Mineta's testimony not part of 9/11 report

[Pardalis]

It's deleted from the report, like I've been saying,

And it's deleted from the video.

As far as we know it's never been in the Report, it was disregarded. And we don't know what happened to the video.

Still, Mineta's testimony is available in html and pdf formats on the Commission Report website.

[R.Mackey]

Nope. Still doesn't work

9:37 to 9:38 is not enough time.

The part of Mineta's testimony where he says:
1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

This has been implicitly denied by the commission.

None of you has any idea what "implictly denied," means.

Pathetic.
Oh, good grief. Mutton-head, I recall how you first came over here, all convinced that the official story of the WTC collapse failed an energetic balance equation. Then we ascertained that you didn't even comprehend the difference between energy and force, despite claims to being a EE. Then you went away for a month.

Now you're back and armed with new "information," luckily for you the kind that cannot be quantified. To wit, on this thread:

1. Transportation Secretary Mineta testifies to a timeline that doesn't quite jive with the initial story
2. (now) His testimony was "deleted" from the 9-11 Commission Report, and "deleted" from the 9-11 downloadable video.

Only problem is that

1. Mineta's timeline violates physics, as shown by gumboot, and would only need a few minutes of correction here or there to be completely consistent
2. His testimony appears in toto -- including the exchange critical to you -- in plain text on the same webpage
3. Omission on the web video is the entire first 12 pages, not just the few items you're fussing about, as if it matters
4. You have no evidence that it was ever part of the 9-11 Report to being with, hence "deleted" is the wrong word. "Not included," I might buy.

For what it's worth, I know precisely what "implicit denial" means. Because I do know -- and you do not -- I know that the 9-11 Commission does not implicitly deny his testimony. They may have considered this portion of his testimony redundant, inaccurate, or irrelevant. This is not the same as "implicit denial."

Do you know what "false dilemma" means?
For bonus points, can you find where you have constructed one?

[Mutton-Head]

Only problem is that

1. Mineta's timeline violates physics, as shown by gumboot, and would only need a few minutes of correction here or there to be completely consistent .....................



For what it's worth, I know precisely what "implicit denial" means. Because I do know -- and you do not -- I know that the 9-11 Commission does not implicitly deny his testimony. They may have considered this portion of his testimony redundant, inaccurate, or irrelevant. This is not the same as "implicit denial."

Do you know what "false dilemma" means?
For bonus points, can you find where you have constructed one?



Well, this would be a true dilema, because,

9:37 to 9:38 is one minute

This is not enough time to

1. Wait about five minutes
2. Monitor a plane fly 50 miles


1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. After about five mintues, Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, this would be a true dilema, because,

9:37 to 9:38 is one minute

This is not enough time to

1. Wait about five minutes
2. Monitor a plane fly 50 miles


1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. After about five mintues, Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."


Why are you so convinced that Mineta is the only person in this entire scenario that is not (1) mistaken or (2) lying? Is it even removely possible in your CT-obsessed brain to entertain the possibility that Mineta's wrong or mistaken and the commission left it out so he didn't look like an utter moron, or left it out just to prevent confusion?

[R.Mackey]

Well, this would be a true dilema, because,

9:37 to 9:38 is one minute

This is not enough time to

1. Wait about five minutes
2. Monitor a plane fly 50 miles
Wrong. We have already established that (a) Mineta was estimating, and can already be shown to be off by roughly five minutes in some of his estimates, and (b) it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

[gumboot]

1. Yes, But I would hope that they actually considered each piece of sworn testimony. (I'm gonna get to this very soon.)

2. Yes.


Thank you Mutton-Head. Bear with me, I'm going to do this one step at a time.

Okay. Let's look at the transcript (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm) of Mineta's testimony shall we?

I have a few things I want to highlight before we go further. I have bolded where relevant.

First, the reason the commission are interviewing the Secretary of Transportation:

Our focus today, however, is the field of civil aviation. Today's first -- where we start, we pick up the story of the hijackings on September 11th itself. How did the civil aviation security system operate that day with respect to the 19 hijackers? What weapons and tactics did they employ to defeat the system?

Second, the third paragraph of Mineta's first comments:


There are many events that occurred on September 11th that I do not have personal knowledge of, though I have learned about them in subsequent investigations and reports. I know this commission will be speaking to the same agencies and individuals that provided me with that information, so I will let the Commission collect that information from those primary sources.

Okay, now let's look at Mineta's timeline. I have assembled this purely from his testimony:

Before 0845 - in meeting with Belgian transport minister
US Dept of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW, Washington DC

After 0845 - Mineta is told about aircraft hitting WTC

Between 0845 and 0903 - Mineta learns aircraft is a commercial aircraft and that FAA have unconfirmed report that an American Airlines flight has been hijacked

0903 - Mineta watches UA175 hit the South Tower

Between 0903 and 0920 the following occur:
1) Mineta tells the Belgian transport minister what has happened and ends the meeting
2) Mineta has a phone conversation with the CEOs of American Airlines and United Airlines
3) Mineta is informed that Delta Airlines cannot account for all its aircraft.
4) The White House requests Mineta to operate from their location.
5) Mineta leaves for the White House.
6) Mineta arrives at the White House as it is being "evacuated"
7) Mineta meets briefly with Richard Clark
8) The Secret Service escourts Mineta to the PEOC

0920 - Mineta arrives at POEC

Between 0920 and 0925 - Mineta establishes communication between POEC, his Dept, and FAA Operations Centre

0925-6 - Conversation occurs, AA77 is 10 miles from the Pentagon

between 0920 and 0945 - FAA begin restricting airspace

0945 - Mineta orders a nationwide "Ground Stop", forcing all currently airbourne aircraft to land at the nearest capable airfield.

Now, Mutton-Head, before we go any further, do you accept that this timeline reflects Mineta's testimony?

-Andrew

EDIT to add missed word

[Gravy]

Okay, now let's look at Mineta's timeline. I have assembled this purely from his testimony:

Before 0845 - in meeting with Belgian transport minister
US Dept of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW, Washington DC

After 0845 - Mineta is told about aircraft hitting WTC

Between 0845 and 0903 - Mineta learns aircraft is a commercial aircraft and that FAA have unconfirmed report that an American Airlines flight has been hijacked

0903 - Mineta watches UA175 hit the South Tower

Between 0903 and 0920 the following occur:
1) Mineta tells the Belgian transport minister what has happened and ends the meeting
2) Mineta has a phone conversation with the CEOs of American Airlines and United Airlines
3) Mineta is informed that Delta Airlines cannot account for all its aircraft.
4) The White House requests Mineta to operate from their location.
5) Mineta leaves for the White House.
6) Mineta arrives at the White House as it is being "evacuated"
7) Mineta meets briefly with Richard Clark
8) The Secret Service escourts Mineta to the PEOC

0920 - Mineta arrives at POEC

Between 0920 and 0925 - Mineta establishes communication between POEC, his Dept, and FAA Operations Centre

0925-6 - Conversation occurs, AA77 is 10 miles from the Pentagon

between 0920 and 0945 - FAA begin restricting airspace

0945 - Mineta orders a nationwide "Ground Stop", forcing all currently airbourne aircraft to land at the nearest capable airfield.

Now, Mutton-Head, before we go any further, do you accept that this timeline reflects Mineta's testimony?

-Andrew

EDIT to add missed word

By the way, I measured the driving distance from the DOT to the White House as 1.6 miles.

Here's a bit of Mineta speaking about 9/11 to Larry King

KING: Where were you September 11?

MINETA: September 11, I was having breakfast with the deputy prime minister of Belgium, who is also the transport minister. And we were talking about aviation issues relating to United States and Europe. And then my chief of staff came into that meeting and said, "Mr. Secretary, may I see you?"

So I went into my office, and then on the television was the World Trade Center building. And he said, "Well we are not sure what's happened up there, but we heard it might be an airplane." And I said, well, keep me posted and I went back into the meeting.

And then, about five minutes, he came back in and said, "May I see you again?" So I excused myself, went into the office and they said it is an airplane. And it is a commercial airliner that ran into the -- that was flown into the World Trade Center. And as I was sitting there watching the television set, all of a sudden I see this gray object come from the right side of the screen. And then off the -- from the left side of the screen, I see this white-orange billowy cloud coming out.

And so I went in and excused myself, and about that time, the White House called. And I went over to the White House, got briefed in the situation room. And Dick Clark from the National Security Council staff said that I had to go over to the presidential emergency operation center with the vice president.

So the Secret Service agent took me over there, then was in the bunker there with the vice president as we were getting an update about what happened, when I heard that the third airplane had gone into the Pentagon, I then ordered that all the aircraft in the United States be brought down to the ground. And due to the great professionalism and the skills of the air traffic controllers, and the professionalism of the flight deck crews and the cabin crews, we brought down over 4,800 airplanes safely and without incident in about a two-hour time.

[Mutton-Head]

Wrong. We have already established that (a) Mineta was estimating, and can already be shown to be off by roughly five minutes in some of his estimates, and (b) it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.


One minute is not enough for AA77 to fly 50 miles.

One minute is all that the commission's report allows for Mineta's account of AA77.

The commissions implicitly denies Mineta's account of AA77

[Mutton-Head]

Hey Gravy, welcome back.

Thanks for posting a whole bunch of meaningless info,
and absolutely no explanation as to why it matters.

Taking lessons fron the Loose-Change Cters?

[R.Mackey]

One minute is not enough for AA77 to fly 50 miles.

One minute is all that the commission's report allows for Mineta's account of AA77.

The commissions implicitly denies Mineta's account of AA77
That's it? You're just going to ignore what I said, and repeat your tired, uninteresting "evidence?"

I can only assume that means you don't have an answer.

[chipmunk stew]

No, incorrect, they actually aren't. Because nothing in their report exludes you from having gone to work. However, once again,


Mineta says:
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."


the 9/11 commission, with their time-line of 9:37, to 9:38, implicitly denies that any of these things occurred.


Does anyone on this board understand what it means to "implicitly deny?"Mutton-Head, let's assume as fact for a moment that these things did occur exactly as Mineta said, and that the Commission intentionally lied about it.

How, in your line of reasoning, does this implicate Cheney?

[Mutton-Head]

That's it? You're just going to ignore what I said, and repeat your tired, uninteresting "evidence?"

I can only assume that means you don't have an answer.


That's the "implictly denied" part.
The one that you don't understand.

as stated, the commission gives Cheney's arrival at 9:37
Pentagon crash at 9:37

9:37 to 9:38 is one minute

This is not enough time to

1. Wait about five minutes
2. Monitor a plane fly 50 miles

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton-Head, let's assume as fact for a moment that these things did occur exactly as Mineta said, and that the Commission intentionally lied about it.

How, in your line of reasoning, does this implicate Cheney?

Well, right now, the contention of this thread is,
That the 911 commission denies these aspects of Mineta's testimony.
As soon as everybody agrees, we can close this thread.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, right now, the contention of this thread is,
That the 911 commission denies these aspects of Mineta's testimony.
As soon as everybody agrees, we can close this thread.Everyone agrees that it was not included in the Report (although it remains publicly available on the Commission's website.) You see sinister motives for it, while no one else does. That's not going to change.

You've stated several times in this thread that this implicates Cheney. I want to know how.

[chipmunk stew]

That's the "implictly denied" part.
The one that you don't understand.

as stated, the commission gives Cheney's arrival at 9:37
Pentagon crash at 9:37

9:37 to 9:38 is one minute

This is not enough time to

1. Wait about five minutes
2. Monitor a plane fly 50 miles
Was "50 miles" literally what Mineta overheard, or was he just illustrating the process of distance updates given by the young man?

[aggle-rithm]

We're only trying to find out how 19 hijackers brought the American military to its knees. So what if we loose a few pieces of testimony, or can't keep track of when events occured.

If the last forty years of history have taught us, conventional military tactics do not work against terrorism. Armed forces exist to take on other armed forces, not small groups of individuals trying to carry out symbolic pin-prick attacks.

According to conventional military thinking, the 9/11 attacks were a strategic failure in that they did not do serious damage to the US infrastructure, nor did they result in any policy changes beneficial to the attackers. So, I wouldn't say the military was "brought to its knees". That's like saying a police force is brought to its knees every time a crime is committed.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, right now, the contention of this thread is,
That the 911 commission denies these aspects of Mineta's testimony.
As soon as everybody agrees, we can close this thread.

The 911 commission also denies that the Earth is round, that water is wet, and that Pittsburgh won the last Super Bowl.

At least, according to your logic it does.

[Cylinder]

According to the time-line given by the official report, that Cheney arrived in the PEOC at 9:37, none of what Mineta said happened, could have happened.

It is important that you recognize this. Do you agree that AA-77 impacted the Pentagon at 0937 or is this in dispute?

[Mutton-Head]

Was "50 miles" literally what Mineta overheard, or was he just illustrating the process of distance updates given by the young man?

Mineta was quoting the young man.

[Mutton-Head]

It is important that you recognize this. Do you agree that AA-77 impacted the Pentagon at 0937 or is this in dispute?


I believe the commission says Cheney arrived at 9:37,

AA77 impact at 9:38

[Pardalis]

Mineta was quoting the young man.

Mineta says he doesn't know what the young man was referring to.

[Cylinder]

I believe the commission says Cheney arrived at 9:37,

AA77 impact at 9:38

OK, the Commission timeline sets it at 9:37:46 so we can round up. You agree with 0938, right?

[Mutton-Head]

OK, the Commission timeline sets it at 9:37:46 so we can round up. You agree with 0938, right?

Yes

[Cylinder]

On Friday, May 23, 2003, Sec. Mineta testified to the following:

By this time, my office had contacted the White House. A brief moment later, the White House called my chief of staff and asked if I could come to the White House and operate from that location. I decided that, given the nature of the attack and the request, that I should be at the White House directly providing the president and the vice president with information.

When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger, the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey, both of whom were in the FAA operations center.

Emphasis is mine. It seems that if we pinpoint the time of the White House evacuation, we have a good estimate of Sec. Mineta's arrival time. The Commission Report

At 9:33, the tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport picked up a hotline to the Secret Service and told the Service's operations center that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us." This was the first specific report to the Secret Service of a direct threat to the White House. No move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time. As the officer who took the call explained, "[I was] about to push the alert button when the tower advised that the aircraft was turning south and approaching Reagan National Airport."

American 77 began turning south, away from the White House, at 9:34. It continued heading south for roughly a minute, before turning west and beginning to circle back. This news prompted the Secret Service to order the immediate evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. Agents propelled him out of his chair and told him he had to get to the bunker. The Vice President entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37.

Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of smoke coming from the building

Emphasis mine. The USSS asserts that the evacuation alarm was activated 0936 - a mere 2 minutes before AA77 impacted the Pentagon which would not allow for time for the events in Sec. Mineta's testimony.

[Jackalgirl]

Thank you Mutton-Head. Bear with me, I'm going to do this one step at a time.

Okay. Let's look at the transcript (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm) of Mineta's testimony shall we?<snip>

I should like to point out that if these are indeed the times given by Mineta (sorry, too lazy to look), then I find it highly suspicious that they are all in neat five-minute packets.

The fact that Mineta's times are neatly parcelled into convenient-to-remember five-minute blocks strongly supports the contention that the guy was just estimating. The only exception is "9:03". Well, I think it would be easy to "remember" a very specific time that's been blared all over the media. So. It seems pretty clear to me that the guy was just estimating. Of course a commission would consider a log (or multiple logs) more credible.

A log, for example, would contain "odd" timestamps because, as has been pointed out earlier, it is accurate. Since it seems so mindblowing to certain forum members that logs might be taken as more factual as personal memories despite ARubberChickenWithAPully's very clear description of what they're for, I'll just weigh in as another "expert" (In-Port Officer of the Deck in the USS McFaul) and say that ARCWAP is spot-on: the reason logs exist is to be the factual timeline references, and it is precisely why (at least in all US Navy commands) they are legal documents by default.

Not that this will matter much, given that it contradicts the CT, but there you go.

[jhunter1163]

Mutton, might I suggest a semantic change? Rather that saying the Commission implicitly denies, yada yada, try saying the Commission does not acknowledge Mr. Mineta's testimony. This is closer to the truth and also leads logically to the question of WHY the Commission is not acknowledging the testimony. This is the approach that a fair-minded investigator would take. Then you could make FOIA requests and whatnot to try to arrive at an answer. If you're not willing to consider this, I can only conclude that you're not interested in the real truth but only in spreading your perception of it to others.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mutton, might I suggest a semantic change? Rather that saying the Commission implicitly denies, yada yada, try saying the Commission does not acknowledge Mr. Mineta's testimony. This is closer to the truth and also leads logically to the question of WHY the Commission is not acknowledging the testimony. This is the approach that a fair-minded investigator would take. Then you could make FOIA requests and whatnot to try to arrive at an answer. If you're not willing to consider this, I can only conclude that you're not interested in the real truth but only in spreading your perception of it to others.

Thank you jhunter1163, that was one of the things I was trying to convey, and doing a poor job of doing so. "implicitly denies" has biased connotations that "does not acknowledge", or "did not include" do not.

[Gravy]

[QUOTE]Emphasis is mine. It seems that if we pinpoint the time of the White House evacuation, we have a good estimate of Sec. Mineta's arrival time. The Commission Report
Mineta may have seen people leaving and assumed it was an evacuation.

The USSS asserts that the evacuation alarm was activated 0936 - a mere 2 minutes before AA77 impacted the Pentagon which would not allow for time for the events in Sec. Mineta's testimony.
That was Cheney's evacuation time. The rest of the building didn't start its mandatory evacuation until after the Pentagon was struck.

[Cylinder]

Mineta may have seen people leaving and assumed it was an evacuation.


That was Cheney's evacuation time. The rest of the building didn't start its mandatory evacuation until after the Pentagon was struck.

True. I am assuming that since Sec. Mineta was asked to the White House as part of the emergency operations team that he would have been taken to the tunnel. Since his narrative begins with the PEOC, I think that's a reasonable assumption. At any rate - the earliest time that he could reasonably characterize as "evacuation" was 0936 - far too late for the events that he describes.

NEADS was informed that AA77 was missing at 0934, so that rules out that notification - it comes far too late in the time-line as well.

At 0921 Boston Center erroneously notified NEADS that AA11 (that had actually just impacted WTC-1) turned toward Washington. What they were in fact tracking was AA77. The problem with using that to fit Sec. Mineta's narrative is that he did not arrive until the evac - 0936 at the earliest.

The Commission's findings shed some light on what I think was some error in Sec. Mineta's recollections during his testimony:

More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.175This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.176 This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.177

In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

Six miles? Sixty miles? If we only knew how far apart in time Sec. Mineta remembered these calls to be.

None of these explanations are a slam dunk. When the Secret Service detail asserts it ordered an evacuation alarm at 0936, I tend to take them at their word.

[gumboot]

Mutton-Head,

We haven't finished yet.

Can you please respond to this post so I may continue?




Okay, now let's look at Mineta's timeline. I have assembled this purely from his testimony:

Before 0845 - in meeting with Belgian transport minister
US Dept of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW, Washington DC

After 0845 - Mineta is told about aircraft hitting WTC

Between 0845 and 0903 - Mineta learns aircraft is a commercial aircraft and that FAA have unconfirmed report that an American Airlines flight has been hijacked

0903 - Mineta watches UA175 hit the South Tower

Between 0903 and 0920 the following occur:
1) Mineta tells the Belgian transport minister what has happened and ends the meeting
2) Mineta has a phone conversation with the CEOs of American Airlines and United Airlines
3) Mineta is informed that Delta Airlines cannot account for all its aircraft.
4) The White House requests Mineta to operate from their location.
5) Mineta leaves for the White House.
6) Mineta arrives at the White House as it is being "evacuated"
7) Mineta meets briefly with Richard Clark
8) The Secret Service escourts Mineta to the PEOC

0920 - Mineta arrives at POEC

Between 0920 and 0925 - Mineta establishes communication between POEC, his Dept, and FAA Operations Centre

0925-6 - Conversation occurs, AA77 is 10 miles from the Pentagon

between 0920 and 0945 - FAA begin restricting airspace

0945 - Mineta orders a nationwide "Ground Stop", forcing all currently airbourne aircraft to land at the nearest capable airfield.

Now, Mutton-Head, before we go any further, do you accept that this timeline reflects Mineta's testimony?




Do you, Mutton-Head? Do you accept it?

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

Just finished reading what Gumboot and Cylinder wrote. I'm looking into that.
Richard Clark does seem important here. I'll get back.

[Mutton-Head]

OK, here...


I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The only thing that others have given is, "I assumes the logs say...."
or, "The evacuation time seems to be..."

But as far as sworn testimony, regarding Mineta's arrival, or any other aspect of the PEOC time-line....

Mineta's account is the only one that exists.

Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.

Also, the official reports account of where AA77 was, agrees with Mineta.

The official report states that AA77 was 60 miles from the Pentagon at 9:26.

It agrees with Mineta, give or take a minute or two.

[Cylinder]

I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The Secret Service testified that the evac alarm was not activated until 0936. Sec. Mineta testified that his arrival coincided with that alarm.

Mineta testified that he was sent directly to the PEOC where he remembered the call-outs directed at Cheney. Cheney was not in the PEOC tunnel until ~0935 - three minutes before AA77 impacted the Pentagon.

[Mutton-Head]

The Secret Service testified that the evac alarm was not activated until 0936. Sec. Mineta testified that his arrival coincided with that alarm.



What day was that? Do you have a name?

[Cylinder]

What day was that? Do you have a name?

Rocco Delmonico, who I assume to be a Secret Service agent on the White House detail, was interviewed by the USSS on Oct 1, 2001. The results of this interview was presented to the Commission on Jan. 29, 2004.

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.


Bear with me Mutton-Head. This is about the timeline I am interested in. Now, we'll try again.

Do you agree that the timeline I presented reflect's Mineta's testimony?

This is a yes or no question Mutton-Head. I do not require additional remarks from you. Just a yes or a no.

-Andrew

[Cylinder]

Since I cannot find a copy of Executive Summary: US Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11, 2001 to October 3, 2001 (dated Oct. 3, 2001) anywhere on the web or any information about its public release (or lack thereof), I've filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the US Secret Service to obtain a copy.

Since at least some of the specific information contained in the memo is already in the public record, I expect to at least get a redacted copy. The Secret Service has 20 days to respond.

[MikeW]

Since at least some of the specific information contained in the memo is already in the public record, I expect to at least get a redacted copy. The Secret Service has 20 days to respond.
Hmm yes, but that means "20 days to reply". So you'll get a letter back saying "thanks, we've got your FOIA request & will now process it as normal". The only way you'll get anything within a month of that is if they say "no", otherwise expect a long wait.

Not that I want to put you off! And congrats for making the effort, it's a pity more people don't bother. Just don't expect anything to happen in a hurry.

[aggle-rithm]

OK, here...


I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The only thing that others have given is, "I assumes the logs say...."
or, "The evacuation time seems to be..."

But as far as sworn testimony, regarding Mineta's arrival, or any other aspect of the PEOC time-line....

Mineta's account is the only one that exists.

Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.

Also, the official reports account of where AA77 was, agrees with Mineta.

The official report states that AA77 was 60 miles from the Pentagon at 9:26.

It agrees with Mineta, give or take a minute or two.


You want to know what the ironic thing is?

You think this is all very important.

I, on the other hand, don't care.

And yet, we will both have the exact same impact on future 9/11 investigations... none.

