Mineta's testimony not part of 9/11 report

[Mutton-Head]

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.

[Gravy]

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.
Mutton-Head! You're back!
FAA notification to the military about flight 77's position was 13 minutes before it struck the Pentagon. If Mineta knew it was headed for the Pentagon, he should apply for Randi's million-dollar challenge.

Or he should be arrested!

[Money-Lover]

Mineta says that an officer was saying "the plane is 50 miles out... The plane is 30 miles out..." etc. Cheney and the others in the PEOC are tracking the plane, and know that it is headed for the Pentagon.

[Gravy]

Cheney and the others in the PEOC are tracking the plane, and know that it is headed for the Pentagon.
Your evidence?
Edit: Welcome, Money-Lover!
Your evidence?

[Mutton-Head]

In Mineta's testimony to Lee Hamilton, he claims that at around 9:26, a young man in the PEOC is informing Cheney about a plane's approach. The young man gives Cheney updates every 10 miles. Have you seen this video?

[Gravy]

What's your point?

[Mutton-Head]

My point is, if they are tracking the plane, for at least 15 minutes by Mineta's account, why is no warning given to the Pentagon?

[Gravy]

My point is, if they are tracking the plane, for at least 15 minutes by Mineta's account, why is no warning given to the Pentagon?
According to your timing it would be 12 minutes.
Mutton-Head, are you suggesting that someone knew the plane was headed for the Pentagon?

[Mutton-Head]

Mineta arrives at 9:20. Five minutes later, Cheney is informed that "the plane is 50 miles out.." At 9:36, the plane hits the Pentagon. From the time Mineta enters the PEOC to the time the Pentagon is hit, is about 15 minutes. Since Mineta arrives after Cheney is made aware that a plane is indeed headed towards the Pentagon, or the White house, we can infer that they have been watching the plane for at least 15 minutes.

[Gravy]

Mineta arrives at 9:20. Five minutes later, Cheney is informed that "the plane is 50 miles out.." At 9:36, the plane hits the Pentagon. From the time Mineta enters the PEOC to the time the Pentagon is hit, is about 15 minutes. Since Mineta arrives after Cheney is made aware that a plane is indeed headed towards the Pentagon, or the White house, we can infer that they have been watching the plane for at least 15 minutes.
As I said, the FAA notified the military of flight 77's heading 13 minutes before it hit the Pentagon at 9:38. Did someone say the plane was headed toward the Pentagon or the White House? How about the Capitol Building? The State Department? CIA HQ in Virginia? The NRO building? None of these buildings were evacuated. Some, like the Pentagon, were designed to be quite safe.

[gumboot]

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.



I can adress some of this...

Firstly, I'm not surprised at all that people have conflicting accounts of what happened and what time they were where. Such is the way of things.

Secondly, AA77... and the "50 miles out, 30 miles out, does the order still stand?" Fiasco...

A few facts (according to the official story)

1) The "standing order" for immediate threats was for fighters to intercept and shoot down the said threat. Confirmation was only required for non-immediate threats. It is therefore logical to assume the "does the order still stand?" question was a staff member asking if the standing order should be applied to a civilian aircraft full of American citizens. No doubt this staff member was relaying the question from others - most likely the pilots themselves. Given that targetting civilians is a war crime, I can understand why the pilots kept asking...

2) According to official reports AA77 was first located at 0932 by Dulles terminal. An Air National Guard C-130 began trailing the aircraft at this point. Until this point the FAA had assumed AA77 had crashed, and had requested military assistance in a search and rescue operation.

2) AA77 hit the pentagon at 0938 - six minutes after being identified.

3) At typical cruising speed (mach 0.8 or 950 km/h) a Boeing 757 would cover about 60 miles in this six minute period.

4) This collaborates with the reports that only count down from 50 miles out.

Lastly, Mineta himself has repeatedly admitted most of his opinions are based purely on speculation. He didn't know what order was being referred to. He didn't know which aircraft was being referred to. He made assumptions (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860) about all this.

Mineta responds to a condescending greeting by Commissioner Roemer by giving a timeline for when he arrived in the PEOC (9:20), and an estimate of when the conversation between the young man and the vice president occurred (9:25-26). Roemer paints a picture of chaos and conflicting decision making between the functioning of the Situation Room and the PEOC and proposes a confused scenario of how a shoot down order might have transpired, to which Mineta replies:

Mineta: "That would be speculation on my part as to what was happening on that day."

Mineta claims that the conversation took place between 0925-26 hrs, and that this conversation began with "the plane is 50 miles out".

I would like Mineta's explanation for how an aircraft travelling at nearly 10 miles a minute can be a mere 50 miles from its target a full 12 minutes before impact. Especially given Mineta's account in other (http://www.cts.umn.edu/events/oberstarforum/2002/2002mineta911.html) interviews:

Inside, Mineta was briefed on the situation and escorted down to the presidential emergency operations center, also known as PEOC, a command bunker beneath the White House. There, with Vice President Dick Cheney, they established direct contact with the Federal Aviation Administration and attempted to assess the situation. In minutes, a report came in about a plane 50 miles away, headed low and fast along the river toward Washington, D.C.

One might surmise from this that the aircraft was travelling FASTER than cruising speed, which would put it even FURTHER than 60 miles out at the moment an Air National Guard C-130 began tracking it (which was at 0932hrs).

The most logical explanation for all this is both Cheney and Mineta got their times completely wrong. Mineta did not arrive at 0900, he arrived "minutes" before 0932. And Cheney did not arrive at 0940. He arrived some time before Mineta.

For reference, if Mineta's first timeline is correct, the 757 averaged about 250 mph for the final 50 miles of approach. 250mph is absolute minimum speed for a 757 without deploying full flaps as on approach. Pretty impressive for the hijacker to maintain a 757 at dead on stall speed for a full 12 minutes... yet kind of odd if he wanted to slam into the Pentagon for maximum damage.

-Andrew

ETA: "C-130"

[Gravy]

You're very nice to these people, gumboot. I'm trying to get them to do their homework. :)

[Mutton-Head]

I understand your time analysis Gumboot. You're right, the times given by Mineta are an approximation. But my question still stands as to why the whole Mineta testimony is ignored in the official report. Because the official report claims that Cheney arrived at PEOC at 9:58, twenty minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon. According to the official report, The conversation that Mineta described couldn't have even taken place.

[Gravy]

I understand your time analysis Gumboot. You're right, the times given by Mineta are an approximation. But my question still stands as to why the whole Mineta testimony is ignored in the official report. Because the official report claims that Cheney arrived at PEOC at 9:58, twenty minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon. According to the official report, The conversation that Mineta described couldn't have even taken place.
And what's your best guess about that discrepancy?

[Metullus]

Mineta arrives at 9:20. Five minutes later, Cheney is informed that "the plane is 50 miles out.." At 9:36, the plane hits the Pentagon. From the time Mineta enters the PEOC to the time the Pentagon is hit, is about 15 minutes. Since Mineta arrives after Cheney is made aware that a plane is indeed headed towards the Pentagon, or the White house, we can infer that they have been watching the plane for at least 15 minutes.

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....

[Mutton-Head]

And what's your best guess about that discrepancy?

I'm concerned about the fact that what Mineta testified to was ignored.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I understand your time analysis Gumboot. You're right, the times given by Mineta are an approximation. But my question still stands as to why the whole Mineta testimony is ignored in the official report. Because the official report claims that Cheney arrived at PEOC at 9:58, twenty minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon. According to the official report, The conversation that Mineta described couldn't have even taken place.

The report says that "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 report later states that Cheney arrived in the shelter conference room at 9:58. It seems likely, therefore, that Cheney was getting his updates on the status of the plane while he was in the tunnel and that that was the location that Mineta was referring to.

[Mutton-Head]

1) The "standing order" for immediate threats was for fighters to intercept and shoot down the said threat. Confirmation was only required for non-immediate threats.

Where do you get this information? Intercept and shoot-down are two different things. Intercept means simply to fly your fighter next to the plane in question and make contact.

[Woody-]

There is a big difference between ignoring his testimony and deciding to leave it out since it didnt fit with other witnesses testimony about the time line.

ie if 25 people give testimony that agree with how the events of that day occurred and only one persons testimony is different then its most likely that the one person is in error.

[Gravy]

I'm concerned about the fact that what Mineta testified to was ignored.
Do you mean the timing of the events he recalled, or the events themselves?

Meanwhile, in the Pentagon...

Inside the NMCC, the deputy director for operations called for an all-purpose "significant event" conference. It began at 9:29, with a brief recap: two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center, there was a confirmed hijacking of American 11, and Otis fighters had been scrambled. The FAA was asked to provide an update, but teh line was silent because the FAA had not been added to the call. A minute later, the deputy director stated that it had just been confirmed that American 11 was still airborne and heading toward D.C. He directed the transition to an air threat conference call. NORAD confirmed that American 11 was airborne and heading toward Washington, relaying the erroneous FAA information already mentioned. The call then ended, at about 9:34.

It resumed at 9:37 as and air threat conference call, which lasted more than eight hours.

9/11 Commission Report, page 37

[Mutton-Head]

The report says that "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 report later states that Cheney arrived in the shelter conference room at 9:58. It seems likely, therefore, that Cheney was getting his updates on the status of the plane while he was in the tunnel and that that was the location that Mineta was referring to.


Yes, and this completely contradicts Mineta's testimony. He arrived around 9:20. Cheney was already there. The conversation about the plane didn't start until about five minutes after Mineta arrived. This is not a time discrepency. According to the official 9/11 report, this event that Mineta described did not even take place.

[Gravy]

Where do you get this information? Intercept and shoot-down are two different things. Intercept means simply to fly your fighter next to the plane in question and make contact.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

[gumboot]

I understand your time analysis Gumboot. You're right, the times given by Mineta are an approximation. But my question still stands as to why the whole Mineta testimony is ignored in the official report. Because the official report claims that Cheney arrived at PEOC at 9:58, twenty minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon. According to the official report, The conversation that Mineta described couldn't have even taken place.


Well I have a question...

Why does it matter?

Maybe his testimony really was lost due to a "snafu". Maybe whoever provided Cheney's times was completely wrong. Cheney himself has reported on National Television that he was in the bunker when AA77 hit the Pentagon, so clearly HE doesn't think he arrived there at 0958.

The common logic by CTers is that producing enough errors in the details will produce an overall error in the big picture. But if those errors are irrelevant, you can combine as many as you want. It won't mean a thing.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Yes, and this completely contradicts Mineta's testimony. He arrived around 9:20. Cheney was already there. The conversation about the plane didn't start until about five minutes after Mineta arrived. This is not a time discrepency. According to the official 9/11 report, this event that Mineta described did not even take place.
Read the footnotes about how the timing of Cheney's movements and the activities in the PEOC were cross-referenced.

[Mutton-Head]

Well I have a question...

Why does it matter?

Maybe his testimony really was lost due to a "snafu". Maybe whoever provided Cheney's times was completely wrong. Cheney himself has reported on National Television that he was in the bunker when AA77 hit the Pentagon, so clearly HE doesn't think he arrived there at 0958.

The common logic by CTers is that producing enough errors in the details will produce an overall error in the big picture. But if those errors are irrelevant, you can combine as many as you want. It won't mean a thing.

-Andrew


Sorry, but I'm an engineer by trade, and we know the importance of being accurate.

Maybe his testimony really was lost due to a "snafu".

Hahahahaha... That's funny. I like all of your maybes. Oh well, it's only a massive criminal investigation. 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.

[Mutton-Head]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf


Thanks for the document. But intercept and shoot-down are still two different things. Cheney himself tried to insinuate that these two things were synonomous. They are not.

[Gravy]

Thanks for the document. But intercept and shoot-down are still two different things. Cheney himself tried to insinuate that these two things were synonomous. They are not.
Read it again.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Hahahahaha... That's funny. I like all of your maybes. Oh well, it's only a massive criminal investigation. 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.

I am not sure in what way Mineta's testimony can be considered "lost." I pulled it up very quickly after a search on Google, from the 911 Commission's official website. The Commission used the notes taken by Cheney's staff, several official logs from the various place Cheney was at, phone records, etc. to attempt to reconstruct his timeline. They prioritized the logs, whose entire purpose is to document exact times and events, over someone trying to recall exact times from memory. There is nothing particularly odd about that.

[Gravy]

Sorry, but I'm an engineer by trade, and we know the importance of being accurate.
Allow me to refresh everyone's memory about this post and those that followed. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1661105&postcount=105

[gumboot]

Sorry, but I'm an engineer by trade, and we know the importance of being accurate.


The 9/11 Commission Report was an overview and summary of events. The major detailed investigations in various aspects of the event were still ongoing at the time. Anyone who thinks the commission report is a precise 100% accurate account of EXACTLY what happened is stupid.



Hahahahaha... That's funny. I like all of your maybes. Oh well, it's only a massive criminal investigation. 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.


What nonsense. The 9/11 Commission Report was not a criminal investigation. The Criminal Investigation is being conducted by the FBI, and as far as I am aware it is still ongoing.

-Andrew

[Tailgater]

Don't forget to figure in all the smoke and bathroom breaks of everyone involved.

[Tailgater]

Double post..

I wonder if seconds seemed like minutes and time seemed to almost stand still in such an intense moment.

What time was it during that crazy meeting months ago when so many things were going on....I'll take an educated guess.

[Mutton-Head]

Allow me to refresh everyone's memory about this post and those that followed. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1661105&postcount=105


Hahahaha.... touche.

ouch.

Let me clarify, I'm an electrical engineer.

