Mineta testimony

[Non Believer]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it either

[T.A.M.]

What do you think about his testomony?

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

Before we answer, could you give us a list of the parts of Mineta's testimony you want us to ignore?

Dave

[lapman]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it either
I do question Mineta's time line. He claims that at 9:20AM, Bush was already in Air Force One heading to Louisiana. However, Bush didn't leave until 9:55. Could Mineta be off by an hour?

[Non Believer]

You know the part where he is in the bunker with Shooter at 9.25 and a kid is coming in with reports that the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc, and asks your hero do the orders still stand.

[gumboot]

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about Norman Mineta's testimony is that his times are wrong, and the flight in question isn't AA77.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

That's profound Gumshoe

[T.A.M.]

name calling will only get you suspended from this forum, and you wouldnt want that now would you?

TAM:)

[Non Believer]

I am sorry, I didn't know gumshoe is considered profane

[lapman]

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about Norman Mineta's testimony is that his times are wrong, and the flight in question isn't AA77.

-Gumboot

Most likely it was Flight 93 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=dickCheney).
(Between 10:10-10:15 a.m.): Cheney, Told That Flight 93 Is Still Heading to Washington, Orders It Shot Down The Secret Service, viewing projected path information about Flight 93, rather than actual radar returns, does not realize that Flight 93 has already crashed. Based on this erroneous information, a military aide tells Vice President Cheney and others in the White House bunker that the plane is 80 miles away from Washington. Cheney is asked for authority to engage the plane, and he quickly provides authorization. The aide returns a few minutes later and says the plane is 60 miles out. Cheney again gives authorization to engage.


So, non believer, how do you account for the Mineta's time line discrepancy?

[Mashuna]

nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it either

You are hereby awarded the coveted Triple Negative award.

Congratulations, and use your powers wisely.





Note, in the event of no triple negatives being awarded, the prize will go to the best double negative that also begins with the word 'nothing'.

[DavidJames]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it eitherJocce I am not going to answer the same question 20 timesbut you expect others to answer your's :rolleyes:


Serious questions.
Do you care about the truth?
If so, why do you get all of your information from CT sites?
Why haven't you spent time researching non CT sites?
Why haven't you searched this site for answers to your questions?

[T.A.M.]

I am sorry, I didn't know gumshoe is considered profane

where did I say you were profane?

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it either
False dichotomy.
There is also the potential (and likelihood) that Mr. Mineta was simply mistaken about his time call-outs. You've never made a mistake about the time, never been late (or early) to an appointment?

[Dave Rogers]

You know the part where he is in the bunker with Shooter at 9.25 and a kid is coming in with reports that the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc, and asks your hero do the orders still stand.

Sorry, was that the bit you did want us to ignore, or the bit you didn't want us to ignore?

Dave

[bje]

You know the part where he is in the bunker with Shooter at 9.25 and a kid is coming in with reports that the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc, and asks your hero do the orders still stand.

NB, how does "the plane is 50 miles out, 40 miles out, etc," square with your belief that the flights were not tracked because the transponders were off?

[gumboot]

That's profound Gumshoe



It's Gumboot. I take it reading is also something you're not especially gifted in?

-Gumboot

[Metullus]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it eitherOr, gee whiz, maybe Mineta is, well, merely mistaken in his time line? Discussed in detail here, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62417&highlight=Mineta) and here (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=892990&pp=25&page=2) and Ed only knows how many other times.

[Undesired Walrus]

I assume I don't have to explain the testimony to you. I am curious is he lying, or is one of Cheney's several stories in error. Do you agree it didn't belong in the 9-11 commision final report. I mean in the name of consistency it certainly didn't belong in the commision report since nothing else that did'nt fit the official explanation did not make it either

Let me ask you a question. Is that ok. Why do you not use question marks. It is really annoying and asinine isn't it. Look, it's getting even more annoying isn't it. Why do you keep doing it. I sound like a headcase dont I. Will you use question marks in future.

[Non Believer]

Hey, undesired/walrus9 if por 'puncuation-bothers-yop. I'll make more just for you

[Non Believer]

Metullus -It is so simple anybody, or anything that doesn't follow your story is simply mistaken. At least Mineta did not contradict himself as Cheney did, Also his timeline is supported by Clarke's testimony as well.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Metullus -It is so simple anybody, or anything that doesn't follow your story is simply mistaken. At least Mineta did not contradict himself as Cheney did, Also his timeline is supported by Clarke's testimony as well.
Please provide a specific example of VP Cheney contradicting himself.

Please provide a specific example of Clarke's testimony corroborating Mineta's testimony.

[CurtC]

Hey, undesired/walrus9 if por 'puncuation-bothers-yop. I'll make more just for you
Well, it makes your posts harder to read. It sends a message that you don't care enough about your own writing to clean it up, so why should anyone else bother reading it?

[stateofgrace]

Metullus -It is so simple anybody, or anything that doesn't follow your story is simply mistaken. At least Mineta did not contradict himself as Cheney did, Also his timeline is supported by Clarke's testimony as well.

NB what were you doing 3 months ago at six o’clock on the 21st March? Can you tell me exactly what you did between six and seven o clock in the evening?

If there was a cover up do you not think that all those involved in it would make sure they got their stories exactly right and their times exactly perfect, espically when they presented their testimony? Or is it all possible that the reason they don't quite agree with each other is because they have told their story as best they could remember without consulting with each other?

Is it vaguely possible that unlike yourself who can recount every second of every day, that people simply make mistakes when asked to recall exactly what they were doing and when,on probably the most confusing day of their lifes?

[Redtail]

When did Cheney contradict himself?

ETA: Serious question BTW, I haven't seen where he has. (At least not about his actions 9/11)

[gumboot]

Please provide a specific example of VP Cheney contradicting himself.

Please provide a specific example of Clarke's testimony corroborating Mineta's testimony.



Clarke's another person on 9/11 who has a really terrible timeline of events. He claims to have been talking to Richard Meyers on a video conference when Meyers was at Capitol Hill meeting with Senators.

-Gumboot

[Metullus]

Metullus -It is so simple anybody, or anything that doesn't follow your story is simply mistaken. At least Mineta did not contradict himself as Cheney did, Also his timeline is supported by Clarke's testimony as well.My story? What, pray tell, is "my story"? I have no story - I just follow the evidence. And you have provided none.

Why don't you read this thread wherein this has all been discussed ad nauseum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1782688#post1782688). Then we can talk about whether or not Mineta's testimony was consistent with known facts.

[Triterope]

You are hereby awarded the coveted Triple Negative award.

Congratulations, and use your powers wisely.

Don't you mean, "don't not use your powers unwisely"?

[rwguinn]

NB what were you doing 3 months ago at six o’clock on the 21st March? Can you tell me exactly what you did between six and seven o clock in the evening?
Insufficient. We need a minut3e-by-minute breakdown of all events occurring during that time period. Any uncertainty means he is lying.

If there was a cover up do you not think that all those involved in it would make sure they got their stories exactly right and their times exactly perfect, espically when they presented their testimony? Or is it all possible that the reason they don't quite agree with each other is because they have told their story as best they could remember without consulting with each other?

Is it vaguely possible that unlike yourself who can recount every second of every day, that people simply make mistakes when asked to recall exactly what they were doing and when,on probably the most confusing day of their lifes?

[Non Believer]

Yes, Cheney has said to the press on at least two occasions that he he got the bunker shortly before a plane hit the pentagon. Rice also stated that she was told to go to the bunker by Secret Service shortly after the second plane hit the towers, and that Cheney was already there. Mineta and Clarke stories match that they met at Clarke's video conference at around 9.15, and that Mineta went to the bunker after that.

As for the idea it was 93, you can't be serious.

[CurtC]

Yes, Cheney has said to the press on at least two occasions that he he got the bunker shortly before a plane hit the pentagon.
I'm not saying Cheney is always right, but I don't believe you either. Can you provide cites of him saying this?

The reason I ask is that you've been giving malcolm kirkman a race to see who can be wrong the most. Since he's now on vacation, you might just catch up.

[Non Believer]

Cheney's statements were made on meet the press, Sept 16 2001, and then on CNN ayear later. Thats nice you think I am wrong, how about proving something?

[twinstead]

Cheney's statements were made on meet the press, Sept 16 2001, and then on CNN ayear later. Thats nice you think I am wrong, how about proving something?

that's nice. I happen to think Cheney's a moron.

Anyhoo, perhaps you could read the threads on this forum considering Mineta's testimony. That subject was done to death, and it may prevent you from being one in a huge line of so-called truth seekers coming on the board with his latest smoking gun without realizing that not only have many folks here studied his testimony extensively, but have talked about it a lot on this very forum.

Otherwise our exasperation at yet ANOTHER person who hasn't done his homework and arrogantly implies we're all mindless drones who only believe what the government tells us will be interpreted as impoliteness.

[Non Believer]

Well if you say previous threads have taken care of this, you must be able to summarize it. So far your evidence is Mineta must be wrong. Very convincing

[Non Believer]

I got to say after watching the response from you guys on this, I have to say this is one of 9-11 truths strongest issues. Lets face it you hav had NOTHING, Either Norman Mineta is an absolute liar, or this account is correct. You have made no rationale to suggest how he could have been slightly confused. Not to mention the statements that contradict Cheney's supposed arrival at the bunker. As to somebody's comment that how could they be tracking the plane if they had lost it on primary radr, I never said I believe the official story. I simply try to show how it does not make sense

[Pardalis]

Either Norman Mineta is an absolute liar, or this account is correct.

False dilemma fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html).

