too stupid, but...

In the Washington Post there's this text:

Within minutes, Cheney would use his authority. Told -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that a presumably hijacked aircraft was 80 miles from Washington, Cheney decided "in about the time it takes a batter to swing" to authorize fighter jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., to engage it, the commission reported.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50745-2004Jun17.html

Presumably it's getting the info from the Commission Report and I haven't checked with it yet, but that false alarm made me wonder if that was the plane Cochrane(?) was reporting about.

[MikeW]

got any links to suggest that anyone tried to make it look like mineta ordered the ground stop???? or is sliney just blowing smoke up someones buttt! .
I've just typed out about another page, but then deleted it, because what's the point? You don't care about the truth. And I don't care about your opinion. Goodbye.

[The Platypus]

You'll get informed in due time.

How sad. 911 kooks have been falling back to these juvenile threats of "you'll see" almost for 10 years now and been totally wrong everytime.

[Captain_Swoop]

This whole thing is bollox. There is no way that the full accurate sequence of events is going to be worked out. You are going to chase each other round forever all thinking you know the truth. I remember what happened when Argonaut, Brillian and Antelope were hit in the Falklands. Some of my Oppos who were there swear it happened in a different order over the 3 days. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or coverup of anything.

Give it up.

[gumboot]

I'm on my Blackberry so I can't link his recorded account, but it is NOT my opinion. He states clearly that it was a radar return that was being tracked. Now whether he is getting two things mixed up together is another story entirely.


When does he state this? Because he doesn't state it in his official testimony. In any event, whether he states it or not is immaterial. Monte Berger was at the ATCSCC, which does not have primary radar. That is a fact.

In fact all this does is reinforce the argument that Mineta wasn't particularly clear about what was actually going on, which gives even less reason to put much weight on the timeline for his testimony.

[Senenmut]

hey bcr-
ya made it on 911blogger.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-11/new-document-supports-norman-minetas-testimony-about-vp-dick-cheney#comments

[beachnut]

hey bcr-
ya made it on 911blogger.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-11/new-document-supports-norman-minetas-testimony-about-vp-dick-cheney#comments
And what does this stuff have to do with 911? What is the conspiracy?

[BCR]

Oh my, made the big time :)

[shure]

I notice the original video linked by CE is no longer active, so for reference here is Mineta's testimony.

bDfdOwt2v3Y

I was going to save this for the book, but I guess I really need to get some feedback since the "ramifications are obvious". If this has been discussed already and I missed it, then my bad.

Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta's testimony.

9:26 - AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC
9:30 - 30 nautical miles out
9:33 - 10 nautical miles out

If this is what Mineta was talking about, then the question to the VP would be after this at some point.

Here are the notes from a Secret Service log done for the 911 Commission and recently released by NARA.

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n525/John_Farmer/ss_log3.jpg

I hate to say it, but at first glance this seems to confirm Mineta's account that the plane in question was AAL77.

Original Document (http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/t8-b16-misc-work-papers-fdr-secret-service-timeline.pdf)

Thank you John Farmer!!!

[Jackanory]

Is this all that remains? Chitter chatter and noise about a bit of scrap paper hand copied by a skivvy. lol. Those book sales seem to work both angles.

[Childlike Empress]

Thank you John Farmer!!!

:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

[shure]

:D Well done, Jeff.

ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!! ONE OF US!!

I guess its better than I was a few years ago when you and Ron did the Hardfire show :blush:

[gumboot]

You guys have danced all around the big issue and focused on Mineta. The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out? Isn't the 'official' FAA story that O'Brien spotted the plane first and set off the alarm bells to SS and DCA with the old 'six miles out' scenario?


Actually you're misrepresenting the data. Here's what the USSS notes actually say:

0927 - two aircraft missing
0930 - one of the missing aircraft is heading to Washington DC
0931 - aircraft is 30mi from DC
0934 - aircraft is 10mi from DC
0935 - aircraft is turning south
0936 - aircraft is (looks like "circles" and something else)
0938 - aircraft has crashed into Pentagon

Notably, according to the notes all of this has come from the FAA (looks to be either Senior Vice President, Operations or Vice President, System Operations Services, both part of the Air Traffic Organisation). Neither of these positions has access to primary radar. It's unclear if the position is at FAA HQ or the ATCSCC. If at Washington DC, they were reliant mostly on what the ATCSCC told them. If at Herndon they had only what the TSD showed, plus what the ARTCCs told them.