[Cylinder]

I thought the same, but the law is actually quite the opposite:

5 USC §552 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552----000-.html) (a)(6)(A):

(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall—

(i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

Sub B provides for agency extensions in "unusual circumstances" which are defined by statute as:

(I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;

(II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or

(III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.

The Act does not specify a deadline for the black helicopters to begin flying over my residence and place of business, so I'll just have to wait for that.

[MikeW]

I thought the same, but the law is actually quite the opposite:
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#limits for some of the tricks that can be used to extend this. And I'm speaking from experience, not theory -- I have FOIA requests outstanding from March (Dod x 2, FBI x 1, DIA x 1) and May (Air Force x 1), and none have gone beyond the acknowledgement letter stage. I'd love you to get this document in a couple of weeks and prove me comprehensively wrong, but somehow I suspect you won't.

[Cylinder]

Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#limits for some of the tricks that can be used to extend this. And I'm speaking from experience, not theory -- I have FOIA requests outstanding from March (Dod x 2, FBI x 1, DIA x 1) and May (Air Force x 1), and none have gone beyond the acknowledgement letter stage. I'd love you to get this document in a couple of weeks and prove me comprehensively wrong, but somehow I suspect you won't.

I appreciate the benefit of experience. My initial hope is the since the USSS is such a small agency that the request will stay of the nether regions of US bureaucracy. Time will tell.

What requests have you submitted, if it's not too personal?

[MikeW]

I appreciate the benefit of experience. My initial hope is the since the USSS is such a small agency that the request will stay of the nether regions of US bureaucracy. Time will tell.
It would be great to get the document, so I hope you're right.

What requests have you submitted, if it's not too personal?
Not at all. Go to http://www.911myths.com/html/foia_and_911.html

Read the first bit, up to "22nd July". Then, because it's done blog-style, go to the bottom and read upwards. If you see what I mean. (It's all a bit confusing, I know, I'm going to fix it when I have the time.)

[Cylinder]

It would be great to get the document, so I hope you're right.

I'll forward a copy to if I ever get results. At some point we may require a separate thread to pool resources. I've been looking through the Report footnotes looking for little gaps in primary source information and quotes.

Since the 9-11 conspiracy hypotheses seem to be evolving into another Who Shot JFK or Did We Really Land on the Moon?, I think it's a fairly worthwhile effort.

Are you aware of any other requests for this particular document or the reputation of the USSS in regards to FOIA requests in general? Google only returns hits to the Report footnote itself.

ETA: Nice site, BTW. I'll take the time to study it closely.

[Cylinder]

BTW, Mike - are those dates 2006?

[MikeW]

Are you aware of any other requests for this particular document or the reputation of the USSS in regards to FOIA requests in general?
No. You'll be the first, if you get it!

And yes, the dates are 2006. The first application was before then, as I say, but everything else is this year.

[gumboot]

No. You'll be the first, if you get it!

And yes, the dates are 2006. The first application was before then, as I say, but everything else is this year.



I've just clicked that you're responsible for the 911myths site? (I know, call me slow...)

Fantastic job.

Just flicked through, notice your Afghanistan section, wondered if you'd come across any of the material that demolishes the notion of Afghanistan's importance full stop?

For example, the fact that Unocol wanted a GAS pipeline, not an oil one. The specific reasons that led to them seeking this less-than-appealing solution for Caspian Sea gas fields, and the reason it's all now irrelevant?

I can't for the life of me recall where I read the analysis, but it was a great read.

-Andrew

[MikeW]

I've just clicked that you're responsible for the 911myths site? (I know, call me slow...)
Yes. And thanks!

Just flicked through, notice your Afghanistan section, wondered if you'd come across any of the material that demolishes the notion of Afghanistan's importance full stop?
That is too short a section right now, and you're right, I do need to add something about the pipeline. Especially as some people keep going on about how it's been/ being built, when they've not even agreed on it yet. I'll get something done eventually...

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, might I suggest a semantic change? Rather that saying the Commission implicitly denies, yada yada, try saying the Commission does not acknowledge Mr. Mineta's testimony. This is closer to the truth and also leads logically to the question of WHY the Commission is not acknowledging the testimony. This is the approach that a fair-minded investigator would take. Then you could make FOIA requests and whatnot to try to arrive at an answer. If you're not willing to consider this, I can only conclude that you're not interested in the real truth but only in spreading your perception of it to others.

The reason for the statement:

"the 9/11 commssion implicitly deines the event described by Mineta,"

Is because of the time-line the commission gives for Cheney's arrival in the PEOC.
The commission says that Cheney arrived and 9:37,
and AA77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38.

The commission is saying that,
"There is no way that the events described by Mineta ever happened.
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC before Mineta arrived.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

They say that there is no way that these events occurred, or could have occured, because of the time-line that they offer. This is different than not acknowledging. If the commission had simply "not acknowledged," then a later revision could simply add the statement. Mineta's statement cannot be added, because the time-line does not permit it.

This is implicitly denying.

[Mutton-Head]

Bear with me Mutton-Head. This is about the timeline I am interested in. Now, we'll try again.

Do you agree that the timeline I presented reflect's Mineta's testimony?

This is a yes or no question Mutton-Head. I do not require additional remarks from you. Just a yes or a no.

-Andrew

Sorry Gumboot, I haven't gone through his entire time-line. I'll assume that your compilation of his statements is correct.
That would be a yes.

[R.Mackey]

Ai caramba.

Having given up on the deceitful "Speakthetruth," I'll remain patient with you, Mutton-Head, despite the fact you keep repeating the same uninteresting drivel over and over and over again.

It occurs to me that I was once faced with a similar situation. Bear with me -- I will show you how inconsistencies in testimony, or "implicit denials" as you call them, happen all the time.

Some years ago I was on the jury of a street racing trial. The incident in question happened around midnight. The bulk of evidence presented was in the form of testimony from police officers and arrest report documentation.

The arresting officer testified that he was approaching an intersection, five minutes before midnight, when he saw the defendant launch from it and take off. A brief chase ensued, vehicles were pulled over and sorted out, and the suspect was taken into custody about quarter past midnight.

"Aha!" says the defense attorney. That's not what the arrest report says! The report clearly stated -- in writing -- that the chase began at 2155 and no arrest was made until 0015 hours. That's almost two hours of following the suspect! Harassment, or the slowest chase of all time! In either case, not guilty.

Well, no. It was transparently obvious to me that the young police officer simply wasn't familiar with military time. He looked at his watch, read 11:55, and in the heat of battle added 10 hours to it instead of 12. An honest mistake. People make these, including sworn officers of the peace, even transportation secretaries.

We found the defendant guilty. We did not bother to correct the police record. In summary, the finding of the court "implicitly denied" the sworn statement of a professional law enforcement officer. As it should.

I'm still not impressed with the discrepancy in Mineta's testimony. Give the man a break already.

[Cylinder]

The commission is saying that,
"There is no way that the events described by Mineta ever happened.
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC before Mineta arrived.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

Sec. Mineta's testimony in this regard is not reliable. Once you tease out the particulars, it's easy to show that his time-line if quite a bit off as illustrated by live media reports presented that day, other official testimony, subsequent statements by the participants of those events and physical evidence presented to the Commission.

For instance. in his testimony to the Commission (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm), Sec. Mineta relates the time-line of events from his arrival at the White House:

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too.

I want to follow up on what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and try to understand that day a little bit better. You said, if I understood you correctly, that you were not in the room; you were obviously coming from the Department of Transportation, where you had been busy in a meeting in official business, but you had not been in the room when the decision was made -- to what you inferred was a decision made to attempt to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. Is that correct?

MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.

MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"

MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.

According to the testimony provided above, Sec. Mineta claims the following events occurred between 0920 and 0926:



Sec. Mineta arrives at PEOC:
This is disputed by the USSS alarm log presented the the Commission that shows the time as 0937 (Report pp. 39-40), by Secret Service agents Nelson Garabito,and Terry van Steenburgen who testified to the Commission that the VP had not yet evacuated at 0933 at the time time of the Reagan Nat'l Airport call to the White House Secret Service detail (Report p. 39), by Secret Service agent Rocco Delmonico who testified to the actual timing of the evacuation (Report pp. 39-40) among others.


President Bush departed for Barksdale, AFB:
This is deputed by countless media reports (CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/), USSS shift log of Sept. 11, 2001 ([i]Report p. 39) and by your (Mutton-Head's) own claims (Bush stayed in the classroom reading My Pet Goat until after 0915.)


Pres. Bush and VP Cheney concluded a phone call:
This is disputed by Lynne Cheney's arrival time at the PEOC ("According to contemporaneous notes, at 9:55 the Vice President was still on the phone with the President advising that three planes were missing and one had hit the Pentagon." Report p. 40)


President Bush issued a shoot-down order through VP Cheney:
This is disputed by VP Cheney, the PEOC Shelter Log, White House phone logs, AF-1 phone logs, and Ari Fleisher which place the call around 1010. (Report pp. 40 - 41.)


VP Cheney passed the order to the military:
This is disputed by DoD Transcript for its Air Conference Call which placed the time that the order was disseminated at 1014. (Report p. 42)



[Edit for clarity: Note that I am not claiming these events did not occur - I am claiming that none of them occurred in the 0920-0926 timefarme as Sec. Mineta's testimony asserts.]

Actually, what Sec. Mineta witnessed being tracked is UA93:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft —presumably hijacked— heading toward Washington.That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA.The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return.Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217

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

The call-outs, the confirmation request... Sound familiar?

You simply cannot have Mineta's testimony a priori and the My Pet Goat story. One of them has to be wrong. Either he sat in the classroom and listened to the children read or he jumped into action and made phone calls.

Which is it?

[busherie]

Wait, don't discredit Mineta's testimony that fast. You should focus first on the official story.

Mineta may not be 100% right concerning the details, but plz consider the alarm log evidence is shallow: there is no documentary evidence.

Everybody seems to say that he actually witnessed a discussion about Flight UA93, and not flight AA77

Conerning the timeline:

- Cheney basicaly only has USSS to back him up (check the notes)

- Mineta's version has Richard Clarke and White House photograph Bohrer (Cheney leaving for the PEOC right after 0900)

The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

Only flight 77 was that close. If you consider Mineta's account (under oath, unlike Cheney or Bush) he mentions "50 miles out" "30 miles out" "10 miles out". Then only does it make sense. Maybe he's deaf.

2 - The official timeline mentions all this happened AFTER UA93 actually crashed (at about 1001)

_______________

Therefore, even though Mineta' testimony might not prove reliable on all facts, the major flaws in the official version forces us to consider it possible, and even likely.

_______________

PS: if you read carefully the official account, the commission actually comes up with an idea to explain the flaws i've exposed in the official story. the commission says that the USSS, FAA may have have been relying on the "projected path" of UA93. Check note 217, the commission found this hypothesis after an interview with a guy named Tim Grovack. If you know who this guy is, i'm interested.And they're using "may".

That doesn't seem very reliable to me.

_______________

The nature of the order Cheney pretends to have given, and the orders he might have given concerning flight 93 is another question.


Thanks you for reading.

Busherie.

[gumboot]

Wait, don't discredit Mineta's testimony that fast. You should focus first on the official story.


That fast? This thread is 8 pages long.




Mineta may not be 100% right concerning the details, but plz consider the alarm log evidence is shallow: there is no documentary evidence.


As you'd know if you read this thread, that is not our only evidence.



Everybody seems to say that he actually witnessed a discussion about Flight UA93, and not flight AA77

The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

Only flight 77 was that close. If you consider Mineta's account (under oath, unlike Cheney or Bush) he mentions "50 miles out" "30 miles out" "10 miles out". Then only does it make sense. Maybe he's deaf.

2 - The official timeline mentions all this happened AFTER UA93 actually crashed (at about 1001)


If you read this thread you'd know that the conversation was about a PROJECTED flight path for UA93. They did not know UA93 had crashed, and the USSS were projecting the flight path of UA93 based on its previous known position.

In this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1788240&postcount=233) post I demonstrated how this conversation cannot possibly be about AA77.




PS: if you read carefully the official account, the commission actually comes up with an idea to explain the flaws i've exposed in the official story. the commission says that the USSS, FAA may have have been relying on the "projected path" of UA93. Check note 217, the commission found this hypothesis after an interview with a guy named Tim Grovack. If you know who this guy is, i'm interested.And they're using "may".


You believe the USSS has primary radar scopes at the White House?

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

How do you know that they were talking about Washigton DC?

And they're using "may".

If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't hey have used a more definitive term?

[busherie]

To Gumboot


First let me reply to the post that is linked in your answer: the june 2006 one. I see you worked hard on this one.

I believe your calculations are right, but your timings, solely based on the final report, are not back with sufficient evidence, and are contradicted by many accounts.

First, you know that many accounts say Flight 77 (though not identified as such) was found before 0932, by Dulles Airport controllers, among others.

Second, you say that at 0925, Flight 77 was about 100 miles away from Washington. That is taken from the the official story. Monte belger for instance, FAA deputy administrator, says the bunker was told around 0927 that "an unidentified plane was 50 miles away".

It is possible that Mineta's figures concerning time (09h26 and on, and starting from "50 miles out") may not be accurate.

But the timing on which you base your calculations are not accurate either, because they are contradicted by many other accounts.

Moreover, don't forget flight 77 allegedly made a long (and pretty slow) turn before hitting the Pentagon. Final minutes -flight path, speed and altitude) are not clearly known though. (even the black boxes data doesn't fit with the evidence on the ground - ie broken light poles - check pilotsfor911truth)

That's why the final 10 miles when flight 77 was supposedly found took so long before 0938 (pentagon crash).

So I'm not saying Mineta's account is completely accurate, but the official account, in many of its conclusions (timing, distances etc) is even less accurate!

But flight77 path is in itself a tough topic!
_________________________________

I. Concerning the projected path of flight UA93 , I know the official story: projected path, not real location of the flight. If you check the notes, you'll see that indeed this hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to back it up. It's a suggestion by "Tim Grovack". (note 217) Nothing else supports it. Without access to the interviews, and in the absence of any information about M. Grovack, we can only consider this hypothesis as secondary. In my view, it's there to explain the major flaws (incoherent timing and distance of flight 93).

II. Concerning USSS primary radar information: I believe they had such capability on 9/11. According to several sources (which you can read at cooperativeresearch.org, late 2000, sorry I can't manage to paste the URL) USSS has been using since late 2000 the "Tigerwall" system which they use for airspace monitoring. I don't know the details about it though: I don't know its range, exact capabilities. Cryptome.org had intel about it on its website until 2004, when they were forced to take it out...

We also have accounts saying they were using it on that day. We have for instance Barbara Riggs, future deputy director of the USSS. hoever, i cannot be sure 100% right now. (see the above source) I can elaborate on the Tigerwall system in another post, if you want me to.

With this system they may been able to locate flight 77 well before 0920. That would explain why Mineta hears confirmation of an order given about flight77, order which have had to be given before 0920.


To Pardalis

Concerning the mentionned distances (80, 60 etc..) the most likely explanation is they are refering to the distance from the plane to Washington DC:

- They know the plane is getting closer (80, 60, and not the contrary)
- if it's not Washington, what location could it be refering to? I did not find any information about that in the report or anywhere else (like another radar, airport, city...) Without it, we have to assume it's Washington.

Concerning the incoherent numbers and time (80, 60 etc.. when UA93 never was closer to Washington DC than 130 miles; 1010-1015 when it crashed at about 1001 --> plz see above)

Concerning the use of may, it can be, as you mention it, the proof of a serious investigation. It can also be a way of showing you don't have any evidence for that asumption.... I believe the second explanation is the best.

__________________________

ANYWAY, as I have tried to demonstrate:

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.

- therefore, Mineta's testimony becomes clearly possible.

[Pardalis]

To Pardalis

Concerning the mentionned distances (80, 60 etc..) the most likely explanation is they are refering to the distance from the plane to Washington DC:

- They know the plane is getting closer (80, 60, and not the contrary)

How do you know they were talking about the plane getting closer to them?

What was point zero?

- if it's not Washington, what location could it be refering to? I did not find any information about that in the report or anywhere else (like another radar, airport, city...) Without it, we have to assume it's Washington.

Then it's your assumption.

Concerning the incoherent numbers and time (80, 60 etc.. when UA93 never was closer to Washington DC than 130 miles; 1010-1015 when it crashed at about 1001 --> plz see above)

If they weren't talking about Washington, these numbers could be correct.

Concerning the use of may, it can be, as you mention it, the proof of a serious investigation. It can also be a way of showing you don't have any evidence for that asumption.... I believe the second explanation is the best.

I don't.

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.

- therefore, Mineta's testimony becomes clearly possible.

Or:

-the official accounts mostly fit with one another, except Mineta's.

-therefore, Minesta's testimony is errored.

[busherie]

Concerning the distances and point zero: read the offcial report, page 41, chap 1. "A plane heading toward Washington DC..." and next paragraph the distances (80 miles out, 60 miles out). Therefore, they specify (I shoulfd have checked) the plane is inbound to WDC, and it's getting closer.

Here's a clear answer.

Therefore the numbers (80, 60) are not correct: it can't be flight 93.

Concerning the use of may, and the explanation for the "projetcted path" story, I suggest you read note 217 for chap1: you are free to take it on face value. Or bring me anything about Tim Grovack.

Conclusion:

- the distances and timing dont fit.

- Mineta's account, though not entirely accurate, is the most likely. And it's supported by other accounts.

________

Now, debunk this , plz.

[maccy]

Busherie,

Please provide a timeline that fits Mineta's account and explains how Cheney knew it was flight 77 (ie how he got the information from NORAD) and how it possible for Cheney to either order the plane to be shot down or not shot down. ie what planes or other weapons were available to shoot down flight 77.

Also please indicate what you believe the order was. If this contradicts what Mineta believes the order was, please explain why you think Mineta was wrong.

Once you have constructed this well-reasoned and argued timeline please say how how it indicates that 9/11 is an inside job.

If you are happy with your account, please take it to tall the news outlets you can. I suggest you start here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B58E2D15-7053-4126-8483-A396EFD6C697.htm

If you can't be bothered to do this then I guess you'll remain both dissatisfied with the explanations given and entirely irrelevant.

[Pardalis]

Concerning the distances and point zero: read the offcial report, page 41, chap 1. "A plane heading toward Washington DC..." and next paragraph the distances (80 miles out, 60 miles out). Therefore, they specify (I shoulfd have checked) the plane is inbound to WDC, and it's getting closer.

You are mistaken.

page 41 is about flight 93 and the shootdown order.

You are looking at page 41 of the pdf file.

page 41 of the comission report is page 58 of the pdf file.

The 80 miles referrence is dated at 10:15, and has nothing to do with mineta's account.

[gumboot]

To Gumboot

First let me reply to the post that is linked in your answer: the june 2006 one. I see you worked hard on this one.

I believe your calculations are right, but your timings, solely based on the final report, are not back with sufficient evidence, and are contradicted by many accounts.


My timings are not based on an "official report". They are based on relevant sources. Which timings are contradicted by "many accounts"?




First, you know that many accounts say Flight 77 (though not identified as such) was found before 0932, by Dulles Airport controllers, among others.

Evidence?

AA77 was identified by Dulles Approach at 0932, at which point an ANG C-130H aircraft was directed to follow the aircraft and see where it was headed.

Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)




Second, you say that at 0925, Flight 77 was about 100 miles away from Washington. That is taken from the the official story. Monte belger for instance, FAA deputy administrator, says the bunker was told around 0927 that "an unidentified plane was 50 miles away".


Actually, according to the "offical story" AA77 was about 220 miles from Washington DC at 0906, and 35 miles west of The Pentagon at 0929, so at 0925 it would have been between 65 and 70 miles west of The Pentagon. But the problem is, no one knew it was there. Indianapolis Centre had lost contact with AA77 at 0854, and at 0935, when NEADS found out from Washington Centre that AA77 was missing, none of the ATC centres, nor the FAA had any idea where AA77 was or where it was heading (they didn't even know it had turned around).

However...

At 0922 NEADS were (incorrectly) informed that AA11 was still airbourne and headed towards Washington DC. The Langley F-16s were scrambled and directed to take up a blocking position over Baltimore, about 50 miles from Washington DC.




It is possible that Mineta's figures concerning time (09h26 and on, and starting from "50 miles out") may not be accurate.


It goes without saying that Mineta's fgures concerning time are not accurate.




But the timing on which you base your calculations are not accurate either, because they are contradicted by many other accounts.


Care to provide some evidence that demonstrate anyone was tracking primary on AA77 between 0854 and 0935?




Moreover, don't forget flight 77 allegedly made a long (and pretty slow) turn before hitting the Pentagon.


The turn lasted about 2 minutes. It doesn't explain the significant errors in Mineta's timeline.





Final minutes -flight path, speed and altitude) are not clearly known though. (even the black boxes data doesn't fit with the evidence on the ground - ie broken light poles - check pilotsfor911truth)


Crazy JDX's flight data analysis is hopelessly flawed.




That's why the final 10 miles when flight 77 was supposedly found took so long before 0938 (pentagon crash).


AA77 would have had to taken a 13 minute scenic tour of Washington DC before crashing, in order to explain the serious flaws in Mineta's timeline.



[
93 [/B]Concerning the projected path of flight UA93, I know the official story: projected path, not real location of the flight. If you check the notes, you'll see that indeed this hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to back it up.


Not at all. I don't know what the "official story" has to say about it. We determined this explanation ourselves, based on the testimony of witnesses at the scene.


II. Concerning USSS primary radar information: I believe they had such capability on 9/11.


Firstly, without collaborating secondary radar information (from ATC) having primary would be completely useless. Secondly, I'm not going to accept that the USSS has primary radar capability as the White House until I see some evidence, because I find it HIGHLY unlikely.




That would explain why Mineta hears confirmation of an order given about flight77, order which have had to be given before 0920.


Except Mineta claims the White House was being evacuated, which it wasn't until much later. He also claims a shoot down order, which was not given until after 10am, as the NEADS recording shows:

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: **** the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

And lastly his claim of when the VP was in the bunker directly contradicts the VP himself and the USSS, who put him there. It also does not gel with the Bush timeline (which is collaborated by independent live media coverage).




ANYWAY, as I have tried to demonstrate:

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.


It fits with a projected path for UA93, and multiple sources claim the USSS were tracking UA93 on a projected flight path AFTER it had crashed.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Ok, i'm gonna try my best to answer your questions.


To Pardalis:


The official account (as in the 9/11 commission report) claims an shoot down order (SDO) was given between 10h15 by the vice president. It claims it was an order to shoot down FUA93.

As you know, at 10h10, the plane was already down. And as you also know, the report mentions distances: according to it, the plane was located 80 miles, and few minutes later 60 miles from Washington DC, when Cheney allegedly confirmed his order. The problem is, in short: the plane was already down (1001). The plane never was closer to Washongton DC than 130 miles.

Therefore, the orders cannot have been related to Flight 93.

The report claims these flaws are explained by the fact they were relying on the projected path (ie not real) of flight UA93.

Now, the report does not present any evidence for this, except an interview with Tim Grovack, apparently a USSS personnel. There is no documentary evidence for this. The alleged interview is not available. (see note 217 for chap 1) i'm not even sure the guys exist!

Therefore I cannot take this asumption (projected path) at face value. The official version has serious flaws.

Gumboot says you guys determined, based on accounts, that there were relying on a projected path. I would ask you evidence! I admit the projected path story would be the only explanation for these flaws. That's why i think they actually made it up to find an easy answer. I need evidence on this. You request some from you: let me do the same with you.

And sorry for the wrong page count (i did not check on the pdf file).