Beat you to it Arkan. :p

[Non Believer]

No I gave you a third option. That he could be slightly mistaken, and offered you all a chance to give an explanation of how that work. None of you did. So quit taking s--- out of context, so you can play your little false fallacy games. To claim a false dichotomy, you need another option that makes sense. Please present one

[Pardalis]

Please present one

Read the links that have been provided for you. This has already been discussed to exhaustion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No I gave you a third option. That he could be slightly mistaken, and offered you all a chance to give an explanation of how that work.
Bollocks. You explicitly stated, " Either Norman Mineta is an absolute liar, or this account is correct"

None of you did. So quit taking s--- out of context, so you can play your little false fallacy games. To claim a false dichotomy, you need another option that makes sense. Please present one
Why, if his account is incorrect, must he be lying? That is to say, why can his account not be wrong through human error?

[CurtC]

False dilemma fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html).

Beat you to it Arkan. :p
When I read NB's post, I quickly scanned to the bottom of the page to see if Arkan had posted yet. I thought yea, he hadn't, so I'd get to point out the particular logical fallacy involved. But it was not to be.

By the way, I think the forum mods should change Arkan's forum title from "Philosopher" to "Fallacy Police."

[Non Believer]

Nope your missing the point of false dichotomy. A dichotomy may be presented correctly, such as the moon appears in the sky or it does not. Aristotles "law of the excluded middle" is only restricted by false dichotomy when it can be shown why it is false, and why other explanations are availabe. You guys seem to want to suggest that Arstitoles "law of the excluded middle" is never the case. The key here is if there "ARE THERE OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS"? So what are they?

[Pardalis]

Mineta is mistaken.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nope your missing the point of false dichotomy. A dichotomy may be presented correctly, such as the moon appears in the sky or it does not. Aristotles "law of the excluded middle" is only restricted by false dichotomy when it can be shown why it is false, and why other explanations are availabe. You guys seem to want to suggest that Arstitoles "law of the excluded middle" is never the case. The key here is if there "ARE THERE OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS"? So what are they?
Why, if his account is incorrect, must he be lying? That is to say, why can his account not be wrong through human error?

[Non Believer]

O.k try this one. Either Norman Mineta was in the bunker with Cheney on 9-11 between 9.20 to 9.40, or he was not. Would you like to call this a false dichotomy?

[HeyLeroy]

http://liveu-46.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193546L.gif

[Jonnyclueless]

Can anyone provide the log files that everyone kept that day with the time stamps of everything they did? And can anyone provide that certificate of watch calibration they all got that day to insure everyone's watch that they were checking every minute was accurate? I think that would help clear up the situation since we're being so specific about times.

And so if this does show that someone is reporting the wrong time, what does that prove again? That proves there were no planes, but remote controlled planes, and thermite, and lasers from space, and plane impact illusions, dustification, pre-planted explosives, fake bin Ladens, shot down planes that never existed, etc?

I am glad we have all these smart people here to clear that up. Because I myself, not being very smart almost mistakenly thought it would prove instead that someone misreported the time. Clearly I have not given it enough thought and the complexities are far over my head. I now see the light.

[Non Believer]

Your right Mr Clueless we really can't be sure about anything that happened that day. Who cares who said what, we can dismiss it all due to thefalability of human memory.

[Anti-sophist]

Your right Mr Clueless we really can't be sure about anything that happened that day. Who cares who said what, we can dismiss it all due to thefalability of human memory.

False dichotomy. Again.

[Pardalis]

That's his favorite.

[DGM]

Your right Mr Clueless we really can't be sure about anything that happened that day. Who cares who said what, we can dismiss it all due to thefalability of human memory.
Your comments a tad over the top, but some errors in memory can be expected. We are human.

[Non Believer]

Anti- Are you responding to 44 yet.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anti- Are you responding to 44 yet.
Why, if his account is incorrect, must he be lying? That is to say, why can his account not be wrong through human error?

[Anti-sophist]

O.k try this one. Either Norman Mineta was in the bunker with Cheney on 9-11 between 9.20 to 9.40, or he was not. Would you like to call this a false dichotomy?

No, that is not a false dichotomy. Happy?

[DavidJames]

Your right Mr Clueless we really can't be sure about anything that happened that day. Who cares who said what, we can dismiss it all due to thefalability of human memory.Here's the deal CT boy. Human memories are imperfect. That's why when researching a subject all the evidence is reviewed and compared for consistency. If one person remembers 'A' and 20 people remember 'B', that suggests something to "normal" people. Then the physical evidence is reviewed. Then the other evidence is reviewed. All the evidence, taken together is then used to arrive at a conclusion.

What CTists like yourself do, is pick out the single piece of evidence that supports your delusion and ignore the rest. In this case it's the Mineta testimony. You ignore all the evidence that refutes it. The other testimony's, the physical evidence, all of it, whoosh, you just whoosh it away.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, that is not a false dichotomy. Happy?
It's also not analogous to "Mineta is lying or his account is correct"

[Anti-sophist]

It's also not analogous to "Mineta is lying or his account is correct"


Of course. You could safely answer "no" to his revised question, without accusing Mineta of lying. Then, he'd like respond "Are you calling Mineta a liar?" and you could, equally and correctly respond "no". At which point, he'd be force to restate his false dichotomy: "Well which is it? Is he lying or was he there?"

[Non Believer]

DGM- I hope you admitt this premise works much better for the official story side. As long as your side is allowed to use the begging the question fallacy in establishing the credibility of the official story, then any attempt to reconstruct the event is hindered by your use of uncertainity in the recollection process. It would be great if you guys applied the same amount of sceptisim in incorporating the so called facts, as you do in dismissing them. Hey, but nobody ever accused you guys of applying consistent standards

[Anti-sophist]

As long as your side is allowed to use the begging the question fallacy in establishing the credibility of the official story, then any attempt to reconstruct the event is hindered by your use of uncertainity in the recollection process. It would be great if you guys applied the same amount of sceptisim in incorporating the so called facts, as you do in dismissing them. Hey, but nobody ever accused you guys of applying consistent standards

That is complete and total nonsense, completely unsupported by the facts.

Anyone who proscribes biblical levels of accuracy to individual eye witness statements is making a mistake, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on. You will be incredibly hard pressed to find such from our side because we simply do no cherry pick like you claim we do.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Consider:
A = Mineta told did not lie|B = Mineta's testimony was accurate|C = A AND B |D = A OR B
T|T|T|T
T|F|F|T
F|T|F|T
F|F|F|F|
Non Believer would have us believe that rows "T|F|F|T" and "F|T|F|T" do not exist.

[Non Believer]

So if 44 is not a false dichotomy, which of the options is correct?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

DGM- I hope you admitt this premise works much better for the official story side. As long as your side is allowed to use the begging the question fallacy in establishing the credibility of the official story, then any attempt to reconstruct the event is hindered by your use of uncertainity in the recollection process. It would be great if you guys applied the same amount of sceptisim in incorporating the so called facts, as you do in dismissing them. Hey, but nobody ever accused you guys of applying consistent standards
It is not Begging the Question as noone is saying that "The Commission Report is right, because it's the Commission Report". What we are saying is, "Unless you show the Commission Report to be wrong, it shall continued to be viewed as correct." These are not equivalent conditions.

By your faulty logic all debates are Begging the Question because the status quo is assumed correct unless the proponent shows their claim is valid!

[Non Believer]

[quote=Arkan_Wolfshade;2706568]It is not Begging the Question as noone is saying that "The Commission Report is right, because it's the Commission Report". What we are saying is, "Unless you show the Commission Report to be wrong, it shall continued to be viewed as correct." These are not equivalent conditions.

Sounds like appeal to authority

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is not Begging the Question as noone is saying that "The Commission Report is right, because it's the Commission Report". What we are saying is, "Unless you show the Commission Report to be wrong, it shall continued to be viewed as correct." These are not equivalent conditions.

Sounds like appeal to authority
1) It's not a fallacious appeal to authority, it is a statement of the status quo. It is the accepted state that you are trying to change. You are the proponent suggesting it is wrong. The onus is on you to prove your claim.
2) Not all appeals to authority are fallacious

[DGM]

DGM- I hope you admitt this premise works much better for the official story side. As long as your side is allowed to use the begging the question fallacy in establishing the credibility of the official story, then any attempt to reconstruct the event is hindered by your use of uncertainity in the recollection process. It would be great if you guys applied the same amount of sceptisim in incorporating the so called facts, as you do in dismissing them. Hey, but nobody ever accused you guys of applying consistent standards
See "DavidJames' post #54

[Non Believer]

Clearly the debate on 9-11 is about believing authority, but why don't you answer 44?

[Pardalis]

Clearly the debate on 9-11 is about believing authority

I'll believe professional investigators and engineers over an internet troll anytime.

[Non Believer]

In responding to David James and DGM- It is actually not picking little pieces that make are case, it's the incredibly large amount of logical inconsistencies that surround the attack that assaults our sensibilities

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Clearly the debate on 9-11 is about believing authority, but why don't you answer 44?
It was addressed in posts 53 and 55.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In responding to David James and DGM- It is actually not picking little pieces that make are case, it's the incredibly large amount of logical inconsistencies that surround the attack that assaults our sensibilities
I believe you're confusing an, apparent, ineptitude at logical thinking on your part for logical consistencies in the EBC.

[Non Believer]

Would that be independent investigator Pardalis?

[Non Believer]

So you admitt mineta and cheney were togeher in the bunker that morning?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So you admitt mineta and cheney were togeher in the bunker that morning?
Are you going somewhere with this red herring?

[stateofgrace]

NB, could you tell the exact time you switched on your TV and watched the events of 911? The exact time.

Could you tell me what you were doing half an hour before that time and could you tell me exactly which room you were in half an hour beforehand.

I could not; I remember watching it I remember switching on my TV and seeing the most horrific events I had ever seen, but the exact time? I would say give or take half an each way, around 11 o’clock in the morning. What was I doing half an hour before; I have not got a clue to be honest.

