Any Innocent Explanation for...

[JohnM307]

... this exchange?

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


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 --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.


In particular, I refer to Transportation Secretary Mineta's first statement in the quote, refering to Vice President Cheney saying that the orders stood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

Also is there any innocent explanation for the 9/11 Commission not to explore this exchange further?

[WildCat]

What is there to explain? :confused:

[Loss Leader]

... more CT nonsense about Mineta's testimony ...

Here's one explanation. When the plane that hit the Pentago was 10 miles out, the fighter jets were still at least 10 minutes away from DC. So, how long does it take an airplane traveling 600 miles an hour to go 10 miles? Let's cut it down to 400 miles an hour. It takes one and a half minutes.

And the fighters were 10 minutes away.

The fact that there was a shootdown order in place (if there was), the fact that we knew exactly where the plane was (if we did), and the fact that we knew exactly where the plane was going (if so), does not change the fact that you can't shoot down a plane if your fighter jets are't there yet.

Anyway, that's my explanation.

[WildCat]

and the fact that we knew exactly where the plane was going (if so),
There is no indication they knew where the plane was going. They knew it was heading towards DC, but that's a target-rich locale to say the least.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... this exchange?

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



In particular, I refer to Transportation Secretary Mineta's first statement in the quote, refering to Vice President Cheney saying that the orders stood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

Also is there any innocent explanation for the 9/11 Commission not to explore this exchange further?

It was inconsistent with every other piece of information they gathered and so Mr. Mineta's testimony should be suspect.

[Bell]

There is no indication they knew where the plane was going. They knew it was heading towards DC, but that's a target-rich locale to say the least.

But... but... they where part of the plot! How could they not know where the planes where going? :rolleyes:

[defaultdotxbe]

It was inconsistent with every other piece of information they gathered and so Mr. Mineta's testimony should be suspect.

no no no, youve got that backwards, mineta's testimony supports a conspiracy (somehow, i still dont see it myself) so that means everyone else must be wrong

[Dog Town]

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out,"

How fast was that plane going? Would that not be happening kinda quick for Mineta?

[Donal]

Did you read the full transcript of the testimony of the 911CR website? They do explore it.

[hellaeon]

I think your suggesting that it was shot down but that the official reason is that they fought for the cockpit and the terrorists ditched the plane.

Because he said shoot it down and it crashed does not imply it was shot down. If it had not have gone down by the passengers will to overpower the terrorists, it would have indeed been shot down. There is no conspiracy here other then a possibility to believe it was shot down due to the above exchange, but we are not told.

The air phone recordings and black box suggest the latter, also the testimony is suspect.

Be sure when looking for specific aspects of 9/11 that you dont approach it searching for 'possible' holes to make fit to a CT. It in no way strengthens the CT, rather makes it more vague. This is an example. Its been clearly explained what happened. If your suspect on that its an issue within you and your trust of the explained version of events, since the official version is supported by evidence.

[Brainster]

... this exchange?

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



In particular, I refer to Transportation Secretary Mineta's first statement in the quote, refering to Vice President Cheney saying that the orders stood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

Also is there any innocent explanation for the 9/11 Commission not to explore this exchange further?

First guess is that Mineta's widely seen as incompetent; thank god he finally resigned. In fact, NORAD was only aware that Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, had been hijacked approximately 200 seconds (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01) before it hit the Pentagon. They were not aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until after it had crashed.

Of course, Mineta describes it as a shoot-down order; in the minds of the tin-foil hatters it becomes a stand-down order.

[gumboot]

This has been discussed to death. I refer you to the beginning of Mineta's testimony:

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

Mineta's sense of time has been shown wrong (not surprising, people make mistakes all the time when estimating time, especially in stressful situations).

The timings Mineta gave are physically impossible, as I have demonstrated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1788240&postcount=233) on previous boards - it would require an aircraft that was capable of a speed below a 757's stall speed, and yet also capable of flying as fast as a SR-71 Blackbird:

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.

Furthermore from other sources we learn that Mineta WAS mistaken in his timings: I refer you to this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1798453&postcount=302) excellent post by Cylinder:

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

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


Mineta got his times wrong, simple as that.