[Gravy]

I am not sure in what way Mineta's testimony can be considered "lost." I pulled it up very quickly after a search on Google, from the 911 Commission's official website. The Commission used the notes taken by Cheney's staff, several official logs from the various place Cheney was at, phone records, etc. to attempt to reconstruct his timeline. They prioritized the logs, whose entire purpose is to document exact times and events, over someone trying to recall exact times from memory. There is nothing particularly odd about that.
ARCWAP, you must be incorrect. Mutton-Head is the accurate one here, and he certainly wouldn't say Mineta's testimony was lost when it wasn't, and he certainly wouldn't imply that one person's memory of the time of day trumps multiple cross-referenced sources if it weren't true.

[Mutton-Head]

ARCWAP, you must be incorrect. Mutton-Head is the accurate one here, and he certainly wouldn't say Mineta's testimony was lost when it wasn't, and he certainly wouldn't imply that one person's memory of the time of day trumps multiple cross-referenced sources if it weren't true.


According to the 9/11 report, the event that Mineta described: The young man keeping Cheney informed about the plane approaching, and the question "Does the order still stand?"
According to the 9/11 report, this event never took place.

[Gravy]

Hahahaha.... touche.

ouch.

Let me clarify, I'm an electrical engineer.
I'll also clarify. My reference to your former post concerned your knowing the importance of being accurate, not what kind of engineer you are.

[Mutton-Head]

I'll also clarify. My reference to your former post concerned your knowing the importance of being accurate, not what kind of engineer you are.

Yes, and that's why when I was shown my errors in physics, I owned up to them. It was also an informal discussion, not an official report.

[Gravy]

According to the 9/11 report, the event that Mineta described: The young man keeping Cheney informed about the plane approaching, and the question "Does the order still stand?"
According to the 9/11 report, this event never took place.
And you conclude that because Mineta's testimony isn't included in the report?
Edit: Ah, my bad. I'm reading that section now. Be back soon.

[Mutton-Head]

I am not sure in what way Mineta's testimony can be considered "lost." I pulled it up very quickly after a search on Google, from the 911 Commission's official website. The Commission used the notes taken by Cheney's staff, several official logs from the various place Cheney was at, phone records, etc. to attempt to reconstruct his timeline. They prioritized the logs, whose entire purpose is to document exact times and events, over someone trying to recall exact times from memory. There is nothing particularly odd about that.

Mineta describes an event that is missing from the report. He describes Cheney monitoring the approach of flight 77. This occurs about five minutes after Mineta arrives. The event shows that Cheney was aware that 77 was approaching, and that there was a particular order associated with that plane. It could not have been a shoot-down order, because the report says that order was not given until after 10:00.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Oh well, it's only a massive criminal investigation. We're only trying to find out how 19 hijackers brought the American military to its knees...How was the American military brought "to its knees?"

Really, I would stay away from the decanter of hyperbole when at the wheel of your computer.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, and that's why when I was shown my errors in physics, I owned up to them. It was also an informal discussion, not an official report.There are numerous other errors in the post Gravy linked to. Apparently your definition of "accurate" isn't very.

[Mutton-Head]

There are numerous other errors in the post Gravy linked to. Apparently your definition of "accurate" isn't very.


Well, what is your point? Since I make errors, the 911 commission is allowed to publish an official report that includes serious contradictions?

[Mutton-Head]

Hey Gravy. A question, I'm just curious. How much time do you spend debating and discussing 9/11 related topics on this and/or ther forums?

[Abbyas]

Mineta describes an event that is missing from the report. He describes Cheney monitoring the approach of flight 77. This occurs about five minutes after Mineta arrives.

Could someone please clarify a couple of things for me?

1. Is it definite that Cheney was monitoring the approach of flight 77 or is this being said because Mineta assumed it.

2. Is this conversation truly missing from the report.

3. Are all conversations that Cheney had that day included or expected to be included in the commissions report?

[Mutton-Head]

Could someone please clarify a couple of things for me?

1. Is it definite that Cheney was monitoring the approach of flight 77 or is this being said because Mineta assumed it.

2. Is this conversation truly missing from the report.

3. Are all conversations that Cheney had that day included or expected to be included in the commissions report?


Mineta says they were monitoring the plane heading towards the Pentagon. His words. This ended with the plane striking the Pentagon. This event/conversation is missing from the report.
This event is important. There was a command associated with it, given by Cheney, which was important enough to both commissioners Roemer and Hamilton. Roemer and Hamilton asked Mineta several times what the order was. Mineta answered each time that he did not know. If Roemer and Hamilton wanted to know what the order was, why didn't they just ask Cheney? How hard would that be? Richard Cheney, what was the order that Mineta testified to?

[gumboot]

This event is important. There was a command associated with it, given by Cheney, which was important enough to both commissioners Roemer and Hamilton.

There is one thing here which is distinct to me...

There is this focus on an order. CTers usually make two assumptions

1) Cheney gave the order
2) The order was to shoot down/not shoot down AA77

Most cite the June 2001 DoD memo as evidence that the proceedure for dealing with threats was specifically changed prior to 9/11. The "order" is seen as something along the lines of a "let it happen" scenario.

There are a few issues with this:

1) It is not clear from the June 1, 2001 memo how the 9/11 threat would be dealt with. As an "immediate threat" it is likely shoot-down orders would not have to be confirmed by higher ups.

2) The June 1, 2001 memo makes no mention of the VP whatsoever. The confirmations as required by this memo are for the SECRETARY OF DEFENCE.

At this point I would like to ask a question of those who understand US government a little better than me...

While the President is still in command, what actual authority does the VP have? Both in a civil capacity and in a military capacity.

It seems to me there are some important questions:
1) Do we know who gave the order?
2) Do we know what the order is?

The answer to both is, of course, no. Which makes speculation about the significance of this moment rather pointless.

In addition, even if we assume the order had something to do with a shoot-down...

3) Were there any fighters in a position to shoot down AA77 if authorised to do so?

The answer to this, also, is no.

-Andrew

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, what is your point? Since I make errors, the 911 commission is allowed to publish an official report that includes serious contradictions?I'll tell you what my point is. I have been discussing the general topic of 9/11 and its many supposed conspiracy elements with a number of posters on this forum. And I've read several similar threads at other boards. I've also spent quite a bit of time over the years on the JFK assassination, and observed (though not taken part in) people going on and on about the Apollo moon missions.

For some reason, amateur Sherlocks often get quite warm in their nethers when they believe they've uncovered "inconsistencies" or some random variable when foraging through official reports, interviews, or personal accounts of the event(s) in question.

And it's tiring.

Give me any event that includes numerous people, a complex chain of contributing factors, recorded testimony taken even as soon as the day of the event itself, and I'll be able to find something that could be considered strange, if I wanted to. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Humans are notoriously slip-shod about these things. Me? I like to think it's part of our charm.

But all that being said, I'll simply repeat what I've offered before, regarding 9/11:

Considering that what conspiracy theorists are for the most part proposing would be the most complex and costly undertaking of its kind in human history -- not just in the planning, but in the set-up, the execution, and the follow-through (to this day and forever after) -- it should be easy peasy to produce some hard evidence. Not questions, not doubts, not typos in the official report... evidence.

That's my point. Not that it'll have any effect, I'm gonna guess.

[Mutton-Head]

I'm going to restate my original point, since no one will directly address it.

Norman Mineta described an event in the PEOC where Cheney was monitoring the approach of flight 77 to Washington DC. Flight 77 flew 50 miles, over the Pentagon, then turned around, flew back to the Pentagon, and crashed. This took about 8 minutes, I'm estimating. (If you disagree with this time period, let me know.) At some point a young man asked Cheney if the orders still stand.
Norman Mineta was in the PEOC for five minutes before this even took place. So the entire event lasted approx 13 minutes. According to the offical report, this event couldn't have happened.
It is significent because of the order that Cheney reiterated. We don't know who gave the order, or what the order was. But both commisioners Roemer and Hamilton felt it significant, as do I. They both asked Mineta several times what the order was. Why did they not ask Cheney what the order was? Why does the 911 report try to pretend like this event never even occurred?

[Mutton-Head]

There is one thing here which is distinct to me...

There is this focus on an order. CTers usually make two assumptions

1) Cheney gave the order
2) The order was to shoot down/not shoot down AA77



It doesn't matter what CTers assume the order was. An order was given. It was directly related to flight 77, which was being monitored. The 9/11 report omits any reference to it. No, we don't know who gave the order, but we do know that the young officer asked Cheney if the order still stood.




It seems to me there are some important questions:
1) Do we know who gave the order?
2) Do we know what the order is?


The answer to both is, of course, no. Which makes speculation about the significance of this moment rather pointless.



Speculation is all that we are left with, since the 9/11 commission ignores the entire dialog.




In addition, even if we assume the order had something to do with a shoot-down...

3) Were there any fighters in a position to shoot down AA77 if authorised to do so?

The answer to this, also, is no.

-Andrew

The answer is yes. Fighters were following the "phantom flight 11" which had of course already crashed. This was an invention by the 9/11 commision report. The only reference to this phantom flight was a transcript of a conversation with an FAA report that is completely unverified. The only conclusion to make: the "phantom flight 11" story was invented to explain why fighters did not intercept flight 77.

[CptColumbo]

I'm going to restate my original point, since no one will directly address it.

Norman Mineta described an event in the PEOC where Cheney was monitoring the approach of flight 77 to Washington DC. Flight 77 flew 50 miles, over the Pentagon, then turned around, flew back to the Pentagon, and crashed. This took about 8 minutes, I'm estimating. (If you disagree with this time period, let me know.) At some point a young man asked Cheney if the orders still stand.
Norman Mineta was in the PEOC for five minutes before this even took place. So the entire event lasted approx 13 minutes. According to the offical report, this event couldn't have happened.
It is significent because of the order that Cheney reiterated. We don't know who gave the order, or what the order was. But both commisioners Roemer and Hamilton felt it significant, as do I. They both asked Mineta several times what the order was. Why did they not ask Cheney what the order was? Why does the 911 report try to pretend like this event never even occurred?
Perhaps they found it to be a dead end, since it leads nowhere, or irrelevant, since it doesn't seem unusual since there were no details and heresay.

[Mutton-Head]

I'll tell you what my point is. I have been discussing the general topic of 9/11 and its many supposed conspiracy elements with a number of posters on this forum. And I've read several similar threads at other boards. I've also spent quite a bit of time over the years on the JFK assassination, and observed (though not taken part in) people going on and on about the Apollo moon missions.

For some reason, amateur Sherlocks often get quite warm in their nethers when they believe they've uncovered "inconsistencies" or some random variable when foraging through official reports, interviews, or personal accounts of the event(s) in question.

And it's tiring.

Give me any event that includes numerous people, a complex chain of contributing factors, recorded testimony taken even as soon as the day of the event itself, and I'll be able to find something that could be considered strange, if I wanted to. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Humans are notoriously slip-shod about these things. Me? I like to think it's part of our charm.

But all that being said, I'll simply repeat what I've offered before, regarding 9/11:

Considering that what conspiracy theorists are for the most part proposing would be the most complex and costly undertaking of its kind in human history -- not just in the planning, but in the set-up, the execution, and the follow-through (to this day and forever after) -- it should be easy peasy to produce some hard evidence. Not questions, not doubts, not typos in the official report... evidence.

That's my point. Not that it'll have any effect, I'm gonna guess.

A string of random generalities that completely evades the specific topic I am discussing right now.

My main point still stands. Mineta's testimony was important, and the 9/11 commission ignored it.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

This event is important. There was a command associated with it, given by Cheney, which was important enough to both commissioners Roemer and Hamilton. Roemer and Hamilton asked Mineta several times what the order was. Mineta answered each time that he did not know. If Roemer and Hamilton wanted to know what the order was, why didn't they just ask Cheney? How hard would that be? Richard Cheney, what was the order that Mineta testified to?

Cheney did testify privately and I would bet they asked him that. In any event, I am curious why exactly it matters. The 911 Commission Report details a sequence of events for Flight 93 that is strikingly similar to what Mineta describes for Flight 77:

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice Pres ident 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.

In other words, the report is very clear that Cheney authorized engaging and shooting down Flight 93, though unbeknownst to them, it had already crashed. I am missing what the huge revelation in Mineta's testimony is supposed to be. Whether Cheney did or didn't authorize shooting down Flight 77, it wasn't shot down, and it hit the Pentagon. He definitely authorized shooting down Flight 93, so there is no coverup about the VP giving authorization to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. Where is the importance?

[CptColumbo]

A string of random generalities that completely evades the specific topic I am discussing right now.

My main point still stands. Mineta's testimony was important, and the 9/11 commission ignored it.In your opinion it's important, and IMO it's important to you because it was ignored by the commission.

Edited to fix typo.

[Mutton-Head]

Perhaps they found it to be a dead end, since it leads nowhere, or irrelevant, since it doesn't seem unusual since there were no details and heresay.

Oh please. It is not heresay. Norman Mineta testified under oath to an event that he witnessed. If you testify to an event that you witness, that by definition is not heresay. I'm sure the real Columbo could tell you that.

It doesn't lead to nowhere. It leads to a question, which is: what was the order? And why does the 9/11 commission wish to make it look like Cheney was not there when that order was discussed?

[CptColumbo]

And why does the 9/11 commission wish to make it look like Cheney was not there when that order was discussed?
When did they do that?

[Abbyas]

And why does the 9/11 commission wish to make it look like Cheney was not there when that order was discussed?

No, no. We cannot say that the 9/11 commission printed times that were sourced for the purpose of making it look like Cheney wasn't there. The report does not imply that Mineta is lying. I would have to ask you where in the report it states that the conversation did not take place.


Now that we (I) know that Cheney testified privately, we cannot say that the question as to the type of order was not asked.

[Mutton-Head]

Now that we (I) know that Cheney testified privately, we cannot say that the question as to the type of order was not asked.


Yes, exactly, Cheney testified privately, not under oath, and without any transcripts taken. That means no accountability.