Why is that NB?

The point? People do not have photographic memories, not everybody can recall every single detail of every single event, this does not make them liars, it makes them human beings.

[Non Believer]

I am trying to go somewhere yes. Namely what can we establish as the most likely scenario, could you answer the question please?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am trying to go somewhere yes. Namely what can we establish as the most likely scenario, could you answer the question please?
Ah, so you're moving the goalposts again; copy that.

[Non Believer]

No stateofgrace, but I sure could tell you where I was, and who I was with that day.

[Non Believer]

So your not really interested in establishing the facts Wolfshade?

[DGM]

I think you think that we take to 9/11 comm., NIST, FEMA, ect reports at face value. All of us here have researched this subject at great length and have come to our own conclusions. We are all in-fact in a forum for skeptics.

[stateofgrace]

No stateofgrace, but I sure could tell you where I was, and who I was with that day.

So even you, admit that you are unsure of the exact times of what you did on that day? Why is that? Why can you not tell me the exact time you switched your TV on?

Would the people you were with verify your times if questioned? Would they back your times, or would their stories be a bit difference to what you say?

I guarantee if questioned the people I was with that day would give completely different accounts of what we did; our stories would not match perfectly.

Why do you think that is NB?

[Non Believer]

Arkan- do you have any principles regarding hiding from questions. You as philosopher (and the inherent necessity of uncovering truth) are a joke. You commitment to truth is only is ony surpaased by your lack of integrity. If your desire to be here is to just never admitt to anything you don't like, then you are world class in that endeavor. Would it kill ya to say they were together? No first you must assign a sinister plot to my intentions for such an outlandish question. Pathetic

[MaGZ]

Clarke's another person on 9/11 who has a really terrible timeline of events. He claims to have been talking to Richard Meyers on a video conference when Meyers was at Capitol Hill meeting with Senators.

-Gumboot

Maybe General Myers is lying and Clarke is telling the truth. Anyone who had anything to do with the shoot-down of Flight 93 would have reason to lie.

From Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke:
"Dick Myers had a status report.
‘We have three F-16s from Langley over the Pentagon. Andrews is launching fighters from the D.C. Air National Guard. We have fighters aloft from the Michigan Air National Guard, moving east toward a potential hostile over Pennsylvania.’ " page 12.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So your not really interested in establishing the facts Wolfshade?


I don't mean to speak for Arkan, but it's more likely that he's not interested in playing your game.

[Jonnyclueless]

Your right Mr Clueless we really can't be sure about anything that happened that day. Who cares who said what, we can dismiss it all due to thefalability of human memory.

Well..I was kinda hoping to use a vague point as a validation to simply make up anything I wanted....

I mean, if it's possible, how can it not be true?

[twinstead]

Arkan- do you have any principles regarding hiding from questions. You as philosopher (and the inherent necessity of uncovering truth) are a joke. You commitment to truth is only is ony surpaased by your lack of integrity. If your desire to be here is to just never admitt to anything you don't like, then you are world class in that endeavor. Would it kill ya to say they were together? No first you must assign a sinister plot to my intentions for such an outlandish question. Pathetic

What is pathetic is the game you are playing: the time-tested 'guy who can't investigate his way out of a paper bag, has no expertise in the relevant fields needed to understand the science behind 911, treats every single real or perceived anomaly in the official story as proving it is all totally wrong, and has an obvious ideological bias arrogantly proclaiming that WE don't have integrity' game.

Pathetic like your 'movement'.

There. Two can play the ad hom game.

[MaGZ]

I am trying to go somewhere yes. Namely what can we establish as the most likely scenario, could you answer the question please?

Could you please state what the Mineta testimony means to you?

I am really not up on what Mineta said or why there is a controversy. If someone would like to explain this to me and the lurkers that would be swell.

[SezMe]

...I have to say this is one of 9-11 truths strongest issues.

If that is so, then we can all retire from CT rebutting since this is a non-issue at best.

[Non Believer]

It really is amazing that some of you do not see what happened today as a violation of Philosophoical ethics. Perhaps this group does not really share a commitment to truth, truth is a conviction not an exploration. How many of you have real conviction to the principle that eyewitness testimony is inherently immaterial in the establishment of the circumstances of an historical event. If it is the case that such a group conviction is present, then you as a group of like minded folks, must surely be for reducing the validity of eyewitness testimony that exisists in our court systems. Surely you would not deny the standard that you place on eyewitness testimony in its role for apprehending truth is catastrophically different than that that exists in our courts. I have suggested before that the standards of evidence in 9-11 should be similar to those in our courts, and of course that is considered obsurd The main mistake I make in this type of thinking is that any of you have any concern for standards of any sort.

[Non Believer]

Ya - what a f-----g game I have played. I asked whether Mineta and Cheney were together. What a charade, a malicious attempt at the distortion of the facts, an outrage to rationality, and let's not forgot a brazen attempt to imply that the answer to the question might actually mean something.

[Anti-sophist]

It really is amazing that some of you do not see what happened today as a violation of Philosophoical ethics.

You know what's really amazing to me? Every single truther conversation tends to devolve into these abstract philosophical piles of gibberish about the validity of the Constitution against the basis of this fictitious "absolute truths" that we are all supposed to "know" to be self-evident. That's jolly god dammed amazing, as far as I am concerned.


Perhaps this group does not really share a commitment to truth, truth is a conviction not an exploration. Perhaps. The more likely scenario is that the thing you think are "self-evidence" aren't so "self-evident" and proclaiming them to be true because you say so isn't any way "truthseekers" should be looking for truth.


How many of you have real conviction to the principle that eyewitness testimony is inherently immaterial in the establishment of the circumstances of an historical event. No one has ever claimed eye witness testimony is immaterial. You have created yet another false dichotomy. There is plenty of room between gospel and irrelevance.


If it is the case that such a group conviction is present, then you as a group of like minded folks, must surely be for reducing the validity of eyewitness testimony that exisists in our court systems. Surely you would not deny the standard that you place on eyewitness testimony in its role for apprehending truth is catastrophically different than that that exists in our courts. I have suggested before that the standards of evidence in 9-11 should be similar to those in our courts, and of course that is considered obsurd The main mistake I make in this type of thinking is that any of you have any concern for standards of any sort.In any courtroom in the country, if an eyewitness' testimony is in direct contradiction with the evidence, the eyewitness' testimony -is- discounted. We are doing exactly as you ask.

Ya - what a f-----g game I have played. I asked whether Mineta and Cheney were together. What a charade, a malicious attempt at the distortion of the facts, an outrage to rationality, and let's not forgot a brazen attempt to imply that the answer to the question might actually mean something.

The conversation got derailed because you attempted to "force" people into strawman arguments using logical fallacies. If you adhere to an irrational and illogical argument, people aren't going to play along.

[Pardalis]

Could you please state what the Mineta testimony means to you?

I am really not up on what Mineta said or why there is a controversy. If someone would like to explain this to me and the lurkers that would be swell.

Forget about it, Mineta is not Jewish.

btw, since when neonazis say swell? :confused:

[SezMe]

Ya - what a f-----g game I have played. I asked whether Mineta and Cheney were together. What a charade, a malicious attempt at the distortion of the facts, an outrage to rationality, and let's not forgot a brazen attempt to imply that the answer to the question might actually mean something.
Lighten up. Go have a brewski at the local watering hole. Shoot a round of pool. Go swimming. Get laid. Anything in real life.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ya - what a f-----g game I have played. I asked whether Mineta and Cheney were together. What a charade, a malicious attempt at the distortion of the facts, an outrage to rationality, and let's not forgot a brazen attempt to imply that the answer to the question might actually mean something.
Drop the act; everyone here can read the history of this thread, so you're not fooling anyone. You were backed in to a corner, and rather than admit you had committed a false choice fallacy you tried to change the topic of discussion. When called on that you then launched into ad hominem attacks and p***-poor attempts at argumentum ad logicum fallacies.

[Non Believer]

No one has ever claimed eye witness testimony is immaterial. You have created yet another false dichotomy. There is plenty of room between gospel and irrelevance.

Good, glad to hear eyewitness testimony is integral to establishing historical fact.

In any courtroom in the country, if an eyewitness' testimony is in direct contradiction with the evidence, the eyewitness' testimony -is- discounted. We are doing exactly as you ask.

Please explain what Minetta's testimony contradicts.



The conversation got derailed because you attempted to "force" people into strawman arguments using logical fallacies. If you adhere to an irrational and illogical argument, people aren't going to play along.

YOU admited was not was not a false dichotomy. Does not that mean that one of the choices was correct. Please explain how that is wrong.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No one has ever claimed eye witness testimony is immaterial. You have created yet another false dichotomy. There is plenty of room between gospel and irrelevance.

Good, glad to hear eyewitness testimony is integral to establishing historical fact.


God damn... On ignore you go.

[Non Believer]

Your tactics are clear Arkan just reverse the reality of the situation . You were backed into the corner . You were the one that hid from questions. What question did I not answer? Here are some more for you, try answering some this time. Would it be important to know the goings on in the bunker that morning? What avenues do we have in trying to establish the truth? Do you have an opinion of what went on?

[bje]

Ya - what a f-----g game I have played. I asked whether Mineta and Cheney were together. What a charade, a malicious attempt at the distortion of the facts, an outrage to rationality, and let's not forgot a brazen attempt to imply that the answer to the question might actually mean something.

You still refuse to answer questions inconvenient to you. Your tactic was old 5 years ago. We see right through you, NB.

You're even a spectacle on the Loose Change Forum.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . What question did I not answer? . . .
"Why, if his account is incorrect, must he be lying? That is to say, why can his account not be wrong through human error?"

[gumboot]

Maybe General Myers is lying and Clarke is telling the truth. Anyone who had anything to do with the shoot-down of Flight 93 would have reason to lie.