-Andrew

[Metullus]

Didn't we address this issue to the point of exhastion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62417&highlight=Mineta)
and here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60196&highlight=Mineta)

[JohnM307]

It was inconsistent with every other piece of information they gathered and so Mr. Mineta's testimony should be suspect.

Okay, his testimony is suspect is a possible innocent explanation. But can you provide evidence for your enormously strong statement that it is inconsistant with every other piece of information?

As for all the other responses, why don't people just stop and think for one single moment.


There is no indication they knew where the plane was going. They knew it was heading towards DC, but that's a target-rich locale to say the least.


It's approaching DC. They don't need to know anything further about its target, except whether it plans to land harmlessly.


What is there to explain?


Perhaps what that order really was, the Vice President's order that persisted through the airplane approaching 50, 30, and then 10 miles away. Was it a shoot-down order, or a stand-down order?


Here's one explanation. When the plane that hit the Pentago was 10 miles out, the fighter jets were still at least 10 minutes away from DC. So, how long does it take an airplane traveling 600 miles an hour to go 10 miles? Let's cut it down to 400 miles an hour. It takes one and a half minutes.

And the fighters were 10 minutes away.

The fact that there was a shootdown order in place (if there was), the fact that we knew exactly where the plane was (if we did), and the fact that we knew exactly where the plane was going (if so), does not change the fact that you can't shoot down a plane if your fighter jets are't there yet.

Anyway, that's my explanation.


You are talking about the fighter jets from Langley AFB, as was Mineta. In fact, were they actually flying to DC? Were they actually scrambled to intercept Flight 77? The 9/11 Commission report says no. They were flying north, first toward NYC and then to Baltimore to intercept a phantom AA Flight 11 flying south.

Anyone with half a brain should question the choice of Langley, when other bases are much closer. What about planes from Andrews AFB at DC? Or bases along Flight 77's path?

How does your explanation apply when the plane was 50 miles away? 30 miles away? It's at 10 miles away that the young man asks, "Do the orders still stand?" Was the young man concerned that the plane might be shot down, or was he concerned that it was getting close to DC? The man wasn't saying anything about fighter jets approaching the plane, the man was talking about the plane approaching them. The concern was about the plane getting close to DC.

The man is saying in effect, "The plane is getting close. Shouldn't we do something about it?" And Cheney effectively replies, "No, nothing has changed."

How could the orders be to do something (as in shoot it down), and still remain standing as the plane approaches from 50 miles away to 10 miles away? No, the orders were to do NOTHING. Which is what was happening as the plane approached.

If the order were to intercept the plane or shoot it down, and 50 miles was the first opportunity to do anything, then by 30 miles -- three minutes later -- fighter jets from Andrews would have been in the air. They would meet the approaching plane halfway (plus-or-minus) or about 15 miles away.

And the dialog between the young man and the Vice President would be rather different, mentioning the fighter jets and their approach to the approaching plane.


How fast was that plane going? Would that not be happening kinda quick for Mineta?

Between two and three minutes for every step (from 50 to 30 to 10 miles away). Two minutes at 600 mph, three minutes at 400 mph. Probably not two quick for Mineta.


Did you read the full transcript of the testimony of the 911CR website? They do explore it.


I've only seen a little bit afterwards on the topic, including the following exchange:

MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?

MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

Mineta just assumed it was a shoot-down order from everything going on around. Overall, as far as I can tell, it was just assumed that the order was a shootdown, without any attempt to verify it. But it makes much more sense as a STANDDOWN order.

A later discussion with a general, mentioning the exchange, has the general saying that he was unaware of any shootdown order.

[defaultdotxbe]

Perhaps what that order really was, the Vice President's order that persisted through the airplane approaching 50, 30, and then 10 miles away. Was it a shoot-down order, or a stand-down order?
what difference does it make? no one was inr ange to shoot down or stand down

Anyone with half a brain should question the choice of Langley, when other bases are much closer. What about planes from Andrews AFB at DC? Or bases along Flight 77's path?
other bases didnt have fighters on alert, it would take several hours at least to prep jets for flight

If the order were to intercept the plane or shoot it down, and 50 miles was the first opportunity to do anything, then by 30 miles -- three minutes later -- fighter jets from Andrews would have been in the air.
even if andrews had fighters on alert it woudl take at least 10 minutes to get in the air

But it makes much more sense as a STANDDOWN order.
again, what difference does it make? no one was in range to begin with

and if they were out of range because of a stand down order, wouldnt it make the VP look better if he ordered a shoot down once he knew 77 was out fo range of intercept? to make it look like he tried to defend the country?

how is it that in 8 seconds i come up with a better plan than these guys did in 8 months?