The phone connection was only established at 0925, so some of these reports can be assumed to be a case of "tell us what has been happening" as opposed to "this is happening right now".

Only information from 0931 onwards is definitely in reference to a specific aircraft identification of some kind (be that a primary, a secondary, or a TSD track). You'll note the greatest distance reported is 30 miles, not 50, which already directly contradicts Mineta's testimony and further reinforces that his account was probably in relation to a separate and unrelated tracking of an aircraft later in the day.

At 0931 AA77 was indeed about 30 miles from Washington DC, however your claim that it wasn't supposedly detected until 6 miles away is false. The aircraft was detected supposedly at 0932, at which time the aircraft was 20 miles from Washington DC. I can easily see how a little give or take in those times due to reporting delays would put the discovery at about the right time for 30 miles distance, which matches up perfectly with the official account - that AA77 wasn't detected until it was right on Washington DC (had it not slowed and turned it would have passed central DC by about 0934).

The "six miles" report is in reference to when the FAA notified NEADS, which was at 0936. By this time Dulles TRACON had been tracking AA77 for at least 4 minutes.

The question then comes back to the first two points in the USSS notes, what we can conclude from them, and what they might tell us.

Firstly we have "two aircraft missing". That's obviously just a general summary of the situation and doesn't relate to anything particularly specific. Given it's immediately after the phone bridge is established, this could easily be historic information. The second point has to be taken with this in mind - one of those aircraft is heading to Washington DC. At 0930.

Well, at 0930, the FAA was aware of at least two flights that might be heading to Washington DC, in fact.

The first was AA11, which, due to a ghost TSD display, was erroneously though to still be heading south to Washington DC at the time. NEADS first learned of this at 0921, and as late as 0934 they were still directing Quit 2-5 to Washington DC to intercept AA11.

The second was AA77 which was lost heading west, but by now was being considered as a hijack. In fact as early as 0921 Dulles TRACON were told to look for AA77 on primary radar, so by now there was clearly concern that AA77 might be heading to Washington DC. In fact it was almost certainly because of that 0921 directive that Dulles TRACON detected AA77 at 0932.


The 0930 report of an aircraft heading to Washington DC wasn't based on any sort of radar return or tracking of an actual aircraft at all, but on simple deduction based on what was happening.

[Captain_Swoop]

BCR has an agenda to find the 'truth' and sell his upcoming book. Of course he will misrepresent the datas, he is a truther.

[Jackanory]

BCR has an agenda to find the 'truth' and sell his upcoming book. Of course he will misrepresent the datas, he is a truther.

I think John is a 'truther' of the real truth kind ie. security lapses, intel lapses etc rather than of the 'inside jobby' kind. Nobody is immune to discussing irrelvent issues in their search for the truth or in their research for a book. That rabbit hole can be peared into occasionally, just strap yourself to something rational first!

[Brainster]

I notice the original video linked by CE is no longer active, so for reference here is Mineta's testimony.

bDfdOwt2v3Y

I was going to save this for the book, but I guess I really need to get some feedback since the "ramifications are obvious". If this has been discussed already and I missed it, then my bad.

Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta's testimony.

9:26 - AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC
9:30 - 30 nautical miles out
9:33 - 10 nautical miles out

If this is what Mineta was talking about, then the question to the VP would be after this at some point.

Here are the notes from a Secret Service log done for the 911 Commission and recently released by NARA.

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n525/John_Farmer/ss_log3.jpg

I hate to say it, but at first glance this seems to confirm Mineta's account that the plane in question was AAL77.

Original Document (http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/t8-b16-misc-work-papers-fdr-secret-service-timeline.pdf)

Hmmmm, looking at the original, I see this notation:

1005 POTUS departs Booker.

That's not even close. How could the Secret Service be so far off on their time for that event? Accounts differ but there is general agreement that Bush left Booker at 9:35 and Air Force One was airborne at 9:55 (or 9:57). Note as well that Mineta told Tim Roemer that when he met Cheney in the PEOC, that Bush was en route from Florida to Louisiana.

1015 POTUS arrives Sarasota/Bradenton.

Err, are we starting to see a problem with these times?

1130 Barksdale wheels down.

Ditto.

[BCR]

Actually you're misrepresenting the data. Here's what the USSS notes actually say:

....

The 0930 report of an aircraft heading to Washington DC wasn't based on any sort of radar return or tracking of an actual aircraft at all, but on simple deduction based on what was happening.