[realitybites]

Yes, exactly, Cheney testified privately, not under oath, and without any transcripts taken. That means no accountability.
Which therefore means conspiracy, holographic planes, thermate in the towers, and voice-morphed phone calls.

I'm sold.... Congrats Mutton!

You just got yourself a new convert.

[Mutton-Head]

Cheney did testify privately and I would bet they asked him that. In any event, I am curious why exactly it matters. The 911 Commission Report details a sequence of events for Flight 93 that is strikingly similar to what Mineta describes for Flight 77:

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice Pres ident 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.

In other words, the report is very clear that Cheney authorized engaging and shooting down Flight 93, though unbeknownst to them, it had already crashed. I am missing what the huge revelation in Mineta's testimony is supposed to be. Whether Cheney did or didn't authorize shooting down Flight 77, it wasn't shot down, and it hit the Pentagon. He definitely authorized shooting down Flight 93, so there is no coverup about the VP giving authorization to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. Where is the importance?

"I bet" is not sufficient. It would be very easy to ask Cheney what the orders were, and include them in the report. How hard is it to ask Dick Cheney what the orders were? How hard would it be to include them in the report. Not hard at all. Unless Cheney does not want the answer in the report.

[Mutton-Head]

Which therefore means conspiracy, holographic planes, thermate in the towers, and voice-morphed phone calls.

I'm sold.... Congrats Mutton!

You just got yourself a new convert.


I repeat: Which means no accountability. We're not talking about holograms. Try to pay attention.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

"I bet" is not sufficient. It would be very easy to ask Cheney what the orders were, and include them in the report. How hard is it to ask Dick Cheney what the orders were? How hard would it be to include them in the report. Not hard at all. Unless Cheney does not want the answer in the report.

So give me a reason why Cheney would not want the order in the report, if the exact same order was given a few hours later, and that fact was published in the report? Just a cover-up for the hell of it?

[CptColumbo]

"I bet" is not sufficient. It would be very easy to ask Cheney what the orders were, and include them in the report. How hard is it to ask Dick Cheney what the orders were? How hard would it be to include them in the report. Not hard at all. Unless Cheney does not want the answer in the report.
What would be the point of putting his answer in the report, you obviously wouldn't believe the answer anyway?

[Mutton-Head]

So give me a reason why Cheney would not want the order in the report, if the exact same order was given a few hours later, and that fact was published in the report? Just a cover-up for the hell of it?

If the order was not to engage, then it would be evidence that Cheney allowed the attack to be successful.

[Mutton-Head]

What would be the point of putting his answer in the report, you obviously wouldn't believe the answer anyway?


How about this, we ask Cheney what the command was, and we ask the young officer. How hard would that be?

[gumboot]

The answer is yes. Fighters were following the "phantom flight 11" which had of course already crashed.



They weren't, actually. The Langley AFB F-16's were not given a heading-to-intercept (HTI). Without an HTI, they followed standard proceedure for rapid depature of civil airspace. This is referred to as a 090 for 60 flight path. It involves flying east (heading 090) for sixty miles.

The phantom AA11 is irrelevant. Firstly, it was headed to Washington DC - the same city as AA77. Secondly, due to the 090 for 60 flight plan, the two F-16s from Langley were in no position to intercept either the phantom AA11 or the actual AA77.

-Andrew

ETA. And this makes any order regarding shoot or no-shoot totally irrelevant also, as the aircraft were in no position to carry out such an order (regardless of what it was).

[CptColumbo]

How about this, we ask Cheney what the command was, and we ask the young officer. How hard would that be?
What would be the point of putting his or the "young officer's" answer in the report, you obviously wouldn't believe the answer anyway?

[Gravy]

So, I've been reading up quite a bit on this Mineta and Cheney thing, and it seems most likely to me that Mineta's timeline is wrong. I'll write more about this when I get the chance.

One intriguing thing I learned, which could possibly explain some mental fogginess in his May, 2003 testimony, is that Mineta had spent over three months in the hospital after back surgery, and was released in March of that year. And in 2002 he had hip-replacement surgery.

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too.
Translation: "Dude, are you gonna stop staring at that pitcher?" :hypnotize

Here's what Cheney was doing as flight 77 approached, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1
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." (208)

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. (209)

[Flight 77 Struck the Pentagon at 9:38]

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. (210)

The Secret Service logged Mrs. Cheney's arrival at the White House at 9:52, and she joined her husband in the tunnel. 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. We believe this is the same call in which the Vice President urged the President not to return to Washington. After the call ended, Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room. (211)

[gumboot]

So, I've been reading up quite a bit on this Mineta and Cheney thing, and it seems most likely to me that Mineta's timeline is wrong. I'll write more about this when I get the chance.


Actually this all makes sense.

According to what most people are saying, the issue of shooting things down came into play later... after all four aircraft had crashed, in fact (don't forget the airwaves were still chocka with aircraft trying to land and they had no idea how many more aircraft might be hijacked...)

Most likely Mineta turned up MUCH later to the White House than he claims. The conversation he saw WAS as he saw it, but they weren't talking about AA77, they were talking about something else entirely (I know of at least 3 false alarm hijackings on 9/11 (Delta 1989, the 3rd plane reported coming for the WTC, and the phantom AA11), how many more were there over the following hours?). They may have even been talking about the F-16's making their way towards Washington DC. Or maybe they were talking about Air Force One heading somewhere, and the order was something to do with that.

We have NO IDEA what the order was, or what aircraft was being referred to. Mineta ASSUMED in was AA77 and it was referring to a shoot-down order. Mineta himself ADMITS he had no idea what was going on at the time. Given what was happening at the time there are a myriad of things it could have been.

-Andrew

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Most likely Mineta turned up MUCH later to the White House than he claims. The conversation he saw WAS as he saw it, but they weren't talking about AA77, they were talking about something else entirely

It actually all fits very well with the sequence of events for how they were dealing with Flight 93 (even though it had crashed already, they didn't know it). There is the aide constantly reporting the distance of the aircraft, as Mineta reported, the aide reverifying the order, as Mineta reported, and then the question of whether or not the plane was shot down -- as Mineta reported. His sequence jibes almost perfectly with the report's sequence for Flight 93...

edit: I am not saying certainly that Mineta was mistaken, just that it is worth a further look.

[Shrinker]

Sorry if this has been posted already (only have time to skim the 2nd page) but this seems relevant to the OP and useful information for investigators.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm
But it is not just the thorny issue of recognising a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people.

"Memories are very vulnerable to error. If you witness a crime and then read a local news report everything can be combined in your memory at a later date," she said.

"It can be hard to distinguish between what you saw, and another source of information.

"Where a witness is exposed to post-event information that tends to get assimilated into the memory."
Mr Roberts cited a study of Amsterdam residents who lived near the site of a 1992 plane crash that claimed 43 lives after a cargo jet smashed into an apartment block.
"The crash was never filmed. But quite a large proportion were adamant they had seen footage on TV and could recall images that were very graphic.

[chipmunk stew]

Hahahaha.... touche.

ouch.

Let me clarify, I'm an electrical engineer.You wouldn't happen to be an MIT graduate, would you? Currently practicing medicine?

[Abbyas]

Yes, exactly, Cheney testified privately, not under oath, and without any transcripts taken. That means no accountability.

So this is your problem with the Mineta testimony? That Cheney testified privately?

[gumboot]

It actually all fits very well with the sequence of events for how they were dealing with Flight 93 (even though it had crashed already, they didn't know it).


I considered this too, but there's a couple of issues...

1) A private learjet was diverted to the site of UA93 moments after it crashed, and confirmed the crash site.
2) The distances being reported by the "young officer" don't match up with UA93.

I do think it a little odd that Mineta's report of this event wasn't mentioned AT ALL, which to me suggests the testimony really was just lost (crazier things have happened).

Certainly I think a lot of people agree the 9/11 commission has a lot of serious flaws. There's certainly a lot of hand-washing and back-covering going on there. And it does have some confusing accounts.

The problem I have is with people making the gargantuan leap from that to "evil government conspiracy".

I personally haven't really used the commission report much directly for my own learning as far as 9/11. Virtually all of my information I have got from other sources. These other sources and other accounts collaborate with the commission report.

Accounts like the claimed scene with Cheney don't, in my mind, contradict the overall summary of events.

And while looking at all this "non-official" information I haven't come across a single scrap of evidence that points to government involvement. Not a shred.

Take an example... the thing with NORAD and it's exercises that supposedly "confused" things.

I didn't look to the commission report for any of the information for this.

I found a transcript of a conversation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he explained what was going on. Then I cross referenced that with the CT claims and then did some research into the various aspects (using the NORAD website, wikipedia, and other assorted sites online).

Without once looking at the commission report, I quickly saw what was going on - the "four exercises" were in fact a real world operation, an exercise at a local government office that had nothing to do with NORAD, the FAA, NEADS, or any ATCs, and a single annual NORAD exercise (consisting of two command centres) that in no way resembled a terrorist attack/hijacking.

This is the general process for a lot of my research. Even were the 9/11 commission full of errors and mistakes and ommission, it wouldn't change my stance because the commission report isn't really integral to my knowledge of things.

-Andrew

[chipmunk stew]

So this is your problem with the Mineta testimony? That Cheney testified privately?If that's all it is, then you've stepped on some common ground with me, Mutton-Head. I was infuriated that Bush and Cheney insisted on shared, secret, off-the-record testimony. So were most of the commissioners who heard the testimony, by the way.

[Stellafane]

Hey Gravy. A question, I'm just curious. How much time do you spend debating and discussing 9/11 related topics on this and/or ther forums?

Hey Mutton-Head. A question, I'm just curious. How much time do you spend supporting and promoting an insane theory that only nuts, liars, attention whores, and simpletons believe in?

[gumboot]

*PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS*

I get the impression a lot of people in various positions - including Bush, Cheney, the FAA, NORAD, DoD, etc...

All felt really guilty after 9/11. I suspect many of them felt they should have prevented the attacks somehow. I can only imagine how the NORAD fighter pilots felt...

For those in positions of power, I suspect they were genuinely worried some heads were going to roll for the "defence failure". I suspect they were worried it would be THEIR heads that rolled.

So I think in the 9/11 commission report some of them made a lot of effort to make themselves look good. Hence private statements etc...

This is all personal speculation, of course. I have no real evidence for any of this. But it bears thinking about.

Incidentally, I don't think the US had any hope of preventing those attacks on 9/11. I have discussed this previously with Geggy. It was what the United States IS as a country, that allowed those attacks to happen on that day.

-Andrew

[chipmunk stew]

*PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS*

I get the impression a lot of people in various positions - including Bush, Cheney, the FAA, NORAD, DoD, etc...

All felt really guilty after 9/11. I suspect many of them felt they should have prevented the attacks somehow. I can only imagine how the NORAD fighter pilots felt...

For those in positions of power, I suspect they were genuinely worried some heads were going to roll for the "defence failure". I suspect they were worried it would be THEIR heads that rolled.

So I think in the 9/11 commission report some of them made a lot of effort to make themselves look good. Hence private statements etc...

This is all personal speculation, of course. I have no real evidence for any of this. But it bears thinking about.

Incidentally, I don't think the US had any hope of preventing those attacks on 9/11. I have discussed this previously with Geggy. It was what the United States IS as a country, that allowed those attacks to happen on that day.

-AndrewI would speculate also that Bush and Cheney were concerned with projecting an image of strength and power to the world at that time and were worried that their testimony, if public, might appear as though they themselves were on trial. By testifying on their terms, they hoped the world would see them as remaining in the driver's seat. Unfortunately for them, this backfired in several ways--one being that Bush was lambasted for "sitting on Uncle Dick's lap" through the testimony. Another being that it cast suspicion on them that is often at the root of these conspiracy theories.

[Regnad Kcin]

...That's my point. Not that it'll have any effect, I'm gonna guess.A string of random generalities that completely evades the specific topic I am discussing right now.

My main point still stands. Mineta's testimony was important, and the 9/11 commission ignored it.Game, set, match to Kcin!

[Mutton-Head]

So, I've been reading up quite a bit on this Mineta and Cheney thing, and it seems most likely to me that Mineta's timeline is wrong. I'll write more about this when I get the chance.

One intriguing thing I learned, which could possibly explain some mental fogginess in his May, 2003 testimony, is that Mineta had spent over three months in the hospital after back surgery, and was released in March of that year. And in 2002 he had hip-replacement surgery.


Translation: "Dude, are you gonna stop staring at that pitcher?" :hypnotize

Here's what Cheney was doing as flight 77 approached, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1


Nice try Gravy. time recolection on Mineta's part doesn't matter. According to the official report, Cheney was not involved in any coversations involving AA77. According to the official report, Cheney did not even get to the PEOC, the tunnel or the lobby or the whatever, until moments before AA77 hit the Pentagon. Nice try in trying to make Mineta look like a fool. Um, excuse me Mr. Mineta, but aren't you aware that the entire incident you just described, in fact never happened?

The only rational explanation is that the official report attempts to remove Cheney from any decision making prior to AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

[Mutton-Head]

I would speculate also that Bush and Cheney were concerned with projecting an image of strength and power to the world at that time and were worried that their testimony, if public, might appear as though they themselves were on trial. By testifying on their terms, they hoped the world would see them as remaining in the driver's seat. Unfortunately for them, this backfired in several ways--one being that Bush was lambasted for "sitting on Uncle Dick's lap" through the testimony. Another being that it cast suspicion on them that is often at the root of these conspiracy theories.


Image of strength. Thanks for reminding me. I'm going to start a post about the report's claim that Bush was, "projecting an image of strength." That's idiotic. Bush an Cheney's actions are way too suspicious. They need to be investigated. And for eveybody who keeps saying that it's idiotic to suspect that members of a government attacked their own people: You know absolutely nothing about world history.