[WildCat]

Didn't we address this issue to the point of exhastion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62417&highlight=Mineta)
and here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60196&highlight=Mineta)
Yep, same stuff new CT'er. Round and round and round it goes...

[JohnM307]

Didn't we address this issue to the point of exhastion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62417&highlight=Mineta)
and here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60196&highlight=Mineta)

No, not at all. The only issue questioned seriously was Mineta's claimed timing, which could easily be off.

The idea that they were really talking about UA Flight 93 is ridiculous; that didn't approach within 10 miles of DC. It was either an unknown plane, or AA Flight 77.

There was no reason to dismiss Mineta's testimony about the young man asking if the orders stood and Cheney snapping that they did.

[gumboot]

You are talking about the fighter jets from Langley AFB, as was Mineta. In fact, were they actually flying to DC? Were they actually scrambled to intercept Flight 77? The 9/11 Commission report says no. They were flying north, first toward NYC and then to Baltimore to intercept a phantom AA Flight 11 flying south.


It depends when. It is pretty clear Mineta was not seeing a conversation about AA77 - that he has his times all wrong. You are forgetting the number of false alarms on that day - there were 11 incidents reported to NEADS in the first 90 minutes. Many of them were over Washington DC. The Langley Fighters were sent to Washington DC because that's where it was thought AA11 was headed (no one knew AA11 had been the aircraft that hit WTC1).



Anyone with half a brain should question the choice of Langley, when other bases are much closer. What about planes from Andrews AFB at DC? Or bases along Flight 77's path?


Anyone with a brain would do research before making such uninformed comments. Only 7 air bases in the Continential US had aircraft on alert status for rapid intercept missions - "rapid" being 15 minutes from scramble to "wheels up" (take off).

The North East Air Defense Sector (which is where the hijackings occured) had only two air bases available - Otis (with 2x F-15s) and Langley (with 2x F-16s). All four of these aircraft were launched on 9/11. In addition, throughout the day NEADS desperately contacted other air bases for additional aircraft. Bases across the states threw anything they had into the air - including unarmed aircraft. By nightfall over 300 fully armed fighters were in the air over US cities. That is an extraordinary feat. Do you have any idea what is involved in arming and launching 300 fighter aircraft that were NOT on standby?



How does your explanation apply when the plane was 50 miles away? 30 miles away? It's at 10 miles away that the young man asks, "Do the orders still stand?" Was the young man concerned that the plane might be shot down, or was he concerned that it was getting close to DC? The man wasn't saying anything about fighter jets approaching the plane, the man was talking about the plane approaching them. The concern was about the plane getting close to DC.


You have no idea what his concern was. Perhaps his concern - just like Mineta's - was "oh my god, we're going to shoot down a commercial airliner".



How could the orders be to do something (as in shoot it down), and still remain standing as the plane approaches from 50 miles away to 10 miles away? No, the orders were to do NOTHING. Which is what was happening as the plane approached.


That is nothing more than you own totally unsupported speculation.



If the order were to intercept the plane or shoot it down, and 50 miles was the first opportunity to do anything, then by 30 miles -- three minutes later -- fighter jets from Andrews would have been in the air. They would meet the approaching plane halfway (plus-or-minus) or about 15 miles away.


You give away your lack of knowledge. Andrews AFB did not have aircraft on alert on 9/11. Launching of alert aircraft takes 15 minutes, not 3.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

No, not at all. The only issue questioned seriously was Mineta's claimed timing, which could easily be off.

The idea that they were really talking about UA Flight 93 is ridiculous; that didn't approach within 10 miles of DC. It was either an unknown plane, or AA Flight 77.

There was no reason to dismiss Mineta's testimony about the young man asking if the orders stood and Cheney snapping that they did.


Try READING (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1914242&postcount=12). Seriously. You're not even trying.