____________________________________


To Gumboot: I'll try my best to answer all the questions.


1. I said many accounts showed Flight 77 was located prior to 0932. You asked for evidence: let's look at yours.

This is taken from coopeartive research.

I'm gonna show exactly how the commission did its report. Let's see:


" According to the 9/11 Commission, the Dulles Airport terminal control facility in Washington has been looking for unidentified primary radar blips since 9:21 a.m. and now finds one. Several Dulles flight controllers “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed” and notify Reagan Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan and Dulles airports notify the Secret Service. The identity or aircraft type is unknown. However, other accounts place the discovery of this plane by Dulles around 9:24 a.m. , and Vice President Cheney is told radar is tracking Flight 77 at 9:27 a.m."

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

Let's read the official version: (in blue)

"The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the
Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary
targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers
“observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”and
notified Reagan National Airport.FAA personnel at both Reagan National and
Dulles airports notified the Secret Service.The aircraft’s identity or type was
unknown.146"

(chap 1 page 25 of the pdf file)

That's your account, right? Dulles finding about 77 at 0932? Let's be precise, let's check the note? 146

"146. John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)."

Hum, who is this John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, not much...

Could it be, just like our famous "Tim Grovack" (the projected path, remember?), a way of inventing a testimony to make the official story believable?

I looked it up, there are a couple of john does. But who is this guy? He's THE commission evidence to prove dulles located 77 at 0932. They have nothing else.


And now, in green, plenty of accounts saying 77 was located before 0932.


The Commission did not take them into account. Instead they rely on an unpublished interview with a guy we know nothing about.

DON'T YOU SEE?

That is the way, just like for the projected path story ("Tim Grovack"), they can say whatever they want, conlude whatever they want.

Now, if you have evidence for the projected path, the 0932 location, I'm interested.

But plz take into account what I ve said. Check it out by yourself!!!

________________

Ok i'm being way too long here.

2. "Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)"

I might wanna believe that. here you have a point. The NTSB report seems bogus, even though it's supposed to be based on the Flight date recorder. but that's another problem.


__________________

2. For evidence someone was tracking F77 between 0854 and 0935, check the above cited accounts. (from cooperative research)

__________________

3.Concerning Mineta's timeline, I might wanna believe they are precisely accurate. After all, he did not take not, nor did he have any documentary evidence.

But the official story being even more inaccurate, I think you should not say out of the blue (ie based on the official account) that it's impossible.

__________________


4. As for John Doe X from pilots for 911 truth, plz provide evidence his analysis is flawed. As you said "Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)"

His analysis is based on the NTSB report: their report is probably bogus. That's the problem.

___________________


5. if you determined yourself they were based on projected path, plz evidence. it's an hypothesis, but without documentary evidence (or testimony: Tim Grovack?) It's very weak.

___________________


6. For Cheney's arrival at the PEOC, USSS interviews are not proof to me! I don't buy on face value. We need real people, or at least the interviews.

Concerning Bush's timeline on this, sorry i don"t have time to check right now. i'm sure we can find something interesting.

___________________

7. "Except Mineta claims the White House was being evacuated, which it wasn't until much later. He also claims a shoot down order, which was not given until after 10am"

Well he doesnt exactly say it was a shoot down order, he says he assumes it was one. he wasn't there when the order was given. he just says he understand afterwards. but he doesnét say when (on the PEOC, in the media?, we don't know)

He also says the PEOC learnt about F93 when it was already crashed...

Check the video if you wanna be sure.
__________________


8. Finally, once again, the official account saying a shoot-down order was given to take out F93 just doesn't fit:

- unless you prove their was a projected path they were relying on, there are timing and distances problems.


_________________


To Maccy

If you managed to read the above reply, you'll see that the official timeline concerning F77 doesn't fit.

Now, I'm not saying Mineta's is precisely accurate, i'm saying that the major flaws in the official one (cnocerning 77 location at 0932, the shoot down oder of 93) lets us believe that his testimony is importante.

It should not have edited out of the report.

____________________



I know the official version is twisted, false on many points.

I know Cheney lied real bad about many things that morning.

I can tell you later what I think he in fact did, but plz first acknowledge what i've exposed in the above.

Thanks very much for reading.

Busherie.

PS sorry i cant paste URL's I'm new to this forum. it's not available until i post 15 posts.

[maccy]

To Maccy

If you managed to read the above reply, you'll see that the official timeline concerning F77 doesn't fit.

Now, I'm not saying Mineta's is precisely accurate, i'm saying that the major flaws in the official one (cnocerning 77 location at 0932, the shoot down oder of 93) lets us believe that his testimony is importante.

It should not have edited out of the report.

____________________



I want to see your timeline. What do you think happened?

If you don't know, then shut up.

[CurtC]

The official account (as in the 9/11 commission report) claims an shoot down order (SDO) was given between 10h15 by the vice president. It claims it was an order to shoot down FUA93.

As you know, at 10h10, the plane was already down...

Therefore, the orders cannot have been related to Flight 93.I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from the fact that the plane was already down, to the conclusion that the shoot-down order could not have been related to UA93. Want to try again?

PS sorry i cant paste URL's I'm new to this forum. it's not available until i post 15 posts.Just past the URL without the http:// part in front. It's not a clickable link, but we can handle it!

[beachnut]

Who cares and why would it matter, what guys in a box are talking about?

Talk can not shoot down planes, planes shoot down planes.

Guys in a box are suppose to have a clue?

The events of the day are what happen; the talk in a box are not what happen. (so they have a radar scope in this box where they are hiding)

Would the CT world be happy? if they knew Bush did set up the VP but things when wrong and the hit on the VP failed. Proved later when Dick was so mad the President did not go hunting so he could get revenge, he shot his friend instead.

"do the orders still stand" who cares, it does not make any sense at all since the Dick in the box has no weapon and really does not control the pilot who if he had enough information may just ack on his own and his commanders orders. NORAD has the authority without the President to shoot down anything that is a threat to the United States; if it did not then why would you have NORAD. I was in the Air Force and if I was a pilot or the commander and I had all this Monday morning quarterback knowledge, you know we would be messing with the dumb terrorists. What individual gives a flying leap what the M man says the Dick man said!!!

[Pardalis]

Gumboot says you guys determined, based on accounts, that there were relying on a projected path. I would ask you evidence! I admit the projected path story would be the only explanation for these flaws. That's why i think they actually made it up to find an easy answer. I need evidence on this. You request some from you: let me do the same with you.

Then there's nothing I can do for you. I do not have access to such information.

Maybe you could call Washington and ask them.

ETA: and if the orders can't have been for flight93, then it can't have been for any other highjacked plane because... that was the last one.

[busherie]

Hi,

Here are a couple of answers.

To CurtC:

The report says:

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

At 10h10, the plane was down, 130 miles away from Washington.

So, if the order concerned UA93, there was a information problem. The report says they were relying on a "projected path". But they don't have any evidence supporting it (exept a Tim Grovack interview, which is probably bogus).


"I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from the fact that the plane was already down, to the conclusion that the shoot-down order could not have been related to UA93. Want to try again?"

I'm not saying Cheney never gave an order to take out 93, i'm saying the above account is false when it states the order Cheney confirmed concerned 93.

In my view, it is the official account that looks like the Mineta's account, and not Mineta's that looks like the official one. Why? because the official account just doesn't fit.

I do not exclude though that an order wasgiven later to scramble fighters to shoot 93 down.

but it's 77 we're talking about here.

Thx for the tip with the URLs

___________________

To Maccy

I don't think anybody who has serious doubts about the official version should shut up.

My timeline is based, to start with, on the fact that the official one is not backed up by any documentary evidence available.

1. In my view, not only did radars found F77 before 0932 (which is the official time) but they found it NORTH not WEST of Washington:

1.Why the official account saying F77 was lost until it was found by Dulles only at 0932 is false

This is taken from coopeartive research.

" According to the 9/11 Commission, the Dulles Airport terminal control facility in Washington has been looking for unidentified primary radar blips since 9:21 a.m. and now finds one. Several Dulles flight controllers “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed” and notify Reagan Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan and Dulles airports notify the Secret Service. The identity or aircraft type is unknown. However, other accounts place the discovery of this plane by Dulles around 9:24 a.m. , and Vice President Cheney is told radar is tracking Flight 77 at 9:27 a.m."

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

Let's read the official version: (in blue) as it's written in the report

"The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”and notified Reagan National Airport.FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service.The aircraft’s identity or type was unknown.146"
(chap 1 page 25 of the pdf file)

If you say several controlers at Dulles only found it, eastbound, at 0932, you have to cite a source.

let's check the note? 146

"146. John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)."

Who is this John Hendershot and where is the interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, i found a bunch of guys who lived in the 19th century, or a Califirnian citizen whitout any connection to 9/11... Maybe an undercover USSS agent...

But who is this guy? The commission's evidence to prove Dulles only located 77 at 0932 is unsubstantiated. They have nothing else.


And now, in green, plenty of accounts saying 77 was located before 0932.

The Commission did not take them into account. Instead they rely on an unpublished interview with a guy we know nothing about.


2. According to other sources: F77 was located before 0932:

9:24 a.m.): By Some Accounts, FAA Notifies NORAD Flight 77 Is Hijacked and Washington-Bound; 9/11 Commission Claims This Never Happens Shortly after 9/11, NORAD reported that the FAA notified them at this time that Flight 77 “may” have been hijacked and that it appears headed toward Washington. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; CNN, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/12/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001] Apparently, flight controllers at Dulles International Airport discover a plane heading at high speed toward Washington; an alert is sounded within moments that the plane appears to be headed toward the White House. [Washington Post, 11/3/2001] In 2003, the FAA supported this account, but claimed that they had informally notified NORAD earlier. “NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001), but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 5/22/2003] Yet in 2004, the 9/11 Commission claims that both NORAD and the FAA are wrong. The 9/11 Commission explains that the notification NEADS received at 9:24 a.m. was the incorrect information that Flight 11 had not hit the WTC and was headed south for Washington, D.C. Thus, according to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight 77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34 a.m. (see 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
Monte belger at 0927________________


My real point is many radars saw F77 inbound to Washington from the North-east. It flew along the White House, and later did a sharp descending turn to hit the Pentagon.

However, the exact F77 flightpath remains very controversial, so let's not elaborate too much on this now

_________________

Finally, why do i think happened? Well, i think Cheney lied about when he got to the PEOC. he lied to cover the fact he monitored the incoming F77. How did he do it? hard to say. All I know is the USSS has in theory the technical means to do it. Check that cooperative research timeline post:

(September 2000 and after): Secret Service Has Air Surveillance Capabilities

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.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House Complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown. The Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. 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.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] 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. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] Furthermore, since 1974 the Secret Service operations center has possessed a special communications line from the control tower of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This hotline allows air traffic controllers monitoring local radar to inform agents at the White House of any planes that are off course or appear to be on a “threatening vector.” [Time, 9/26/1994]

cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=tigerwall&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go


___________________________


So not only the official account is fuzzy (Dulles in fact located inbound 77 before 0932) but i think there are serious chances USSS was actually monitoring F77 as it flew above Washington on its way to the Pentagon.

Now, what kinf of weapons could they use that day to shoot or stand down?

I think there were no fighters around (even tough with real willingness to do something they may have intercepted F77).

However it is known USSS also has anti-aircraft capabilities. (FM-92 Stingers) Since the 1994 crash, the P56 airspace was defended. The Pentagon may not have had defenses. The White House had some.

So I made a scenario includng all my findings. I'll post it if you find major flaws in what i've just exposed.

Thanks very much for reading.

[Pardalis]

But they don't have any evidence supporting it (exept a Tim Grovack interview, which is probably bogus).

Why? Because you say so? Your confirmation bias is showing.

In my view, it is the official account that looks like the Mineta's account, and not Mineta's that looks like the official one. Why? because the official account just doesn't fit.

Because there are conflicting reports, therefore Mineta's account is correct?

This sound fallacious.

but it's 77 we're talking about here.

No.

My timeline is based, to start with, on the fact that the official one is not backed up by any documentary evidence available.

Not available to you on the internet maybe, who knows if you dig deep enough you won't find it?

Call Washington if you have to.

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

snip

Who is this John Hendershot and where is the interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, i found a bunch of guys who lived in the 19th century, or a Califirnian citizen whitout any connection to 9/11... Maybe an undercover USSS agent...

Have you tried getting this information besides with Google?

Call them.

However, the exact F77 flightpath remains very controversial, so let's not elaborate too much on this now

Don't tell me you're a no planer... :(

Finally, why do i think happened? Well, i think Cheney lied about when he got to the PEOC. he lied to cover the fact he monitored the incoming F77. How did he do it? hard to say. All I know is the USSS has in theory the technical means to do it.

In theory.

So not only the official account is fuzzy (Dulles in fact located inbound 77 before 0932) but i think there are serious chances USSS was actually monitoring F77 as it flew above Washington on its way to the Pentagon.

Serious chances?

The Pentagon may not have had defenses. The White House had some.

So they couldn't have done much.

[busherie]

Tim Grovack, John Hendershot... Who are these guys. Whenever the official story wants to be back itself with an evidence, they come up with an interview with some guy nobody knows about. the interviews are not available. Why are they not? Not a question of space. if it's a question of intelligence security, why not say it?
I'm not saying i'm sure these guys (and they arguments they pretend to prove) are bogus. I'm saying this is very suspicious. gettin' my case ready for a serious questionning... I'm gonna keep diggin' to see if this evidence exists or was built on purpose.
Yes, we are talking about F77: it's the only plane that would fit in the official story about the "orders": F93 was too far, too late...
I'm not a no-planer: i think F77 crashed in the Pentagon. There are just no real evidence it did not crash there, just doubts. Not enough.
However, the F77 flight path is not clear: did it come from the West (as NTSB says) or from the North (as other accounts pretends). that is a question i haven't answered yet.
Concerning Tigerwall and USSS monitoring capabilities: they had them since late 2000. We got witnesses saying they were using it. i'd say we have serious hints. not just theory (see my previous post for tigerwall)
When I say Pentagon had no SAMs but White house, it doesn't mean White house could have done nothing. I've calculated that if F77 came from North, not West, then FM-93 Stingers (which are small range missiles, like 3miles or so) could have taken it out. if th WH had AMRAAM then it's different: they could have got it no matter when it came from.You know, you always imply i have no 100% proof. You're mostly true except for one thing. My asumption have more probabilities than the official story on this point. The report doesn't have enough evidence to be coherent.

The SLC and CT debunkers just don't have much on their side on this one...

Thx

Busherie

[Pardalis]

I'm not saying i'm sure these guys (and they arguments they pretend to prove) are bogus. I'm saying this is very suspicious.

Keep diggin'. Noone is stopping you.

Yes, we are talking about F77: it's the only plane that would fit in the official story about the "orders": F93 was too far, too late...

Flight 77 already crashed into the Pentagon. Talk about too late...

I'm not a no-planer: i think F77 crashed in the Pentagon. There are just no real evidence it did not crash there, just doubts. Not enough.

?

However, the F77 flight path is not clear: did it come from the West (as NTSB says) or from the North (as other accounts pretends). that is a question i haven't answered yet.

Oh please... not with that again!

Concerning Tigerwall and USSS monitoring capabilities: they had them since late 2000. We got witnesses saying they were using it. i'd say we have serious hints. not just theory (see my previous post for tigerwall)

What you posted doesn't show that this Tigerwall was implemented before 9/11. It even states that:

[Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown.


When I say Pentagon had no SAMs but White house, it doesn't mean White house could have done nothing. I've calculated that if F77 came from North, not West, then FM-93 Stingers (which are small range missiles, like 3miles or so) could have taken it out.

You don't know that.

[busherie]

I'm keeping diggind hard! But if you realized the vice-president had lied to hide something very suspicious, wouldn't you be digging? But there is no point to call them: they'll say they don't know. I've read they don't disclose the content of the interviews. Hum hum.
About Flight 77: plz see how the official version cannot concern F93. All other sources say Cheney was in the PEOC soon after 0900. Monitored F77 coming in.
I said: i'm not a no-planer.
I maintain: if you have unchallenged evidence about F77 flightpath, i'd be delighted to see it.
Concerning Tigerwall
It was implemented before 9/11: " 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.”
Sorry for the lack of clarity: the "[Tech TV, 7/23/2002]" source concerns the sentence which precedes it. We indeed do not know if they were [U]using it that day. it is clear it was in use in the USSS. (see soufces)
Accounts (Clarke, Barbara Riggs) appear to say they were monitoring the sky. Not sure it was Tigerwall, but i'll dig....Thx for reading.

Anyway, I have to connect all the dots now in a single article. I'll submit it to you. You are my best enemies....

Busherie

[maccy]

Anyway, I have to connect all the dots now in a single article. I'll submit it to you. You are my best enemies....

Busherie

I seriously suggest you doublecheck your document against this thread before submitting it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

[busherie]

Ok, i'll do that when I have time.

thx for the information.

I believe that if CT are confronted to Debunking, then eventually the real problems, failures, responsabilities will emerge.

Busherie

[maccy]

No worries. Actually, that thread has some introductory information about NORAD. I needs to be combined with the timeline, which is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1

It's the timeline which is particularly important here.

I am sure that most, if not all, skeptics on this board would support an investigation into anything that genuinely couldn't be explained.

[beachnut]

I'm keeping diggind hard! But if you realized the vice-president had lied to hide something very suspicious, wouldn't you be digging? But there is no point to call them: they'll say they don't know. I've read they don't disclose the content of the interviews. Hum hum.
About Flight 77: plz see how the official version cannot concern F93. All other sources say Cheney was in the PEOC soon after 0900. Monitored F77 coming in.
I said: i'm not a no-planer.
I maintain: if you have unchallenged evidence about F77 flightpath, i'd be delighted to see it.
Concerning Tigerwall
It was implemented before 9/11: " 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.”
Sorry for the lack of clarity: the "[Tech TV, 7/23/2002]" source concerns the sentence which precedes it. We indeed do not know if they were [U]using it that day. it is clear it was in use in the USSS. (see soufces)
Accounts (Clarke, Barbara Riggs) appear to say they were monitoring the sky. Not sure it was Tigerwall, but i'll dig....Thx for reading.

Anyway, I have to connect all the dots now in a single article. I'll submit it to you. You are my best enemies....

Busherie

Tigerwall

seems that would be secret?

are you making this up as you go?

This is funny stuff.

[beachnut]

I seriously suggest you doublecheck your document against this thread before submitting it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

Do not let him fix it, it would be best to see this raw.

I think he lost his job when McKinney lost hers after being a CT nut.

[maccy]

No worries. Actually, that thread has some introductory information about NORAD. I needs to be combined with the timeline, which is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1

It's the timeline which is particularly important here.

I am sure that most, if not all, skeptics on this board would support an investigation into anything that genuinely couldn't be explained.

You also need to account for the presidents whereabouts on you timeline, especially for when we know he was on live TV

The President and the Vice President

The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.203

The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.204

Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine, no one with the President was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. The only decision made during this time was to return to Washington.205

The President's motorcade departed at 9:35, and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45. During the ride the President learned about the attack on the Pentagon. He boarded the aircraft, asked the Secret Service about the safety of his family, and called the Vice President. According to notes of the call, at about 9:45 the President told the Vice President: "Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the Pentagon. We're at war . . . some-body's going to pay."206

About this time, Card, the lead Secret Service agent, the President's military aide, and the pilot were conferring on a possible destination for Air Force One. The Secret Service agent felt strongly that the situation in Washington was too unstable for the President to return there, and Card agreed. The President strongly wanted to return to Washington and only grudgingly agreed to go elsewhere. The issue was still undecided when the President conferred with the Vice President at about the time Air Force One was taking off. The Vice President recalled urging the President not to return to Washington. Air Force One departed at about 9:54 without any fixed destination. The objective was to get up in the air-as fast and as high as possible-and then decide where to go.207



http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
emphasis mine

[CurtC]

To CurtC:

The report says:

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

At 10h10, the plane was down, 130 miles away from Washington.

So, if the order concerned UA93, there was a information problem.I still don't see why you say there's a problem here. The actions described here are exactly what I would expect the people to be doing, in all cases. They had known the UA93 was headed towards Washington - it had made it about halfway there before the crash, and it was coming straight for Washington.

The ATC guys knew that UA93 had gone off the radar, and had asked other aircraft in the area to investigate the possible crash. However, they did not know for sure that it was UA93 that had crashed, even after they had heard reports of the smoking crater in PA. They suspected it, but confirming something like that is a slower process of elimination.

The USSS guys had been notified of the incoming plane, its distance, and speed. But all the events you're talking about, with Cheney conveying the shoot-down authority, happened within 15 minutes of the crash. Maybe the ATC had informed the USSS that they suspected that UA93 had crashed, but by that time it would have still been uncertain, so the USSS have to keep moving with plans assuming that 93 had not crashed.

The story is in every way plausible.

[gumboot]

Bushie...

You are in error with your 0921 Dulles report on AA77. To begin with, Dulles is not an Air Route Traffic Control Centre, it is an airport. As such its radar only tracks aircraft on approach or departure. Dulles is in the Washington ARTCC Sector.

At 0934, Washington Centre spoke with NEADS, notifying them that AA77 was missing. Take special note of the last line:

They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

This is not an "official story". This is verbatim from the actual recordings of ACTUAL people.

9:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Quite clearly, AA77 was NOT being tracked on primary at 0921.

Now, what else was going on between 0920 and 0925, that could explain this aircraft moving towards Washington, but from the north?

Well, this was the most confusing period of the entire day, because this was precisely when the phantom AA11 cropped up. Two separate reports came to NEADS in the space of one minute, from the same ARTCC, both regarding the phantom AA11 (though of course at the time they didn't know that).

The first:

9:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It’s headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: ****! Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.

And the second:

9:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

But these reports didn't come from Washington Centre, and they didn't come from radar tracks. They came from Boston Centre, and they were the result of an over zealous member of the ATC staff overhearing a conversation with the FAA.

This phantom AA11 would have been tracked close to Washington DC. This phantom AA11 was approaching prior to 0930, and this phantom AA11 was what Dulles Approach were told to look for.

The "official story" as you call it, makes perfect sense. You simply ignore some basic aspects, in order to discredit it. Meanwhile you ignore gaping flaws in the Mineta/AA77 testimony. And then you claim your version is more likely.

It is not.

At the time Mineta claims this conversation occured:
1) The White House was not being evacuated
2) AA77's location was not known
3) No shootdown order had been given
4) The VP was not in the bunker
5) Bush had not boarded Air Force One

What I find truely bizzaire is you put so much weight on the testimony of Mineta, who is talking about things he is not directly involved in, and who readily admits he didn't know what was going on. And yet you refuse to believe testimonies from people who are stating what THEY THEMSELVES WERE DOING.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

The USSS guys had been notified of the incoming plane, its distance, and speed. But all the events you're talking about, with Cheney conveying the shoot-down authority, happened within 15 minutes of the crash. Maybe the ATC had informed the USSS that they suspected that UA93 had crashed, but by that time it would have still been uncertain, so the USSS have to keep moving with plans assuming that 93 had not crashed.

The story is in every way plausible.


Bushie is not taking into account the information lag. No one was finding things out the moment they happened unless they were seeing it live on TV.

Even Cleveland Centre - the ARTCC who was meant to be tracking UA93 - didn't know it had crashed at 1003! At 1007 they were just telling NEADS it was hijacked!

NEADS - who were in direct contact with the ATCs, unlike The Pentagon or the USSS - didn't find out that UA93 had crashed until 1015, and it was WASHINTON ARTCC that told them, not Cleveland.