[Mutton-Head]

*PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS*

I get the impression a lot of people in various positions - including Bush, Cheney, .................

All felt really guilty after 9/11.



I have no doubt that they did.

[gumboot]

And for eveybody who keeps saying that it's idiotic to suspect that members of a government attacked their own people: You know absolutely nothing about world history.



Aw go on... mention Operation Northwoods... pleeeeeease...

-Andrew

[chipmunk stew]

And for eveybody who keeps saying that it's idiotic to suspect that members of a government attacked their own people: You know absolutely nothing about world history.Who keeps saying that?

I think I can safely say that the consensus here is that it's idiotic to suspect an Inside Job in the case of 9/11 (at least after holding such suspicions up to scrutiny). I don't believe I've heard the opinion voiced here even once that it's unreasonable to think that governments can and do attack their own people, or that even ours could and may one day if we're not vigilant as a people.

[chipmunk stew]

And while looking at all this "non-official" information I haven't come across a single scrap of evidence that points to government involvement. Not a shred.

Take an example... the thing with NORAD and it's exercises that supposedly "confused" things.

I didn't look to the commission report for any of the information for this.

I found a transcript of a conversation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he explained what was going on. Then I cross referenced that with the CT claims and then did some research into the various aspects (using the NORAD website, wikipedia, and other assorted sites online).

Without once looking at the commission report, I quickly saw what was going on - the "four exercises" were in fact a real world operation, an exercise at a local government office that had nothing to do with NORAD, the FAA, NEADS, or any ATCs, and a single annual NORAD exercise (consisting of two command centres) that in no way resembled a terrorist attack/hijacking.

This is the general process for a lot of my research. Even were the 9/11 commission full of errors and mistakes and ommission, it wouldn't change my stance because the commission report isn't really integral to my knowledge of things.

-AndrewI think this bears repeating, because it's true for me, too. Sometimes I'll refer to the Commission Report to see what it says about a topic after looking into it through other sources. But rarely is it a primary source for me.

The sillier accusation is "How can you believe anything this man [Bush] says when he's obviously lied about so many other things?" As if Bush personally investigated, crafted, and reported the official version. As if I basically agree with the official version because Bush said it was true. As if Bush's public words had any relevance whatsoever to the factual events of that day.

[Mutton-Head]

I considered this too, but there's a couple of issues...








Without once looking at the commission report, I quickly saw what was going on - the "four exercises" were in fact a real world operation, an exercise at a local government office that had nothing to do with NORAD, the FAA, NEADS, or any ATCs, and a single annual NORAD exercise (consisting of two command centres) that in no way resembled a terrorist attack/hijacking.


-Andrew

What local government office?

[Abbyas]

According to the official report, Cheney was not involved in any coversations involving AA77

And again, we know that the conversation was re: AA77 because of Mineta's assumptions only? Or is there more detail.

According to the official report, Cheney was not involved in any coversations involving AA77.

Quick clarification here, it says that he wasn't or it doesn't mention any? That is a very large difference.

I'm going to start a post about the report's claim that Bush was, "projecting an image of strength." That's idiotic.

No, it isn't. That is exactly why on september 11th, he gave a speech from the oval office and not from a bunker. Now, don't come back to me with mentioning of the florida classroom. I'm not saying he 100% acheived this image, but that was a goal.

[Mutton-Head]

And again, we know that the conversation was re: AA77 because of Mineta's assumptions only? Or is there more detail.



Quick clarification here, it says that he wasn't or it doesn't mention any? That is a very large difference.



No, it isn't. That is exactly why on september 11th, he gave a speech from the oval office and not from a bunker. Now, don't come back to me with mentioning of the florida classroom. I'm not saying he 100% acheived this image, but that was a goal.


Once again, Mineta was very clear, he stated it several times, Cheney was monitoring the flight that would eventually hit the Pentagon. An event that the commssion report ignores. Even though the report describes a similiar event associated with AA93.

Mineta was talking about AA77. Cheney was following AA77. The report denies this knowledge. An order was associated with event, which Cheney acknowledged. This was all left out of the report.

[chipmunk stew]

Mineta was talking about AA77. Cheney was following AA77. The report denies this knowledge. An order was associated with event, which Cheney acknowledged. This was all left out of the report.Once again, denies or omits? That's a big difference with vastly different potential implications.

[Mutton-Head]

Once again, denies or omits? That's a big difference with vastly different potential implications.



Omits and gives an account of Cheney's actions would implicity denies that he participated. That's as good as a denial.

[Abbyas]

Once again, Mineta was very clear, he stated it several times,

This is a quote from Mineta:

"That would be speculation on my part as to what was happening on that day."

Key word: speculation.

Let me ask again, did Mineta know that they were discussing 77? Or did he assume it.

[Mutton-Head]

He said many times he was speculating on what the order was. He was very clear that they were following the plane approaching the Pentagon.

[Stellafane]

He said many times he was speculating on what the order was. He was very clear that they were following the plane approaching the Pentagon.

Mutton-Head, what's your point here in this thread and in your other posts today? Are you trying to make some sort of case for something, or are you just mindlessly spamming?

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, what's your point here in this thread and in your other posts today? Are you trying to make some sort of case for something, or are you just mindlessly spamming?

My money is on the latter.

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton-Head, what's your point here in this thread and in your other posts today? Are you trying to make some sort of case for something, or are you just mindlessly spamming?

Nope, not spam. The case is still the same, Almost five years later. Dick Cheney was behind 9/11.

[Pardalis]

Nope, not spam. The case is still the same, Almost five years later. Dick Cheney was behind 9/11.

Prove it.

[Abbyas]

He said many times he was speculating on what the order was. He was very clear that they were following the plane approaching the Pentagon.

I'm sorry, I do not find with regards to the young man who said "the plane is 50 miles out" that Mineta knew for sure that the plane being referenced is the one that hit the pentagon. He says "the flight that hit the pentagon" but again, I don't see how he knows that conversation was in relationshipt to that.

And certainly with regards to the timeline and the issues of speed, it is unlikely that all the facts and speculations with regards to his testimony are 100 percent correct.

So as far as I can see, the conversation omitted from the report is that a young man discussed a plane that was 50/30/10 miles out, but we don't know what that's in reference to. I'm not sure why omitting that conversation is a cover up. I'm sure that Cheney had many conversations that day regarding flights and orders. I certainly wouldn't expect all of them to be included in the report.

And the testimony is available to anyone who wants to read or watch it.

[Mutton-Head]

I'm sorry, I do not find with regards to the young man who said "the plane is 50 miles out" that Mineta knew for sure that the plane being referenced is the one that hit the pentagon. He says "the flight that hit the pentagon" but again, I don't see how he knows that conversation was in relationshipt to that.

And certainly with regards to the timeline and the issues of speed, it is unlikely that all the facts and speculations with regards to his testimony are 100 percent correct.

So as far as I can see, the conversation omitted from the report is that a young man discussed a plane that was 50/30/10 miles out, but we don't know what that's in reference to. I'm not sure why omitting that conversation is a cover up. I'm sure that Cheney had many conversations that day regarding flights and orders. I certainly wouldn't expect all of them to be included in the report.

And the testimony is available to anyone who wants to read or watch it.


Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane. Cheney is involved. The event is absent from the report. The report implicitly denies that the event took place.

[Pardalis]

Cheney is involved.

Prove it.

[MikeW]

Mineta's testimony is at http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf , for anyone who wants to read it. If you do, be sure to carry on reading, because Generals Arnold & McKinley have some interesting things to say, too.

[Abbyas]

Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane.

I have read the testimony multiple times. With regards to the conversation with the young man, mineta isn't referring to anything, he is merely describing a conversation which he believes is in reference to the pentagon plane.

The report implicitly denies that the event took place.

No it doesn't. What it has is a series of events that does not fit with the other repeatedly sourced timeline. It is not hard to believe that Mineta did not keep a log book with exact times written.

What they are doing is omitting a story that cannot be confirmed. That is not evidence of complicity, but a commission that wants to include evidence that is verifiable.

[Mutton-Head]

Mineta's testimony is at http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf , for anyone who wants to read it. If you do, be sure to carry on reading, because Generals Arnold & McKinley have some interesting things to say, too.


Yes I'm sure they say interesting things. Still, The event that Mineta described is left out of the report. Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane. Cheney is involved. The event is absent from the report. The report implicitly denies that the event took place. Mineta testifies to all of this. It's pretty darn simple.

[Stellafane]

Nope, not spam. The case is still the same, Almost five years later. Dick Cheney was behind 9/11.

And I say Steve Jones recently starred in an adult movie in which all the other "actors" were sheep.

Saying it doesn't make it true, does it?

[MikeW]

Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane.
He thinks that's what they were talking about. Nowhere does he say why. There's no indication this is anything other than an assumption he's made after the fact.

[Mutton-Head]

And I say Steve Jones recently starred in an adult movie in which all the other "actors" were sheep.

Saying it doesn't make it true, does it?


Let's stay on topic. The event that Mineta described is left out of the report. Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane. Cheney is involved. The event is absent from the report. The report implicitly denies that the event took place. Mineta testifies to all of this. It's pretty darn simple.

[Pardalis]

Let's stay on topic. The event that Mineta described is left out of the report. Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane. Cheney is involved. The event is absent from the report. The report implicitly denies that the event took place. Mineta testifies to all of this. It's pretty darn simple.

Man, you're like a skipping disc.

[Abbyas]

Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane.

I will repeat. Mineta is not referring to the pentagon plane. He is refering to a conversation that he believed was about the pentagon plane.

If you aren't going to even look at my reply, please correct that at least.

[Pardalis]

From MikeW's linked document:

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.

About this "other conversation", he doesn't know what this conversation was really about, since he didn't tke part in it and didn't know how it started.

He interpreted it AFTER.

[CptColumbo]

When an investigation is being conducted it is usually best to have coroboration of any evidence or testimony. Since there is none apparent to the Mineta testimony, and it is mostly conjecture (what was being discussed) on his part, it may have been the judgement of the commission to omit it

[chipmunk stew]

Nope, not spam. The case is still the same, Almost five years later. Dick Cheney was behind 9/11.Whoa, time out there, pal. A few posts ago you were merely suggesting that the affair should be re-investigated, which is a reasonable suggestion. Your suspicion has shifted to accusation that quickly?

[Pardalis]

[off topic]

BTW, Mutton-Head. Do you still believe the WTC towers were brought down by CD? How as been your research since the last time we saw you?

[back to topic]

[chipmunk stew]

Let's stay on topic. The event that Mineta described is left out of the report. Mineta very clearly is referring to the Pentagon plane. Cheney is involved. The event is absent from the report. The report implicitly denies that the event took place. Mineta testifies to all of this. It's pretty darn simple.It's left out of the report, but not out of the public record. It's on the commission's website for godsake. What's that about implicit denial again?

What did Cheney's involvement entail?

[Mutton-Head]

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.

About this "other conversation", he doesn't know what this conversation was really about, since he didn't tke part in it and didn't know how it started.

He interpreted it AFTER.

But then Mineta is present as the plane hits the Pentagon. Mineta is only unsure about what the order is.

[Abbyas]

Mineta is only unsure about what the order is.

And how does he know that the conversation was about the pentagon plane.

Please cut and post that information.

[Mutton-Head]

And how does he know that the conversation was about the pentagon plane.

Please cut and post that information.



Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

[Pardalis]

How did he know it was the plane that was coming into the Pentagon?

[Abbyas]

That does not show that the plane they were refering to is the plane that hit the pentagon. Especially when considering the earlier discussed necessary low speed of the plane.

"During the time" is not evidence that the plane in question is the pentagon plane.

[CptColumbo]

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"
And yet in this post he doesn't say the VP gave an order and doesn't say what plane was being discussed.

[DavidJames]

I have no doubt that they did.
I can assume then you would be perfectly happy being accused of murder based on the same level of evidence? Namely circumstantial and coincidences?

[Regnad Kcin]

The case is still the same, Almost five years later. Dick Cheney was behind 9/11.There, there, of course he was. There's a good boy. It's okay. It's all okay now.

[Pardalis]

Can you answer my question before we get back on topic, Mutton?

[off topic]

BTW, Mutton-Head. Do you still believe the WTC towers were brought down by CD? How as been your research since the last time we saw you?

[back to topic]

[Mutton-Head]

And yet in this post he doesn't say the VP gave an order and doesn't say what plane was being discussed.


read it again,

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

The plane heading towards the Pentagon was discussed. It doesn't say who gave the order, but Cheney was able to reiterate that the order still stood. I want to know what the order was. It couldn't be to shoot down, because the 911 report states that that order wasn't given until after 10:00. And I find it odd and suspicious that the entire event is left out of the report, and implicitly denied.

[Abbyas]

The plane heading towards the Pentagon was discussed.

Mutton, I have read it over and over. It does not say that the plane being discussed was the Pentagon plane. It says that Mineta believes this discussion took place during the time the plane was headed toward the pentagon.

Do you at least understand where we are coming from here?

ETA: where we are coming from

[Abbyas]

And I find it odd and suspicious that the entire event is left out of the report, and implicitly denied.

You keep repeating this. An omission is not a suggestion that it didn't happen. Just that it is not provably pertinent.

[chipmunk stew]

Mineta believed the plane in question was the Pentagon plane.
Mineta believed the order in question was the shoot-down order.

You believe he was correct about the plane.
You believe he was mistaken about the order.

On what do you base this discrepancy, other than a confirmation bias?

[Pardalis]

Mutton, so OK, you find it odd and suspicious, so what? We don't.

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, I have read it over and over. It does not say that the plane being discussed was the Pentagon plane. It says that Mineta believes this discussion took place during the time the plane was headed toward the pentagon.