You see, this is what both sides of the aisle have in common, when it gets uncomfortable, you both start accusing the messenger of 'misrepresenting the data' (lying) and stating stuff like you were actually there with leaps of speculation.

Captain Swoop, book sales has nothing to do with it. I've spent so much money over the past years on 9/11 related FOIA's and research that I'll never break-even. The book is for my kids and I really could give a rats ass if anyone buys it or not.

[Dog Town]

As far as the video issue, still unresolved. The Navy and DoD claim they do not have the Pentagon and Navy Annex camera footage, implying they gave it to the FBI. The FBI claims they don't have it either. So into the vast wasteland of government they did go and whether they will ever surface is anyones guess.


Excuse me John,but this could use some clarification.
Are you saying they admit to some recordings, besides parking lot cams existing? If so can you be more specific? Who exactly has said this, and by what means? How exactly is this being "implied", that some were given to the FBI? I feel as if you're dancing the dance of the vague here. Maybe it's just me.

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

[Dog Town]

The book is for my kids and I really could give a rats ass if anyone buys it or not.

Well, I certainly look forward to reading it. Thank you for all your hard work.

[gumboot]

You see, this is what both sides of the aisle have in common, when it gets uncomfortable, you both start accusing the messenger of 'misrepresenting the data'

You did misrepresent the data. Nowhere at all on that USSS log note does "50 miles" appear. The furthest distance citation is 30 miles. Do you deny this?

If you deny this, you're just outright lying, or can't read, or whatever. If you accept what I am saying is true (and anyone who can read can readily confirm I am telling the truth) would you care to explain why you said:

who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out?

You have exactly zero evidence that anyone in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to the USSS when it was 50 miles from Washington DC. Zero.

(And indeed there's ample evidence they had absolutely no idea whatsoever where it was at that time, although they at least suspected it might be hijacked and headed to an unknown target on the East Coast)


(lying) and stating stuff like you were actually there with leaps of speculation.

No speculation involved. We know from countless sources that the FAA did not have radar contact on AA77 at 0930. Nor on any other missing aircraft at the time. Therefore the report from the FAA, recorded by the USSS in the log at 0930 of an aircraft headed to Washington DC cannot have been based on a radar return. That's basic deductive reasoning.

You're entire premise is based on crow-barring two admittedly similar (but ultimately different) incidents together into a single event. To do so you have to ignore a screed of points that clearly indicate they are not the same event, and further have to invent scenarios for which there's not even a scrap of evidence (such as someone mysteriously in the FAA having access to radar contact with AA77 while American Airlines, NORAD, and every ATC facility in the FAA had no idea where it was).

The adult, and responsible thing to do at this point is just to admit that you're wrong. Because no matter what you might thing, and no matter how much you might think the similarity of the Mineta countdown, AA77s flight path, and the USSS notes is suspicious, the reality is Norman Mineta did not witness a conversation in the bunker under the White House regarding unknown orders in relation to AA77.

We may never learn what that conversation was actually about, or when it actually occured, but we can determine pretty conclusively that it was not AA77, and it did not occur at 0925, or even prior to 0937.

[funk de fino]

You guys have danced all around the big issue and focused on Mineta. The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out? Isn't the 'official' FAA story that O'Brien spotted the plane first and set off the alarm bells to SS and DCA with the old 'six miles out' scenario?

No, no, no. The Mineta crap is not even worth looking at. You are better tha this.

[funk de fino]

So now I am a moron :jaw-dropp

If you look at the rest of my post and ignore it, then you decide.

Minetas own testimony debunks the whole thing.

[moorea34]

In the same document:

09:44 FAA reports current hijacking of AA77

:rolleyes:

[Brainster]

I wonder if this is a reconstructed timeline that someone on the Secret Service attempted to compile shortly afterwards, not a contemporaneous timeline. Numerous timelines have both Mineta's account (supposedly of Flight 77) and the Libby and others account of Flight 93 being X miles out, and then X-20 miles out, etc. For example, this timeline at the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html):

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.

And later (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_4.html) in the same timeline:

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?

The WaPo article makes it clear that this later account is about Flight 93.

John, are there any details accompanying the transcript as to what it specifically represents?

[Reheat]

I wonder if this is a reconstructed timeline that someone on the Secret Service attempted to compile shortly afterwards, not a contemporaneous timeline.

The notes that John posted were from NARA. That stuff on NARA is from the 9/11 Commission Staff; notes and such made during their investigation. In fact, if you search NARA documents you might find the same handwriting appearing again.