And the Congressmen he was meeting with are liars too, right?

By the way, UA93 wasn't shot down.

-Gumboot

ETA. Oh by the way, the unarmed fighters from Selfridge ANGB were sent up to intercept Delta 1989, not UA93, and they didn't get airbourne in time to shoot down UA93. The Flight Officer at Selfridge only offered up use of their fighters at 0954EDT.

[Non Believer]

Responding to Arkans two questions.
1-No
2- Basically the same question I assume, and yes his memory can be faulty.
Going to answer any of mine yet.

[Cylinder]

O.k try this one. Either Norman Mineta was in the bunker with Cheney on 9-11 between 9.20 to 9.40, or he was not.


I don't know if you've gotten a satisfactory answer to #44 so I'll give it a shot. Sec. Mineta and VP Cheney were not together in the PEOC-proper (that is, excluding the tunnel leading to the shelter where the Sec. Mineta may have passed the VP) at any time between 0920 and 0940 EDT on September 11, 2001. Every event described by Sec. Mineta in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission occurred after the timeline established by his testimony allows.

Let's cast aside for a moment all testimony before the 9-11 Commission and their findings, since that seems to be what you are questioning. The members of the White House press pool that accompanied the President to Sarasota, FL - to a person - all refute Sec. Mineta's memory of events as he presented them to the Commission.

By the way (and with a hat tip to gumboot,) what's the maximum speed of a 767-200ER (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA060&rpt=fi) [spec sheet (http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20Boeing%20767-200.htm)]can maintain in level flight? It's an important question which can be used to examine the accuracy of Sec. Mineta's testimony independently of the Commission Report and using a measure that should be free from fear (to a rational person, at least) of political bias.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think it's high time we have a proper investigation of the visible spectrum of light. I have numerous accounts of people who will testify under oath that what most people describe as red, is actually green to them. Some will even testify to seeing brown!

These anomalies are very suspicious, and we should demand answers!

[Cylinder]

Another quick question for NB - at what time did Pres. Bush first address the nation on Sept. 11, 2001 and where did this speech take place?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Responding to Arkans two questions.
1-No
2- Basically the same question I assume, and yes his memory can be faulty.
Going to answer any of mine yet.
Thank you; I will take those answers as a tacit admission that you were, in fact, committing a false choice fallacy.

Regarding your question in post #71, I beleve Cylinder addressed that sufficiently and I have nothing further to add to Cylinder's post.

[bje]

Arkan- do you have any principles regarding hiding from questions. You as philosopher (and the inherent necessity of uncovering truth) are a joke. You commitment to truth is only is ony surpaased by your lack of integrity. If your desire to be here is to just never admitt to anything you don't like, then you are world class in that endeavor. Would it kill ya to say they were together? No first you must assign a sinister plot to my intentions for such an outlandish question. Pathetic


NB, you realize, of course, that you have yet to answer any of my questions or those of others here.

Explain yourself.

[Dave Rogers]

No stateofgrace, but I sure could tell you where I was, and who I was with that day.

So what did you have for lunch on 9/11, and at what time? Where did you eat it, and at what time did you get there? How long were you in the place you had lunch, who was you with and what did you talk about?

(I expect you to get the last one right, by the way.)

Dave

[Non Believer]

Dave R That would be the fallacy of false analogy. To compare what the average person was doing for lunch vs what Mineta saw, give me a break. Dje I find your questions less than profound, and in general wouldn't have time to answer them, however because answering questions has become a principled issue here (are you listening Arkan) I am willing. Though can you repeat them or reference the#.

O.K Arkan if you want to wave your victory flag that you caught me in the fallacy of false dichotmy, then let the waving begin. However what I stated in 35 was clarified in 44, and you in your cowardly ways still fail to respond to it. What I was eluding to in 35 is that either the basic facts of Minetas story are correct, or he is lying. We can only go so far with mistaken recollection. To say some of the things he saw were mistaken is one thing, but to claim he was not even there, would by necessity, take the story either to the level of lying or patholgical delusion.

I congratulate Cylinder for at least recognizing a need to state what he believes are the likely events of that morning. Hopefully the rest of you are somewhat aware that simply attacking one person's belief of a historical event without presenting one of your own, is (I will be nice) sub-standard

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
O.K Arkan if you want to wave your victory flag that you caught me in the fallacy of false dichotmy, then let the waving begin. However what I stated in 35 was clarified in 44, and you in your cowardly ways still fail to respond to it. What I was eluding to in 35 is that either the basic facts of Minetas story are correct, or he is lying. We can only go so far with mistaken recollection. To say some of the things he saw were mistaken is one thing, but to claim he was not even there, would by necessity, take the story either to the level of lying or patholgical delusion.
. . .
So, you concede the fallacy, and then turn around and restate it again?! You are going to have to present more than your personal incredulity to eliminate human error/faulty memory/etc as a viable third alternative.

Additionally, you are making hasty generalizations from the specific "was he there with Cheney" to the general "all true or all lies".

First, you need to drop the whole "lying" bit out of your analysis at this level as it is premature. Determine if his account is accurate or not. If it's not, then worry about if it is intentionally wrong, or unintentionally wrong.

You speak of "basic facts of Minetas (sic) story"; so list them. Enumerate specifically what basic facts of his testimony you feel are critical.

[pomeroo]

So you admitt mineta and cheney were togeher in the bunker that morning?



It's tiresome to post the same information every time a new fantasist dredges up this nonsense, but here we go again:

I contacted Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission. He explained that Mineta's testimony was omitted from the official report because his timeline had been shown to be inaccurate. One of the goals of the 9/11 Commission was to establish an accurate timeline, and the members felt that they had succeeded in doing so. Mineta was off by at least a half-hour.

If you don't accept this explanation--and as a card-carrying loon you cannot accept it--you must continue to pretend that Dick Cheney told a military aide, in earshot of several witnesses, that a hijacked airliner would be permitted to crash into a government building, and no reporters felt that there might be a story in this unprecedented crime.

Yes, yes, we get it: everybody is lying. Everybody is always lying.

[gumboot]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Dave R That would be the fallacy of false analogy. To compare what the average person was doing for lunch vs what Mineta saw, give me a break.


No one refutes that what Mineta witnessed took place. My only argument is that it did not occur when Mineta says it did.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

I know one of the main tactics is to wear down your oppenents by constantly making them restate their position. Further the strategy of obfuscation, equivacation and avoidance that you and others use leads one to the point of making a statement that calls for a dichohotmy. Either something is, or something is not This is what Aristotle had in mind with the law of the excluded middle. Those who constantly sought to put conditions and qualifiers on everything could run away from having to claim whether something was true or not. Exactly what you are doing.

The cowardice continues from you. The only answer we can get from you is that you agree with someone else. Why don't you take a stand on what you think happened with these two individuals in the hour or so in question that morning. I have answered your questions, when are you going to show you have either principles or balls and answer mine?

Gumboot- When did it take place then?

[pomeroo]

I know one of the main tactics is to wear down your oppenents by constantly making them restate their position. Further the strategy of obfuscation, equivacation and avoidance that you and others use leads one to the point of making a statement that calls for a dichohotmy. Either something is, or something is not This is what Aristotle had in mind with the law of the excluded middle. Those who constantly sought to put conditions and qualifiers on everything could run away from having to claim whether something was true or not. Exactly what you are doing.

The cowardice continues from you. The only answer we can get from you is that you agree with someone else. Why don't you take a stand on what you think happened with these two individuals in the hour or so in question that morning. I have answered your questions, when are you going to show you have either principles or balls and answer mine?

Gumboot- When did it take place then?



Predictably, you ignored my post, #108. Here is another one I'd recommend you steer clear of:

(From Mike at 911myths.com):
<< Why did the commission discount Mineta's testimony to such an extent that it wasn't even deemed worthy of a mention in the book? >>

The CTs would say because they were covering it up. Others might say because they thought it was incorrect. I've not done a piece on this yet because I want to present something more definitive than an opinion, but if you want some debating thoughts then maybe I can offer a little help. For example:

CT: blah blah... Mineta... Cheney... must have been a shootdown order... smoking gun.

You: But consider this CNN story:
After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.
"The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/)

Sounds very like the story Mineta told, except they're talking about Flight 93.

CT: Ha! But Mineta said this was happening at 9:26! Are you saying he can't tell the time?

You: Well, let's see what he said happened before this.

While Mr. Flaherty was briefing me, I watched as a large commercial jet flew into the second tower of the World Trade Center. At this point things began to happen quickly. I once more returned to the conference room and informed the minister of what had happened and ended the meeting. I received a telephone call from the CEO of United Airlines, Jack Goodman, telling me that one of United's flights was missing. I then called Don Carty, the CEO of American Airlines, and asked him to see if American Airlines could account for all of its aircraft. Mr. Flaherty reported to me that Jane Garvey had phoned to report that the CEO of Delta Airlines had called the FAA and said it could not yet account for all of its aircraft.

During this time, my office activated the Department of Transportation's crisis management center, which was located on the 8th floor at that time of the Department of Transportation headquarters, and provides for senior DOT personnel to conduct surge operations in a coordinated manner.
By this time, my office had contacted the White House. A brief moment later, the White House called my chief of staff and asked if I could come to the White House and operate from that location. I decided that, given the nature of the attack and the request, that I should be at the White House directly providing the president and the vice president with information.
When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger, the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey, both of whom were in the FAA operations center. And as the minutes passed, the developing picture from air traffic control towers and radar screens became increasingly more alarming. Some aircraft could not be contacted. While on a normal day that may be just a communications snafu, we were faced with trying to quickly sort out minor problems from significant threats. We did not know how many more attacks might be in progress.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)

So Mineta saw the second impact and presumably spent a moment or two taking that in.