Assuming Washington ARTCC told the FAA at about the same time they told NEADS, there would then be a FURTHER delay until the FAA told the USSS. And then a FURTHER delay until the USSS told the VP and the President.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

To Gumboot

Assuming USSS was not using Tigerwall: (even though several sources say they were: Clarke, B. Riggs, plz see previous posts)

I think you need a bit of objectivity here. Pay attention to the report. Why do the information look so accurate?: "The aircraft is 80 miles out" "The aircraft is 60 miles out".

Would you say it this way if you were relying on "projected path", in the middle of a very confused situation? Wouldn't you rather say things like "according to projections, the plane is thought to be about 80 miles out".

They supposedly ask fo a shoot down authorization, not a permission to go to the toilets!

Even the Commission itself is not so sure on this "shoot down order" thing:

" To this day, it is unclear who was really giving the most critical orders on 9/11. The most controversial question regards the order to shoot down commercial airliners if they were hijacked -- an order which could have killed hundreds more innocent people. The 9/11 commissioners have suggested the President and the Vice President have not been forthcoming about that issue and that the truth has yet to be revealed. The record shows that between 10:10 and 10:15 in the White House bunker, the Vice President was asked if military pilots could shoot down any hijacked aircraft headed for Washington. He immediately gave the order. The problem is that only the President had the authority to do so. Later, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney claimed to the 9/11 Commission that the President actually gave the shoot-down order about 15 minutes earlier, but the White House call records do not support their claim. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission says it wasn't clear who gave the order, "The principals haven't said. The President and the Vice President are the only ones that can clarify that completely. And we just don't know what happened there."

(excerpt of the transcript of "The Secret history of 9/11" made by CBC Canada:cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline9.html)

--> even though this does not concern the identity of the plane who was subject to orders by the Vice President, it shows just how unclear the events, decisions, information were that morning. We just can't be sure.

_______________

You just never gave any source they were using "projected path". The commission cites this "Tim Grovack interview". Without further evidence, this is not serious.

You say you assume they were using "projected path". That's just not enough.

You ask me to give sources: please do the same.

________________


I have read your posts about NORAD timelines, Payne Stewart, etc... I must say it's great work. But not on this particular topic.

________________

Even though,

I have never said Cheney didn't give any orders about 93. We just don't know that. The commissioners are not sure either. (see above)

I'm saying the offician account is ONLY plausible. it doesn't "make perfect sense" But very unlikely: " At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President.The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage.The Vice President again said yes.219"

_____________________

I think instead Mineta's account, though not 100% perfect, shows:

- Cheney was in the PEOC some time between 0900 and 0920
- He monitored through USSS the incoming F77, and gave orders about it, which he confirmed when the plane was only miles away.

"What I find truely bizzaire is you put so much weight on the testimony of Mineta, who is talking about things he is not directly involved in"
--> well, he was there. That's what we call a witness. witnesses don't have to participate. they're there.
--> just like some commissioners, you're saying he "wasn't in the loop". He didn't have to. he remembers being in the PEOC at 0920. he remember orders about F77.

Now, as for the flaws in his testimony:

"At the time Mineta claims this conversation occured:
1) The White House was not being evacuated
--> indeed it was not. he is wrong on this one.


2) "AA77's location was not known"
--> offcially it was not (at least not until 0925 or so), but USSS was probably tracking it through Tigerwall, see the above post about Tigerwall


3)" No shootdown order had been given"
--> you can just assume that. Mineta assumes it was a shoot down; claims he did not know the nature of the order when he entered the PEOC at 0920

"4) "The VP was not in the bunker"

--> only him and USSS claim he was not there before 0958. other accounts, for instance by R. Clarke and D. Bohrer say he left his office just after 0900. there is no documentary evidence for your asumption.

Norman Mineta’s account of where he is, and when, dovetails perfectly with that of Richard Clarke, who states, “…Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President [who Clarke advised has already been evacuated to the PEOC].” Clarke next greets his deputy Roger Cressey, then has a teleconference exchange with Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers about which jets had been scrambled from where. Myers tells Clarke that it will take fifteen minutes to establish a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over Washington, D.C., and it is already 9:28 a.m. Thus, by that time Norman Mineta is in the PEOC with Vice President Dick Cheney, nine minutes before the Pentagon crash at 9:37 a.m.

Timings are not pinpoint, but clearly contradicts Cheney's, who dares to say he didn't get to the PEOC before 0958!

5) Bush had not boarded Air Force One"

Plz source this in context. Couldn't find it right away.

_____________


To CurtC

basically you're saying at 10h10-10h15 USSS just wasn't sure 93 was down or not.

However, they allegedly kept giving what seems to be clear information (see my answer to gumboot) about 93 to the vice president. No "the plane is thought to be..." "we think the plane is..." No. Just "The plane is 80, and then 60 miles out".


And still just asumptions, no evidence, USSS or even FAA was using "projected path".

_____________

To Maccy

I don't think there are major conflicts between the Mineta testimony and the President that day (except the one alleged by Gumboot, but not sourced yet).

The thing is, I think that the President was voluntarily kept out the loop that morning.

It is so obvisous Cheney was the man, that day. So lucky, nothing was working for the president: phones didn't work, it was dangerous for him to come back: he said himself he was frustrated. In the classroom in FL Ari Fleisher was showing him little papers with messages "don't move".
The events were succesful: the President didn't take any major decisions till he boarded AF1 on 0955.

Cheney was the man. (even NORAD was in the shadows)

_______________


To Beachnut


thx for the nice posts: that's not the sign of a highclass debunker:
"Do not let him fix it, it would be best to see this raw. I think he lost his job when McKinney lost hers after being a CT nut."

Do you think I'm doing this just for fun?

The neocons contributed to the horrible mess we have now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel. Bad planners, bad leaders, and eventually bad liers.

For the tigerwall, i'm not making it up. See the previous posts: see the source: cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=700#a0900airsurveillance
Check for yourself, check the cited sources, and then come back and tell me i'm making this up.

but I confess evidence they were using it that day is not strong yet.

_________________


thx for reading

looking forward to your comments.

Busherie

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Busherie, for the love of Ed, please figure out how to use the multiple-quote functionality of the forums.

[busherie]

well sorry, i'm kind of new to forums... can you tell me how to multiquote?

Thx very much!

Busherie

[CurtC]

Me too, I didn't realize that you could multiquote. I see the button, but it doesn't seem to do anything but turn red.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Click the multiquote on each post you want in your reply.

[beachnut]

I'm not a no-planer: i think F77 crashed in the Pentagon. There are just no real evidence it did not crash there, just doubts. Not enough.
However, the F77 flight path is not clear: did it come from the West (as NTSB says) or from the North (as other accounts pretends). that is a question i haven't answered yet.You know, you always imply i have no 100% proof. You're mostly true except for one thing. My asumption have more probabilities than the official story on this point. The report doesn't have enough evidence to be coherent.

The SLC and CT debunkers just don't have much on their side on this one...

Thx

Busherie

There is zero doubt 77 hit the Pentagon. Those who have doubts are slapdash researchers as you know. Disrespectful shoddy researchers continue posting doubts. Are they incapable of proper research, or just politically blind and so biased they can only lie?

The flight path is clear from the west. From radar tapes and data, they confirmed 77 flight path from the west. http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf)

To say the flight path is not from the west without real evidence is a lie.

Neat you actually read post, good job.

You seem to have a politically biased approach that could hinder your objectivity; good luck.

thank you

[MikeW]

Norman Mineta’s account of where he is, and when, dovetails perfectly with that of Richard Clarke...
I notice that you like to mention that part of Clarke's account, and of course it is interesting. But then there's another part of Clarke's version that might be useful. He was in the White House Situation Room coordinating agencies, so you'd expect him to also hear reports of incoming planes. And so he does: here's the first mention:

Stafford slipped me a note. "Radar shows aircraft headed this way." Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing. "I'm going to empty out the complex." He was ordering the evacuation of the White House.

Ralph Seigler stuck his head into the room, "There has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!" . . .
No editing, that's the sequence - Stafford (Security Service chief) says there's a plane headed this way, then we have an immediate report of an explosion at the Pentagon. Clarke reports both events occurring after the President gave his 9:30 speech. This fits with the 9/11 Commission Report talking about Flight 77 being picked up on radar at the last minute; it does not fit with Mineta's talk of being notified many minutes earlier.

Could he have left it out? Maybe, but he does report being informed of an approaching plane later:

Lisa slipped a note in front of me: "CNN says car bomb at the State Department. Fire on the Mall near the Capitol."

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

Siegler was back: "Hostile aircraft eight minutes out."
That CNN report should give us an idea of the first report, if anyone can find its time. In Clarke's chronology the best we can say is it came after the Pentagon attack, and before 9:59 (he reports watching WTC2 collapse later).

There's an inconsistency here in the terms used, then -- the plane is reported to be "x minutes" instead of miles out, we get two warnings instead of three -- but it's broadly similar to the 9/11 Commission Report of repeated alerts of an incoming aircraft, after the crash of Flight 77, and before the crash of Flight 93.

Of course we could argue that perhaps there were two such alerts, and Mineta simply forgot to mention the second one, or didn't hear it. But if you need to say he's reliable then that may not be somewhere you want to go.

Or it could be suggested that the early alert on Flight 77 was a super-secret one that only Cheney got. But of course that would just be speculation to keep the theory alive.

The overall point is that while Clarke's chronology does at least appear to put Cheney in the PEOC earlier than the official time, it otherwise doesn't support any early knowledge about the location of Flight 77.

[gumboot]

To Gumboot

I think you need a bit of objectivity here. Pay attention to the report. Why do the information look so accurate?: "The aircraft is 80 miles out" "The aircraft is 60 miles out".


I'm sorry, but you must be joking if you think these remarks were "precise" in any way. Let's see what Mineta actually says shall we?

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,"

So let's just get the facts right. Mineta mentioned three distances; "50", "30", and "10". Not "80", not "60", and certainly not precise in even the most remote sense.




Would you say it this way if you were relying on "projected path", in the middle of a very confused situation? Wouldn't you rather say things like "according to projections, the plane is thought to be about 80 miles out".


Not if the person I was talking to knew we were following a projected flight path.



You ask me to give sources: please do the same.


There is absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever for Mineta's timeline. He makes no claim to accuracy in regard to this conversation. His is the testimony of ONE PERSON. His purpose in being interviewed by the Commission was in regards to Airline security pre-9/11.

In contrast, the sworn testimonies of multiple people, multiple written logs, and mainstream media broadcasts ALL support our contention.

Mineta got his time wrong. Simple as that.




I think instead Mineta's account, though not 100% perfect, shows:

- Cheney was in the PEOC some time between 0900 and 0920
- He monitored through USSS the incoming F77, and gave orders about it, which he confirmed when the plane was only miles away.


And yet you put enough weight on Mineta's testimony to believe this, even though Mineta's ENTIRE timeline is in direct contradiction with numerous other pieces of evidence including:

Whitehouse written logs
Sworn testimonies of USSS agents
Sworn testimony of White House deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton (who also witnessed the "80 miles out" conversation, but unlike Mineta, actively took part in it)
Richard Clarke
Testimony of VP and President
NORAD tape recordings
FAA tape recordings
ATC testimonies
Live mainstream media reports
Presidential USSS written logs
The aerodynamic properties of the Boeing 757

You weight all of the above LOWER than the testimony of ONE MAN who ADMITS he didn't know what he was witnessing.



"At the time Mineta claims this conversation occured:
1) The White House was not being evacuated
--> indeed it was not. he is wrong on this one.


So he hallucinated and thinks he saw the White House being evacuated, but there's absolutely no way whatsoever that he got his times wrong? Right.




2) "AA77's location was not known"
--> offcially it was not (at least not until 0925 or so), but USSS was probably tracking it through Tigerwall, see the above post about Tigerwall


Which, as I have said, is not possible.




"4) "The VP was not in the bunker"

[/I]--> only him and USSS claim he was not there before 0958. other accounts, for instance by R. Clarke and D. Bohrer say he left his office just after 0900. there is no documentary evidence for your asumption.


The USSS written logs indicate the VP was evacuated at 0936 and the White House was not evacuated until after 0937. The VP and the USSS were directly and personally involved in the evacuation of the VP. David Bohrer is a photographer, and you are false about Richard Clarke.

In Clarke's book he himself states he did not arrive at the White House until AFTER UA175 hit WTC2 - at 0903. He then advised that the White House should be evacuated, and ASSUMES it is. It is worth pointing out that Clarke was not in the POEC. Clarke was in his OWN bunker under the OTHER WING of the White House. In other words they were at OPPOSITE ends of the building.

Clarke's book further clashes with Mineta, because Clarke claims that Bush gave the shootdown order to the VP between 0945 and 0955, but that Richard Meyers decided not to pass the order on to NORAD until he had clarified the ROE.

Both the USSS and the VP claim that Cheney did not leave the tunnel and enter the POEC proper until AFTER his wife arrived at 0952. And yet over that you choose to believe Richard Clarke who was at the opposite end of the building!

Finally, Norman Mineta's OWN account of what he did that morning clashes with his testimony, because there was simply not enough time for him to do everything he did between UA175 hitting WTC2 and arriving at the POEC at 0920.



[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Norman Mineta’s account of where he is, and when, dovetails perfectly with that of Richard Clarke, who states, “…Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President [who Clarke advised has already been evacuated to the PEOC].” [/QUOTE]


Except Clarke isn't making any statements about time here, so even if Mineta is off by half an hour or 45 minutes he STILL meshes with Clarke. The only difference is he then meshes with ALL OTHER REPORTS instead of contradicting them.




Timings are not pinpoint, but clearly contradicts Cheney's, who dares to say he didn't get to the PEOC before 0958!


Cheney stopped at the tunnel to the PEOC for some time. Many accounts of him "going to the PEOC" are actually him going to the tunnel. No doubt his "enter the PEOC" time is more precise.




5) Bush had not boarded Air Force One"

[/I]Plz source this in context. Couldn't find it right away.


Well Bush gave a live speech to the entire nation on television at 0929. At this stage he was still at Booker Elementary. This speech was no doubt watched by millions of people across the globe.




And still just asumptions, no evidence, USSS or even FAA was using "projected path".


Well considering both the FAA and NORAD were using projected flight paths for other aircraft on that day, I think it's a reasonable assumption (even if you ignore the testimonies).




Cheney was the man. (even NORAD was in the shadows)


What is that supposed to mean?

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Even if these are not adressed to me, I'll try and have a crack them.

Would you say it this way if you were relying on "projected path", in the middle of a very confused situation? Wouldn't you rather say things like "according to projections, the plane is thought to be about 80 miles out".

Quite frankly, who knows what the lingo is. Do you work in airtraffic control, or the Navy, the FAA?

You just never gave any source they were using "projected path". The commission cites this "Tim Grovack interview". Without further evidence, this is not serious.

Again, one would have to dig deeper than Google.

There's no reason to believe this Tim Grovack doesn't exist.

I'm saying the offician account is ONLY plausible. it doesn't "make perfect sense" But very unlikely

That's your very subjective opinion.

I think instead Mineta's account, though not 100% perfect, shows:

- Cheney was in the PEOC some time between 0900 and 0920
- He monitored through USSS the incoming F77, and gave orders about it, which he confirmed when the plane was only miles away.


This has been all adressed many times in this very thread:

A recap:

from Col. Alan Scott:
At 9:25, America 77 is reported headed towards Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information across the chat logs; 9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red
herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system.

At 9:30 the Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area; 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77; 9:35, F- 16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off. It's just when the report came down that they were airborne. At 9:37 we have the last radar
data near the Pentagon.

NEADS learned of the hijacking of AA77 at 09:34

The White house was evacuated at 9:36

Mineta stated he arrived at the White House as it was evacuated.

So the conversation he overheard couldn't have taken place between 9:20 and 9:26.


Now, as for the flaws in his testimony:

"At the time Mineta claims this conversation occured:
1) The White House was not being evacuated
--> indeed it was not. he is wrong on this one.

Or was it that he didn't arrive at 9:20?

2) "AA77's location was not known"
--> offcially it was not (at least not until 0925 or so), but USSS was probably tracking it through Tigerwall, see the above post about Tigerwall

From what I can see, Tigerwall is used by the NAVY to watch for airborne hostiles coming from abroad, not civilian airplanes flying inside the borders.

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/3105/td3105.pdf

The thing is, I think that the President was voluntarily kept out the loop that morning.

It is so obvisous Cheney was the man, that day. So lucky, nothing was working for the president: phones didn't work, it was dangerous for him to come back: he said himself he was frustrated. In the classroom in FL Ari Fleisher was showing him little papers with messages "don't move".
The events were succesful: the President didn't take any major decisions till he boarded AF1 on 0955.

Cheney was the man. (even NORAD was in the shadows)

Complete guess on your part, and absolutely baseless.

The neocons contributed to the horrible mess we have now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel.

Israel?

[Pardalis]

Bushie...

Actually, it's Busherie, a French play on words

Bush + boucherie (Butchery)

:rolleyes:

[busherie]

No editing, that's the sequence - Stafford (Security Service chief) says there's a plane headed this way, then we have an immediate report of an explosion at the Pentagon. Clarke reports both events occurring after the President gave his 9:30 speech. This fits with the 9/11 Commission Report talking about Flight 77 being picked up on radar at the last minute; it does not fit with Mineta's talk of being notified many minutes earlier.

[...]

Of course we could argue that perhaps there were two such alerts, and Mineta simply forgot to mention the second one, or didn't hear it. But if you need to say he's reliable then that may not be somewhere you want to go.

Or it could be suggested that the early alert on Flight 77 was a super-secret one that only Cheney got. But of course that would just be speculation to keep the theory alive.

The overall point is that while Clarke's chronology does at least appear to put Cheney in the PEOC earlier than the official time, it otherwise doesn't support any early knowledge about the location of Flight 77.


To MikeW


Mike,

Thanks for stepping in. You are definitly right to quote Clarke's account. However, the only relevant part for us concerns Mineta's and Cheney's timelines (leaving their office, goint to the PEOC).

Why? Clarke indeed tells us Cheney left for the PEOC well before the "official time" (which states he left his office at 0937). But as to what happens after, you have to take into consideration he White House geography:

- Situation Room is at the very end of the West Wing
- PEOC is at the other end (under the East Wing)

(The 9/11 report uses a special vocabulary: "the shelter conference room" is the term used to refer to the PEOC: it is disturbing. Why not use the term PEOC? The 9/11 report, chap 1, never mentions it by its official name.)

The intelligence Clarke was getting may not have been the same as the intelligence the PEOC was getting.

I couldn't say right now how the information was circulating. The 9/11 report mentions a teleconference started at 0925 with the Situation room and others (page 36 pdf, chap 1) and mentions a in it 189 note a log: at last some documentary evidence. However this teleconference is never mentionned by Clarke, Mineta or Cheney (as far as I know).

Does Clarke mention any videolink or telephone line to the PEOC?

What is clear however is that the information Clarke was getting (about F77 1 minute or so before the crash) was not necessarily given to the PEOC. And vice versa: the PEOC didn't necessarily pass the intel on to the Situation Room (at the other end of the WH)

______________

Actually, it seems the information was given to the PEOC by the famous "young man" (USSS? identification problem. Report says he's from the military).

Cheney was getting his information from the USSS, who themselves were getting their information from the FAA and by their own means (Tigerwall system).

The situation Room did not get the information the PEOC was getting. We have a black hole in the official story between the time Clarke himself admits Cheney left his office (after WTC second crash) and the F77 crash into the Pentagon.

___________________

"The overall point is that while Clarke's chronology does at least appear to put Cheney in the PEOC earlier than the official time, it otherwise doesn't support any early knowledge about the location of Flight 77."

You are right: I just wanted to higlight the information transmission problem between PEOC and Situation Room.

_____________________


To Gumboot

Hi,

You still don't give me any sources for the "projected path" story.

You mention all the USSS sworn testimonies that back the official story. check these notes from the 9/11 commission report: they refer to the Cheney timeline (PEOC arrival, office evacuation) etc...


"209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004).
210.White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4; President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004)."


--> I don't see a single sworn testimony: I see memos, reports, interviews with Newsweek... The point is: you are free to take these on face value, but don't tell me they are proff. They are not. Rethorical techniques (citing many sources, even tough not necessarily accurate) won't work. Only sworn testimonies have legal value.

_________________

"So he hallucinated and thinks he saw the White House being evacuated, but there's absolutely no way whatsoever that he got his times wrong? Right."

He did not see the White House being evacuated: he was in the PEOC. I said he's wrong on this one: he is. But if I was to say an entire tesimony because one single detail is wrong, no one would even read the official story.

____________________


To Pardalis


About Tim Grovack, not being in Google of course doesn't mean anything. After all, not everybody is mentionned in it :). However it is particularly not convincing: if FAA, USSS, actually many people were foolwing F93 on projected path, it wouldn't be tough finding people ready to testify about it. But no! Tim Grovack.... The Faa "may" have... Just an asumtion here of course: I'll dig deeper.

Concerning the sum up by Col Alan Scott:

It doesn't take into consideration a number of facts. And once again, we have to find out when Cheney really got to the PEOC, and what information USSS was getting (not only from FAA, but also from Tigerwall, see below).

Yes, the White House wasn't being evacuated when Mineta said he arrived. that doesn't mean his testimony just fades away. All testimonies have inconsistancies: first of all, the official one. (see my posts, about F93, the shootd down order, etc...).


____________________


"From what I can see, Tigerwall is used by the NAVY to watch for airborne hostiles coming from abroad, not civilian airplanes flying inside the borders.
spawar.navy.mil/sti/publi...105/td3105.pdf"

Please see the paragraph refering to Tigerwall from the source above:

"Tigerwall System. Tigerwall is an air surveillance system currently used by the U.S. Secret Service to ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats. SSC San Diego has assisted the Secret Service in implementing and maintaining the Tigerwall system by providing expertise gained from other SSC San Diego surveillance and physical security programs"

It has been used by the USSS since 2000 (the document I quote is from 2000, at least); not by the Navy. However it was developped by SPAWAR (which is part of the US navy).

______________________


Saying Bush was out of the loop that morning, and Cheney was in commands is not baseless: see the timelines. on the one hand, you have a president taking no major decisions (like clearing the skies, giving shoot down orders etc...) before boarding AF1 at 0955 (about 10 minutes before it's all over). On the other hand you have the VP, in the White House, in the PEOC soon after 0900 (you know it's my opinion, and it's not baseless) getting information from USSS, FAA concerning the incoming F77 (again my asumtion, based on numerous accounts and facts, see my posts)

yes, VP Cheney was in charge that morning.

________________________

"The neocons contributed to the horrible mess we have now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel." When I said Israel, I meant the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

________________________

[gumboot]

Hi,

You still don't give me any sources for the "projected path" story.


Someone else has given some. I cna't be bothered doing your thinking for you. I'm kinda bored of all this.




You mention all the USSS sworn testimonies that back the official story. check these notes from the 9/11 commission report: they refer to the Cheney timeline (PEOC arrival, office evacuation) etc...

--> I don't see a single sworn testimony: I see memos, reports, interviews with Newsweek...


Both USSS agents and the White House Deputy Chief of Staff gave testimonies to the 9/11 Commission that support the timeline/argument I am presenting. These testimonies were given under oath.





He did not see the White House being evacuated: he was in the PEOC. I said he's wrong on this one: he is. But if I was to say an entire tesimony because one single detail is wrong, no one would even read the official story.


You're completely missing my point.