[Brainster]

The notes that John posted were from NARA. That stuff on NARA is from the 9/11 Commission Staff; notes and such made during their investigation. In fact, if you search NARA documents you might find the same handwriting appearing again.

According to Victoria Ashley (aka Victronix, aka Mrs Jim Hoffman) (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7061), the notes were made by 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara. But they are supposedly made from a "Secret Service Timeline Unclass Extract" per the notation made by Kara at the top of the first page.

[beachnut]

According to Victoria Ashley (aka Victronix, aka Mrs Jim Hoffman) (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7061), the notes were made by 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara. But they are supposedly made from a "Secret Service Timeline Unclass Extract" per the notation made by Kara at the top of the first page.
Is that the 911 Research nut? Poor Jim has long list of anomalies, a list of his delusions on 911. Since 2003 he has failed to figure out 911 given the evidence. He makes up anomalies, due to ignorance. He has a delusion his claims are more rational than the nuts who think there was no plane at the Pentagon. There is no big tent for 911 truth, just a village over populated with idiots.

The "orders still stand" anomaly, a failed attempt to manufacture woo, a failed attempt to give birth to the stillborn 911 truth movement.

[Reheat]

But they are supposedly made from a "Secret Service Timeline Unclass Extract" per the notation made by Kara at the top of the first page.

Yes, I know that. But, we still don't know if any info was added based on knowledge by the person making the notes. And we don't know the source and timing of the distance info either. In other words, were the SS notes taken real time by the SS? If so, where did they get the info and did the note taker add to them? These are all unanswered questions making this of questionable valuable for anything other than speculation.

[Dog Town]

Excuse me John,but this could use some clarification.
Are you saying they admit to some recordings, besides parking lot cams existing? If so can you be more specific? Who exactly has said this, and by what means? How exactly is this being "implied", that some were given to the FBI? I feel as if you're dancing the dance of the vague here. Maybe it's just me.

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

One more time, with feelings. C'mon John, only you seem to have this answer.

[Epic]

It seems to me that this document speaks more against Minetas timeline than confirms it. Since according to the document secret service learned that planes were heading to Washington at 9:30. So they had no reason to move Cheney to PEOC before that.

[achimspok]

The issue for me is who in the FAA was watching AAL77 and reporting it to SS when it was still 50 miles out? ...

It is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.”
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20031107010251/www.scitechweb.com/inhousereport/00navy/00spawar.html

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.”
Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20

Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks.
Source: http://pccw.alumni.cornell.edu/news/newsletters/spring06/riggs.html
Source: http://milkhouse-mouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/secret-services-air-surveillance.html

[achimspok]

So I ran into the White House and someone said you have to be briefed by d*** Clarke of the National Security Council.

So I went into the Situation Room and he briefly told me what was going on, and then he said you've got to be down in the PEOC with the Vice President. I said I don't know where the PEOC is, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there was a Secret Service agent standing there, and he says, "I'll take you over there right away."

So we went running down and went into the PEOC which is the bunker, as you know, under the White House.

I started to establish a direct line to the FAA to find out what was going on, and the Vice President and I were across from each other on the conference room table in the PEOC, and about this time someone came in and said this was -- when I finally got in there, it was probably about 9:27, is what I recall.

And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."

And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

So I said, "Monte, is there something -- can you identify it as being at the Pentagon?" He said, "No, we can't really pinpoint it like that."

Then about that time someone broke into our phone conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we've had a call from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane go into the Pentagon."

At that point I said, "Monte, bring all the airplanes down..."
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp?0cb=-31a105678&cp1=1
Source: http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/10/statements-of-norman-mineta-chronology.html

Seems like the USSS informed the VP, the VP informed Mineta (or he just heard the information), Mineta informed the FAA (or they just heard the information) ...

[Reheat]

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.”


Well, you have finally identified the all powerful, all encompassing knowledge of the NWO. Viola! It is a part of the Secret Service.....

According to his links here Tigerwall links to the entire FAA Radar system and it's portable. That's why Bush said he saw AA 11 strike the WTC.

Everyone employed by the NWO should immediately take cover, this twoofer has us fingered.

[Reheat]

Seems like the USSS informed the VP, the VP informed Mineta (or he just heard the information), Mineta informed the FAA (or they just heard the information) ...

This issue has been literally beaten to death. How you arrive at this conclusion based on the material you've posted is anyone's guess. Vivid imagination and twoofer mentality are perhaps the best explanation.