Then he returned to the conference room, told his visitor what had happened and ended his meeting.

Then he received a call from United Airlines.

Then he made a call to American Airlines.

Then he received information from Mr Flaherty.

Then he heard he had to go to the White House.

Then he left his building, got into his car, drove to the White House, went through security.

Then he went to the situation room for a quick word with Richard Clarke.

Then he was escorted to the PEOC.

Then he established two phone links.

And all this between, what, 9:03 and 9:26? That's quick work.

CT: But still possible.

You: Yes, but take a closer look at the above story, especially this: "When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated". When was the White House evacuated?

CT: Uh...

You: Let me help you: it didn't happen until 9:45 am (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77)). Yet Mineta's timeline puts this around 9:20. How is that possible?

CT: Maybe he was mistaken.

You: So you believe him absolutely on the time, and you trust his word 100% on the identification of Flight 77 (even though it appears from the testimony that this was just an assumption made after the fact). But you ignore his word on the White House being evacuated when he arrived, which would put it later. And you ignore the similarities between his account and someone else's, also later, but where they're talking about Flight 93. How are you deciding what's true and what isn't? Just the bits that match up with what you want to believe?

....etc etc etc.

You get the picture. The "Pentagon being evacuated" comment alone is enough to raise a question over Mineta's timeline, and as soon as the CTs start making excuses for that, it looks like they're picking and choosing the bits of testimony they want.

[gumboot]

Gumboot- When did it take place then?



Precisely? I don't know. Some time shortly after 1000EDT. My guess is 1025EDT because then all it means is Mineta was off by exactly an hour, easy enough if he was looking at an analogue watch, for example.

There's a number of candidates for when the conversation occurred. What we know for sure is it CANNOT have occurred at 0925EDT.

The most likely candidate is the projected Tigerwall track of UA93, shortly after 10EDT, with the requests for confirmation that "the order still stands" coming from pilots of the 121st Fighter Squadron from Andrews AFB, who were scrambled by the Secret Service and given direct permission to engage any non compliant aircraft over Washington DC. The pilots have expressed that they didn't consider this "guns hot" decision to be wise:

"THEY WERE SNAPPING to targets everywhere," Thompson said. "A lot of light aircraft fly under the [controlled] airspace here, and they had no idea what was going on. What really scared us was Washington Approach broadcasting, 'Anyone flying within 25 mi. of the Washington Tacan is authorized to be shot down.' We kind of winced at that, because there are plenty of hard reasons to not shoot somebody down. We were really in an ID posture--and trying to really be careful."

Source (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747496/posts)

The same article indicates these pilots (who, remember, were in direct communication with the White House, unlike NORAD or the FAA) were anticipating UA93's arrival:

MINUTES LATER, Sasseville and Lucky were in the air, roughly 6 min. after they had reached their F-16s. "I was still turning things on after I got airborne. By that time, the [Norad alert] F-16s from Langley were overhead--but I didn't know they were there," Sasseville recalled. "We all realized we were looking for an airliner--a big airplane. That was [United] Flight 93; the track looked like it was headed toward D.C. at that time."

NOTE: The Langley F-16s arrived over Washington at about 1010EDT.

-Gumboot

[CurtC]

I know one of the main tactics is to wear down your oppenents by constantly making them restate their position. Further the strategy of obfuscation, equivacation and avoidance that you and others use leads one to the point of making a statement that calls for a dichohotmy.
I think you're saying that, because we didn't agree with your silly assertions from the beginning, we forced you to make a stupid statement (the false dichotomy)?

If I had the power to control what you say, I'd have you just shut up or start talking sense. No, saying the false dichotomy was your own fault.

[Non Believer]

Pomeroo and Gumboot- Surely you know all the contradictions in claiming that it was 93. You don't want all your precious cards to come crashing down by admitting part of the official story was wrong?

[gumboot]

Pomeroo and Gumboot- Surely you know all the contradictions in claiming that it was 93. You don't want all your precious cards to come crashing down by admitting part of the official story was wrong?



What contradictions? How does this interpretation admit part of the official story was wrong?

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

NB still can't grasp reality.

Try again guys, but maybe type shorter sentences?

[CptColumbo]

Just asking an obvious question: Has anyone asked Sec. Mineta about it recently? If this has already been brought up I apologize.

[Non Believer]

Well if you want us to be believe the absurd notion that they were issuing a shootdown order 8 minutes after the plane had crashed, you will clearly believe anything. But what would would they be refeing to that the plane was 40 miles out from? Let us not forget the military originally said that they were informed of 77 at 9.24. Lets use the razor on this one.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo and Gumboot- Surely you know all the contradictions in claiming that it was 93. You don't want all your precious cards to come crashing down by admitting part of the official story was wrong?



You are making a nonsensical claim. Flight 77 had crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 had already been forced down when Cheney had his brief exchange with the military aide. Try to grasp the fact that there were NO planes headed toward Washington, D.C. at the time. The people on hand were not "tracking" anything. They were looking at a flight path for Flight 93. They didn't know that the plane no longer existed.

It is long past time for the fantasy movement to abandon this hopelessly silly canard. Mineta's timeline was badly off. Mineta himself understands that and has never questioned why his testimony was judged unworthy of inclusion in the 9/11 Commission's official report. Give it up.

[gumboot]

Well if you want us to be believe the absurd notion that they were issuing a shootdown order 8 minutes after the plane had crashed, you will clearly believe anything.



Your evidence that they knew it had crashed? Do you know what "projected flight path" means? Admittedly "projected" has three syllables, so it might be a challenge for you.





But what would would they be refeing to that the plane was 40 miles out from?


Washington DC, I expect.






Let us not forget the military originally said that they were informed of 77 at 9.24. Lets use the razor on this one.


NORAD were informed that AA77 was missing at 0934EDT:

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

This was about the same time that Dulles TRACON picked up the unknown radar contact near the White House that would turn out to be AA77. NEADS were told about this contact less than two minutes later:

9:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for NEADS] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he’s moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don’t have a type aircraft, you don’t know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We’re over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.

-Gumboot

[Non Believer]

[quote=gumboot;2711957]Your evidence that they knew it had crashed? Do you know what "projected flight path" means? Admittedly "projected" has three syllables, so it might be a challenge for you.

Here is another example of begging the question. The truth is assumed that we were not tracking it, yet there is little evidence for that. How many statements would you like by some of the highest and military officials that they were either following it, or had shot it down.







Washington DC, I expect.

If your claim is that Mineta is watching Cheneys orders regarding 93 then they cannot be tracking anything. 93 has crashed 10 minutes ago.








NORAD were informed that AA77 was missing at 0934EDT:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

[DGM]

Why are you questioning this and Mineta isn't?

[Non Believer]

Why are you trying to distract the discussion ?

[DGM]

It is long past time for the fantasy movement to abandon this hopelessly silly canard. Mineta's timeline was badly off. Mineta himself understands that and has never questioned why his testimony was judged unworthy of inclusion in the 9/11 Commission's official report. Give it up.

Pomeroo also asked this question earlier. Why did you ignore it?

[boloboffin]

Non-believer: Have you heard of Tigerwall?

You know what really cracks me up about all of this Mineta discussion? Conspiracy theorists are missing something big, something huge, that is right there in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's likely the main reason that Bush and Cheney refused to speak to the 911CR unless they were together, under no oath and with no transcript being taken. It involves the POTUS, VPOTUS, and the ANSA telling or supporting one version of events, and everyone else in the PEOC (including the logs of the day) telling another version of events.

But in order for CTs to see this, they have to relinquish the Mineta testimony AND the idea that the order was a standdown. They have blinded themselves to a real they said/they said story, laid out in the 911CR itself, so that they can yell about what Norman Mineta said.

Oh, it makes me giggle.

[Non Believer]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.

[SpitfireIX]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.


How is "Mineta was confused about some times" not a viable alternative??

[HyJinX]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.

Mineta got a few things wrong.

That was easy.

Next!

ETA: Also what SpitfireIX said.

[DGM]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.

You seem confused. Our case has been made. If you have some PROOF that we're wrong. By all means bring it on.

[Non Believer]

Could you please mention your alternative theory that I am to disprove, or is that too much to ask?

[pomeroo]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.


As you are either unwilling to read or unable to comprehend post #111, I will summarize how rationalists surmount your imaginary hurdle. Please pay close attention--this is very deep stuff:

Mineta's timeline was wrong. It was thoroughly discredited by the other witnesses and the written logs. Mineta was off by at least a half-hour in his account. Other people reported hearing the same conversations Mineta heard, but they placed them roughly a half-hour later. Mineta's timeline disagrees with the one established by everyone else. He has events happening earlier than they could have. Everyone else is right, and Mineta is wrong.

Do you notice a pattern here?

If Cheney told a military aide that a hijacked plane was being allowed to crash into a government building, it would have been a big story. In fact, it would have been one of the biggest stories in American history, the revelation of a staggering and unprecedented crime. Inconveniently for your side, there was no story at all. The reason for this is quite simple to everyone but fantasists: the orders Cheney spoke of were, obviously, the shoot-down orders that had just been communicated to him by Bush.

There were no planes headed toward Washington, D.C.

The hurdle for the fantasist side is to bring the snake oil you peddle into accord with reality. It won't be easy.

[Non Believer]

The evidence is based on the concept that people would not have been evacuating the White House prior to the official evacuation for all goverment buildings in Washington at 9.45. It seems flimsy at best. but lets give it to you for the sake of argument. There is still no rational explanation of the events with Cheney. You need to present a story that at least is an approximation of what Mineta reported. Otherwise face up to the fact that you must call him a liar. The basic premise stands. Provide an alternate explanation of what Mineta saw. If he was mistaken show how he might have been mistaken. If your claim is that Mineta met with Cheney after 9.45, then explain your alternative theory from that point on please.