Do you at least understand where we are coming from here?

ETA: where we are coming from


Well yes, I guess I understand where you're coming from. I just can't find anywhere in the report or testimonies where someone says to Mineta, "Sir, are you aware that your memory is completely in error?"

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, so OK, you find it odd and suspicious, so what? We don't.

Hey Pardalis, I just realized that you're over here too. Why don't we just merge all of the threads that we're both currently involved in?

[Abbyas]

I just can't find anywhere in the report or testimonies where someone says to Mineta, "Sir, are you aware that your memory is completely in error?"

They need to insult the man in order for you to understand?

Well, I've genuinely tried and I'm getting nowhere. Off to Vegas for me.

[CptColumbo]

read it again,

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

The plane heading towards the Pentagon was discussed. It doesn't say who gave the order, but Cheney was able to reiterate that the order still stood. I want to know what the order was. It couldn't be to shoot down, because the 911 report states that that order wasn't given until after 10:00. And I find it odd and suspicious that the entire event is left out of the report, and implicitly denied.

Read it again, where does it say he gave an order? He reiterates or re-enforces one, but the original one could be from someone else (i.e. the President).

[kookbreaker]

Hey Pardalis, I just realized that you're over here too. Why don't we just merge all of the threads that we're both currently involved in?

You whine a lot, don't you?

[rwguinn]

Read it again, where does it say he gave an order? He reiterates or re-enforces one, but the original one could be from someone else (i.e. the President).

Heck-
It was probably an order from a cheeseburger, fries, and a strawberry shake. The "young man" was merely concerned about the VP's health, and making sure that was what Dick really wanted...

[Gravy]

Well yes, I guess I understand where you're coming from. I just can't find anywhere in the report or testimonies where someone says to Mineta, "Sir, are you aware that your memory is completely in error?"
Has it occurred to you that that may be why this testimony was left out of the report? Because it doesn't jibe at all with other testimony that is corroborated by several sources? Or is that too simple an explanation?

[Pardalis]

Mutton, you want us to believe that what someone said about what he overheard of a conversation he wasn't even a part of, and isn't even sure what is was about, to be the sole proof that Dick Cheney was in on the 9/11 attacks?

Come on. :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

Mutton, you want us to believe that what someone said about what he overheard of a conversation he wasn't even a part of, and isn't even sure what is was about, to be the sole proof that Dick Cheney was in on the 9/11 attacks?

Come on. :rolleyes:
You have to play the CT hand that's dealt you.

You should send Mutton-Head some budgies. He seems like he needs a relaxing hobby.

[Gravy]

Heck-
It was probably an order from a cheeseburger, fries, and a strawberry shake. The "young man" was merely concerned about the VP's health, and making sure that was what Dick really wanted...
I think you're on to it! I tend to go for the fatty, salty foods when I'm under stress.

[Mutton-Head]

Heck-
It was probably an order from a cheeseburger, fries, and a strawberry shake. The "young man" was merely concerned about the VP's health, and making sure that was what Dick really wanted...


Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!! That one, was really good! You're right, Dick does has heart problems, doesn't he.
You should write for Conan, Rwguinn

[Pardalis]

Mutton, so how's your research on the WTC collapse going? Do you still think it was a CD?

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, so how's your research on the WTC collapse going? Do you still think it was a CD?


Yes, I do think it was a cross-dresser.

[aggle-rithm]

Mutton, so how's your research on the WTC collapse going? Do you still think it was a CD?

His findings were "suggestive". He's going to need more funds.

[Pardalis]

Yes, I do think it was a cross-dresser.

Yeah, that's very becoming of you, making fun of these events, yet again.

[Mutton-Head]

Yeah, that's very becoming of you, making fun of these events, yet again.


Sorry, did I hit a nerve with that "cross-dresser" remark?

[Pardalis]

Sorry, did I hit a nerve with that "cross-dresser" remark?

Care to explain that one?

[Mutton-Head]

Care to explain that one?

Hiting a nerve means that somebody has made a comment or joke on a subject that you are sensitive too. So, I was wondering if my "Cross-dresser" remark "hit a nerve,"

[Pardalis]

Yes, 9/11 is a subject I am sensitive to.

[Mutton-Head]

Yes, 9/11 is a subject I am sensitive to.


Oh so am I. That's why I'm here. Do you want to live in a country where the executive branch feels they are above the law? To me, that's serious. You just seemed eceptionally sensitive to the "cross-dresser" remark. I only said that because CD does, in fact, stand for "cross-dresser" in certain social circles. It was a joke. It was funny, although not as funny as Rguinn and the cheese-burger. That really was a good one.

[Pardalis]

Do you still believe the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions?

[Mutton-Head]

Do you still believe the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions?

I believe the report is woe-fully inadequate. But that's besides the point. Right now, I'm contending that the commission kept Mineta's testimony out of the report and changed the timeline to remove Cheney from the events leading up to the AA77 crash into the Pentagon.

[Stellafane]

Oh so am I. That's why I'm here. Do you want to live in a country where the executive branch feels they are above the law? To me, that's serious. You just seemed eceptionally sensitive to the "cross-dresser" remark. I only said that because CD does, in fact, stand for "cross-dresser" in certain social circles. It was a joke. It was funny, although not as funny as Rguinn and the cheese-burger. That really was a good one.

Funny, I think most people think of compact disks when they see "CD." I certainly do. Odd that your mind should go to "cross-dresser" for some reason, and skip right over the vastly more obvious choice. Then again, perhaps I don't travel in your particular "social circles."

[Mutton-Head]

Funny, I think most people think of compact disks when they see "CD." I certainly do. Odd that your mind should go to "cross-dresser" for some reason, and skip right over the vastly more obvious choice. Then again, perhaps I don't travel in your particular "social circles."

Perhaps I was thinking about the time that I got drunk, put on one of my girl-friend's dresses, and then had sex with her. She thought it was hot.

If you saw me, you'd know why.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sorry, did I hit a nerve with that "cross-dresser" remark?You rather flatter yourself that you could amount to much of anything in this hill of beans.

[Mutton-Head]

You rather flatter yourself that you could amount to much of anything in this hill of beans.

OK, whatever.

I take it from your lack of an intelligent reply, that you concede, that the commission removed Mineta's testimony, and altered the time-line, to remove Cheney from the situation concerning AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

[milesalpha]

Perhaps I was thinking about the time that I got drunk, put on one of my girl-friend's dresses, and then had sex with her. She thought it was hot.

If you saw me, you'd know why.

Man breasts eh, flabby mind, flabby body. First thing you have said that I find believable.

[Mutton-Head]

Man breasts eh, flabby mind, flabby body. First thing you have said that I find believable.


I'm 6'0", 145 lbs.

Nice try.

[Pardalis]

OK, whatever.

I take it from your lack of an intelligent reply, that you concede, that the commission removed Mineta's testimony, and altered the time-line, to remove Cheney from the situation concerning AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

There's nothing intelligent to reply to. You have not made a valid point. We have shown it time and time again.

[Mutton-Head]

There's nothing intelligent to reply to. You have not made a valid point. We have shown it time and time again.


It's a vaild point. Your claim is hyperbole. Mineta's time-line and account of events, detailed account of events, was ignored by the commission. The result of this ommission is that Cheney's presence is removed from the situation. This removal was not done on accident, it was intentional.

[Metullus]

It's a vaild point. Your claim is hyperbole. Mineta's time-line and account of events, detailed account of events, was ignored by the commission. The result of this ommission is that Cheney's presence is removed from the situation. This removal was not done on accident, it was intentional.
Except that you have:

A) Not provided evidence that Mineta's acount of events "was ignored by the commission", and,

B) Not provided evidence that there was any intent to remove "Cheney's presence" from the "situation".

Your claim, as it stands now, is entirely unsupported by the evidence.

[Mutton-Head]

Except that you have:

A) Not provided evidence that Mineta's acount of events "was ignored by the commission", and,.

Wrong again, try to pay attention. 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. The commission's report implicitly states that the account that Mineta related did not happen, according to the commissiopn's time-line

B) Not provided evidence that there was any intent to remove "Cheney's presence" from the "situation". ,.

The intent is an inference, based upon the fact that the commission did omit the account. The ommission removes Cheney from the events related to monitoring flight AA77. Therefore, the intent was to remove Cheney. It's a very simple inference.

[Metullus]

Wrong again, try to pay attention. 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. The commission's report implicitly states that the account that Mineta related did not happen, according to the commissiopn's time-line
Wrong again, please try to pay attention.

You have stated that the commission "ignored" Mineta's testimony. All that can be established is that the Commission for some reason did not incorporate Mineta's recollections in its time-line. This could be for a variety of reasons, many of which having already been pointed out to you in this thread, including the fact that his recollections are not supported by corroborating evidence and the fact that Mineta explicitly stated that he did not know, at the time, the context of the conversations that he overheard, deciding only after the fact that the subject under discussion was AA77.

That Mineta's testimony was not incorporated into the report does not mean that it was ignored by the Commission, only that it was not deemed worthy, for some reason, of inclusion.

You have presented no evidence that the Commission "ignored" Mineta's testimony, only that his recollections did not make it into the time-line. Not the same thing at all.

The intent is an inference, based upon the fact that the commission did omit the account. The ommission removes Cheney from the events related to monitoring flight AA77. Therefore, the intent was to remove Cheney. It's a very simple inference.As has been explained to you earlier, there are many reasons that the Commission might have for not including Mineta's testimony in the final report, none of which involve Cheney in any way.

If you are going to maintain that the reason had to do with keeping Cheney out of the discussion, you will need to provide evidence of this. The plain fact is that you have yet to provide any such evidence.

Just your saying it is the case does not make it so...

[Mutton-Head]

Mineta's testimony was not incorporated into the report does not mean that it was ignored by the Commission, only that it was not deemed worthy, for some reason, of inclusion.

You have presented no evidence that the Commission "ignored" Mineta's testimony, only that his recollections did not make it into the time-line. Not the same thing at all.




Mineta's testimony was too exact in its details too have been deemed "not worthy." If the commission had deemed such, they would have asked him to clarify, in order to find out whose recollection was at fault. They would have followed up. This is very basic. When two stories don't jive together, you follow up with each of the sources to determine who is correct and who is not. There was no follow up with Mineta. That means his testimony was ignored. If they had followed up, and then decided not to use, then you could conclude that the commission had done their job in getting to the bottom of the discrepency. They did not attempt to balance the equation. They left the discrepency as it is. They removed Mineta's testimony from the report.

[Gravy]

It's a vaild point. Your claim is hyperbole. Mineta's time-line and account of events, detailed account of events, was ignored by the commission. The result of this ommission is that Cheney's presence is removed from the situation. This removal was not done on accident, it was intentional.

"Detailed account?" In which he states repeatedly that he didin't know what was going on?

What's your opinion of the account of the people in the bunker twice being advised of how far out two different aircraft were (one flight 93 and one false alarm that they thought was within 10 miles)? Do those accounts sound exactly like what Mineta described, or don't they?

"Ignored by the Commission?" No, they asked him to testify, heard his testimony and accepted his prepared statement, and asked questions. They heard all the testimony and reviewed all the documents, not you. Most of the testimony did not make it into the final report. Does that mean the commission is covering something up, or does it mean that it's their job to sort through the information and include what they think is pertinent and reasonably accurate?

I ask you again. If the Commission determined that Mineta's testimony was contracdicted by multiple cross-referenced sources, should they have included it anyway?

You've been presented with logical explanations that do not involve absurd conspiracies. Tell us why you don't accept them.

You went away from this forum for a couple of months and said you needed to study up. Is this it? Are you pulling out the big guns? Is this your best evidence?

[gumboot]

What local government office?


Sorry, not "local government" office... I meant "localised" (as in it ONLY affected the building)

It was at the National Reconnnaissance Office at Chantilly, Virginia. The NRO design, build and operate the USA's Recon Satellites.

They have nothing to do with NORAD, the FAA, NEADS, or any Air Traffic Controllers.

The limit of their activities regarding 9/11 may have been to position satellites post-event to capture satellite images of the various crash sites.

-Andrew

[Metullus]

Mineta's testimony was too exact in its details too have been deemed "not worthy." If the commission had deemed such, they would have asked him to clarify, in order to find out whose recollection was at fault. They would have followed up. This is very basic. When two stories don't jive together, you follow up with each of the sources to determine who is correct and who is not. There was no follow up with Mineta. That means his testimony was ignored. If they had followed up, and then decided not to use, then you could conclude that the commission had done their job in getting to the bottom of the discrepency. They did not attempt to balance the equation. They left the discrepency as it is. They removed Mineta's testimony from the report.Mineta's testimony was anything but "exact it its details", he is not very precise in his timing of events, he is not precise regarding any orders given to the military, he admits that he did not at the time know what was happening regarding AA77. Indeed, as far as time-line goes, about all he testified to was that at some point after Flight 175 crashed - that is to say 9:03 am (when the plane struck) and 9:11 (when the FAA reported the crash) - he was summoned to the White House. He says he arrived "about 9:20", that the conversation regarding the orders happened "Probably about five or six minutes" later.

Detailed and precise? Sure.

Col. Scott, on the other hand, does not have the details:

COL. ALAN SCOTT (RET.)

"At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage.

And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from
impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.

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. And 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up north turns its transponders off out in the West toward Ohio, and begins a left turn back toward the East. At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking.
So again he is --

MR. : That's 9:41, sir.

MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, 9:41. Again, he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us. Now, the only thing that I would point out on this
chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera
for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37."

So whose timeline do you suppose should be given weight, Mineta's nearly none-existant one, or Col Scotss very detailed minute by minute one?

[gumboot]

Wow... this is... madness...

Mutton-Head

Here are absolute facts, made unquestionable either by simple evident reality, or by cross-reference of a few other unquestionable facts...