He claims that when he arrived at The White House it was being evacuated. Why would he say this if it wasn't true? This is not something you could mistake for anything else. The white house doesn't get evacuated often.

So you expect me to think he saw the White House being evacuated as he arrived, when he didn't, and yet you expect me to believe that he got his times precisely correct, even though times are one of the first things people get wrong when they are recollecting events.

This is simply illogical. You are showing a total failure of logical thought processes.

Let's just make this clear. If we adjust Mineta's time, his ENTIRE TESTIMONY then meshes with all other versions.

However, if we dismiss his claim that the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, not only do we have to explain how it was that he thought this, but it still doesn't explain the other problems with the rest of his testimony.

Let me repeat that. The ONLY thing about Mineta's testimony that is a problem is his times.

Times are one of the most common things for people to get wrong when recounting events.

It is entirely logical to therefore conclude that Mineta made an error when he estimated his times. It is entirely illogical to conclude anything else.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

On Tigerwall, it appears to be a display and collation system, rather than a monitoring system. In other words Tigerwall gathers information from various sources (air traffic, photographs, etc) and displays them geographically on a visual display to give the USSS an overall idea of what is going on.

We can only speculate on where the air traffic information comes from, but since it is the FAA's job to monitor air traffic in the USA, I would say it's probably pretty certain that this information comes from the FAA.

Now, one would expect that such a system could display both "actual" targets (in other words aircraft appearing on radar) and "projected" targets (in other words aircraft where there was no definate radar return).

In which case, I see nothing here which contradicts the contention that the USSS were basing UA93's position on a projected flight path.

Certainly, any radar equipment capable of actually tracking UA93 from Washington DC would be fairly extensive, and painfully obvious.

A brief google search will reveal that even the FAA's regular ATC radars are fairly enormous. The ATC radar (http://www.silogic.com/ys/126-2692_IMG.JPG) on top of Sawtelle Mountain in West Yellowstone would stick out like a sore thumb.

-Gumboot

[MikeW]

You are definitly right to quote Clarke's account. However, the only relevant part for us concerns Mineta's and Cheney's timelines (leaving their office, goint to the PEOC).
Uh, no. This is about possible prior knowledge of the approach of Flight 77. It's entirely relevant to point out that Clarke doesn't support that, in the slightest. You can of course make excuses for that:

The intelligence Clarke was getting may not have been the same as the intelligence the PEOC was getting.
Of course. Although now you're adding extra complexities to your theory.

You've already decided to throw away Mineta's comment about the White House being evacuated, for instance.

Now you're deciding that although Clarke's reports of repeated warnings of the approach of an aircraft couldn't possibly be Flight 77, there was actually another report that he missed (even though he was in the situation room with links to just about everyone).

And to sustain that, you're also deciding that the warnings that Clarke got either didn't make it to the PEOC, or weren't reported by anyone, as no-one there tells us about two sets of warnings prior to 10am.

Of course you're quite entitled to do that, if you like, but let's be clear, none of this is evidence. All you're doing is adding extra layers of complexity, with minimal or no supporting evidence, to make everything still fit, just as the no-planers (I know you're not one) explain away photos of wreckage at the Pentagon by saying "well it must have been planted". That may be just fine in a world where some people still think that "Marvin Bush pulled the bomb-sniffing dogs out of the WTC", but more critical audiences might feel there's a simpler option: Mineta's timeline is incorrect.

[busherie]

[...]

Or it could be suggested that the early alert on Flight 77 was a super-secret one that only Cheney got. But of course that would just be speculation to keep the theory alive.

The overall point is that while Clarke's chronology does at least appear to put Cheney in the PEOC earlier than the official time, it otherwise doesn't support any early knowledge about the location of Flight 77.

(I edited your post while quoting)

Saying that Cheney got information about F77 before the rest of the White House is exactly my point: Cheney only got the information. Norman Mineta heard it, but didn't understand it at first.

At the other end of the White House, Richard Clarke did not get that information, precisely because the Situation Room was not getting the same information as the PEOC was getting.

How was the PEOC getting that information (or was putting it together) before everybody else? Thanks to some USSS personnel who were monitoring the skys through the Tigerwall. (see below)


Uh, no. This is about possible prior knowledge of the approach of Flight 77. It's entirely relevant to point out that Clarke doesn't support that, in the slightest. You can of course make excuses for that:

I'm not making excuses: I'm saying the information was not circulating as you think it was. It was confused: except for one place where it was a bit clearer: the PEOC.

Of course. Although now you're adding extra complexities to your theory.

You've already decided to throw away Mineta's comment about the White House being evacuated, for instance.

Now you're deciding that although Clarke's reports of repeated warnings of the approach of an aircraft couldn't possibly be Flight 77, there was actually another report that he missed (even though he was in the situation room with links to just about everyone).

And to sustain that, you're also deciding that the warnings that Clarke got either didn't make it to the PEOC, or weren't reported by anyone, as no-one there tells us about two sets of warnings prior to 10am.

Of course you're quite entitled to do that, if you like, but let's be clear, none of this is evidence. All you're doing is adding extra layers of complexity, with minimal or no supporting evidence, to make everything still fit, just as the no-planers (I know you're not one) explain away photos of wreckage at the Pentagon by saying "well it must have been planted". That may be just fine in a world where some people still think that "Marvin Bush pulled the bomb-sniffing dogs out of the WTC", but more critical audiences might feel there's a simpler option: Mineta's timeline is incorrect.

I'm not making excuses: I'm saying the information was not circulating as you think it was. It was confused: except for one place where it was a bit clearer: the PEOC.

I'm not adding complexity here: I just used Clarke's account to show Cheney left his office for the PEOC after WTC's second plane hit. I never used it for information about F77 or F93. You introduced this idea and added complexity. It doesn't matter that Clarke got information, since we do not know if the PEOC was getting it as well. You're the one lacking evidence here.

_________________

On Tigerwall, it appears to be a display and collation system, rather than a monitoring system. In other words Tigerwall gathers information from various sources (air traffic, photographs, etc) and displays them geographically on a visual display to give the USSS an overall idea of what is going on.

We can only speculate on where the air traffic information comes from, but since it is the FAA's job to monitor air traffic in the USA, I would say it's probably pretty certain that this information comes from the FAA.

Now, one would expect that such a system could display both "actual" targets (in other words aircraft appearing on radar) and "projected" targets (in other words aircraft where there was no definate radar return).

In which case, I see nothing here which contradicts the contention that the USSS were basing UA93's position on a projected flight path.

Certainly, any radar equipment capable of actually tracking UA93 from Washington DC would be fairly extensive, and painfully obvious.

A brief google search will reveal that even the FAA's regular ATC radars are fairly enormous. The ATC radar on top of Sawtelle Mountain in West Yellowstone would stick out like a sore thumb.

-Gumboot

You have a point here, Gumboot: TigerWall uses FAA information. Does it use its own monitoring system (like a radar for instance?). There is little information about this:

them having their own radar like the one you show is indeed unlikely.
The fact their information came from, or only, from the FAA is only, as you put it, speculation
they use, among others, "longe range camera systems to classify and identify aircrafts" (source: PDF quoted in my previous post) I don't have any information about this equipment's capability. But the weather wasn't rainy on 9/11.What is sure however is that at least two persons mentionned TigerWall:

Richard Clarke (again) : "the Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing"
Barbara Riggs (future deputy director of the USSS, retired in 2006): "Through monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA, the Secret Service was able to receive real time information about other hijacked aircraft. We were tracking two hijacked aircraft as they approached Washington, D.C. and our assumption was that the White House was a target. While the White House was evacuated, the Secret Service prepared to defend the facility." (source: Riggs interview with PCCW - pccw.alumni.cornell.edu/news/newsletters/spring06/riggs.html)So as you see, TigerWall capabilities are still quite q secret, but there is evidence USSS was using it.

Could have they been using it after 0900? Could have they told Cheney about it when he got to the PEOC before F77 crashed? Could Mineta have been there, overhearing Cheney giving orders about F77?

I think there are serious chances.

Yes, Mineta has some discrepancies in his testimony: the White House was not being evacuated, Bush had not left the school.

Stating that therefore his timeline is very bold, when the evidence supporting the official story (Cheney leaving for the PEOC after F77 crash, F93 monitored through projected path) is so shallow, this is just unlogical. Worse, ideological.

I you want take it at face value, you are free to do so.

__________________


Someone else has given some. I cna't be bothered doing your thinking for you. I'm kinda bored of all this.

Both USSS agents and the White House Deputy Chief of Staff gave testimonies to the 9/11 Commission that support the timeline/argument I am presenting. These testimonies were given under oath.

You're completely missing my point.

He claims that when he arrived at The White House it was being evacuated. Why would he say this if it wasn't true? This is not something you could mistake for anything else. The white house doesn't get evacuated often.

So you expect me to think he saw the White House being evacuated as he arrived, when he didn't, and yet you expect me to believe that he got his times precisely correct, even though times are one of the first things people get wrong when they are recollecting events.

This is simply illogical. You are showing a total failure of logical thought processes.

Let's just make this clear. If we adjust Mineta's time, his ENTIRE TESTIMONY then meshes with all other versions.

However, if we dismiss his claim that the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, not only do we have to explain how it was that he thought this, but it still doesn't explain the other problems with the rest of his testimony.

Let me repeat that. The ONLY thing about Mineta's testimony that is a problem is his times.

Times are one of the most common things for people to get wrong when recounting events.

It is entirely logical to therefore conclude that Mineta made an error when he estimated his times. It is entirely illogical to conclude anything else.

-Gumboot

Ok. We have a disagreement here. Let's face it.

I guess it's about whom you want to believe: you wanna believe USSS agents' interviews and memos (Bolten, meeting, not testimony), and the VP.
I believe Mineta answered frankly. He made two mistakes in his testimony.

Your guess is he got his time wrong (at least 40 minutes, since Cheney got to the PEOC at 09h58 according to the official version).

It's so tough for you to acknowledge that the official version may be wrong; that Cheney lied about it. I don't understand.

___________


You believe so much in these guys honesty? It's not enough, retrospectively, to see how bad they lied about Iraq, about the air quality in New York following the attacks? About the Plame affair? (Libby's notes as an evidence, when the guy is now accused of perjury?)

No, still, let's believe him. Those who say the contrary must be wrong. Are they showing information, evidence, accounts? Doesn't matter. They must be wrong: look, the USSS etc. interviews (NEVER under oath) support the VP theory.

What evidence? Accounts Cheney left for the PEOC well before the alleged 0937; accounts the USSS was using TigerWall to monitor the skies; evidence the official version doesn't have evidence to back the projected path story, (see the Tim Grovack case).

Still? No, the official version is OK. No problem.

____________

How does it matter anyway? I heard Mineta now claims it actually was F93... So problem solved! Mineta, advised to change his mind? No.... not possible!



Debunking 911 CT is important. But if debunking eventually means refusing everything, what is the point?

[MikeW]

I'm not making excuses: I'm saying the information was not circulating as you think it was. It was confused: except for one place where it was a bit clearer: the PEOC.
Let's replace "excuse" with "unfounded speculation", then. You have no reason to assert that Clarke's account is based on confused information and Mineta is not. It's merely what you want to believe.

I'm not adding complexity here: I just used Clarke's account to show Cheney left his office for the PEOC after WTC's second plane hit. I never used it for information about F77 or F93. You introduced this idea and added complexity.
Yes, you are most definitely adding complexity.

Your theory now requires that Clarke is faced with "confused" information but it's clear in the PEOC. This is another step for which evidence must be shown. This is an increase in complexity.

The reason you didn't introduce Clarke's account to go beyond Cheney's timeline is because it doesn't support your account. I am not "adding complexity" by requiring you to consider it because it's clearly relevant, and you are not improving your reasoning by ignoring it (which certainly simplifies things, though not in a good way).

Anyway, as I said to you before, I'm not getting tied up in this: it's not worth it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I would say that even now what you have is only a "smoking gun" in the eyes of true believers, though, and if I can get the documents I want to get (which, unfortunately, might take a very long time) then it won't even be that. But we'll see how events unfold.

[busherie]

Anyway, as I said to you before, I'm not getting tied up in this: it's not worth it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I would say that even now what you have is only a "smoking gun" in the eyes of true believers, though, and if I can get the documents I want to get (which, unfortunately, might take a very long time) then it won't even be that. But we'll see how events unfold.

May I ask which documents you are trying to get? Is it FOIA-related?

Yeah, we agree to disagree. But please don't tell me the official story has evidence on this one. I accept Mineta's discrepancies: at least accept that the official account on this point (basically what happened with Cheney and the PEOC) really lacks serious grounds.

Busherie

[Belz...]

It is so obvisous Cheney was the man, that day.

And what exactly makes it "obvious" ?

I'm not making excuses: I'm saying the information was not circulating as you think it was. It was confused

Please wrap your speculations in [speculation] tags. That'll make it easier.

No, on second thought, just tag the non-speculation. Faster that way.

You're the one lacking evidence here.

I don't think he is. You choose ignore some of the testimony and accept others, arbitrarily, it seems. If you ignore that time discrepancies, everything seems to fit quite well. So why don't you ?

Ok. We have a disagreement here. Let's face it.

I guess it's about whom you want to believe

It should NEVER be about what you WANT or what you BELIEVE. It's ALWAYS about the evidence.

It's so tough for you to acknowledge that the official version may be wrong; that Cheney lied about it. I don't understand.

Conversely, it seems impossible for you to accept that Mineta might simply be wrong about the time and leave it at that.

Are you SO anti-government that you cannot possibly think of the "official" story as essentially correct ?

[Belz...]

I accept Mineta's discrepancies

No, I do think you SELECT Mineta's discrepancies.

[MikeW]

May I ask which documents you are trying to get? Is it FOIA-related?
Hmm, sorry, that did sound unnecessarily mysterious. I wasn't trying to do a "look at me", Citgo-witness-type tease, more talking about the cumulative effect of the timelines of the various tapes & documents that I'm trying to get. See http://www.911myths.com/html/foia_and_911.html for a selection.

Of course they might say something other than I expect, & even if they don't the committed will say they're forged, so I don't believe any of these will provide a final answer. Still, this is all based on probabilities and assumptions right now, so proper documentation supporting one side or the other will be a powerful asset. Assuming they ever release anything, of course.

[busherie]

A careful analysis of Mineta's timeline (based on his statement, his testimony, Clarke's book Against all enemies) show that, although there are at least 2 mistakes in his analysis, his timeline is overall right.

However, two mistakes he made are often used by debunkers to discredit his whole testimony:

1. Mineta's belief that the White House was being evacuated when he got there at around 0920 (when the evacuation only started at 0945)

2. Mineta's belief that President Bush was on his way to Louisiana when he got to the PEOC.


(details taken from 9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)


In his May 23 2003 statement before the 9/11 commission Mineta says he left his office at DOT shortly after the second plane hit WTC2. But before leaving, he did a number of things:

(details taken from 9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)


ended his meeting with the Belgium Minister of Transportation
received a call from the United Airlines CEO, who told him one plane was missing
called the American Airlines CEO
was told of a call made to the Delta Airlines CEOAfter being contacted by the WH "a brief moment later" and asked to come, Mineta leaves the DOT and goes there.

The Departement of transporation office are 1,25 miles away from the White House (straight line, based on Google Earth calculations).

Let us sum up:

Mineta watches live the second plane hit the WTC on TV: it is 0903
He ends the meeting and makes the calls
Being asked to come to the WH, he leaves for the White HouseQuestion 1:

What would be his estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the White House, given the short distance between DOT and WH?

Answer:

It is NOT impossible that he got in the PEOC before F77 crashed in the Pentagon, at 0937. It seems more difficult however that he could have reached the PEOC at 0920.

Question 2:

Is it possible that he reached the White House when its actual evacuation began? (at 0945)

Answer 2:

It is plausible but unlikely: it would have taken him 42 or more minutes to end the meeting, make 2 phone calls and to go to the White House.


________


The fact is, Mineta does state that the WH was being evacuated when he arrrived.

Mineta then said in his testimony that he got to the PEOC around 0920. Debunkers call this non-sense.

Do we have any other information available about Mineta that morning, except Mineta’s own statements?

We do: Richard Clarke, who states in his book Against all enemies:

« Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President ».

When is that brief exchange supposed to have taken place? Clarke does not say it explicitly. However, we can guess it by analyzing the chain of events.

After having met with Mineta who is on his way to the PEOC, Clarke

greets his deputy Roger Cressey
has a teleconference exchange with Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers. Myers tells Clarke that it will take fifteen minutes to establish a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over Washington, D.C.Myers and Clarke discussed establishing a CAP over Washington at 0928 (according to cooperativereasearch)

Therefore Clarke and Mineta met in the White House before 0928. (considering he also greets his deputy, we might say Clarke and Mineta met some minutes before that).

__________________________________________________ ___________________

Clarke’s account also implictly demonstrates Norman Mineta got to the White House before 0928.

Mineta indeed made a mistake: the White House was not being evacuated when he arrived (even though a previous order to do so was apparently not respected).

However, Mineta’s timeline between 0903 (WTC F175 crash) and 0928 show the events fit in that scenario.

Conclusion: although he made a mistake about the WH evacuation, Mineta is roughly right when he says he got to the PEOC before F77 crashed.

This mistake (along with his belief President Bush was on his way to Louisiana) does not mean he got his timing wrong.

____________________


To MikeW

I'll check your FOIA related requests.

If I am voluntarily ignoring other elements, please mention them.

[beachnut]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc (http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc)

This stuff is good for a few laughs here is the pre conclusion section;

Quote:
Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003, and returned in 2005, represented Georgia's fourth congressional district. She asked questions and demanded answers to concerns of fiscal anomalies by the Pentagon in 1999 and 2000 (not even including the $2.3 trillion from September 10th, 2001) and the war games on 9/11. Her questions were not adequately answered.[i] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2180411#_edn1)

[i] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2180411#_ednref1) Transcript of Representative Cynthia McKinney's Exchange with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas, March 11th, 2005 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml)
VIDEO: http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/McKinney2.rm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/McKinney2.rm)


And what do you know prisonplanet ("and a bit with a dog")

He cites prison planet in his paper! This if funny stuff!
Busherie, this guy has tried to write a paper to say

Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job

but he fails. He only proves his paper is poorly cited.
Maybe you can do a better job of making up a better story.
Are you trying to write a paper too?

[Belz...]

A careful analysis of Mineta's timeline (based on his statement, his testimony, Clarke's book Against all enemies) show that, although there are at least 2 mistakes in his analysis, his timeline is overall right.

Except that his times don't match ALL the OTHER accounts.

It is NOT impossible that he got in the PEOC before F77 crashed in the Pentagon, at 0937. It seems more difficult however that he could have reached the PEOC at 0920.

So why give him much credit on something as easy to get wrong as time, then ?

The fact is, Mineta does state that the WH was being evacuated when he arrrived.

Mineta then said in his testimony that he got to the PEOC around 0920. Debunkers call this non-sense.

Actually, they call it "incorrect".

[gumboot]

You have a point here, Gumboot: TigerWall uses FAA information. Does it use its own monitoring system (like a radar for instance?). There is little information about this:

them having their own radar like the one you show is indeed unlikely.
The fact their information came from, or only, from the FAA is only, as you put it, speculation


It is informed speculation, however. There are no air traffic radars at the White House.




they use, among others, "longe range camera systems to classify and identify aircrafts" (source: PDF quoted in my previous post) I don't have any information about this equipment's capability.


Well, knowing something about cameras, I can tell you these cameras were not the source of the information about UA93 or AA77.





What is sure however is that at least two persons mentionned TigerWall:
[LIST]
Richard Clarke (again) : "the Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing"
Barbara Riggs (future deputy director of the USSS, retired in 2006): "Through monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA, the Secret Service was able to receive real time information about other hijacked aircraft. We were tracking two hijacked aircraft as they approached Washington, D.C. and our assumption was that the White House was a target. While the White House was evacuated, the Secret Service prepared to defend the facility." (source: Riggs interview with PCCW - pccw.alumni.cornell.edu/news/newsletters/spring06/riggs.html)So as you see, TigerWall capabilities are still quite q secret, but there is evidence USSS was using it.


I have no doubt they were using it. 9/11 was precisely the sort of event it was designed for. What I am saying is you are exaggerating its capabilities.

I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept that no one knew where the hijacked aircraft were?




Yes, Mineta has some discrepancies in his testimony: the White House was not being evacuated, Bush had not left the school.

[B]Stating that therefore his timeline is very bold, when the evidence supporting the official story (Cheney leaving for the PEOC after F77 crash, F93 monitored through projected path) is so shallow, this is just unlogical. Worse, ideological.


See, this is where you fall down. Your ONLY argument for disregarding the overwhelming evidence contradicting Mineta's timeline is based on an assumption that 9/11 was an inside job. You can't do that. You can't use your argument to prove your argument.

Disregarding Mineta's timeline is the logical, sensible, obvious, and intelligent thing to do.





I guess it's about whom you want to believe: you wanna believe USSS agents' interviews and memos (Bolten, meeting, not testimony), and the VP.
I believe Mineta answered frankly. He made two mistakes in his testimony.


I believe he made one. His times.

And yes, I believe the combined evidence that refutes his timelines over his timeline. There is NO evidence collaborating Mineta's timeline.





Your guess is he got his time wrong (at least 40 minutes, since Cheney got to the PEOC at 09h58 according to the official version).

Not my guess. My conclusion based on an analysis of all the facts.




It's so tough for you to acknowledge that the official version may be wrong; that Cheney lied about it. I don't understand.


It's not tough. But even if Cheney has said he arrived at the POAC earlier, that doesn't address the other issues with Mineta's timeline. Why are you incapable of accepting that he got his times wrong? Why is this so hard for you to believe? I seriously cannot understand how you can accept that someone thought a building was being evacuated when it wasn't, but you take them on their word regarding times of various events. Does Mineta ever wear a watch? Do you know?




You believe so much in these guys honesty?


It's about the balance of evidence. The balance of evidence does not support Mineta's timeline.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

After having met with Mineta who is on his way to the PEOC, Clarke
[LIST=1]
greets his deputy Roger Cressey
has a teleconference exchange with Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers. Myers tells Clarke that it will take fifteen minutes to establish a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over Washington, D.C.



Can you please provide an actual source for this. It directly contradicts the statement Richard Myers gave to the 9/11 Commission.

According to Myers he was on Capitol Hill at the time of the attacks, and left for The Pentagon at about the time AA77 struck. He did not arrive in the National Military Command Centre, therefore, until some time after 0937.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

He cites prison planet in his paper! This if funny stuff!


I like how they say McKinney's questions were not adequately answered. She had a yap about wargames and Richard Myers basically answered "Actually there were only two wargames, they did not involve operational units, and they improved our response time."

She got shot down something chronic.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

I like how they say McKinney's questions were not adequately answered. She had a yap about wargames and Richard Myers basically answered "Actually there were only two wargames, they did not involve operational units, and they improved our response time."

She got shot down something chronic.

-Gumboot

She lost her seat, this year. She punched a cop this year too.

[gumboot]

She lost her seat. This year. She punched a cop this year too.


Well I am grateful to her. The little conversation she had with Richard Myers provided perfect refution to the wargames claims - the Chairman of the JCS himself categorically stating that there were only two CPXs that enhanced response.

Wargames are a natoriously difficult one to refute because it's difficult to get information about when they are held, you can't really prove a wargame DIDN'T happen, and if all else fails the CTers just make them up.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Guys, don't swith to McKinney. It's Mineta's times we are talking about here!