[Non Believer]

[quote=pomeroo;2712523
Mineta's timeline was wrong. It was thoroughly discredited by the other witnesses and the written logs.

Could you cite this please?

[CurtC]

You need to present a story that at least is an approximation of what Mineta reported. Otherwise face up to the fact that you must call him a liar.
Mineta's recollection of Cheney's conversation with the younger man, about the order still standing, is pretty much what happened. However, Mineta's recollection of when that conversation occurred is off. I think it actually happened right about 10:12.

That's a close approximation to Mineta's story, with one detail changed.

No one is calling him a liar - there's that false dichotomy again.

[CurtC]

NB, could you please learn how to properly use the board's quote function?

[Non Believer]

What plane are they tracking at 10.12?

[CurtC]

They were not tracking, they were estimating the position that UAL93 would be at. The controllers didn't learn that it had crashed until around 10:15.

[Non Believer]

Cite that Curt.

[beachnut]

This discussion is about you guys coming up with a viable alternative of Mineta's testimony, a necessary hurdle for your side. Please do so before moving on to other questions.
I have never found one person to tie Mineta to anything 9/11. I do not understand what people hiding from possible attack have to add to 9/11 junk.

Mineta has nothing to do with anything 9/11. Truthers bring up stuff about Mineta but have never said why this makes 9/11 an inside job. Not once has it made sense to jump on errors of memory or timeline facts that mean nothing about 9/11.

You have not furthered the understanding, and have not but threatened to ask another stupid question after you claim victory on whatever you have about Mineta.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
Next question.

[stateofgrace]

NB, why are you having such an hard time with this?

Nobody is accusing anybody of lying; nobody is accusing anybody of misleading the public.

What as been said to you repeatedly is that Mineta is mistaken; he simply failed to recall the events of the day accurately. I know you will not believe me. I know you will find it incredibly difficult to understand that eye witness accounts and testimony are not enough; they have to be backed up with solid evidence. If eye witness accounts and testimony alone was enough to convict anybody then I could right now get you convicted you of anything I wanted, simply by stating anything.My statement is worthless unless it is backed by evidence, and it is simply dismissed.

Simply Google it NB, “Fallibility of eye witnesses accounts", read the studies done by many people, please start to think for yourself.

Here are a few sites to look at if you cannot be bothered.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/248172/the_fallibility_of_eyewitness_accounts.html (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/248172/the_fallibility_of_eyewitness_accounts.html)

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/false_memories.html (http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/false_memories.html)

[WildCat]

If your claim is that Mineta is watching Cheneys orders regarding 93 then they cannot be tracking anything. 93 has crashed 10 minutes ago.
Thank you for affirming that you have absolutely no idea what a "projected path" is.

Hint: it has to be "projected" because it is no longer on radar... :rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

The evidence is based on the concept that people would not have been evacuating the White House prior to the official evacuation for all goverment buildings in Washington at 9.45. It seems flimsy at best. but lets give it to you for the sake of argument. There is still no rational explanation of the events with Cheney. You need to present a story that at least is an approximation of what Mineta reported. Otherwise face up to the fact that you must call him a liar. The basic premise stands. Provide an alternate explanation of what Mineta saw. If he was mistaken show how he might have been mistaken. If your claim is that Mineta met with Cheney after 9.45, then explain your alternative theory from that point on please.



You are babbling. There is no alternate theory other than the one fabricated by the fantasists. Mineta reports the same events and conversations as everyone else; he just places them at least a half-hour earlier than they actually took place.

You must wonder, in those peaceful moments when you're alone with your thoughts, why NOBODY on the 9/11 Commission, especially the partisan Democrats who would cut off a finger to burn George Bush, saw anything of significance in Norman Mineta's testimony. Think about it. Mineta wasn't lying. He was simply wrong.

[pomeroo]

What plane are they tracking at 10.12?


NONE.

There are no planes to track.

All planes have crashed.

BUT...

They don't know that!

[pomeroo]

[quote=pomeroo;2712523
Mineta's timeline was wrong. It was thoroughly discredited by the other witnesses and the written logs.

Could you cite this please?



What part of post #108 is giving you trouble?

[Non Believer]

108 is just a statement, there are no facts . That is the part that is giving me trouble. If he didn't believe Mineta's story didn't fit the time line what was the basis for that assumption? And you refer to other witnesses, and written logs. Who are the other witnessess ? And what written logs?

Are you saying there was a conversation about a plane nearing a target and an order standing or not?

[twinstead]

108 is just a statement, there are no facts . That is the part that is giving me trouble. If he didn't believe Mineta's story didn't fit the time line what was the basis for that assumption? And you refer to other witnesses, and written logs. Who are the other witnessess ? And what written logs?

Are you saying there was a conversation about a plane nearing a target and an order standing or not?

Please don't say that the only record you are aware of concerning the subject of this thread is Mineta's story.

[boloboffin]

108 is just a statement, there are no facts . That is the part that is giving me trouble. If he didn't believe Mineta's story didn't fit the time line what was the basis for that assumption? And you refer to other witnesses, and written logs. Who are the other witnessess ? And what written logs?

Are you saying there was a conversation about a plane nearing a target and an order standing or not?

Yes. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. From approximately 10:10 to 10:30, there was an exchange in the PEOC that is remarkably like what Mineta testified to.The report of this exchange starts on page 41-42 (pdf 58-9). The repetition of the shootdown confirmation is there. An unknown target about 10 miles away is there. This exchange (involving two targets, not one) is what Mineta has mistakenly placed earlier in his timeline.

[gumboot]

Here is another example of begging the question. The truth is assumed that we were not tracking it, yet there is little evidence for that. How many statements would you like by some of the highest and military officials that they were either following it, or had shot it down.



Please provide them. You're aware there is ample testimony that the US Secret Service were tracking a projected flightpath for UA93, based on FAA data, yes? You know what Tigerwall is?





If your claim is that Mineta is watching Cheneys orders regarding 93 then they cannot be tracking anything. 93 has crashed 10 minutes ago.


I'll ask again. How do you know they knew that?






http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/


Read very closely... I provided you a transcript of the ACTUAL TAPE RECORDING in which the military is notified that AA77 is missing. Here's the ACTUAL RECORDING (http://www.vanityfair.com/mp3/politics/093401.mp3) itself which you can download.

This is PRIMARY evidence. It utterly and completely trumps a news report that doesn't even identify its source of information.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

The evidence is based on the concept that people would not have been evacuating the White House prior to the official evacuation for all goverment buildings in Washington at 9.45.


The US Treasury was evacuated at 0935.

At 0945 the USSS learned via their Tigerwall system that an aircraft was headed for the White House, and ordered an evacuation. This aircraft was UA93.

At 0948 the US Capitol is evacuated.

-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Mineta's timeline was wrong. It was thoroughly discredited by the other witnesses and the written logs.

Could you cite this please?

I don't speak for pomeroo here, but I'll provide some cites for his or her claim that Sec. Mineta's timeline is contradicted by the available evidence.

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



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


President Bush departed for Barksdale, AFB:
This is deputed by countless media reports (CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/), and the USSS shift log of Sept. 11, 2001 ([i]Report p. 39)


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


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


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

[beachnut]

No I gave you a third option. That he could be slightly mistaken, and offered you all a chance to give an explanation of how that work. None of you did. So quit taking s--- out of context, so you can play your little false fallacy games. To claim a false dichotomy, you need another option that makes sense. Please present one
You better get some help from the guys at LCF, they seem to be even more challenged than you are at finding facts.

If only you could state what Mineta stuff means to 9/11. I have no idea why a bunch of old guys hiding from the terrorist have any meaning to 9/11. The truth movement are the biggest BS experts in the world. 9/11 truth makes up the dumbest ideas about the smallest points. Dylan is a leader in the field and has pushed a fraud on fellow idiots for some time. When will they finally read that Dylan's movies are based on fiction. The fraud of making money. No facts on this Mineta stuff, when will you give up?

[pomeroo]

108 is just a statement, there are no facts . That is the part that is giving me trouble. If he didn't believe Mineta's story didn't fit the time line what was the basis for that assumption? And you refer to other witnesses, and written logs. Who are the other witnessess ? And what written logs?




You seem unable to fit Mineta's testimony into the 9/11 Commission's overall purpose of establishing an accurate timeline. Mineta described the same events as did other witnesses. That is how it was established that various people were present in particular locations and that certain conversations actually took place. Everyone is pretty much in accord, except that Mineta estimates the times as roughly a half-hour earlier than everyone else. If you are rational, this means that Mineta's sense of time was off. He is seeing exactly what everyone else saw, but he thinks it happened earlier than it did.


[quote=Non Believer;2712995]
Are you saying there was a conversation about a plane nearing a target and an order standing or not?


We are, I assume, talking about the endlessly-quoted exchange between Cheney and a military aide--the one containing the question, "Do the orders still stand?"

Do you understand that Kojm was telling me why Mineta's testimony was rejected for inclusion in the official report? You do get the idea that many other fantasists somehow fail to grasp, that Mineta's testimony wasn't suppressed because it is readily available? An imbecile on 9/11blogger babbled about the censoring of Mineta until a loon with one foot in reality was forced to point out that since millions of people on the net, including everyone on that tiny blog, had read Mineta's testimony, it couldn't very well have been censored.

Is any of this starting to sink in?

[Non Believer]

So your story has finally arrived after how long on this thread ? I am going to check out the claims on the tracking of 93. If the secret service saw Mineta going in at 9.37 (and by the way when were those statements reported?) then he would have at least a houf hour totally unaccounted for in his recollection. This would still be strecthing reality to the point that you need to call him a liar, not simply mistaken. But this sounds good. If you guys are really going to claim that Cheney was pretending to be tracking down 93 from so protractor and lego set the secret service was using, then I am all about knowing about this. Thanks for additional ammo for the truther side. No wonder you didn't want to go here.