1) The conversation described in Mineta's testimony was not included in the 9/11 commission timeline for Cheney

2) Mineta did not know what the conversation was in reference to, nor what was happening at that moment

3) Some details of Mineta's account (such as time) are physically impossible to be correct.

4) Once provably false elements of Mineta's account are removed (such as the time the conversation happened) and all inference is removed (such as the precise location of the conversation and the topic of the conversation) it is very clear the account of Cheney's actions omits this conversation but DOES NOT directly contradict it.

These's facts are indisputable.

And now, for part two...

Mineta, in his testimony, believes the "order" was a shoot-down order. He makes this very clear at the end (though he says he found this out after the fact).

Let us assume the aircraft in question is AA77. Let us assume it was Cheney who made the shoot-down order that Mineta is referring to (no one has yet provided info on the VPs legal status in such a scenario).

Let is EVEN assume the account of the Langley F-16s is false, and they were actually in position over Washington DC so this scene with Cheney actually made any difference.

How does Cheney confirming an order to shoot down AA77 constitute him being in on 9/11?

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

"Detailed account?" In which he states repeatedly that he didin't know what was going on?


You're over-simplifying. Mineta said he didn't know what the order was. But he is very clear about where he was, when he was there, what he heard, who said it. He didn't know the name of the young man, but he knew what the guy said, and when he said it. Mineta also described that Cheney was very agitated. For a guy as calm-spoken as Mineta, I get the feeling that Mineta feels it's important.




"Ignored by the Commission?" No, they asked him to testify, heard his testimony and accepted his prepared statement, and asked questions.

.................................................. .......

I ask you again. If the Commission determined that Mineta's testimony was contracdicted by multiple cross-referenced sources, should they have included it anyway?

You've been presented with logical explanations that do not involve absurd conspiracies. Tell us why you don't accept them.



The commission had different accounts, with different time-lines, and they did not follow up with Mineta. They threw out his account, like it didn't happen, like he never even said it. They should have come back to him for a follow up, since he knew where he was, when he was, who was there, and what they were doing. These are very specific recollections.

[Mutton-Head]

Wow... this is... madness...

Mutton-Head

Here are absolute facts, made unquestionable either by simple evident reality, or by cross-reference of a few other unquestionable facts...

-Andrew

Absolute facts. I thought this was a forum for skeptics.

[Hauteden]

I noticed something I thought I would bring up. It has to do with the timeline, I'm just getting started in this and may not have all the resources others do so please bear with me.

From the PDF "9-11 Commission Hearing" provide earlier in the this thread.

MR. MINETA: . . .

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.

So to me this means Mineta arrived after evacuations had begun. Presumably Cheney would be one of the first to go.

From http://www.cooperativeresearch.org (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3601)

Rice asks Clarke for recommendations, and he says, “We’re putting together a secure teleconference to manage the crisis.” He also recommends evacuating the White House (However, evacuation does not begin until 9:45 a.m. (see (9:45 a.m.)), after a critical 40 minutes has passed). Rice notes the Secret Service wants them to go to the bomb shelter below the White House, and as Clarke leaves the other two, he sees Rice and Cheney gathering papers and preparing to evacuate.

And

From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911timeline.html)

9:43 White House being evacuated after receiving a "credible terrorist threat." President Bush safe in Florida.

So it would seem Mr. Mineta may have recalled incorrectly the time he arrived at the White House and subsequently at the PEOC. If all of the above quotes are correct then that would put Mr. Mineta in the PEOC sometime after 9:45am. My question is how would his recollection of the events play out if the start time was 9:45am instead of 9:20am?

[gumboot]

My question is how would his recollection of the events play out if the start time was 9:45am instead of 9:20am?



This makes more sense. There was discussion about rules of engagement for the fighter pilots later than this. Don't forget, from the POV of NORAD this thing didn't end with the crashing of UA93. There were literally thousands of aircraft landing all over North America. Suddenly every aircraft was flying something other than its intended route.

Others have testified that there were numerous false alarms throughout this period. I can think of four just during the period of the attack itself. No doubt there were many post-attack. It's just as likely the conversation in the bunker was regarding a false alarm.

Incidentally, Mineta (supposedly) claims the aircraft in the conversation was coming towards the Pentagon, however everyone at the time thought AA77 was heading for the White House. It was not until it PASSED the White House that they thought it had a new target - Reagan Airport. And finally, it was only after the ANG C-130H reported it hitting the Pentagon that they knew what the aircraft's actual target was.

-Andrew

[Perihelion]

I just finished reviewing the .pdf transcript of the Comission investigation in question. I read the entire section pertaining to Sec. Mineta's testimony and questioning, as well as the testimonies of Maj. Gen. Arnold and Col. Scott and their questioning session.

I feel the need to throw my two cents in on this matter.

One of the first questions asked directly to Sec. Mineta is this:

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to
focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating
Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you
were there with the vice president. And when you had that order
given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the
shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be
controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was
given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it
during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon.
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice
president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles
out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the
young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still
stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck
around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you
heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know
what all that meant. And --

Sec. Mineta's answer to this question, as quoted above, is specifically "I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon". However, very shortly thereafter, the following Q&A takes place:

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.

This testimony would not be categorized by any rational person as "Detailed" or "being very clear" about much of anything. If anything, I agree with gumboot that Sec. Mineta could have overheard a variety of different situations that were going on. Also, given the fact that his testimony was given a year and a half after the event, and given the fact that he had learned far more about what had actually happened that day, it is not unreasonable to theorize that Sec. Mineta was making assumptions during his testimony based not on his experience that day, but rather because of information that he received after the fact. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the human brain has a tendency to alter memory of an event based on information introduced later.

Even if this theory is false, I also have to agree with several other posters that Sec. Mineta's testimony is contrary to far too much evidence given by others to be considered hard evidence, especially considering that he has nothing but his own memory to account for his timeline.

[Mutton-Head]

Even if this theory is false, I also have to agree with several other posters that Sec. Mineta's testimony is contrary to far too much evidence given by others to be considered hard evidence, especially considering that he has nothing but his own memory to account for his timeline.


We're not talking about theories. We're not talking about time-lines. We're talking about a detailed event that Mineta describes, which is absent from the report. The only thing that Mineta is not sure of, is what "the order was." (I'm still laughing about the "burger and fries" reply by Rguenn. Dick screaming, "where's my god-#*@ burger!!!!!")

Anyway.....

Mineta's testimony is detailed. He tells where he is, what time it is, who is there, what is said, and what Dick Cheney's reaction is. Mineta makes sure to differentiate between what he remembers for sure, and what he was assuming. The commission had other accounts with different time-lines. Whenever two or more stories don't jive, you follow up. You ask Mineta more questions. "Is it possible you were mistaken?" They did none of that. Ergo, they threw out his testimony. I find Mineta to be a credible witness. I would have followed up. I think the mass-murders on 9/11 warrant at least some follow-up questions. Is that so hard?

[Pardalis]

You'd have to have more proof other than an un-corroborated, sibylline testimony from one single individual to accuse people of mass-murder, Mutton. Give me a break. You're way out of line here.

[Mutton-Head]

You'd have to have more proof other than an un-corroborated, sibylline testimony from one single individual to accuse people of mass-murder, Mutton. Give me a break. You're way out of line here.


Pardalis, all you do is evade. Why do you even participate?

Mineta's testimony was thrown out. That's what I'm saying in this post. Right now. Read the thread title. This isn't the "Loos-Change" thread where we can jump all over the place so that no meaningful discussion ever takes place.

Once again, Mineta's testimony was thrown out of the final report.

[Pardalis]

Did you, or did you not say this?:

I think the mass-murders on 9/11 warrant at least some follow-up questions. Is that so hard?

[Mutton-Head]

Pardalis, you can't even answer basic quesrions, so don't bother.

[Pardalis]

You didn't ask me no questions.

[Mutton-Head]

My contention is that Mineta's testimony, concerning Cheney, and the order, and the plane heading towards the Pentagon was thrown-out, ignored.

Very simple.

[Mutton-Head]

You didn't ask me no questions.


Sorry

How about:

My contention is that Mineta's testimony, concerning Cheney, and the order, and the plane heading towards the Pentagon was thrown-out, ignored.

Do you agree?

[Pardalis]

OK, so that's your contention.

ETA: Yes, it was ignored because it was irrelevant.

[Mutton-Head]

OK, so that's your contention.

ETA: Yes, it was ignored because it was irrelevant.


So what, you were part of the Commission? You're telling me it was irrelevant. No it was sworn testimony. By Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. He is important, he is credible, he was detailed. The only thing in the Commission's report that could have contradicted his account, would be some written logs. If those logs did not jive with what Mineta testified to, under oath, then why weren't the authors of those logs called to testify, under oath?

[Pardalis]

So what, you were part of the Commission? You're telling me it was irrelevant. No it was sworn testimony. By Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. He is important, he is credible, he was detailed. The only thing in the Commission's report that could have contradicted his account, would be some written logs. If those logs did not jive with what Mineta testified to, under oath, then why weren't the authors of those logs called to testify, under oath?

I don't know, I'm not part of the Commission. All I know is that little bit of conversation Mineta overheard isn't much proof that Dick Cheney was a part of the 9/11 plot.

[Mutton-Head]

I don't know, I'm not part of the Commission. All I know is that little bit of conversation Mineta overheard isn't much proof that Dick Cheney was a part of the 9/11 plot.

I think you just admitted, that Mineta's testimony was considered irrelevant, discarded, even though no other sworn witnesses were called to refute his story.

[Pardalis]

I'm sure Cheney was asked about it in his testimony.

[Mutton-Head]

I'm sure Cheney was asked about it in his testimony.


Ha! Exactly. And let's remember Cheney's "testimony."

Cheney and Bush

1. Spoke to only a limited number of commissioners. Not all were allowed to be present

2. Bush and Cheney "testified" together. (I wonder if they held hands.)

3. They were not under oath.

4. There was no transcript, no written or recorded account of what they said.

That's f#@%ing pathetic.

So once again, there is absolutely no sworn testimony to contradict Mineta's sworn testimony.

[Gravy]

Ha! Exactly. And let's remember Cheney's "testimony." [snip]

4. There was no transcript, no written or recorded account of what they said.

Quick question. I don't want to get too involved here because I think you're not thinking logically, Mutton-Head, and may benefit from taking a break and feeding the budgies. But is it true that no transcript or recording was made of Bush and Cheney's testimony? I think it's lousy that they testified together and not under oath, and that would make it extra-lousy.

[Mutton-Head]

Quick question. I don't want to get too involved here because I think you're not thinking logically, Mutton-Head, and may benefit from taking a break and feeding the budgies. But is it true that no transcript or recording was made of Bush and Cheney's testimony? I think it's lousy that they testified together and not under oath, and that would make it extra-lousy.


My thinking is sound and logical.

Now, as to your question, as far as I know, there was no transcript. If there was, it was not put into the report, and if the report was based upon their testimony, then that is lame, because it wasn't under oath.

[Stellafane]

My thinking is sound and logical.

Your thinking is nonexistent. Give it up dude; you're running on empty here.

[Mutton-Head]

Your thinking is nonexistent. Give it up dude; you're running on empty here.

Whatever, All that you have the ability to do is to evade.

My thinking is sound and logical.

But....

Perhaps I’m making some mistakes in the way that I have been presenting.

So....

Let me start again, and fix some mis-statements I have made.


1. It would be wrong to say, "I know Cheney was involved with the 9/11 attacks." Of course I don't really know. It's a suspicion. What I can say, is..

There is enough evidence in the public record to warrant an investigation and, I believe, an indictment of Vice President Cheney.

That is what I'm attempting to show here. The only way to show that is piece by piece. That’s how cases are made. The pieces may seem small, (Sorry Gravy, no bombs here to drop,) but together, they all add up.

The piece that I’m presenting in this thread, is that the 9/11 commission omitted important aspects of Mineta's testimony. That's all I really want to discuss in this thread. You can evade all that you want by saying, “That’s not relevant,” but this is how cases are made. Evidence up front, relevance later. Your tactics, to me, all seem to be to evade the topic:

The 9/11 commission omitted important aspects of Mineta's testimony.

If you don’t want to discuss that contention, fine.
What are you wasting your time here for?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You want to go piece by piece Mutton-Head? Then let's do it right.

What we know
1) Mineta testified
2) Mineta's testimony was not included in the final report

First question that must be answered before any hypothesis can be put together is, does the Commission make any statement as to why his testimony was not included? Please answer this question before moving on to motives or making claims.

[Mutton-Head]

does the Commission make any statement as to why his testimony was not included?

A direct, answerable, pertinent question. Thank you.

Mineta testifies that:

1. Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20
2. Cheney and some other young man were monitoring the plane, which then hit the Pentagon at about 9:38
3. The young man asked Cheney “Does the order still stand?”

All of these pieces are absent from the report. The time line given in the report implicitly denies that they could have taken place. No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A direct, answerable, pertinent question. Thank you.

Mineta testifies that:

1. Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20
2. Cheney and some other young man were monitoring the plane, which then hit the Pentagon at about 9:38
3. The young man asked Cheney “Does the order still stand?”

All of these pieces are absent from the report. The time line given in the report implicitly denies that they could have taken place. No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims.

I didn't ask for an analysis; I asked does the Commission make any statement as to why his testimony was not included? and I also made very clear before any hypothesis can be put together is. Now, please address the question, "Does the commission make any statement as to why his testimony was not included? yes or no.

[Mutton-Head]

Does the commission make any statement as to why his testimony was not included? yes or no.

As far as I know, the answer is no.

[Edit: I did answer you. "The time line given in the report implicitly denies that they could have taken place. No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims.

[Gravy]

Mineta testifies that:
1. Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20

He does? Where?