I think this article is a better analysis of this entire subject matter to include Mineta's confusing testimony.


http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785

[Captain_Swoop]

it goes around and around. Wait a couple of months and the truthers will have forgotten this entire thread or at least everything after the OP and will start it all over again.

[BCR]

Excuse me John,but this could use some clarification.
Are you saying they admit to some recordings, besides parking lot cams existing? If so can you be more specific? Who exactly has said this, and by what means? How exactly is this being "implied", that some were given to the FBI? I feel as if you're dancing the dance of the vague here. Maybe it's just me.

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

You know, I must have been at this too long because I am losing patience. I gave you the summary of several years of FOIA (administrative and judicial) activity by Scott Bingham, Judicial Watch and myself. The source is the US Navy, DoD and FBI. If it sounds vague, that is because it is. Not my fault. You are welcome to start the FOIA process yourself and perhaps in a few years come up with a better answer.

[Dog Town]

You know, I must have been at this too long because I am losing patience.


Sad that. Maybe you should take a break. Good luck to you.

[Captain_Swoop]

Truthers never take a break

[kmortis]

Do not personalize the argument.

[funk de fino]

. In the case of Mineta, we really do have a mystery in his testimony. Either he was in the PEOC making observations with Cheney when AAL77 hit or he was not. He is either being completely honest, mistaken, or lying out his teeth. Which is it?

However, I cannot ignore that his account parallels this SS log entry. So either it does because he was there, or because he 'filled out the blanks' using a source of information very consistent with the actual approach of the plane. Now I personally don't think he was in the PEOC because he said he arrived after the evac began. The news media was part of the evac and I don't see any reference in media accounts of the evac beginning prior to the Pentagon event.

I really don't care much about Mineta's account personally. It simply does not impact the flight I am studying and the 'orders' really have no bearing on my research. And afraid I don't know much about Dutch soldiers....

He misremembered. His own, and Mrs Cheney's, statements debunks the whole thing. As do the controllers signed statements. There is no mystery except that fact some people cant see the woods for the trees after all this time.

[Brainster]

In the case of Mineta, we really do have a mystery in his testimony. Either he was in the PEOC making observations with Cheney when AAL77 hit or he was not. He is either being completely honest, mistaken, or lying out his teeth. Which is it?

Miles Kara might have hit on the answer (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785) to that one:

There is just one question at issue. Why did Norman Mineta testify to a precise time that was inaccurate? We may never know the answer. For anyone that has worked in an operations or command center with world-wide responsibilities there is a logical explanation. He looked at the wrong clock; Central Time.

That fits.

[Jackanory]

Miles Kara might have hit on the answer (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785) to that one:



As pointed out in post 212. A load of hoo ha over some handwritten notes! Anyone for sudoku?

[BCR]

Miles Kara might have hit on the answer (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785) to that one:



That fits.

But don't ya know that Kara is an NWO disinformation operative? He cannot be trusted :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

Miles Kara might have hit on the answer (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785) to that one:

That fits.


It's a viable explanation, but I think there's other potential explanations as well. Another is that Mineta wrongly concluded the conversation must have been in reference to AA77. I think he built his timeline (I question the qualification of his times as "precise") retroactively based on the assumption that it was AA77 that the conversation was about.

It all stems back to the later reporting that an American Airlines jet was "confirmed" as having hit the Pentagon. This could have been a long time after impact, but Mineta wouldn't necessarily have known that. He was "out of the loop" for a bit, so would have missed the initial "something's going on at the Pentagon" reports. First thing he knew was the confirmation of an aircraft hit. He naturally would have aligned that with about the time of impact (0937) and would have worked backwards from there, thus arriving at 0925-6 for the "do the orders still stand?" conversation.

[MikeW]

It all stems back to the later reporting that an American Airlines jet was "confirmed" as having hit the Pentagon. This could have been a long time after impact, but Mineta wouldn't necessarily have known that.
I think that's right.

The way Mineta tells it, the confirmation arrives almost immediately:

Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, "Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon." So then I said, "Monty, bring all the airplanes down." When you see one of something happen, it's an accident; when you see two of the same thing happening, it's a trend, something. When you see three, it's a plan. So I said, "Bring all the planes down."
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/min0int-8

Others say it took a while for them to find out, though, and there was initially a lot of confusion over what had happened at the Pentagon. So I think that's the key: Mineta associated the confirmation with what he'd just been hearing, but in fact Flight 77 had crashed some time before.