[WildCat]

Non Believer, at this point I can only assume your either trolling or have absolutely no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

[pomeroo]

So your story has finally arrived after how long on this thread ? I am going to check out the claims on the tracking of 93. If the secret service saw Mineta going in at 9.37 (and by the way when were those statements reported?) then he would have at least a houf hour totally unaccounted for in his recollection. This would still be strecthing reality to the point that you need to call him a liar, not simply mistaken. But this sounds good. If you guys are really going to claim that Cheney was pretending to be tracking down 93 from so protractor and lego set the secret service was using, then I am all about knowing about this. Thanks for additional ammo for the truther side. No wonder you didn't want to go here.




You can't possibly be as obtuse as you pretend to be. (Aw, hell, I should know better by now--of course you can.)

Mineta's timeline is WRONG BY AT LEAST A HALF-HOUR.

What part of that sentence can't you comprehend?

CHENEY WAS NOT "TRACKING" ANYTHING--ALL PLANES HAD CRASHED.

They were looking at a flight path for Flight 93.

"Ammo" for the fantasist side? WHAT AMMO???

THERE IS < NOTHING > HERE.

THEY WERE CONFUSED. THEY WERE NOT ON TOP OF THE SITUATION.

You are fabricating sheer nonsense that is unsupported by any evidence.

And that sums up your whole evil, wrong-headed movement.

[MarkyX]

Hey non believer, has anyone within the movement interviewed Mineta? Is Mineta protesting against the 9/11 commission? Is he part of the movement? Why does Mineta say in the testimony that it was a shoot down order?

[pomeroo]

So your story has finally arrived after how long on this thread ? I am going to check out the claims on the tracking of 93. If the secret service saw Mineta going in at 9.37 (and by the way when were those statements reported?) then he would have at least a houf hour totally unaccounted for in his recollection. This would still be strecthing reality to the point that you need to call him a liar, not simply mistaken. But this sounds good. If you guys are really going to claim that Cheney was pretending to be tracking down 93 from so protractor and lego set the secret service was using, then I am all about knowing about this. Thanks for additional ammo for the truther side. No wonder you didn't want to go here.



Will you even attempt to read post #111? Mineta does not leave a half-hour "unaccounted for": that is how much his estimate is off by.

[firecoins]

Hey non believer, has anyone within the movement interviewed Mineta? Is Mineta protesting against the 9/11 commission? Is he part of the movement? Why does Mineta say in the testimony that it was a shoot down order?
Of course not. He was in on it but didn't get the memo on the timeline. It so obvious he was part of an "Inside Job".

[CurtC]

Will you even attempt to read post #111? Mineta does not leave a half-hour "unaccounted for": that is how much his estimate is off by.
I think he's referring to the time he left his previous location. He had to drive to the PEOC, walk in, and he also reports that he had a conversation on the way. Then how long was he there before he heard the Cheney/aide conversation? Sounds like that half-hour is pretty well accounted for.

[twinstead]

NB seems to have some kind of filter that doesn't allow him to see or understand anything that even hints at being contrary to his position.

Nothing worse than an irrational ideologue, no matter what side of the political aisle he sits at.

[Cylinder]

I am going to check out the claims on the tracking of 93. If the secret service saw Mineta going in at 9.37 (and by the way when were those statements reported?) then he would have at least a houf hour totally unaccounted for in his recollection.

Reported to whom?

Most of the background data was compiled by the respective agency and provided to the 9-11 Commission when it was given its mandate.

The supporting data for Vice President's entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) include:

- The testimony of Secret Service Agent Rocco Delmonico who was interviewed by the United States Secret Service on October 1, 2001.

- Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001 dated October 3, 2001 and briefed to the Commission on January 29, 2004.

- PEOC Shelter Log dated September 11, 2001.

- PEOC Watch Log, dated September 11, 2001.

...as well as the testimony of every other person that was evacuated to the PEOC with or shortly after the Vice President.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Thought people might be interested in this: Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 (http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html).

Get this...

At the 4:20 mark Norman Mineta says, "I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there," referring to Cheney.

Even better, the title is a complete lie... Norman Mineta does not, at any point, confirm a stand down order. They don't even bring it up.

Par for the course from Alex Jones and his cronies, of course.

(Of course, Digg member are having a virtual orgy over this: http://digg.com/world_news/Norman_Mineta_Confirms_That_Dick_Cheney_Ordered_St and_Down_on_9_11 )

[gumboot]

Mineta inadvertently lets slip a key chunk of information there...

According to him, they did not learn that UA93 had crashed until 1030 - a full 27 minutes after it went into the ground. That pretty much settles it for me that the conversation in question was about a projected flight path for UA93 - which they assumed was still in the air.

According to the NTSB's estimates, UA93 would have well and truly hit its target by 1030.

What is, of course, more telling is that he recalls Cheney's wife was also at the PEOC when he arrived, which to my mind only reinforces the notion that he has his arrival time wrong. If the PEOC received world about AA77 crashing as late as they did UA93, Mineta could have arrived any time before 1004.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

Gumboot's got it, as usual. Mineta is absolutely certain about Lynne Cheney being in the PEOC when he got there. Logs show her not even at the White House until around 9:50.

Thanks, Mr. Truther! You busted another 9/11 myth! :D

[Thunder]

Have the 9-11 Deniers EVER admitted that something has been debunked?

Id love to see an example.

[natureboy]

Have the 9-11 Deniers EVER admitted that something has been debunked?

Id love to see an example.

OK,....I'll admit it.

You OCT geeks over here do a (semi decent) job of smearing uncle Fetzer and the space beam/no-planers!!!!.................saves us troophers a little work!


(bad job on this thread though) ....(still some turds in the litterbox!)

[JimBenArm]

OK,....I'll admit it.

You OCT geeks over here do a (semi decent) job of smearing uncle Fetzer and the space beam/no-planers!!!!.................saves us troophers a little work!


(bad job on this thread though) ....(still some turds in the litterbox!)
Evidently...

[DarkMagician]

OK,....I'll admit it.

You OCT geeks over here do a (semi decent) job of smearing uncle Fetzer and the space beam/no-planers!!!!.................saves us troophers a little work!


(bad job on this thread though) ....(still some turds in the litterbox!)

Yeah, and one's called... god, I can't even type it. So many troothers, defending themselves with the Wii Defense.

[natureboy]

Evidently...

You smell it too huh?

Evidently.... Shooter Kitty missed the litterbox again!

[Travis]

Care to enlighten us "OCT geeks" as to what was done badly in this thread? Was it pointing out the evidence that Mineta was mistaken in his recollection, or that it was all beside the point anyways?

[PhantomWolf]

I'll just belatedly add in that the Triage centre on the Pentagon lawn was radioed to tell them that a second plane was coming in. Over the radio they were getting the same sort of countdown as Cheney was being briefed, it's 20 miles out, 10 miles out.... This was very obviously after Flight 77 hit.

[natureboy]

Care to enlighten us "OCT geeks" as to what was done badly in this thread? Was it pointing out the evidence that Mineta was mistaken in his recollection, or that it was all beside the point anyways?

Before this "Mineta video" came out ...there were some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

After this "Mineta video" (and this thread) I still see some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

(lets put em' in the same room and ask some questions 9/11 twoof style) someone has alzheimers and it aint Mineta....

.........after all, wasnt it Shooter who recently (forgot) that the office of vice president was actually part of the executive branch of the federal govt?

......what about his oath to the constitution?.....obviously forgot that too!

Mineta = sworn testimony!

Cheney= two different stories and no testimony!

Sorry, I still have some questions = (badly handled thread)

[PhantomWolf]

Actually it's a falasy to assume that one is right and one is wrong. Both could be wrong, and this is more likely. Cheney's initial timeline conflicited with the SS one where as Mineta's conflicts with virtually everyone elses'. By having Mineta arrive 30 minutes after he said he did, suddenly it all fits in with the rest of the testimony and the logs. Why is it so hard to accept that he misremembered the time by 30 minutes? Oh, and BTW, sworn testimony is not a gaurentee that it is accurate, it is only as accurate as the person's memory of the event. If they are mis-remembering something, it will still be wrong, just as unsworn testimony can be totally accurate.

[gumboot]

Mineta did not testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

Mineta's recent clarification of his statements only confirms our suspicions. The only part of the interview where he clearly stating the facts was that Cheney was already at the PEOC when he arrived. I am not aware that Cheney or the 9/11 Commission ever claimed Cheney arrived at the PEOC after Mineta.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Before this "Mineta video" came out ...there were some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

After this "Mineta video" (and this thread) I still see some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

(lets put em' in the same room and ask some questions 9/11 twoof style) someone has alzheimers and it aint Mineta....

.........after all, wasnt it Shooter who recently (forgot) that the office of vice president was actually part of the executive branch of the federal govt?

......what about his oath to the constitution?.....obviously forgot that too!

Mineta = sworn testimony!

Cheney= two different stories and no testimony!

Sorry, I still have some questions = (badly handled thread)
These two guys have not a thing to do with 9/11. It does not matter what they say, they are not even players in 9/11 by the time 93 hits the ground in PA. Not a thing they did before 93 hit the ground would mean jack. Not once has anyone made any sense on this issue. There is not a thing they did hiding from the terrorist that means a thing. The attack was over before they even figure out what was going on. When truthers start in on Mineta, I know they have reached the end of their ability to make up lies and false information and are now in some mentally impaired state of mush.

Not one credible conclusion from the Mineta junk will ever be.


I remind you that this sub-forum is under a stricter interpretation of the rules; please remain civil. I have removed the offending sentence.