[Gravy]

My thinking is sound and logical.

Now, as to your question, as far as I know, there was no transcript. If there was, it was not put into the report, and if the report was based upon their testimony, then that is lame, because it wasn't under oath.

You said
4. There was no transcript, no written or recorded account of what they said.

I asked you to verify that. Your response is, "As far as I know."

Please explain how these two statements exhibit "sound and logical" thought.

[Mutton-Head]

Mineta testifies that:
1. Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20


Gravy said: He does? Where?

Answer: in Mineta's statement.

MR. MINETA: I didn’t know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.

Cheney was already in the PEOC, before Mineta.

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, nice to see you have stopped accusing people of mass murder and are now willing to discuss this politely (I hope).

Can you show me exactly where Mineta states that he arrived at PEOC at 9:20?

Thanks.

[Gravy]

Mineta testifies that:
1. Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20


Gravy said: He does? Where?

Answer: in Mineta's statement.

MR. MINETA: I didn’t know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.

Cheney was already in the PEOC, before Mineta.
Wrong again, Mutton-Head. Mineta''s statement does not say that.

[Gravy]

Mutton-Head, nice to see you have stopped accusing people of mass murder and are now willing to discuss this politely (I hope).

Can you show me exactly where Mineta states that he arrived at PEOC at 9:20?

Thanks.
He does say he arrived at the White House around then, and was taken to the PEOC. He does not say Cheney was there then.

[Hauteden]

I'm confused. Mineta arrived at the PEOC before arriving at the White House? see my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1785642&postcount=166) I was under the impression that the PEOC was located under the White House, but I could be mistaken.

Hauteden

[Pardalis]

I'm confused. Mineta arrived at the PEOC before arriving at the White House? see my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1785642&postcount=166) I was under the impression that the PEOC was located under the White House, but I could be mistaken.

Hauteden

Yes, I think your post #166 makes a very valid point, I must have missed it. Mutton should take a look at it.

Plus, in the Commission Report, they do admit that there is conflicting evidence about Cheney's time of arrival at PEOC:


There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.

So, they must have concluded that Mr. Mineta's recollections were not accurate, and decided to dismiss his testimony.

[Gravy]

Yes, I think your post #166 makes a very valid point, I must have missed it. Mutton should take a look at it.

Plus, in the Commission Report, they do admit that there is conflicting evidence about Cheney's time of arrival at PEOC:

So, they must have concluded that Mr. Mineta's recollections were not accurate, and decided to dismiss his testimony.
I think one source of confusion may be between the network of tunnels under the White House, and the PEOC itself. The Commission report says Cheney was in the tunnel where there was a bench and phone and TV, when he saw footage of the aftermath of the Pentagon strike. This corresponds to him being whisked into the tunnel by Secret Service at about 9:36, two minutes before the Pentagon was struck. Cheney made phone calls there. Lynne Cheney joined him in the tunnel at about 9:52, and they moved to the PEOC at about 9:55. Mineta may be referring to the tunnel or to the PEOC itself. We don't know.

What we do know is that there were two subsequent false alarms which involved notification to people in the PEOC that a flight was headed towards DC. One was flight 93. The other was an unknown plane which was thought to be 10, then 5, miles out. This may simply have been a plane that was briefly out of communication with ATC.

Mutton-Head has not responded to the logical explanations presented here for the discrepancy between Mineta's testimony and the other accounts. He needs for there to be a conspiracy, so he's going to see one.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "evacuations" statement by Mineta. Nonessential personnel may well have been leaving voluntarily, but the "official" evacuation didn't happen until after the Pentagon was hit. It seems clear that Mineta was at the White House before the Pentagon was hit. It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't remember that much.

[Pardalis]

Why did they dismiss Mineta's testimony, might you ask Mutton?

- Mineta's statements contradicts other evidence they deem more accurate of Cheney's time of arrival.
- Mineta's statements were hearsay of a conversation he didn't take part of.
- Mineta himself admits he doesn't know what the conversation was about.
- the Commission has to take into account that testimonies aren't always accurate
- Mineta never says precisely that the conversation was about the plane coming to the Pentagone, but took place at about the time it was approaching (see Abbyas' last few posts)

You see Mutton, all this has already been said in this thread, by many posters. Everybody has been putting alot of effort in showing you valid arguments as to why Mineta's testimony might not be that "smoking gun" you are seeking.

I suggest you read this thread again and this time, read what the other posters have to say.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As far as I know, the answer is no.

[Edit: I did answer you. "The time line given in the report implicitly denies that they could have taken place. No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims.

"No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims." Does not answer my question, but that is moot now, as you have now answered it. So, the Commission, so far as you know, has made no indication of why his testimony was left out of the report. The next step would be to find out if we can get the reason from them. I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?

[Gravy]

"No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims." Does not answer my question, but that is moot now, as you have now answered it. So, the Commission, so far as you know, has made no indication of why his testimony was left out of the report. The next step would be to find out if we can get the reason from them. I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?
Hey, can't a guy just ask questions?

And just make accusations without evidence?

And just accuse people of evading questions?

While doing the same himself?

[Mutton-Head]

So, are we all agreed that Mineta's statements

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?"

Do we all agree that these statements were left out of the report?

[rwguinn]

So, are we all agreed that Mineta's statements

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?"

Do we all agree that these statements were left out of the report?

Ok, lets look at reality. I know it will be a stretch for you, but try.
Nobody, but nobody goes anywhere in any secure defense facility without either signing in or presenting a badge to a sensor. The time is recorded, as well as the name. It is also my understanding (unverified) that every phone call from the White House is either recorded, or the numbers and times recorded.
Do you not think it possible, that in the tension of the situation, the stress of uncertainty over events occurring rapidly, and the confusion of conflicting reports due to purely human second-guessing-- that possibly Mineta confused the times just a bit, and that the written and recorded time conflicted with his recollection? That would certainly cause his testimony to be considered less-than-credible.

[Mutton-Head]

Ok, lets look at reality. I know it will be a stretch for you, but try.
Nobody, but nobody goes anywhere in any secure defense facility without either signing in or presenting a badge to a sensor. The time is recorded, as well as the name. It is also my understanding (unverified) that every phone call from the White House is either recorded, or the numbers and times recorded.
Do you not think it possible, that in the tension of the situation, the stress of uncertainty over events occurring rapidly, and the confusion of conflicting reports due to purely human second-guessing-- that possibly Mineta confused the times just a bit, and that the written and recorded time conflicted with his recollection? That would certainly cause his testimony to be considered less-than-credible.


Once again, you keep trying to take it back to the issue of what time it was. The official report's time-line does not give any room for the events that Mineta descibed to have ever happened.

Not only are the items that Mineta testified to:

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?"

Not only are they absent from the report, but the report's time-line implicitly states that the events never happened. Not that Mineta's Time-line is wrong.

That they never happened.

[CptColumbo]

Once again, you keep trying to take it back to the issue of what time it was. The official report's time-line does not give any room for the events that Mineta descibed to have ever happened.

That's why the time he was there is important. Without coroborating proof of when he was there, it calls into question his testimony.

[Pardalis]

Mutton, you keep repeating the same argument over and over again. Have you read any of the replies the posters of this board have made since the begining of this thread? They make pretty damn good arguments, you might like to read them.

[gumboot]

No it was sworn testimony.


Just because it's a sworn testimony doesn't mean it's important.




By Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. He is important, he is credible, he was detailed.


False on all points. The Transportation Secretary is not important in the events of 9/11.

Norman Mineta's testimony is demonstratably false, as it is physically impossible for things to have occured as he claims. This means his recollection is faulty, which brings into question his credibility.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague, full of assumptions made after the fact, and lacking in detail at all. The only detail he gave whatsoever (the time the conversation re: the aircraft occured) is completely false. Mineta himself repeatedly acknowledges that his testimony is vague and full of assumption.



The only thing in the Commission's report that could have contradicted his account, would be some written logs.


And the physical reality of the world we live in. The physical reality of the world cannot be altered by scheming government neocons. If physical reality and Mineta are in conflict, Mineta must be wrong.

Bear in mind Hutton-Head, the only ACTUAL thing in question here is WHAT TIME the conversation Mineta overheard took place. Nothing else is in question.

It is physically impossible for the conversation to have taken place at the times Mineta claims. Therefore it occured at some other time. Therefore there is no conflict.

-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mutton-Head.
"...The next step would be to find out if we can get the reason from [the Commission]. I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?

[Perihelion]

Even if we assumed that this supposed "evidence" were accurate, why do people automatically take the story down the road of "Cheney is responsible for 9/11"? In a situation where there could be dozens of rational explanations, including all of the ones which we have put forth, why does it all boil down to a single, uncorroborated accusation?

[MarkyX]

Even if we assumed that this supposed "evidence" were accurate, why do people automatically take the story down the road of "Cheney is responsible for 9/11"? In a situation where there could be dozens of rational explanations, including all of the ones which we have put forth, why does it all boil down to a single, uncorroborated accusation?

Political Agenda.

[Mutton-Head]

That's why the time he was there is important. Without coroborating proof of when he was there, it calls into question his testimony.


Exactly. Question. And when there is a question, you look for an answer. The commission did not. They dropped it. They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question. They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, you keep repeating the same argument over and over again. Have you read any of the replies the posters of this board have made since the begining of this thread? They make pretty damn good arguments, you might like to read them.

I see no arguments. I see assumptions. And you all keep trying to bring it back to "Mineta's recollection of the time is wrong." The time-line discrepency is not the problem. (Well, it's a problem, but not the biggest.) The commssion says that Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:37. AA77 hit the Pentagon a minute later. The commssion is implicitly stating, on record, that Mineta's statements

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?"

Never happened.
Not that they happened at a different time,

But thay they never happened.

[Pardalis]

They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question.

How do you know?


They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.

Wouldn't it be because Mineta's timeline was faulty? Besides, they never said Mineta's events never took place, they just didn't feel it was important enough to put it in the report.

[Mutton-Head]

Just because it's a sworn testimony doesn't mean it's important.






False on all points. The Transportation Secretary is not important in the events of 9/11.

Norman Mineta's testimony is demonstratably false, as it is physically impossible for things to have occured as he claims. This means his recollection is faulty, which brings into question his credibility.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague, full of assumptions made after the fact, and lacking in detail at all. The only detail he gave whatsoever (the time the conversation re: the aircraft occured) is completely false. Mineta himself repeatedly acknowledges that his testimony is vague and full of assumption.






And the physical reality of the world we live in. The physical reality of the world cannot be altered by scheming government neocons. If physical reality and Mineta are in conflict, Mineta must be wrong.

Bear in mind Hutton-Head, the only ACTUAL thing in question here is WHAT TIME the conversation Mineta overheard took place. Nothing else is in question.

It is physically impossible for the conversation to have taken place at the times Mineta claims. Therefore it occured at some other time. Therefore there is no conflict.

-Andrew



False, and wrong, and illogical, and idiotic reply.

You guys are so stuck with this one. Go back to the Loose Change thread.

Amateurs

You got nothing.

Mineta shows that Cheney was involved, and it's just sticking in your throats.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague,


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?"

That ain't vague. That is specific.

[Pardalis]

I think Gumboot makes a pretty good point.

[Mutton-Head]

I think Gumboot makes a pretty good point.


Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

You can't even admit a basic proven fact.

Mineta said:

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?"

And the 9/11 commission implicitly denies it

And your argumets are all weak and amateur

[Pardalis]

You just don't want to understand their arguments.

[Pardalis]

Mutton, calm down.

There are transcripts and video of his testimony, so we all agree that he said what he said, there's no doubt. Nobody is denying that.

Your assumption is that the Commission Report denies even the existence of his entire account, which is stupid (see my previous paragraph).

Everybody here has been polite and patient enough to show you possible reasons why the Commission decided to disregard Mineta's testimony. Because that is the only thing we can do. Nobody here has inside knowledge of the Commission reports, all we can do is speculate on the reasons why they dismissed Mineta's accounts. Alot of people here have offered valid explanations.

You on the other hand is the one accusing the Commission of lying and hiding evidence. You have not offered any proof of that.

[R.Mackey]

All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

You can't even admit a basic proven fact.

[...]

And the 9/11 commission implicitly denies it

And your argumets are all weak and amateur
Speaking of "weak and amateur," here's a stupid idea... How about you ASK Mr. Mineta why his remarks weren't in the report? As Transportation Secretary during and long after 9/11, with a share of responsibility in the events of the day, I imagine he'd have spoken up if he was grossly misrepresented.

To misquote the infamous Dylan Avery, "We're just asking questions (and deliberately asking the wrong people)."

[Pardalis]

To misquote the infamous Dylan Avery, "We're just asking questions (and deliberately asking the wrong people)."

May I use that in my signature?

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, calm down.

Your assumption is that the Commission Report denies even the existence of his entire account, which is stupid (see my previous paragraph).

No, that's fact. The commission's time-line implictly denies that his account occurred. Do you understand implicit and explicit?

Everybody here has been polite and patient enough to show you possible reasons why the Commission decided to disregard Mineta's testimony. Because that is the only thing we can do.

You on the other hand is the one accusing the Commission of lying and hiding evidence. You have not offered any proof of that.


Damn straight I'm accussing them of lying.

[Pardalis]

So Mutton, what could we say to make you happy? :)

[R.Mackey]

May I use that in my signature?
Please do.

It simply rankles me what passes for "research" among the CTs. No real work at all. I mean, you think they'd at least watch an episode of Frontline or something to learn the basics of investigational inquiry.

[Pardalis]

Please do.

Done. :D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Exactly. Question. And when there is a question, you look for an answer. The commission did not. They dropped it. They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question. They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.

I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?

[Regnad Kcin]

False, and wrong, and illogical, and idiotic reply.