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

-Andrew

[Brainster]

No, not at all. The only issue questioned seriously was Mineta's claimed timing, which could easily be off.

The idea that they were really talking about UA Flight 93 is ridiculous; that didn't approach within 10 miles of DC. It was either an unknown plane, or AA Flight 77.

There was no reason to dismiss Mineta's testimony about the young man asking if the orders stood and Cheney snapping that they did.

And there is less than no reason to believe that it involved a stand-down order. Your problem here is common; I call it 9/12 thinking on 9/11. If it was a shoot-down order, you don't think the young man would want confirmation? You're thinking, of course we shoot it down, no questions asked. But can you imagine being a fighter pilot ordered to shoot down a US passenger plane? I'd certainly want those orders confirmed in triplicate.

Not that it matters; again, the defense system knew about Flight 77 a little over three minutes before it crashed. Even at 600 MPH, that would be a maximum of 30 miles out, before we account for the time for Hanjour to do his 330 degree loop.

So Mineta's wrong. Not surprising to those who've followed his career.

[apathoid]

You give away your lack of knowledge. Andrews AFB did not have aircraft on alert on 9/11. Launching of alert aircraft takes 15 minutes, not 3.

-Andrew

Didnt the Secret Service request air support specifically from Andrews shortly after the 2 WTC hit?

Of course, there were no interceptors ready for flight so they were denied.

[gumboot]

Didnt the Secret Service request air support specifically from Andrews shortly after the 2 WTC hit?

Of course, there were no interceptors ready for flight so they were denied.


I believe they did. The 121st Fighter Squadron, based at Andrews AFB, is an Air National Guard Squadron, and they weren't on duty on 9/11, but a couple of their aircraft were down south doing a training mission anyway (that's typical of the US military for you - training on their day off!)

Those two fighters were recalled to the base. They landed, refuelled and took off again, loaded with something like 2000 rounds of dummy (practise) rounds for their cannons, and nothing else.

They were directly under command of the Secret Service, and the USSS had given them authorisation to shoot down any airliners.

I'm not sure on the timeline for these events, however. I get the impression, these aircraft were being launched about the same time NEADS were receiving shoot down orders - so some time just after 10am.

The pilots were talking about ramming the airliners at about where the wing meets the fuselage. They figured they might be able to rip the wing off. They also mused on whether they'd be able to line up their aircraft and eject at the last second, or if they'd just have to ride it the whole way in, and sacrifice their lives.

At the same time, I gather, other members of the 121st - working at their regular day jobs throughout the area - saw what was happening, left work, and headed for the airbase to get additional aircraft in the air. All this they did on their own initiate, without orders. I hope all their employees were patriotic enough to let them go without repercussions.

All this happened totally independently of NEADS' desperate attempts at intercept. (In fact there's a strong possibility some of the false-alarm hijackings over Washington DC were actually the Andrews AFB fighters).

-Andrew

[Dog Town]

The pilots were talking about ramming the airliners at about where the wing meets the fuselage. They figured they might be able to rip the wing off. They also mused on whether they'd be able to line up their aircraft and eject at the last second, or if they'd just have to ride it the whole way in, and sacrifice their lives.

This in the tapes? Jeezis! * goose bumps*

[gumboot]

This in the tapes? Jeezis!

Well NEADS had the benefit of armed aircraft. IIRC The NEADS MCC - Major Nasypany - was in the midst of a discussion about exactly HOW you bring down something as big as a commercial airliner.

He was suggesting "Nine to the nose" (AIM-9 Sidewinder, head-first into the nose of the aircraft).

The talk of ramming aircraft, I believe, was private conversations between the various pilots. Many of them have been interviewed, and it was in these interviews that they so calmly discussed how readily they had been ready to lay down their lives to protect their nation.

-Andrew

[shuize]

I remember hearing about those conversations afterwards and there's not a doubt in my mind that they would have done it. Those guys are amazing. I'm humbled just thinking about them.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, his testimony is suspect is a possible innocent explanation. But can you provide evidence for your enormously strong statement that it is inconsistant with every other piece of information?
...

Let's take the shorter path; you show me one piece of evidence that corroborates Mineta.

RE fighters: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01