Hi Gumboot,

There is no "ATC" at the White House. You are right. But that says nothing about other capabilities (smaller radars, etc...). I don't know much about "long range cameras": how can you use them to "detect and classify" aircrafts? What does it look likes? If you have any information about this I'm interested.

___________________


You were asking if Mineta wears a wtach. Well, it seems it does:

wyden.senate.gov/media/photos/mineta/mineta_check.jpg
media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/1221000/1221981.widec.jpg
census.gov/pubinfo/www/photos/Apportionment/LO_RES/AD_3764_A00A.jpg

_________________

Of course, it's not an evidence in any ways: I don't know if he had one on 9/11. However, saying he doesn't have one would not be true. But still, you say he did a 40 minutes mistake (confused 0920 with 0958, when he saw Cheney in the PEOC)... Maybe he just didn't look at his watch. Who knows...

As for my motives to keep digging, let me state them again:
- Cheney did not get in the PEOC at 0958. He got there much earlier, and lied about it. Why?
- Mineta, backed by Clarke, says he was in the PEOC at 0920 or so, saw Cheney giving orders about F77. This was edited out of the report. Why?
- Use of a projected path to explain why F93 was reported being as close as 60 miles (and even 10 in Mineta's timeline) was never proved or backed with evidence. Why?

As I showed in my Mineta's timeline analysis, Mineta's timeline could very well be correct.

____________________

As for my quoting of Myers and the 0928 discussion about a CAP, I apologize for not being precise enough. It was a videoconference between Myers, Clarke and others. That does not conflict with Myers alleged locations (Capitol Hill at this time).

My point stands: Clarke says he met with Mineta in the White House before this videoconference with Myers. Therefore, he witnesses Mineta coming in before 0928: as simple as that.


____________________

Ok. Let's sum up: Mineta's own timeline before going to the WH does not contradict an arrival around 0920. Moreover, Clarke's account (as account in Agains All Enemies) places Mineta's arrival before 0928.

On the contrary, Cheney's claim of getting there (go to the tunnel after 0936, being in the PEOC at 0958) isn't backed with evidence, except his not-under-oath testimony, + USSS momos, which franckly don't make an evidence.

____________________

I don't feel Mineta's times are so wrong. Except for the two mistakes you have pointed out, his timeline fits.

Debunk this, plz...

Thx for reading

Busherie.

Cheney, I'm gonna get you....

[beachnut]

Guys, don't swith to McKinney. It's Mineta's times we are talking about here!

I don't feel Mineta's times are so wrong. Except for the two mistakes you have pointed out, his timeline fits.

Debunk this, plz...

Thx for reading

Busherie.

Cheney, I'm gonna get you....

too late a paper is already out there; your version has been overcome by events;

publish or perish

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc (http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc)

This stuff is good for a few laughs here is the pre conclusion section;

Quote:
Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003, and returned in 2005, represented Georgia's fourth congressional district. She asked questions and demanded answers to concerns of fiscal anomalies by the Pentagon in 1999 and 2000 (not even including the $2.3 trillion from September 10th, 2001) and the war games on 9/11. Her questions were not adequately answered.[i] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2180411#_edn1)

[i] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2180411#_ednref1) Transcript of Representative Cynthia McKinney's Exchange with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas, March 11th, 2005 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml)
VIDEO: http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/McKinney2.rm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/McKinney2.rm)


And what do you know prisonplanet ("and a bit with a dog")

OBE

[gumboot]

There is no "ATC" at the White House. You are right. But that says nothing about other capabilities (smaller radars, etc...).


Smaller radars with longer ranges that the large ATC radars?




I don't know much about "long range cameras": how can you use them to "detect and classify" aircrafts? What does it look likes? If you have any information about this I'm interested.


Well a camera takes a photographic image, so it has to be in line of sight with the target, and UA93 never came within line of sight of Washington DC.

A radar just gives you a return, nothing else. They use a long range camera (this means a camera with a telephoto lens, probably on a gyro stabilised mount so you can keep the camera steady while zoomed right in) to take a photograph of the suspect aircraft so they can determine things such as the model of aircraft, any markings, etc. The cameras are irrelevant in this discussion.



But still, you say he did a 40 minutes mistake (confused 0920 with 0958, when he saw Cheney in the PEOC)... Maybe he just didn't look at his watch. Who knows...


Indeed.




As for my motives to keep digging, let me state them again:
- Cheney did not get in the PEOC at 0958. He got there much earlier, and lied about it. Why?


Evidence? (Other than Mineta).



- Mineta, backed by Clarke, says he was in the PEOC at 0920 or so, saw Cheney giving orders about F77.


Um, care to provide this evidence from Clarke? Just FYI, the previous stuff you have posted doesn't support your assertion at all. I'm looking for something new. Also, FYI, Mineta did not see Cheney giving orders. Mineta saw Cheney confirming orders about a hijacked aircraft. That's all Mineta saw. Okay?





- Use of a projected path to explain why F93 was reported being as close as 60 miles (and even 10 in Mineta's timeline) was never proved or backed with evidence. Why?


Okay let's play this game. What evidence would you accept that UA93 was not being tracked on primary radar, but via a projected flight path?

While we're at it, what evidence would you accept that AA77's location was unknown at 0920?




As I showed in my Mineta's timeline analysis, Mineta's timeline could very well be correct.


No, it can't. Do you know how to read? (I'm just checking).




As for my quoting of Myers and the 0928 discussion about a CAP, I apologize for not being precise enough. It was a videoconference between Myers, Clarke and others. That does not conflict with Myers alleged locations (Capitol Hill at this time).


No you made it clear how they communicated. But it is contradicted. Myers was at Capitol Hill visiting a senator. He did not become involved in 9/11 until reaching the NMCC which is where he had lines of communication and where he partook in teleconferences.

Myers and Clarke would not have individual meetings. They are not part of the chain of command. They are merely advisors. Eckhart was the key military commander as far as 9/11 goes. Perhaps Clarke got confused. Afterall he also got confused about the wargames.




My point stands: Clarke says he met with Mineta in the White House before this videoconference with Myers. Therefore, he witnesses Mineta coming in before 0928: as simple as that.


But Myers was in the Situation Room all day. He said himself that once he entered the Situation Room shortly after arriving at The White House he never left. Mineta didn't go to the Situation Room. He went to the POEC.




Ok. Let's sum up: Mineta's own timeline before going to the WH does not contradict an arrival around 0920.


That's debatable. You might think he could do all the things he claims in 17 minutes. I don't.




Moreover, Clarke's account (as account in Agains All Enemies) places Mineta's arrival before 0928.


No it doesn't.



On the contrary, Cheney's claim of getting there (go to the tunnel after 0936, being in the PEOC at 0958) isn't backed with evidence, except his not-under-oath testimony, + USSS momos, which franckly don't make an evidence.


Memos? Right. The USSS, an organisation that has been solely responsible for the security of the executive for decades, isn't capable of keeping accurate records of everything that happens. I'm sorry but that's weak. Do you also ignore the claims of the White House's Deputy Chief of Staff? Because he collaborates the VPs timeline. Cheney's claim is also backed by logs from the USSS with Bush, by the Washington Post and New York Times, by the VPs wife and those that facilitated her arrival at the White House... and so forth. But they're all wrong of course, because Norman Mineta said so. Oh and Clarke. Who was at the other end of the building. Right.




I don't feel Mineta's times are so wrong. Except for the two mistakes you have pointed out, his timeline fits.


Care to explain how the USSS managed to track AA77 but neither Indianapolis Centre nor Washington Centre could, nor the FAA? Care to Explain how AA77 defied the laws of flight? Care to explain how Mineta managed to imagine the evacuation of a building that wasn't evacuated? Care to explain why NORAD pilots were requesting confirmation of a shoot down order before it was given? Care to explain how Richard Myers had a teleconference with Richard Clarke while in a meeting with a US Senator? We could go on if you like?

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

There is no "ATC" at the White House. You are right. But that says nothing about other capabilities (smaller radars, etc...)

You're right. It doesn't.

Er... what was your point, now ?

But still, you say he did a 40 minutes mistake (confused 0920 with 0958, when he saw Cheney in the PEOC)... Maybe he just didn't look at his watch. Who knows...

If "who knows" is a good answer, then how come you're so sure about the other things he said ?

- Cheney did not get in the PEOC at 0958. He got there much earlier, and lied about it. Why?

Again, this is an assumption based on Mineta's timeline that you tacitly admitted is a "who knows" situation.

- Mineta, backed by Clarke, says he was in the PEOC at 0920 or so, saw Cheney giving orders about F77. This was edited out of the report. Why?

Was it IN the report to begin with ?

As I showed in my Mineta's timeline analysis, Mineta's timeline could very well be correct.

Could ? Is it ?

[busherie]

Happpy new year to all of you...


I have taken a few weeks off to think about this Mineta issue with a fresh eye. Mineta's testimony seems to resist a serious analysis. (except for the evacuation and the Bush-on-his-way-to-louisiana timelines which don't feet).

Compared to the flaws in the official story (never proved "projected path" story to explain the incoherent distances of F93 - see above pages) (Cheney's timeline exposed by almost every testimony except for unavailable "interviews" and "memos" from USSS). Add to this Clark's accounts which support Mineta's (again, see above).

_______

Being in the course of writing an article to sum up all the facts and theories on this topic, I would like to draw the attention on the Tigerwall issue.

1. Clarke and Riggs' accounts support the fact that USSS was "monitoring radar" and "had a system that allowed them to see what FAA was seeing". (see above messages).

2.Tigerwall was officially used since late 2000 by the USSS.

3. Tigerwall combines:

- Long range cameras for its personnel to identify aircrafts

- "Monitoring radar": what does this mean? Would they have monitoring capabilities? What would that look like?

Gumboot, you've been quite deceptive with the picture of a very large ATC radar antenna.

Check this pic: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/aar.html

The radar is fairly small and has a 96 miles range. It would have been very easy for USSS to have of their own on 9/11, either in or around the WH.

This is a primary radar, which gives distances: this is consistent with the Mineta's testimony.

My point is: how could USSS have been monitoring radar? Were they just monitoring FAA's radar? Are the 50-30-10 miles figures explained by the "projected path" theory of the 9/11 commission?

These are still asumptions, but it is not true to say that a radar in or around the WH is not possible.

Busherie

[Gravy]

I assume you've taken the time to contact Norman Mineta. Has he responded?

[busherie]

I was checking the news, and something interesting came out:

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/15/194114.shtml?s=lh?s=im

This book but Dinesh D'Souza, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11"

It is interesting: so the left is responsible for 9/11. Debunkers go far, but this is a breakthrough. Liberalism, the defense of civil liberties caused parts of the islamic world to hate the West.

This hate has nothing to do with the War in Iraq, the "war on terror", the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the unfair rules of trade, the pursuit of oil at all costs etc...

This seems to me as a feroucious counter-attack from the kind of people for whom 9/11 was a "blessing" (as Rumsfled recently put it).

Newsmax seems to fully support this theories. From a newspaper that is one of the most famous neo-conservative media, I find it particularly interesting.

When debunkers insist on showing how several 9/11 conspiracy theories are not supported by facts, they are constructive. But by constantly denying simple facts or seious doubts, you end up supporting this D'Souza guys, just as endorsing stupid theories about 9/11 (for instance saying Isreal was behind it) makes you an ally of holocaust deniers.

Busherie

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, I guess it's a good thing that we don't deny simple facts, contrary to your strawman fallacy; and that "serious doubts" are not evidence. Otherwise, you might have a point.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, I guess it's a good thing that we don't deny simple facts, contrary to your strawman fallacy; and that "serious doubts" are not evidence. Otherwise, you might have a point.
No, it still wouldn't be a good point.

The book is a misguided analysis of the roots of violent jihad. Even if we "constantly denied simple facts and serious doubts" about what happened on 9/11 and who participated in carrying it out, in no way would we be lending support, explicit or implicit, to D'Souza's analysis, since acknowledging the existence and sophistication of violent jihad says nothing about its cause.

[uk_dave]

When debunkers insist on showing how several 9/11 conspiracy theories are not supported by facts, they are constructive. But by constantly denying simple facts or seious doubts, you end up supporting this D'Souza guys, just as endorsing stupid theories about 9/11 (for instance saying Isreal was behind it) makes you an ally of holocaust deniers.

Busherie

Huh?

I'm sorry, was the book you referenced part of the 911 Commission Report or the NIST report?

WTF? Just because a right wing whackjob website endorses a right wing whackjob book, that means ..... nope I still don't understand...what exactly does it all mean?

[Pardalis]

But by constantly denying simple facts or seious doubts

What facts do you have on your side?

[busherie]

What facts do you have on your side?


Well, the above thread shows that there are proof:

- Cheney lied about his PEOC timeline
- Cheney and Bush lied about the shoot down order

The thread also undelines serious doubts about the official account:

- That F93 was located as close as 10 miles to the WH: it was never closer than 130 miles. The projected path theory developped by the commission is unsubstantiated.
- That F77's position was not known by the USSS and thus Cheney until 0932.

Mineta's account, despite its minor flaws, is supported by several accounts, was under oath (unlike Cheney and Bush)

Overall, this Mineta issue deserves further research, because on this point (Cheney's actions on 9/11 morning) the holes and darkness are too big.

Please read the thread and, unless you take on face value USSS memos and not-under-oath testimonies, you must acknowledge the need for a new investigation.

Regards,

Busherie

[CurtC]

Well, the above thread shows that there are proof:

- Cheney lied about his PEOC timeline
- Cheney and Bush lied about the shoot down orderYou've had ten pages (in this thread alone) to establish that Cheney lied about the timeline or that he and Bush lied about the shoot down order. At what point will you actually provide the evidence instead of just talking about it?
The thread also undelines serious doubts about the official account:

- That F93 was located as close as 10 miles to the WHWTF??? Are you saying that F93 got to within ten miles of the White House? Or are you mistakenly saying that the official account makes this claim? What does this mean?

[busherie]

You've had ten pages (in this thread alone) to establish that Cheney lied about the timeline or that he and Bush lied about the shoot down order. At what point will you actually provide the evidence instead of just talking about it?
WTF??? Are you saying that F93 got to within ten miles of the White House? Or are you mistakenly saying that the official account makes this claim? What does this mean?

Concerning the distances, I remind you about the situation:

According to the official version which you are allowed to read, the shoot down orders were allegedly related to F93. Distances from F93 to the WH are mentionned: 50, 30, 10 miles. (then orders allegedly confirmed) Hoewer, if you check google earth and the official F93 crashsite, you'll notice that he was novers CLOSER THAN 130 miles from Whashington.

Now the official account says that's because the USSS was relying on a "projected path". (btw, they say this information was based on an interview with a guy called Tim Grovack: no more information, no access to the interviews.

That explanation is weak. First, would you give shoot down orders based on "projected path"? Second, the Mineta testimony basically gives the same account, but places it around 0928 (and not half an hour later) and says the orders were related to F77.

Given the weakness of the projected path story, one might think that Mineta's testimony is important.

If you are interested, feel free to read the thread.

________


As for the proof requested:

- Cheney lied about his PEOC timeline: sources saying Cheney left his office for the PEOC (this does not include the tunnel time) well before the alledged time (0936) are numerous: Bohrer, Mineta, Clarke etc... (please refer to the thread). Cheney's version is supported only by USSS memos and interviews which are: 1. don't have legal value 2. weak given USSS are under Cheney direct authority.

- Cheney and Bush lied about the shoot down order: even the commissionners acknowldge they don't believe P and VP on this. Plus they refused to testify under oath, which in not a sign of honesty... Cheney asked Bush to cover his ass on this, because Cheney took decisions on his own that he shouldn't have taken.


So yes, I don't have any pictures with the time written on it as proof, but the total incapacity of the commission to prove beyond even very reasonable doubt + Mineta's testimony is enough to ask for a reopening of an independent investigation.

But if you wanna take the official version (on this issue) on face value, feel free to do it...

Busherie

[beachnut]

Well, the above thread shows that there are proof:

- Cheney lied about his PEOC timeline
- Cheney and Bush lied about the shoot down order

The thread also undelines serious doubts about the official account:

- That F93 was located as close as 10 miles to the WH: it was never closer than 130 miles. The projected path theory developped by the commission is unsubstantiated.
- That F77's position was not known by the USSS and thus Cheney until 0932.

Mineta's account, despite its minor flaws, is supported by several accounts, was under oath (unlike Cheney and Bush)

Overall, this Mineta issue deserves further research, because on this point (Cheney's actions on 9/11 morning) the holes and darkness are too big.

Please read the thread and, unless you take on face value USSS memos and not-under-oath testimonies, you must acknowledge the need for a new investigation.

Regards,

Busherie

You have no facts at all. You can not even reason your own made up junk.

You can not even explain what you are trying to say about any of this junk you are trying to put together. You talk about guys hiding out have what to do with anything on 9/11. You have zero stuff about 9/11 on this subject and debunk yourself by explaining more.

Please finish the debunking by typing more tripe on the big what ever it is you are trying to say.

Tie up all you loose ends into your singe integrated theory of what any of this would mean anyway.

[stateofgrace]

Concerning the distances, I remind you about the situation:

According to the official version which you are allowed to read, the shoot down orders were allegedly related to F93. Distances from F93 to the WH are mentionned: 50, 30, 10 miles. (then orders allegedly confirmed) Hoewer, if you check google earth and the official F93 crashsite, you'll notice that he was novers CLOSER THAN 130 miles from Whashington.

Now the official account says that's because the USSS was relying on a "projected path". (btw, they say this information was based on an interview with a guy called Tim Grovack: no more information, no access to the interviews.

That explanation is weak. First, would you give shoot down orders based on "projected path"? Second, the Mineta testimony basically gives the same account, but places it around 0928 (and not half an hour later) and says the orders were related to F77.

Given the weakness of the projected path story, one might think that Mineta's testimony is important.

If you are interested, feel free to read the thread.

________


As for the proof requested:

- Cheney lied about his PEOC timeline: sources saying Cheney left his office for the PEOC (this does not include the tunnel time) well before the alledged time (0936) are numerous: Bohrer, Mineta, Clarke etc... (please refer to the thread). Cheney's version is supported only by USSS memos and interviews which are: 1. don't have legal value 2. weak given USSS are under Cheney direct authority.

- Cheney and Bush lied about the shoot down order: even the commissionners acknowldge they don't believe P and VP on this. Plus they refused to testify under oath, which in not a sign of honesty... Cheney asked Bush to cover his ass on this, because Cheney took decisions on his own that he shouldn't have taken.


So yes, I don't have any pictures with the time written on it as proof, but the total incapacity of the commission to prove beyond even very reasonable doubt + Mineta's testimony is enough to ask for a reopening of an independent investigation.

But if you wanna take the official version (on this issue) on face value, feel free to do it...

Busherie

For clarification the first order to shoot down was given by the Vice president between 10:10 and 10:15 after he was told that an aircraft was 80 miles out. This was witnessed by Scooter Libby, the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff and Joshua Bolton,the White House Deputy Chief.He was then asked again between 10:12 and 10:18 to confirm the order saying that an inbound plane was 60 miles out.He said yes.
He then phoned the President who was onboard Air force one at 10:18, this call was logged by Ari Fliecher the Presidents press secretary who noted that the President authorised the shooting down of this flight at 10:20.
At 10:30 another plane was reported 5 to 10 miles out, again the Vice President authorised the shoot down, this did not happen as the inbound plane was later identified as a medevac helicopter.

The initial report of Flight 93 came from the secret service directly from the FAA and was not based on radar returns but the projected flight path. Thus the secret service was relaying a projected flight path from the FAA to the Vice president but they were totally unaware Flight 93 had already crashed.

Maybe you should read the official report into it; it is all clearly explained in there.

Incidentally NORAD recieved the shoot down order at 10:31, a bit late my any stetch of the imagination.

( sorry if this as all been said before).

[busherie]

The shoot down order is a controversial question, even among debunkers. Mr Libby's honesty should not be taken on face value: his trial for perjury, although he's innocent until he's found guilty, highlights it.

The biggest weakness of the official story is the projected path story, which in my view was a very cheap way of hiding the incoherences of the official version: it might be "clear" but it doesn't stand scrutiny (as shown in this thread).

___________________

The only problem regarding Mineta's testimony is that there are two incoherent facts in his account:

"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger, the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey, both of whom were in the FAA operations center.

Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. At this time, as we discussed the situation with the North American Aerospace Defense commander and his staff, we considered implementing an emergency system of coordinated air traffic management to allow maximum use for defensive activities."



(Mineta's hearing)


First problem: the WH was not evacuated until later, after F77 crashed.

Second problem: "I believe the Prez was on his way to Louisiana".

As for the first problem, there can be three possibilities: 1. his account is confused 2. some people (unnecessary personnel for instance) were leaving the WH and he thought it was an evacuation when it was not 3. he indeed arrived when it was evacuated, after F77 crashed.

As for the second incoherence, same possibilities.

HOWEVER, Mineta also says clearly "Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon". So he remembers clearly that when F77 crasehd, he was in the PEOC with Cheney (who pretends he arrived almost 30 minutes later). Again, three possibilities:

1. his account is confused
2. he's lying
3. he actually was in the PEOC with Cheney when F77 crashed, and witnessed orders being given about F77.

So when you compare the actual incoherences in his account with the clear, under oath affirmation that he was in the PEOC with the VP when F77 crashed in the Pentagon, what does stand out?

What his the highest probability? That he got confused about the evacuation and Prez leaving the school (which are 5-10 minutes ) or that he actually got so confused as to say he was in the PEOC with the VP when F77 crashed?

I think the answer is very clear. Add to this that Cheney's account, which in the end constitutes the core of the official story, lacks factual evidence. (for proof of that, plz see thread). It comes as no surprise that Mineta's account on the orders about F77 was edited out.

___________


To sum it up, there is proof (that is to say Mineta's under oath testimony) that Cheney either has a very bad memory or has lied. He may have a bad memory, but he's a smart guy: he refused to testify under oath.

His actions on that morning, the orders he gave about F77 (which may be shoot down or stand down orders, we don't know), his actions to cover it up, are huge black holes in the official story.

I've been trying to shed light on this for almost 3 pages and 1 month: these discussions have been really useful in showing both evidence and inconsistencies of Mineta's testimony.

Busherie

___________

Someone (I think gravy) asked me what proof I would accept for the official story. Well, if somebody can tell me who Tim Grovack is (the foot-notes guy whose interview is supposed to support the projected path story, note 217) I might wanna reconsider...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Reread your own post Busherie and look at what you are saying:

P1. There is an inconsistency between Mineta's testimony and Cheney's account.
C. Therefore, Cheney has bad memory or is lying.

[stateofgrace]

Busherie

Why did Cheney get into touch with Rumsfeld at 10:39 then ?

[busherie]

Reread your own post Busherie and look at what you are saying:

P1. There is an inconsistency between Mineta's testimony and Cheney's account.
C. Therefore, Cheney has bad memory or is lying.


I think, with all due respect, that you have read my post too quickly.

I said that Cheney's account reveals major inconsistencies and lack of real evidence (factual, or testimonies) confronted with Mineta's testimony (despite two minor inconstancies) shows that the highest probability is that Cheney covered up his presence in the PEOC soon after 0900.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think, with all due respect, that you have read my post too quickly.

I said that Cheney's account reveals major inconsistencies and lack of real evidence (factual, or testimonies) confronted with Mineta's testimony (despite two minor inconstancies) shows that the highest probability is that Cheney covered up his presence in the PEOC soon after 0900.
Let me spell it out for you; what you are saying is a False Choice Fallacy (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#false_dilemma).