You guys are so stuck with this one. Go back to the Loose Change thread.

Amateurs

You got nothing.

Mineta shows that Cheney was involved, and it's just sticking in your throats...Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

...And your argumets are all weak and amateurAs someone who recently stuck up for your presence in these discussions based on your demonstrated behavior thus far, I have to tell you your tone has taken a downward turn. I find gumboot to be very rational, analytical, and articulate regardless of the topic, and think you might wish to reconsider how best to proceed. In my opinion, insults and other personal attacks do nothing to advance your point.

Is your ego beginning to become involved in all of this, as I suggested elsewhere is often the case with such discussions?

[Regnad Kcin]

Speaking of "weak and amateur," here's a stupid idea... How about you ASK Mr. Mineta why his remarks weren't in the report? As Transportation Secretary during and long after 9/11, with a share of responsibility in the events of the day, I imagine he'd have spoken up if he was grossly misrepresented.This seems entirely reasonable. Your reaction, Mutton?

[Mutton-Head]

So Mutton, what could we say to make you happy? :)

Thanks for asking.

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

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 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

I want everyone to agree that my contention is correct.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for asking.

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

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 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

I want everyone to agree that my contention is correct.

Get it through your thick skull, "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." DOES NOT EQUAL "The 9/11 commission did not include his testimony in the report." The second is a statement of what we know, the first is an assumption you are making. How's that FOIA request coming?

[Mutton-Head]

Get it through your thick skull, "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." DOES NOT EQUAL "The 9/11 commission did not include his testimony in the report." The second is a statement of what we know, the first is an assumption you are making. How's that FOIA request coming?

OK, fine, agreed. When I said "does not include his testimony," I meant "does not include any of the aspects of his testimony which deal with events in the PEOC." The problem, is making the thread title small enough. If you will notice, all of my arguments have been that the commission threw-out that one particular event that Mineta described in the PEOC, and, the entire line of questioning by Hamilton and Roemer concerned only this event. It apears that you haven't noticed, probably due to your thick skull.

So, to clarify

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

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 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

does everyone agree?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

OK, fine, agreed. When I said "does not include his testimony," I meant "does not include any of the aspects of his testimony which deal with events in the PEOC." The problem, is making the thread title small enough. If you will notice, all of my arguments have been that the commission threw-out that one particular event that Mineta described in the PEOC, and, the entire line of questioning by Hamilton and Roemer concerned only this event. It apears that you haven't noticed, probably due to your thick skull.

So, to clarify

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

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 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

does everyone agree?


No. We do not agree; because "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO "The 9/11 commission did not include Mineta's testimony in the report". The 2nd is a statement of fact, the first is a conjecture of opinion. You keep making huge leaps of (il)logic in an attempt to get to the conclusion you want.

[gumboot]

Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.


Mutton-Head, please try to read what is being said. Take these 3 points above...

These are not "assumptions" made by me. These conclusions are made from a chain of logic. It begins with (2).

I demonstrated why Mineta's timing is wrong. The conversation about the plane approaching the Pentagon could not have been about AA77 at 0925. AA77 was over 100 miles from the Pentagon at 0925, lost in a Primary Radar screen.

At 0932 (when it was identified) it was almost 60 miles from the Pentagon.

Mineta claims from 0925 until 0926 the aircraft in question went from 50 miles out, to 10 miles out.

How did AA77 average a speed of 2,400 MPH over this 1 minute? That is Mach 3.2. The two fastest aircraft in the world are:

Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird - Mach 3.3+
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25P "Foxbat-A" - Mach 2.8 (limited by engine redline)

The same aircraft crashed into the Pentagon at 0938 - 12 minutes after Mineta claimed it was "10 miles out".

How did the SAME CRAFT cover the final 10 miles at an average speed of 50 MPH before slamming into the Pentagon?

This is physically impossible, Mutton-Head.

There is no animal, no aircraft, no missile, no drone, no machine in existence, which can fly at both 50 MPH and Mach 3.2, while remaining airbourne.

Thus, by simple logic, number (2) on your list is a FACT. It is not an asumption made by me.

If (2) is true, (1) MUST be true. If one part of Mineta's testimony is categorically proven to be false (his times) that MUST bring into doubt the credibility of his overall testimony. Note I did not claim his entire testimony was completely false. I have repeatedly offered possible explanations for his error in time, while retaining the "truth" of most of his testimony. But as a result of (2) his testimony, as a single complete piece of evidence, is not credible.

So that leaves us with (3). You are right, (3) is an assumption made by me. Myself and others have REPEATEDLY acknowledged that we do not know what the Commissioners were thinking, or why they included some information and not others.

However.

By application of logic, if (1) and (2) are true (as demonstrated), it is logical to assume (3).

Thus our assumption is based on FACTS. Not mere speculation.

You have made accusations about my post that are unsubstantiated.

As shown, all of my claims stem from the errors in Mineta's timings.

Either withdraw your comments about my statement
OR
Identify a flying animal or machine capable of maintaining flight at both 50 MPH and Mach 3.2. THEN prove this animal or machine was what struck the Pentagon.

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

No. We do not agree; because "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO "The 9/11 commission did not include Mineta's testimony in the report". The 2nd is a statement of fact, the first is a conjecture of opinion. You keep making huge leaps of (il)logic in an attempt to get to the conclusion you want.


Try to follow Arkan. Quit playing with your sword and follow this simple logic that any grade-schooler could understand. The 9/11 commission gives a time-line that implicitly denies that the following events occurred (edit)

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."

Do you understand the concept "implicitly deny?" Do they teach you that where ever you're a grad student?

The time-line given by the commission implicitly denies these events, because it does not allow enough time for them to occur. One minute, from 9:37, to 9:38, is not enough time for all of these events to occur.

Therefore, once again:

The 9/11 commission denies that they occurred.

.

[Mutton-Head]

I'm going over your last post Gumboot, I'll get back to you...

[Mutton-Head]

I hear your argument Gumboot, and it's actually sound.

However, the main problem still stands that,

The official report says Cheney arrived at 9:37, and AA77 hit at 9:38.

That leaves only one minute for the events that Mineta described to have occurred. All of those things could not have occurred in one minute.

Remember, Mineta says, "about five or six minutes after I arrived..."

If you'll notice my 4 main points, posted again:

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."


I make no mention of "about five or six minutes." He says about. Maybe it was seven, or eight, or ten... It doesn't matter here.

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

[hellaeon]

I see no arguments. I see assumptions. And you all keep trying to bring it back to "Mineta's recollection of the time is wrong." The time-line discrepency is not the problem. (Well, it's a problem, but not the biggest.) The commssion says that Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:37. AA77 hit the Pentagon a minute later. The commssion is implicitly stating, on record, that Mineta's statements

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?"

Never happened.
Not that they happened at a different time,

But thay they never happened.

By not writing that I went to work that day, the commission is denying it happened.

[R.Mackey]

I hear your argument Gumboot, and it's actually sound.

However, the main problem still stands that,

The official report says Cheney arrived at 9:37, and AA77 hit at 9:38.

That leaves only one minute for the events that Mineta described to have occurred. All of those things could not have occurred in one minute.

Remember, Mineta says, "about five or six minutes after I arrived..."

Gumboot's point is righton the ball. He shows that Mineta's recollection has some errors. If Mineta is known to be inaccurate, you trying to prove who-knows-what on his split-second timing is pretty stupid.

Since you must have missed it, I'll repeat -- why don't you get over your allergy to actual research, and see what Mineta himself has to say?

[Mutton-Head]

By not writing that I went to work that day, the commission is denying it happened.


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?"

[hellaeon]

So after all the theories about CD's and thermite and holograms and missles and pods and Jews its come down to looking for the most minimal of discrepancies to 'prove' 9/11 was an inside job.

* yawn *

Using the math that gumboot puts up shows a simple error of timeline on minetas behalf.

[gumboot]

I make no mention of "about five or six minutes." He says about. Maybe it was seven, or eight, or ten... It doesn't matter here.

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


Thank you for responding sensibly.

Now, I've gone through Mineta's entire testimony... and I think you may be guilty of cherry-picking - that is selectively pulling out segments that you want to focus on, and ignoring others.

However before we can continue, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you agree that the 9/11 Commission panel did not include all information gathered in their final report?
2) Do you agree that people were interviewed for specific insight into particular aspects of 9/11, rather than broad general accounts of events?

Once I have an answer to these I will continue further.

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

Thank you for responding sensibly.

Now, I've gone through Mineta's entire testimony... and I think you may be guilty of cherry-picking - that is selectively pulling out segments that you want to focus on, and ignoring others.

However before we can continue, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you agree that the 9/11 Commission panel did not include all information gathered in their final report?
2) Do you agree that people were interviewed for specific insight into particular aspects of 9/11, rather than broad general accounts of events?

Once I have an answer to these I will continue further.

-Andrew

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.

Now, New information, and you're all going to love this one.

Go to http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/index.htm

These are the Commission's transcripts and videos for those two days of testimony. Mineta testified on Friday, May 23, 2003.

They have included video of all testimony for that day. Mineta is included in that video.

And guess what?

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 part is gone, edited, deleted from the video.

Did you catch that?

That one section, and only that section, from Mineta's testimony, is gone, edited, deleted from the video.

The 9/11 commission deliberately removed that section of Mineta's testimony.

[Pardalis]

I don't know about the video (it's much too long to load), but Mineta's testimony is available in its entirety:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

[Mutton-Head]

I don't know about the video (it's much too long to load), but Mineta's testimony is available in its entirety:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

The transcript is, but the video was edited. The questions asked by Roemer and Hamilton, where Minta said

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 part is gone, edited, deleted from the video.

Did you catch that?

That one section, and only that section, from Mineta's testimony, is gone, edited, deleted from the video.

[Pardalis]

So what if it's missing from the video? It's in the transcript. It's available for everyone to read.

What's the freaking difference?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

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?"

You seem to not be able to discern the difference between claiming that a timeline is mistaken and claiming that an event did not happen at all. The 911 Commission Report implicity rules out Mineta's timeline. It does not rule out that he and Cheney were in the PEOC (or tunnel) together, that he heard a military aide giving Cheney SITREPs of a plane approaching, and that he heard the military aide ask Cheney a question about an order. With regarsd to Mineta's testimony, the 911 Commission Report has two main implications:

1) Mineta was mistaken about the time he arrived in the PEOC
2) Mineta was mistaken in thinking that the update was about Flight 77.

Neither of those are particularly large leaps. I have personally worked in numerous operations centers. Operations Centers have a person (and usually more than one) whose main job is to log important events as they occur. The whole point of this is to keep an accurate timeline. I, being in charge of a section within the operations center, am usually extremely busy. Operations centers are hectic. If someone were to ask me the next day, let alone 20 months after an event, to provide exact times for events, I would do the same as Mineta: I would estimate my arrival, and when various things occured. I would not, however, be the least bit surprised to find out that my estimates were different from the Operations Center Log by 10, 20, 30, even 45 minutes. And I would defer to the log, because the log is more accurate.

The 9-11 Commission did not just have a log. They had several logs, as well as phone records and other documentary evidence that is far more accurate than one man's memory.

I can put myself in Mineta's shoes to an extent, in that I have worked in Operations Centers similar to the PEOC (namely, at Corps level OCs in the Army). If someone asked me to testify in a similar situation, there is no way in hell I would remember specific events down to the minute. Mineta gave his best estimate of time. It turned out to be wrong. Why is that so hard to accept?

[R.Mackey]

So now Mutton-Head is all bent out of shape because the 9-11 Commission's publicly available web-based video has the first 13 pages of testimony edited out, even though the entire thing is available in .PDF.

Yep, clearly a conspiracy.

Have you talked to Mineta yet? I have a strong feeling he'd concur with the opinion above, and chalk it up to a simple mistake. You might have noticed he deferred some questions to off-line written discussion.

[Mutton-Head]

You seem to not be able to discern the difference between claiming that a timeline is mistaken and claiming that an event did not happen at all. The 911 Commission Report implicity rules out Mineta's timeline. It does not rule out that he and Cheney were in the PEOC (or tunnel) together, that he heard a military aide giving Cheney SITREPs of a plane approaching, and that he heard the military aide ask Cheney a question about an order. With regarsd to Mineta's testimony, the 911 Commission Report has two main implications:

1) Mineta was mistaken about the time he arrived in the PEOC
2) Mineta was mistaken in thinking that the update was about Flight 77.

Neither of those are particularly large leaps. I have personally worked in numerous operations centers. Operations Centers have a person (and usually more than one) whose main job is to log important events as they occur. The whole point of this is to keep an accurate timeline. I, being in charge of a section within the operations center, am usually extremely busy. Operations centers are hectic. If someone were to ask me the next day, let alone 20 months after an event, to provide exact times for events, I would do the same as Mineta: I would estimate my arrival, and when various things occured. I would not, however, be the least bit surprised to find out that my estimates were different from the Operations Center Log by 10, 20, 30, even 45 minutes. And I would defer to the log, because the log is more accurate.

The 9-11 Commission did not just have a log. They had several logs, as well as phone records and other documentary evidence that is far more accurate than one man's memory.

I can put myself in Mineta's shoes to an extent, in that I have worked in Operations Centers similar to the PEOC (namely, at Corps level OCs in the Army). If someone asked me to testify in a similar situation, there is no way in hell I would remember specific events down to the minute. Mineta gave his best estimate of time. It turned out to be wrong. Why is that so hard to accept?

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.

[Mutton-Head]

So what if it's missing from the video? It's in the transcript. It's available for everyone to read.

What's the freaking difference?


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

And it's deleted from the video.

[R.Mackey]

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

And it's deleted from the video.
I believe you'll find a great many snippets of conversation didn't make it into the 9-11 Commission Report.

Which raises the question, why are you fixated on this item?