[Cylinder]

There is not a thing they did hiding from the terrorist that means a thing.

Hiding? In a CP during an air attack? Where do you think Cheney's duty station was during the attacks?

[beachnut]

Hiding? In a CP during an air attack? Where do you think Cheney's duty station was during the attacks?
I never had much use for CPs. Have you?

I had three para of rant, but I will save the world and go to sleep.

Not a thing in the CP made a difference. Or did it?

[Travis]

So, again, that these times are inaccurate is pointless because it doesn't mean anything. Nothing happened one way or another in regards to it. Thus harping about it is, well, kinda meaningless.

[pomeroo]

Before this "Mineta video" came out ...there were some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

After this "Mineta video" (and this thread) I still see some conflicting statements by Cheney and Mineta.

(lets put em' in the same room and ask some questions 9/11 twoof style) someone has alzheimers and it aint Mineta....

.........after all, wasnt it Shooter who recently (forgot) that the office of vice president was actually part of the executive branch of the federal govt?

......what about his oath to the constitution?.....obviously forgot that too!

Mineta = sworn testimony!

Cheney= two different stories and no testimony!

Sorry, I still have some questions = (badly handled thread)



You write with such assurance. I mean, how you do know that Mineta doesn't have Alheimer's? It would certainly explain a great deal if he did. His timeline was completely discredited at the 9/11 Commission hearings. So he repeats to a twoofer the same mistake he made when gave his testimony.

Listen closely: He wasn't there at 9:25.

[boloboffin]

Nah, we don't have to posit Alzheimer's for Mineta. He's gotten it into his head that the mile callout incident was Flight 77, and he's constructed his entire timeline on that mistake. As far as I can tell, he's still good for other details (like walking in and seeing both Cheneys already in the PEOC).

But he certainly was not in the PEOC at 9:25.

[Cylinder]

I never had much use for CPs. Have you?

Yes, actually.

Not a thing in the CP made a difference. Or did it?

From an practical, operational sense and as the events unfolded that day - no - but that wasn't the claim was it? Where was Cheney's duty station?

[PhantomWolf]

But he certainly was not in the PEOC at 9:25.

He wasn't even at the White House until 9:45am. His own testimony states that people were "running out" of the White House and while there was a slow evacuation previous to 9:45am, they weren't running out until that time when the call come through to evacuate because Flight 77 was coming. We also know that Cheney was taken to an underground "bunker" when the Flight 77 warning come through so could not have been in the PEOC prior to 9:25am, and since we know that Mrs Cheney didn't get there until 9:50am, Mineta's claim they were both there again places his arrival at the White House at 9:45am, exactly when the main evacuation occured, the evacuation he claims to have seen as he arrived. QED

[boloboffin]

He wasn't even at the White House until 9:45am. His own testimony states that people were "running out" of the White House and while there was a slow evacuation previous to 9:45am, they weren't running out until that time when the call come through to evacuate because Flight 77 was coming. We also know that Cheney was taken to an underground "bunker" when the Flight 77 warning come through so could not have been in the PEOC prior to 9:25am, and since we know that Mrs Cheney didn't get there until 9:50am, Mineta's claim they were both there again places his arrival at the White House at 9:45am, exactly when the main evacuation occured, the evacuation he claims to have seen as he arrived. QED

Yep!

[Travis]

I'm still at a loss in trying to figure out how any of this helps the Truther cause. Are discrepancies good just for the sake of being a discrepancy? Kind of like if you hate the New York Times so you relish and celebrate any spelling/grammar mistakes that make their way into print, even it does nothing to comprehension of the article, just out of pure schadenfreude?

[LashL]

I'm still at a loss in trying to figure out how any of this helps the Truther cause. Are discrepancies good just for the sake of being a discrepancy? Kind of like if you hate the New York Times so you relish and celebrate any spelling/grammar mistakes that make their way into print, even it does nothing to comprehension of the article, just out of pure schadenfreude?

In a word, yes.

In a few more words, they don't even realize that it doesn't help their cause, as they have entirely misconstrued what was said, but that, too, is not surprising.

[Travis]

In a word, yes.

In a few more words, they don't even realize that it doesn't help their cause, as they have entirely misconstrued what was said, but that, too, is not surprising.

Truthers misconstruing something? I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept such a radical notion!

[LashL]

Truthers misconstruing something? I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept such a radical notion!

Yes, it's tough to fathom, isn't it?


















:dl:

[beachnut]

Yes, actually.

From an practical, operational sense and as the events unfolded that day - no - but that wasn't the claim was it? Where was Cheney's duty station?
The Mineta stuff has no bearing on 9/11. The Vice was hiding to preserve the Vice. I understand it is our plan to protect our civilian elected officials, so hiding in a CP, it is a good idea. So? The Truther junk about Mineta and the Vice is total hog wash. I wish I had some place to hide during SCUD attacks to preserve my butt, instead I was the ramp rat in my Crown Vic, the ramp CP (hey, was the squadron commander, the operations officer and the command post controller all in one; my Crown Vic was the CP for a time, and I had the BBC on the radio as the Patriots took off across the ramp; damn I was a kind of a command post weenie!). The command post may be good for something later, but then it was all over. But when a truther mentions Mineta, they have nothing. It is like hearing "pull it", or Beam Weapon. I have never figured out what the whole Mineta junk was about, and the more I hear, the less it impacts anything that happen on 9/11.

[CurtC]

The regulars at the LC Forum are trying to spin the conversation Mineta had with the Seattle Troothers, says that he admits that the conversation was about a stand-down order. Read through this and see if you can figure out how they come up with that idea, because it's so plain that he was talking about a shoot-down order:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11451&view=findpost&p=13974642

[pomeroo]

I'm still at a loss in trying to figure out how any of this helps the Truther cause. Are discrepancies good just for the sake of being a discrepancy? Kind of like if you hate the New York Times so you relish and celebrate any spelling/grammar mistakes that make their way into print, even it does nothing to comprehension of the article, just out of pure schadenfreude?



Travis, I can help. The reason you can't understand why any of this supports the deranged claims of the fantasists is that you are sane and intelligent. If you were neither, you would realize that Mineta's timeline establishes that Cheney, in earshot of several people present, confirmed the existence of orders to allow a hijacked airliner to crash into a government building. You would find it somewhat tricky to explain why no news service anywhere in the world smells a story here. But, that wouldn't inconvenience you.

[Travis]

Travis, I can help. The reason you can't understand why any of this supports the deranged claims of the fantasists is that you are sane and intelligent. If you were neither, you would realize that Mineta's timeline establishes that Cheney, in earshot of several people present, confirmed the existence of orders to allow a hijacked airliner to crash into a government building. You would find it somewhat tricky to explain why no news service anywhere in the world smells a story here. But, that wouldn't inconvenience you.

Drat! This sanity and intelligence stuff just gets in the way of all the good times the Truthers are having. They say that 'ignorance is bliss' but to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists it's also the path to the "truth" as well.

[Revolutionary91]

Mineta gives the same testimony in 2002 in the BBC documentary "clear the skies". The BBC asserts unequivocally that he is refering to flight 77.

[Par]

Mineta gives the same testimony in 2002 in the BBC documentary "clear the skies". The BBC asserts unequivocally that he is refering to flight 77.



Et qui sequitur?

[PhantomWolf]

Mineta gives the same testimony in 2002 in the BBC documentary "clear the skies". The BBC asserts unequivocally that he is refering to flight 77.

It doesn't matter how unequivical he is that he thinks that Cheney was discussing Flight 77, the fact is that his timing is provably out and he doesn't know what the plane was, he is just assuming it was Flight 77 because the event occured prior to them learning that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon.

Mineta states that Mrs Cheney was in there when he arrived, we know for a fact she didn't get there until 9:50am, 13 minutes AFTER Flight 77 had already crashed. How can Mineta have gotten there before the crash, but after Mrs Cheney? That is impossible. He either has to be wrong about her being there, or that it was Flight 77 being discusses, and remember, Cheney nor the aide ever said the Flight number of the plane they were discussing, Mineta ASSUMED it was Flight 77.

Add to this that the Evactuation he reported on arriving at the White House was discribed as occuring at 9:45am (8 minutes after Flight 77 had crashed, 5 minutes before Mrs Cheney arrrived) and that the Secert Service reports tell us that when Flight 77 was spotted and the White House imformed, Cheney was literally carried down into basement hallway that was reinforced against attack, and held there till permission was given to move. If he was taken there when Flight 77 was spotted, how could he and Mineta be elsewhere at the same time? They couldn't.

The result is simple. Mineta's timing is wrong. He recalled that he learned about the crash of 77 after the discussion, and so puts the learning about 77 near the crash, then works backwards. However we also know that the Whitehouse didn't learn about the crash at the Pentagon being 77 until well after the crash, so again Mineta's timing doesn't work. Initially they were told that a Helicopter had crashed into the Helipad at the Pentagon, and it wasn't until 15-20 mins later that they were informed that it was actually Flight 77.

Since we now know that Mineta arrived at about 9:50-9:55am, not at 9:20-9:25am as he thinks, we know that the aircraft that was being discussed was inbound at around 10:10am. Only one flight coresponds to this time period and direction; Flight 93. Since the tracking was done via Tigerwall, and not an actual radar tracking system, they had no idea that Flight 93 had already crashed, so Cheney was actually giving orders to shoot down a plane that unknown to them had already crashed.

[Jonnyclueless]

Mineta gives the same testimony in 2002 in the BBC documentary "clear the skies". The BBC asserts unequivocally that he is refering to flight 77.

Could you quote just the part where he explains how he knew for certain it was flight 77?

[gumboot]

Mineta gives the same testimony in 2002 in the BBC documentary "clear the skies". The BBC asserts unequivocally that he is refering to flight 77.


You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV.

-Gumboot