[busherie]

Oh man forget about it... keep supporting Bush and Cheney I don't care. You're blind to any kind of demonstration that goes against your beliefs anyway.

Thx however for the link it's interesting. Just a question: who uses this kind of "you're with or against us" sentences all the time? Oh yeah I know it's your friend.

Busherie

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh man forget about it... keep supporting Bush and Cheney I don't care. You're blind to any kind of demonstration that goes against your beliefs anyway.

Thx however for the link it's interesting. Just a question: who uses this kind of "you're with or against us" sentences all the time? Oh yeah I know it's your friend.

Busherie

First off, I have made no statements as to my political inclinations.
Secondly, I have made continual efforts to highlight the logical fallacies of you claims.
Thirdly, attempting to associate me with people that you view as your enemy, and then using that against me in this discussion is both an argumentum ad hominem attack and a strawman fallacy.

Now, would you care to address the fact that what you have presented has intentionally left out possible explanations for the evidence?

[busherie]

First off, I have made no statements as to my political inclinations.
Secondly, I have made continual efforts to highlight the logical fallacies of you claims.
Thirdly, attempting to associate me with people that you view as your enemy, and then using that against me in this discussion is both an argumentum ad hominem attack and a strawman fallacy.

Now, would you care to address the fact that what you have presented has intentionally left out possible explanations for the evidence?

Okay.

I was pissed off the other day. It was both inefficient and unfair to put it this way.

However, I maintain that ignoring the logical truth about 9/11 (that the Bush administration had foreknowledge about the incoming attacks, ignored it, and in some case made it possible to happen on such a scale) even when confronted with fact is intellectually dishonest. That makes you a de facto ally of this administration, whose action has been a total disaster for both Americans (except the rich ones) and civilians of Iraq and other countries. (sorry if i'm being political here..)

When I started doing research about Cheney's actions on 9/11, I have continually tried to be intellectually honest. I have exposed quite clearly I think the descrepancies in both Cheney's and Mineta's account. I have presented these despcrepancies and have highlighted that Cheney's version is very likely to be a covered-up lie. (notably in the above post)

"Would you care to address the fact that what you have presented has intentionally left out possible explanations for the evidence"
Please underline them in this post, I'd be delighted to see if I'm wrong!

[gumboot]

Busherie,

Let it go man. You are plainly, completely, utterly, tragically wrong. Just LET IT GO.

You're making yourself look like one of those poor very sick people who sits there repeatedly hammering their head into a wall. Except YOU'RE DOING IT BY CHOICE!

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Busherie,

Let it go man. You are plainly, completely, utterly, tragically wrong. Just LET IT GO.

You're making yourself look like one of those poor very sick people who sits there repeatedly hammering their head into a wall. Except YOU'RE DOING IT BY CHOICE!

-Gumboot

lol, looks like youa re short of arguments.

Have you read the post where I ask you to answer the radar capabilities of the Tigerwall system?

" Gumboot, you've been quite deceptive with the picture of a very large ATC radar antenna.

Check this pic: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/aar.html

The radar is fairly small and has a 96 miles range. It would have been very easy for USSS to have of their own on 9/11, either in or around the WH.

This is a primary radar, which gives distances: this is consistent with the Mineta's testimony".

If you can't even answer this kind of issue... Having unquestionnable faith in something is called religion. This is not what we're talking about here.

[CurtC]

However, I maintain that ignoring the logical truth about 9/11 (that the Bush administration had foreknowledge about the incoming attacks, ignored it, and in some case made it possible to happen on such a scale) even when confronted with fact is intellectually dishonest.So perhaps you could actually confront him with evidence that supports your idea that it's a fact? That's what all of us here are waiting for.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>However, I maintain that ignoring the logical truth about 9/11 (that the Bush administration had foreknowledge about the incoming attacks, ignored it, and in some case made it possible to happen on such a scale) even when confronted with fact is intellectually dishonest. That makes you a de facto ally of this administration, whose action has been a total disaster for both Americans (except the rich ones) and civilians of Iraq and other countries. (sorry if i'm being political here..) Ad hom, and poisoning the well.

When I started doing research about Cheney's actions on 9/11, I have continually tried to be intellectually honest. I have exposed quite clearly I think the descrepancies in both Cheney's and Mineta's account. I have presented these despcrepancies and have highlighted that Cheney's version is very likely to be a covered-up lie. (notably in the above post)

"Would you care to address the fact that what you have presented has intentionally left out possible explanations for the evidence"
Please underline them in this post, I'd be delighted to see if I'm wrong!

Given: There are inconsistencies in Cheney's and Mineta's testimonies. What are the possible permutations that explain this?

(in no particular order)

Cheney was lying during some or all of his statements
Mineta was lying during some or all of his statements
Cheney was in error during some or all of his statements
Mineta was in error during some or all of his statements
Cheney was telling the truth, and was not in error, during all of his statements
Mineta was telling the truth, and was not in error, during all of his statementsNow, rather than proving conclusively that "Cheney was lying during some or all of his statements" you have consistently made assumptions, painted Mineta's testimony as canon, and have repeatedly assumed Cheney's statements are the only ones to be questioned.

You've continuously used circular reasoning in an attempt to prove your point. To wit, "Cheney's testimony is wrong." "How do we know?" "Because it contradicts Mineta." "How do we know Mineta's is correct?" "Because it contradicts Cheney."

It has been demonstrated to you, repeatedly, in this thread that Mineta's testimony conflicts with more than just Cheney's; and in comparison, Cheney's agrees with more third party statements than does Mineta.

[beachnut]

Okay.

I was pissed off the other day. It was both inefficient and unfair to put it this way.

However, I maintain that ignoring the logical truth about 9/11 (that the Bush administration had foreknowledge about the incoming attacks, ignored it, and in some case made it possible to happen on such a scale) even when confronted with fact is intellectually dishonest. That makes you a de facto ally of this administration, whose action has been a total disaster for both Americans (except the rich ones) and civilians of Iraq and other countries. (sorry if i'm being political here..)

When I started doing research about Cheney's actions on 9/11, I have continually tried to be intellectually honest. I have exposed quite clearly I think the descrepancies in both Cheney's and Mineta's account. I have presented these despcrepancies and have highlighted that Cheney's version is very likely to be a covered-up lie. (notably in the above post)

"Would you care to address the fact that what you have presented has intentionally left out possible explanations for the evidence"
Please underline them in this post, I'd be delighted to see if I'm wrong!

You are wrong on the most of your post; you are not a Kurd are you?

Saddam tried to kill me I am glad he is gone. As for the ability of a people to form a government without killing each other; it seems Iraq is like France and not like US after 1776; but then we did have a problem in 1860. But then what the heck does Iraq have to do with 9/11!!!!!!

We have been blasting Iraq for 12 years and they have been shooting at our planes for 12 years! Saddam was an idiot like the CTers seem to be! Even Clinton shot missiles at Saddam! 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq! Saddam did enough junk to earn his own special neck tie party! Go ask a Kurd about Iraq.

Cheney was not on the planes.
Cheney did not have box cutters.
Cheney did not control crap on 9/11!
Cheney does not control much of anything.
Cheney did not tell the terrorist to go get flying lessons.
Cheney did not have a clue about 9/11 coming.

The only people who had a clue on 9/11; The only Americans to have a clue were on board flight 93 and they won the first battle for us.

You are not as smart as anyone on flight 93 because they figured out 9/11 in a few minutes and you have had several years to mess it up and make up lies.

Good job; you are in the bottom 0.00067 percent of all engineers in the United States when it comes to having a clue about 9/11.

Rejoice you have no abilities to conduct research or understand basic scientific ideas. !!!! Make this man a badge!!!

[busherie]

Ad hom, and poisoning the well.

It has been demonstrated to you, repeatedly, in this thread that Mineta's testimony conflicts with more than just Cheney's; and in comparison, Cheney's agrees with more third party statements than does Mineta.

No, with all due respect. Or else prove it!

I'm not saying my demonstration is clear and scientific (only a full paper could do that) As I said, mineta's account has two mistakes (evacuation time, Prez leaving for Louisiana time).

I'm not saying "Cheney must be wrong because Mineta says so". Cheney: 1. has no documentary evidence to back him up. 2. only has USSS to back him up, and his wife. 3. Cheney said himself, before reversing his position:

"I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...
MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there (PEOC) within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

(meet the press, 09/16/01)
How do you explain that? Confusion, something else?



How do you explain Clarke, Bohrer and others supporting Mineta's claim that Cheney left for the PEOC right after WTC second hit, and being at the PEOC before F77 hit?

How do you explain that? is this circular thinking? Is this false choice fallacy?

No, please be intellectually honest before saying I'm trying to fool everybody with my sophistic techniques.

___________


beachnut, I'm sorry if I shocked you by mentionning Iraq. Saddam was a b*stard, no doubt. i'm no trying to start a debate about iraq, and I'm just as desperate as you are to see so many people dying.
it's 9/11 we're talking about here, and how this other tragedy was used (personnaly I'm a LIHOP supporter) to promote a specific agenda.

___________

regards

Busherie

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Explain how you can say that the following to statements are not in agreement:
"And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there (PEOC) within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

"How do you explain Clarke, Bohrer and others supporting Mineta's claim that Cheney left for the PEOC right after WTC second hit, and being at the PEOC before F77 hit?"

[Eckolaker]

The only other possible explanation that could account for Norman Mineta’s testimony is to claim that Mineta witnessed a conversation between Cheney and a young man about United 93. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it would seem possible that the young man and Cheney could have been talking about United 93, which they claim crash landed at 10:03 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania because the passengers tried to overtake the cockpit from the hijackers. This could account for Mineta’s testimony, assuming he was confused on the time of his arrival in the PEOC.

This claim does not however account for the inconsistencies about Cheney’s timeline of when he entered the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center). It cannot account for the stories by ABC news and the changing account of the Military’s response to AA 77 which included Phantom AA 11. This claim also cannot explain Richard Clarke’s account. The Government’s changing official story of what happened to United 93 is absurd and contradicted by many credible sources, most notably Richard Clarke.

Since day one, there have been suspicions that United 93 was shot down by the U.S. Military because of the fear that it would have been used as a weapon to attack targets on the ground. The 9/11 Commission Report therefore attempted to eliminate any suspicion of this allegation by claiming that military notification of United 93 came after the plane already crashed, and authorization to shoot down hijacked aircrafts came long after United 93 was down.

The first problem with claiming that Mineta overheard a discussion about United 93 is that it crashed approximately 125 miles [61] away from Washington D.C. Therefore, United 93 was never “50 miles out” of the White House, Pentagon, or any other specific target. It certainly was not “30 miles out” or “10 miles out” either.

However, the 9/11 Commission paints a picture of incompetence and confusion that still makes it seem possible that Mineta witnessed the young man and Cheney discussing United 93 or a medevac helicopter or some combination thereof. The argument is quite farfetched and doesn’t make sense with respect to Mineta’s testimony, especially considering it has Cheney giving an order to shoot down a plane that was already down and an order to shoot down a medevac helicopter.

9/11 Commission Report: [62]

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington . That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington , not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although the 9/11 Commission Report does not address Mineta’s testimony, some defenders of the official theory claim that Mineta witnessed a discussion about Flight 93, not the plane approaching the Pentagon. When looking at the totality of Mineta’s testimony in response to Lee Hamilton’s questions, it does not seem plausible that the plane which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out could have been Flight 93.

9/11 Commission Hearing Testimony: [63]

MR. MINETA: And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania , then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk , the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?

MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.

MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.

MR. MINETA: I did not.

MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: No, sir.

Based on the conversation that he overheard between the young man and Cheney, Mineta clearly explained that there were no orders to shoot down United 93 and that “the orders” referred to AA 77. Mineta explained that the first time they heard of United 93, it had already crashed. Mineta makes no mention or reference to the fact that they were tracking and attempting to shoot down United 93 after it already crashed, or that they almost shot down a medevac helicopter.

[busherie]

For those who did not follow the Mineta controversy since its beginning, let's sum up a little bit:

- VP Cheney told the press and the Commission he never got to the PEOC before 10.00. He said he gave shoot down orders concerning F93. But the orders were useless because at that time F93 was already down, but they didn't know that yet.

- Mineta told the Commission in his under oath testimony that he got to the PEOC at about 0920, coming in from DoT. he said a "young man" was giving them information about F77, not F93, to the VP who arrived before Mineta, ie before 0920.

The major descrepancies of the official version have been shown clearly, including total absence of documentary evidence for Cheney's timeline, Bohrer's and Clarke's accounts, all showing Cheney left his office for the PEOC soon after 0900, F93 being reported at 60, 50,10 miles when it was never closer to Washington than 130 miles (so called FAA projected path) etc...

Two major alleged flaws in Mineta's testimony have been highlighted, thanks to the joint debate between defenders and opponents of Cheney's account:

1 In his testimony Mineta places his arrival in the PEOC at about the time "the Prez was on his way to Louisiana" when the Prez did not leave the school before 0930+.

2 He stated that when he arrived at the WH "it was being evacuated".

The second flaw is not to be considered a flaw anymore. Here is why: the WH evacuation started, according to a CNN reporter, at about 0920. The information was dug out by the georges wahsington's blog (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html)

The following CNN trancript supports this fact:

"The White House Has Been Evacuated Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's John King joins us on the phone. John?

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

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

--> Therefore the evacuation started approximatively 0952, ie at about 0922. This matches almost perfectly Mineta's testimony, who stated he arrived at the WH at 0920.

His statement "when I got to the WH, it was being evacuated" is therefore correct.

Mineta's testimony is more than ever showing Cheney lied about his action on the morning of 9/11.


Busherie

PS: this information will be sent to cooperative research so they can integrate it into their timeline.

[PerryLogan]

Why was Norman Mineta's testimony not part of 9/11 commission report? His account of the events that occurred in the PEOC completely differ with the official report. He claims Cheney was there 40 minutes before the report does. He claims they were watching flight 77 head for the Pentagon for at least 15 minutes. The report claims they didn't know where 77 was until a minute or two before it crashed.At least it proves there was no conspiracy.

If Mineta had been part of the conspiracy, his testimony would have been incorporated into the original 9/11 report, with suitable explanations for all discrepancies. That's what cover-ups are for, after all.

So the whole Mineta flap proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no conspiracy. Unless you think the bad guys were deliberately leaving clues.

[WildCat]

For those who did not follow the Mineta controversy since its beginning, let's sum up a little bit:

- VP Cheney told the press and the Commission he never got to the PEOC before 10.00. He said he gave shoot down orders concerning F93. But the orders were useless because at that time F93 was already down, but they didn't know that yet.
Explain how a plane that is shot down crashes intact under full power w/ all systems performing normally.

The rest of your post is the same old recycled CT BS, putting it in caps doesn't make it new or correct.

[busherie]

At least it proves there was no conspiracy.

If Mineta had been part of the conspiracy, his testimony would have been incorporated into the original 9/11 report, with suitable explanations for all discrepancies. That's what cover-ups are for, after all.

So the whole Mineta flap proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no conspiracy. Unless you think the bad guys were deliberately leaving clues.

FYI, Mineta is a Democrat. He was precisely the guy who could not be in any conspiracy. Moreover, i don't believe in the major conspiracy cabal theory. I believe in LIHOP, ie a small group of neocons + Cheney getting a lot of warnings about 9/11 and letting it happen in order to follow their agenda.

However Cheney did lie about his actions on the morning of 9/11, then asked support from USSS, Libby and a few others to hide the fact he was in the PEOC soon after 0900. The 9/11 commission was forced to refuse all the accounts (Mineta and others) saying anything different from Cheney's story. They weren't too hapy about it, they've said it. And that's why the official story does not fit: it's full of holes (on this particular topic)

So, Mineta did get to the WH arounf 0920, the WH was being evacuated (slowly) by the USSS, as shown in the CNN transcript.

Anymore (a bit more contructed) thoughts on this?

______

"Explain how a plane that is shot down crashes intact under full power w/ all systems performing normally." (Wildcat)

I don't discuss here what happened to F93, it's not the point: don't try to divert the discussion.

"The rest of your post is the same old recycled CT BS, putting it in caps doesn't make it new or correct. "

Plz make an effort to demonstrate what you say.

[CptColumbo]

Explain how a plane that is shot down crashes intact under full power w/ all systems performing normally.

The rest of your post is the same old recycled CT BS, putting it in caps doesn't make it new or correct.

In the Alex Jones' School of Debate it does.

Lesson 1. Loud = correct

Lesson 2. When the other person is trying to make their point shout over them. That makes them incorrect.

Lesson 3. If your point is proven false or inaccurate, use it again later. No one will remember that it is wrong (at least no one who matters).

Lesson 4. Bring plenty of supporters, because the louder they cheer for you the more correct you are.

[WildCat]

I don't discuss here what happened to F93, it's not the point: don't try to divert the discussion.
You brought it up, not me. And by doing so you just involved NORAD, the US Air Force, the FAA, and whoever recovered and analyzed the black box in your "small group of neocons + Cheney".

Now explain, or admit that Flight 93 crashed as claimed.

[busherie]

In the Alex Jones' School of Debate it does.

Lesson 1. Loud = correct

Lesson 2. When the other person is trying to make their point shout over them. That makes them incorrect.

Lesson 3. If your point is proven false or inaccurate, use it again later. No one will remember that it is wrong (at least no one who matters).

Lesson 4. Bring plenty of supporters, because the louder they cheer for you the more correct you are.

That has nothing to do with Mineta here. What do you think about his testimony, taking into account that when he got there at 0920 the WH was indeed evacuated?

You brought it up, not me. And by doing so you just involved NORAD, the US Air Force, the FAA, and whoever recovered and analyzed the black box in your "small group of neocons + Cheney".

Now explain, or admit that Flight 93 crashed as claimed.

I did not bring up F93, except to say that the official story says it was the plane that Cheney ordered to shoot down, but they couldn't anyway since at the time the commission ordered this happened (about 1015) it was already down.

Apart from that, I think that with the available evidence, F93 was indeed brought down by the terrorists themselves in Shanksville. But really I'm not sure.

Now that this is said, what is YOUR opinion on Mineta? Is he still a madman, confused with his timings? (please read again my previous posts about the WH evacuation)

Busherie

[CptColumbo]

That has nothing to do with Mineta here. What do you think about his testimony, taking into account that when he got there at 0920 the WH was indeed evacuated?


It has to do with your lack of ability to make an original argument, or a point that hasn't been discussed and rendered moot before. It also has to do with the CT community's lack of being able to discuss anything using logic and reason.

[busherie]

It has to do with your lack of ability to make an original argument, or a point that hasn't been discussed and rendered moot before. It also has to do with the CT community's lack of being able to discuss anything using logic and reason.

Since you're so able to discuss using logic and reason, show me how to do it! I'm wainting your demonstration on Mineta's testimony vs. Cheney's account, because you won't find many people on this forum who can do it.

Waiting for you logic!

Busherie

[Pardalis]

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago.

Maybe it's because I'm a francophone, but is it me or is this sentence not making any sense?

They started slowing the evacuation 30 minutes ago?

[boloboffin]

Clarke does NOT say that Cheney was taken to the PEOC shortly after 9. He does NOT. He says that he left Cheney in his office "gathering papers".

Cheney's story is HEAVILY DOCUMENTED by three or four different logs of the day, including corroborating information from the airport calling about Flight 77's approach, which was the real catalyst for the Secret Service taking Cheney down to the PEOC. Cheney called Bush from his office, but Bush was still in the classroom. Bush then returned the call while Cheney was still in his office.

Mineta is mistaken. The Bohrer account is taken from a CNN report that has other discrepancies. I'd have to hear Bohrer himself and not what some reporter juggling events incorrectly thinks he heard Bohrer say.

[CptColumbo]

Since you're so able to discuss using logic and reason, show me how to do it! I'm wainting your demonstration on Mineta's testimony vs. Cheney's account, because you won't find many people on this forum who can do it.

Waiting for you logic!

Busherie

First it's not Mineta vs. Cheney.

Start at the begining of this thread.

You will find many logical and reasonable explanations why one account is favored over another.

If you close your eyes to them or choose to ignore them, I can't help you.

[gumboot]

It's kind of sad that this is still going...

The only thing CTers have to claim Mineta's timeline is correct is speculation and misinterpretation. Clarke's account is self-contradicting. Mineta's is self-contradicting. Both are unreliable, and are incorrect on some details. Further, in many aspects these accounts themselves do not indicate what CTers claim they do. For example Clarke left Cheney at just after 0900. CTers present this as Clarke confirming what time Cheney entered the bunker, which is catagorically false.

They are also directly in conflict with hard data - radar data, ATC communication recordings, recorded building logs, DoD recordings and logs, etc... The Version presented by CTers also fails to take into account things such as information lag, misinformation, and a lack of information (examples of which are well documented from 9/11, including the long delay before it was confirmed The Pentagon had actually been hit by an airliner).

CTers also fill in the many blanks in the few accounts they cling to with their own unsubstantiated theories - for example the assumption that the "50 miles out etc..." meant "50 miles from The Pentagon". This assumption also makes the further assumption that those tracking the flight knew its destination - a rather massive leap of logic considering AA77's final flight path.

Their account relies on the presumed existence of resources and equipment, as well as a smooth flow of communication, that is not only totally unsupported by evidence, but in some cases highly unlikely and in other cases demonstratably false.

I am not so swift to make such assumptions without evidence. I am not willing to label hundreds of people as liars and fakes simply in order to twist a fragment of a conspiracy theory into my own contorted view of reality.

-Gumboot

[stilicho]

I am with gumboot on this one. The more I read about Mineta's version of events the more I am convinced that there were mistakes made about both timing and intent. If there weren't, I would expect the quotes to be much more deliberate and even accusatory.

As Gravy pointed out, what has Mineta said since then about his testimony at the time? If, as busherie indicates, he is a Democrat outside of "the conspiracy' he'd have no qualms about stating exactly what he meant if it implicated Cheney.

[busherie]

It's kind of sad that this is still going...

CTers also fill in the many blanks in the few accounts they cling to with their own unsubstantiated theories - for example the assumption that the "50 miles out etc..." meant "50 miles from The Pentagon". This assumption also makes the further assumption that those tracking the flight knew its destination - a rather massive leap of logic considering AA77's final flight path.

-Gumboot


Ohh Gumbot I like you: if the distances do not refer to Washington and I'm making asumptions, then what is your opinio?

What were they referingto? Disneyland?

Busherie

[uk_dave]

Ohh Gumbot I like you: if the distances do not refer to Washington and I'm making asumptions, then what is your opinio?

What were they referingto? Disneyland?

Busherie

ohh busherie, where does Gumboot say that the target wasn't WASHINGTON?

I've read it several times, from various different angles and even backwards translated into swahili, and I still read "PENTAGON", which would make sense since there are a number of juicy targets in washington....some with domes.

[gumboot]

Ohh Gumbot I like you: if the distances do not refer to Washington and I'm making asumptions, then what is your opinio?

What were they referingto? Disneyland?

Busherie



Si.

My opinio is that they were aiming for El Disneylando.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Guys, we agree the evacuation started around 0920, making Mineta's claim that when he arrived at the WH "it was being evacuated"?

(see above post for the CNN transcript)

PS:

The following CNN trancript supports this fact:

"The White House Has Been Evacuated Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's John King joins us on the phone. John?

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

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

--> Therefore the evacuation started approximatively 0952, ie at about 0922. This matches almost perfectly Mineta's testimony, who stated he arrived at the WH at 0920.

His statement "when I got to the WH, it was being evacuated" is therefore correct.

PS2: the grammatical mistake is probably due to the transcript process. Or the journalist has a very bad english, theory which is not supported by the rest of the transcript.

[WildCat]

(lots of really annoying caps, fonts, and colors)

What's with the caps?

Sorry busherie, nowhere does Mineta claim he got to the White House at the start of the evacuation. He could have got there at 9:50, and his statement "when I got to the White House, it was being evacuated" is still true.

[busherie]

What's with the caps?

Sorry busherie, nowhere does Mineta claim he got to the White House at the start of the evacuation. He could have got there at 9:50, and his statement "when I got to the White House, it was being evacuated" is still true.

I agree with you. However, on the contrary, it would be untrue to say that he cannot possibly have arrived at the WH at approximatively 0920.

It was just a step forward to demonstrate that his statement is true "from a to z" :D

Actually no, because there is still one mistake: "I believe the prez was on his way to Louisiana at that time".

Compared to Cheney's account descrepancies, Mineta's looks perfectly plausible to me.

[WildCat]

I agree with you. However, on the contrary, it would be untrue to say that he cannot possibly have arrived at the WH at approximatively 0920.
It fits in nicely w/ the rest of the documented times if he arrived later. For him to have arrived sooner, everything else would have to be wrong.

Actually no, because there is still one mistake: "I believe the prez was on his way to Louisiana at that time".
Belief isn't knowledge.

Compared to Cheney's account descrepancies, Mineta's looks perfectly plausible to me.
What discrepancies?

[Pardalis]

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago

I'm sorry but this sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Did they start slowing the evacuation "just moments ago" or "30 minutes ago"??

:confused:

[WildCat]

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago

I'm sorry but this sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Did they start slowing the evacuation "just moments ago" or "30 minutes ago"??

:confused:

We need someone to translate from Troofer to English.

[busherie]

What discrepancies?

The "projected path theory" that may (commission word) explain the 50, 30, 10 miles story that is allegedly related to F93 when the plane was never closer than 130 miles from Washington.

The fact that nobody, or nothing, except the USSS and some "untrievable" logs support Cheney's statement that he did not enter the PEOC until 0958

The fact that Clarke saw Cheney preparing to leave for the PEOC at 0900 (did he change his mind? seems unlikely) and supports Mineta's timeline. Bohrer says the same thing.

And simply, the fact that Mineta did not hesitate about this account which he confirmed in a written account prior to his testimony, as well as at a university gathering before his testimony. All of this combined to the fact that apart from one flaw in his account ( that he believes the prez was on his way to Louisiana) nothing contradicts his theory.

No, really, people who tell you Mineta's testimony has no interest is not being honest with you.

[busherie]

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago

I'm sorry but this sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Did they start slowing the evacuation "just moments ago" or "30 minutes ago"??

:confused:


I think this is a mistake due to the transcript process by CNN services. The rest of the transcript is perfect english.

It's pretty clear he says it started 30 minutes ago: read the whole paragraph:

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.

--> It started 30 minutes ago, slowly. THEN, in the last five minutes, people have started running.

[WildCat]

The "projected path theory" that may (commission word) explain the 50, 30, 10 miles story that is allegedly related to F93 when the plane was never closer than 130 miles from Washington.
Do you know what a "projected path" is? Hint: It wouldn't need to be projected if it was an actual radar return.

The fact that nobody, or nothing, except the USSS and some "untrievable" logs support Cheney's statement that he did not enter the PEOC until 0958
That's comedy gold! "Except for the records and witness testimonies, there is nothing to support Cheney's entry into the PEOC at 9:58".

The fact that Clarke saw Cheney preparing to leave for the PEOC at 0900 (did he change his mind? seems unlikely) and supports Mineta's timeline. Bohrer says the same thing.
How would Clarke know when Cheney entered the PEOC when he was in the Situation Room, at the other side of the White House?

And simply, the fact that Mineta did not hesitate about this account which he confirmed in a written account prior to his testimony, as well as at a university gathering before his testimony. All of this combined to the fact that apart from one flaw in his account ( that he believes the prez was on his way to Louisiana) nothing contradicts his theory.
He confirmed his own account? How does that work?

No, really, people who tell you Mineta's testimony has no interest is not being honest with you.
That sentence makes no sense. Please use English, I don't speak Troofer.

[Gravy]

The "projected path theory" that may (commission word) explain the 50, 30, 10 miles story that is allegedly related to F93 when the plane was never closer than 130 miles from Washington.

What about all the other accounts of false-alarm incoming aircraft, such as this one during triage operations outdoors:

So they said a second plane is coming. You’re looking above your head, you can’t see nothing. Then somebody on the radio said, “Oh, my god, it’s ten minutes out,” or “It’s ten miles out.” “It’s five minutes out.” “It’s five miles out.” So, we were thinking, ‘oh, God, we’ve got to get these people out of here.’ – Technical Sergeant Vernon Jones, USAF

http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/soldiers/responding.pdf

It doesn't seem that you've read many of the hundreds of accounts of the people who were there. They are entirely consistent with Cheney's story.

[Gravy]

That's comedy gold! "Except for the records and witness testimonies, there is nothing to support Cheney's entry into the PEOC at 9:58".

Come on, WildCat. You know perfectly well that the gold standard for evidence is witness memory that's 19 months old.

[boloboffin]

slowing = slowly, CNN bad. That's my suggestion there.

Comedy gold, indeed.

[busherie]

Come on, WildCat. You know perfectly well that the gold standard for evidence is witness memory that's 19 months old.


Cheney testified, if I remember well, AFTER Mineta. What about his memory? And by the way, unlike Mineta, Cheney refused to testify under oath. His friend Libby will tell you it's not a good idea when you wanna lie.

And he testified in private, with Bush, because as you know, when you are actually doing an investigation, you interrogate people one by one in order to find out if they have the same account, ie to see if they are liying.

[Gravy]

Cheney testified, if I remember well, AFTER Mineta. What about his memory? Yoo-hoo! Busherie? Backed by multiple documentary sources! GOOD LORD.

How about that false alarm quote I printed above? Sound familiar?

[busherie]

What about all the other accounts of false-alarm incoming aircraft, such as this one during triage operations outdoors:

It doesn't seem that you've read many of the hundreds of accounts of the people who were there. They are entirely consistent with Cheney's story.

Indeed, I havent read hundreds of them. In fact, i'm concentrating on what was told and done in the PEOC between 0900 and 1030.

And the PEOC is not a street. Yes, some false warnings were heard, but on this case (0900-1030) they were witnessing F77 coming in. This "projected path" story is clutch to fix the "50miles" mistake. It is no supported by evidence, except a Tim Grovack interview we can't access. On purpose, obviously.

busherie

[busherie]

Yoo-hoo! Busherie? Backed by multiple documentary sources! GOOD LORD.


What do you mean? If you can gimme a documentary evidence proving Cheney was NOT in the PEOC before 0958, or that he got there at the alleged time, I'd love to see them.

There is simply no documentary evidence supporting Cheney's account. (on this issue, of course). What they have are tesimonies we can't see, either because it's USSS, or because the guys just don't exist (at least on google, for instance Tim Grovack, or John henderson)

[busherie]

Whenever it gets tough, everybody flees!

The truth is, Mineta's testimony is one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving that the US administration had very serious hints the attacks were coming and did nothing to sop them in order to go on wih their Agenda in the Middle East and beyond.

More specifically, Cheney did lie about his actions on 9/11.

You think I'm crazy? Prove me wrong, I'm ready.

Busherie

[WildCat]

Whenever it gets tough, everybody flees!
Sorry, but when you set the rules so that all official logs and testimony is inadmissible there's nothing left to discuss.

Mineta was wrong, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. Just because you won't admit it doesn't make it so.

[R.Mackey]

The truth is, Mineta's testimony is one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving that the US administration had very serious hints the attacks were coming and did nothing to sop them in order to go on wih their Agenda in the Middle East and beyond.
Really? That's the best the Idiot Movement has? An unverifiable set of time estimates, presented by a high-ranking Government official, reflecting his best memory of what happened during an unprecedented crisis?

Pretty feeble.

[Gravy]

What do you mean? If you can gimme a documentary evidence proving Cheney was NOT in the PEOC before 0958, or that he got there at the alleged time, I'd love to see them.

There is simply no documentary evidence supporting Cheney's account. (on this issue, of course). What they have are tesimonies we can't see, either because it's USSS, or because the guys just don't exist (at least on google, for instance Tim Grovack, or John henderson)So your contention is that the documentary evidence listed in the 9/11 Commission report is...what?

[Gravy]

Whenever it gets tough, everybody flees!

The truth is, Mineta's testimony is one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving that the US administration had very serious hints the attacks were coming and did nothing to sop them in order to go on wih their Agenda in the Middle East and beyond.

Ahem. Then your case is nonexistent. You should really think about that.

And if your case is so strong, why does Norm Mineta disagree with you?

[Gravy]

And the PEOC is not a street. Yes, some false warnings were heard, but on this case (0900-1030) they were witnessing F77 coming in.Sorry, but what do you mean by "on this case (0900-1030)"?

[boloboffin]

Cheney testified, if I remember well, AFTER Mineta. What about his memory?

Cheney was interviewed on Sept. 16, 2001 by Tim Russert. His story is exactly the same as the 911CR.

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

Mineta is mistaken.

[gumboot]

And by the way, unlike Mineta, Cheney refused to testify under oath.



Mineta did not give his testimony under oath. Infact, very few people gave testimony under oath. The second NORAD interviews were a rare exception, and that was because they lied the first time.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

The truth is, Mineta's testimony is one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving that the US administration had very serious hints the attacks were coming and did nothing to sop them in order to go on wih their Agenda in the Middle East and beyond.


You got that from the "facts" that Cheney ordered AA77 to be shot down?

How does that work?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

And the PEOC is not a street. Yes, some false warnings were heard, but on this case (0900-1030) they were witnessing F77 coming in. This "projected path" story is clutch to fix the "50miles" mistake. It is no supported by evidence, except a Tim Grovack interview we can't access. On purpose, obviously.



The USSS get their Air Traffic information from the FAA. It is collated and displayed on a system called Tigerwall which incorporates long range photography where applicable. Tigerwall will project flightpaths etc... in the event of breaks in FAA information.

On 9/11 AA77 and UA93 both became lost to radar - AA77 when it went through a sector that did not have primary radar coverage and UA93 when it crashed.

Until such time as the FAA notified the USSS of the loss of UA93, Tigerwall would continue to track its flightpath. As the USSS did not know about AA77, it is safe to assume it was not up on Tigerwall, and they were not tracking it. When the first radar contact arrived for AA77 it was six miles from the White House, moving away.

UA93 is the ONLY flight on 9/11 that follows a profile that allows its progress to have been tracked over a significant distance.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Mineta did not give his testimony under oath. Infact, very few people gave testimony under oath. The second NORAD interviews were a rare exception, and that was because they lied the first time.

-GumbootI've never looked into who was asked to testify under oath and who wasn't, and why. It always bothered me that Bush and Cheney testified together and not under oath, not because I thought they would have divulged anything different had they testified separately (9/11 deniers seem to think that an oath is some sort of guarantee), but because it just looked crappy. Bush and Cheney didn't want a 9/11 Commission to begin with, but since the Commission did exist and was making an honest effort to put the facts in context, I think they deserved more respect than they received.

You got that from the "facts" that Cheney ordered AA77 to be shot down?
How does that work?
-Gumboot

When you figure out how that works, you'll be in the running for a major grant from the International Society of Political Psychology.

[gumboot]

I've never looked into who was asked to testify under oath and who wasn't, and why. It always bothered me that Bush and Cheney testified together and not under oath, not because I thought they would have divulged anything different had they testified separately (9/11 deniers seem to think that an oath is some sort of guarantee), but because it just looked crappy. Bush and Cheney didn't want a 9/11 Commission to begin with, but since the Commission did exist and was making an honest effort to put the facts in context, I think they deserved more respect than they received.


I agree completely.

I still maintain that I think the administration were so reluctant because they (rightly) thought the families of the victims were basically just out to lynch someone in authority and lump the blame on them.

I understand the admin's reluctance, but they should have been sensible enough to realise something like that would be needed, and they should have supported it 100%.

I think things like the suspected VP-ordered shootdown would have actually worked in their FAVOUR. As would accounts that Bush wanted to go back to Washington DC but the USSS overrode him.

Public testimony, of these two, talking about how Bush wanted to be involved, but was prevented for security reasons, and how Cheney heroically took up the reigns and made the horrible and difficult decision to order a shootdown would have gone down well with Joe Public, IMHO.

I'm sure certain Democrats would have leapt on it all and made their usual accusations, but with the entire populace behind them, who cares what the opposition think of you?

Major screw up on their part, IMHO.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

I agree completely.

I still maintain that I think the administration were so reluctant because they (rightly) thought the families of the victims were basically just out to lynch someone in authority and lump the blame on them.

I understand the admin's reluctance, but they should have been sensible enough to realise something like that would be needed, and they should have supported it 100%.

I think things like the suspected VP-ordered shootdown would have actually worked in their FAVOUR. As would accounts that Bush wanted to go back to Washington DC but the USSS overrode him.

Public testimony, of these two, talking about how Bush wanted to be involved, but was prevented for security reasons, and how Cheney heroically took up the reigns and made the horrible and difficult decision to order a shootdown would have gone down well with Joe Public, IMHO.

I'm sure certain Democrats would have leapt on it all and made their usual accusations, but with the entire populace behind them, who cares what the opposition think of you?

Major screw up on their part, IMHO.

-Gumboot

Are you saying Cheney did not order the shootdown of flight 93?

[boloboffin]

I think things like the suspected VP-ordered shootdown would have actually worked in their FAVOUR. As would accounts that Bush wanted to go back to Washington DC but the USSS overrode him.

Public testimony, of these two, talking about how Bush wanted to be involved, but was prevented for security reasons, and how Cheney heroically took up the reigns and made the horrible and difficult decision to order a shootdown would have gone down well with Joe Public, IMHO.

Exactly! Who could have blamed Cheney? Why would they have covered this up? Can you imagine the additional rhetorical force of Bush going on air and admitting that US fighter jets had to shoot down 93? Or that the order was given?

And yet, apparently, they did try to cover who gave the order (Cheney, later confirmed by Bush). As I've pointed out somewhere else, the 911CR goes as far as a bipartisan committee could in spelling out just exactly where and from who the coverup lies came from. Rice, Bush, and Cheney all say that a phone call was made just after 10 in which Bush gave Cheney the authorization. But the logs and Josh Bolton all disagree with this. Cheney makes a phone call (according to the logs) only after Bolton questions him about getting authority from the President. Apparently, not even Lynne Cheney's notes contain the prior phone call. I have no doubt that this incident was one of the subjects covered in that unusual dual session between the commission and Bush/Cheney.

And yet, looking at the facts we have, I can't imagine why they would cover this up - per Gumboot's take on it. All I can think is that something more was going on (not 9/11 CT, mind you) and then my political side takes over.

[Gravy]

I agree completely.

I still maintain that I think the administration were so reluctant because they (rightly) thought the families of the victims were basically just out to lynch someone in authority and lump the blame on them.

I understand the admin's reluctance, but they should have been sensible enough to realise something like that would be needed, and they should have supported it 100%.

I think things like the suspected VP-ordered shootdown would have actually worked in their FAVOUR. As would accounts that Bush wanted to go back to Washington DC but the USSS overrode him.

Public testimony, of these two, talking about how Bush wanted to be involved, but was prevented for security reasons, and how Cheney heroically took up the reigns and made the horrible and difficult decision to order a shootdown would have gone down well with Joe Public, IMHO.

I'm sure certain Democrats would have leapt on it all and made their usual accusations, but with the entire populace behind them, who cares what the opposition think of you?

Major screw up on their part, IMHO.

-GumbootIt offended me (and still does) that 9/11 had turned into an ass-covering legal issue. But I've been in business management, and this was on a vast scale: any admission of wrongdoing, or even vulnerability, could potentially mean billions of dollars lost to liability suits,not to mention the political backlash. My thoughts at the time were, "So what? Lay it all out there as transparently as possible (considering national security issues), and let the chips fall where they may." I think the American public was well enough aware that the failure to stop the 9/11 attacks was systemic and couldn't be blamed on an individual or group or political party or intelligence organization or philosophy.

Speaking from the perspective of a New Yorker, I can safely say that fact that the fact that Bush and Cheney were jointly testifying had no more effect on the general populace than an average day's baseball score. It barely registered.

And that's something that most of the 9/11 deniers don't grasp. They claim that a majority of people in the U.S. generally agree with them. Yet me, a New Yorker, has never once heard this subject brought up in conversation.

Never. Not a single 9/11 conspiracy issue. Ever.

And I've taken thousands of people from all around the world on tours of the World Trade Center site. How many have asked me about 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Zero.

[WildCat]

Are you saying Cheney did not order the shootdown of flight 93?
What the hell is it w/ CT's and reading comprehension?

[gumboot]

And yet, looking at the facts we have, I can't imagine why they would cover this up - per Gumboot's take on it. All I can think is that something more was going on (not 9/11 CT, mind you) and then my political side takes over.



I think I can. The VP has no legal authority whatsoever. Essentially he was usurping the power of the Executive.

Now, if this happened in the UK, people would respond "Well, it had to be done". The British are very pragmatic like that.

In the US, people mistrust their government more. I think the fear may have been that the Democrats would jump on this (because Cheney was, technically, acting illegally) and use it to smear their oponants. Why would you think they might do this? Because that's EXACTLY what I'd expect of EITHER political party in the US.

Both sides of the debate tried to turn 9/11 to their own advantage.

This, I think, is one of the most inherent flaws in the US. Politics. Everything is far too political. Bush and Cheney were so concerned about politics they let it get in the way of their primary duty - being the leaders of the nation.

Likewise, where there were failings in the CIA, in the FBI, in the FAA, most of them seem to come down to agents (even at a relatively low level) being more concerned with politics than with their jobs.

For what it's worth, excessive politics was the downfall of the Roman Empire. Might be a lesson worth taking on board.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

What the hell is it w/ CT's and reading comprehension?I don't promote the "ignore" feature in general, but I highly recommend it for MaGZ. He has provided ample evidence of his mental illness. IMO little can be gained from engaging with him, unless you're in a mental health profession.

[gumboot]

What the hell is it w/ CT's and reading comprehension?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

I think I can. The VP has no legal authority whatsoever. Essentially he was usurping the power of the Executive.

Now, if this happened in the UK, people would respond "Well, it had to be done". The British are very pragmatic like that.

In the US, people mistrust their government more. I think the fear may have been that the Democrats would jump on this (because Cheney was, technically, acting illegally) and use it to smear their oponants. Why would you think they might do this? Because that's EXACTLY what I'd expect of EITHER political party in the US.

Both sides of the debate tried to turn 9/11 to their own advantage.

This, I think, is one of the most inherent flaws in the US. Politics. Everything is far too political. Bush and Cheney were so concerned about politics they let it get in the way of their primary duty - being the leaders of the nation.

Likewise, where there were failings in the CIA, in the FBI, in the FAA, most of them seem to come down to agents (even at a relatively low level) being more concerned with politics than with their jobs.

For what it's worth, excessive politics was the downfall of the Roman Empire. Might be a lesson worth taking on board.

-GumbootI agree with you in general about the US VP/President dynamic, but the fact is that the US military on 9/11 was authorized by law to shoot down any aircraft that presented an immediate threat to security.

That doesn't mean that the government or the military's awareness of that authority was what it should have been: obviously there was confusion. And NEADS wanted their pilots to have visual confirmation before engaging a target. In this case it's good they made that decision.

Was Cheney acting illegally by authorizing a shootdown of an airborne threat without Bush's okay? I don't see how.

[gumboot]

I agree with you in general about the US VP/President dynamic, but the fact is that the US military on 9/11 was authorized by law to shoot down any aircraft that presented an immediate threat to security.


Were they? How? I can't see how they were. Infact, I would argue that, by law, they are prohibited from using force against citizens of the United States or their private property.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Hi everybody.

I wrote a couple of posts about Mineta, Cheney, the PEOC and Fligh 77 last year.

The interview with Mineta presented by LC FC is clear: Mineta confirms Cheney was in the PEOC BEFORE Flight 77 struck (ie before 0937).

Since no evidence was ever given Cheney arrived only shortly before 10 (except for that phony irretrievable phone log) I conclude he indeed was in the PEOC before 0937. (and even 09h25, when Mineta got there and saw Cheney was already there).

As simple as that.

Questions remain about what he did

[PhantomWolf]

Hi everybody.

I wrote a couple of posts about Mineta, Cheney, the PEOC and Fligh 77 last year.

The interview with Mineta presented by LC FC is clear: Mineta confirms Cheney was in the PEOC BEFORE Flight 77 struck (ie before 0937).

Since no evidence was ever given Cheney arrived only shortly before 10 (except for that phony irretrievable phone log) I conclude he indeed was in the PEOC before 0937. (and even 09h25, when Mineta got there and saw Cheney was already there).

As simple as that.

Questions remain about what he did


The USSS logs put Cheney being taken to a secured hallway at 9:30am and held there until the all clear was given. he can't have been in the PEOC before that. Mineta 's timeline was that he was there previous to 9:25am, but even if you take Clarke's statement about talking with Mineta (where he seems to lump talking to him on the phone together with in person) as perect, Mineta was still in Clarke's office at 9:28am. Add to that the USS records indicate that Mrs Cheney didn't arrive untill 9:55am, that Mineta states that "people were running out of the Whitehouse and other buildings" something that didn't occur until 9:45am (there was a slow evacuation previous, but that the event that Mineta discribes was reported by the media at the time it occured as a sudden evacuation) and several others whose timelines also mix with Clarke's and Mineta but demonstratably occured later than those two claim, and the evidence is that Mineta simply got his times wrong, as did a lot of others that day. This isn't really an amazing thing.

[TerryUK]

Mineta was still in Clarke's office at 9:28am

Maybe you misunderstood what Clarke said.
When he stated the time as being 9.28, that was clearly after Mineta had gone to the bunker, and after Clarke's video link conversation to the DoD about setting up CAP.

Please show where Clarke says different.

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe you misunderstood what Clarke said.
When he stated the time as being 9.28, that was clearly after Mineta had gone to the bunker, and after Clarke's video link conversation to the DoD about setting up CAP.

You mean the video link that couldn't have happened until well after 9:37am because people that were in it weren't at the Pentagon till after the crash?

[TerryUK]

You mean the video link that couldn't have happened until well after 9:37am because people that were in it weren't at the Pentagon till after the crash?

You are talking about Meyers? What about the others?

[PhantomWolf]

You are talking about Meyers? What about the others?

It was pointed out to you in the other thread that from the phone logs the FAA and CIA didn't join in until after 9:40am as well. It can't have all been over by 9:28am when nearly half the participates weren't in the conversation before 9:40am.

[wtcconspiracy]

I understand that the plane was traveling at something above 450kts when it hit the Pentagon.

Lets say that the plane was traveling at 400mph (which is something less than 400kts). That would mean that when the plane was 50 miles out it was approximately 7.5 minutes from impact, not 15 minutes as you suggest.

In order for your scenerio to be the case the plane would have to have been traveling no faster than 200mph, a suggestion I have never seen.

Am I missing something?

ETA - Boy am I behind the times....

Well wasnt there some discrepancy in exactly what time the pentagon got hit....I have heard earlier times than reported.....

Ben