Norman Minetta

[firecoins]

How Cheney knew it was flight 93:

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

The VP's shootdown order

At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.220
The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.221

The numbers at the end of the quotes refer to 9/11 commission notes for chapter 1

 

[jhunter1163]

If you read the next sentence in my post, you'll see that I said they were projected distances. And since I also said in that post that the plane was on a bearing for Washington, I'll let you figure out where it was supposedly 50/30/10 miles from. In fact, that countdown must have occurred at a later time, because we know that 93 hit the ground at Shanksville at 10:03. Shanksville is a good deal further from DC than 50 miles.

ETA: Sorry. Already capably answered by Firecoins.

 

[stundie]

its extremely relevant! You argued a change in protocol which never occured and we have called you on it.
The Vice President called the President on Air Force 1 and asked for shoot down orders.

I agree the President gave the orders after the attacks were over, I have never doubted that.

Please read through the thread

The argument is wheter Mineta lying or commiting perjury, which he isn't, as I have proven in earlier posts!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I687jvb2uf8 <- Plenty of reports about the change in protocol. Find the links yourself because I'm getting tired of posting the same thing OVER & OVER again!!

So far I've been told by you skeptic in this thread:-

Gravy saying that Cheney arrived at PEOC at 9:52 when it was Lynnse Cheney who arrived at that time.
Now Jhunter saying that Cheney didn't know about AA77 til 9:40, even though it had crashed at 9:37am!

So if Mineta is not lying then what where the orders given by the VP when the lad when he asked "Do the orders still stand?"

The skeptics in here (See earlier posts) said that was a shoot down order! he gave the lad! I think it was the total opposite. (See earlier threads to see how I came to thatr conclusion.)

Now you can't have it both ways can you?? Either the VP has authority or he doesn't.

So I'll ask again then,

What were the order given by VP to the lad asking if the orders still stand?

If you are saying the VP doesn't have authority to shoot down the planes, then this will now raise a whole heap of other questions like what orders did he give to the lad, could whatever it was approaching 50-30 miles been shot down and lives saved.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[stundie]

If you read the next sentence in my post, you'll see that I said they were projected distances. And since I also said in that post that the plane was on a bearing for Washington, I'll let you figure out where it was supposedly 50/30/10 miles from. In fact, that countdown must have occurred at a later time, because we know that 93 hit the ground at Shanksville at 10:03. Shanksville is a good deal further from DC than 50 miles.

ETA: Sorry. Already capably answered by Firecoins.

You have just stated that Cheney didn't know about AA77 til 9:40 after the plane had crashed?? How do you know this?? Evidence??

Minetas testimony would refute this. Again see earlier posts for Mineta statement.

Again judging by the events of the day, Minetas testimony looks rock solid.

 

[firecoins]

I agree the President gave the orders after the attacks were over, I have never doubted that.

I am glad you agree with the facts.

The argument is wheter Mineta lying or commiting perjury, which he isn't, as I have proven in earlier posts!

I am glad you clarified that. No one before this thread thought he lied. We also did not think his testimony proved an inside job.

Now Jhunter saying that Cheney didn't know about AA77 til 9:40, even though it had crashed at 9:37am!

No J Hunter did not say that. The 9/11 report says that and I quoted that. J Hunter was referring to my post on the 9/11 report which says Cheney did not know flight 77 crashed at 9:37. In fact knew that because it crashed at 9:36.

So if Mineta is not lying then what where the orders given by the VP when the lad when he asked "Do the orders still stand?"

That has been covered. Flight 93 was ordered to be shot down. Minetta admits he heard half a conversation while everyone else heard the whole thing. Even Minetta assumed it was a shoot down order. No one assumed otherwise until CTers got a hold of it.

Now you can't have it both ways can you?? Either the VP has authority or he doesn't.

So I'll ask again then,

What were the order given by VP to the lad asking if the orders still stand?

It has been proven that VP Cheney asked POTUS for shoot down order authority and got it. Cheney simply relayed the order. There is no doubt it was a shoot down order.

If you are saying the VP doesn't have authority to shoot down the planes, then this will now raise a whole heap of other questions like what orders did he give to the lad, could whatever it was approaching 50-30 miles been shot down and lives saved.

Once again. I have proven where the VP got the orders from and where he got the 50-30 miles from. Your argument doesn't hold water.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[firecoins]

You have just stated that Cheney didn't know about AA77 til 9:40 after the plane had crashed?? How do you know this?? Evidence??

covered this in the last 5 posts. The 9/11 report states it based on testimony of several people.

Minetas testimony would refute this. Again see earlier posts for Mineta statement.

lol

Again judging by the events of the day, Minetas testimony looks rock solid.

Mineta was the only reliable person testifying.

 

[jhunter1163]

Immediately thereafter it was reported that a plane had hit the Pentagon. We found no evidence that video teleconference participants had any prior information that American 77 had been hijacked and was heading directly toward Washington. Indeed, it is not clear to us that the video teleconference was fully under way before 9:37, when the Pentagon was struck.189

Bolding mine.

From Firecoins' earlier post. The 189 is the footnote number from Chapter 1 of the 9/11 commission report.

I still believe that Mineta was mistaken about the time by about half an hour. It makes more sense when you look at the bigger picture.

 

[WildCat]

So is the offical story.

I don't think you know what a false dichotomy is...

 

[Alt+F4]

I will say again?? What relevance is this too the arguement? What difference does it make?? and I've posted links with Video evidence on Youtube!

1. You were the one who brought up the "Bush/Cheney protocol" to begin with. Why did you do that if you are now saying it doesn't matter?

2. If you are using YouTube videos as evidence, then you have no evidence.

 

[Cylinder]

PROVE IT!

At what time do you believe President Bush left Sarasota, FL in AF1 on 9-11?

 

[gumboot]

I've looked and I can't find a single explanation, so please enlight me.

Read the other thread.

Not one person has still yet explain how it is IMPOSSIBLE, how could it have been flight UA93.

Because UA93 never got within that range of Washington DC. Obviously.

As I stated again in a previous post, it could not have been later than he had said.

It can, and it was.

I never said where this information was coming from, I don't suppose we will ever no, but obviously somebody was tracking something unless you think Mineta was lying under oath?

Norman Mineta clearly states he is making assumptions. He specifically tells the commission to ask other people about these specific matters. Indeed he repeatedly states he is in no position to answer the commission's questions, and yet they continue to ask him anyway.

We KNOW where the information was coming from, because we have been told. The USSS were tracking UA93's projected position based on last reports from the FAA.

So I would be glad to hear why you think Mineta would lie about such a thing and why he hasn't been charged with perjury for lying?

I don't believe he lied. I believe he was mistaken in his times and in some of his conclusions.

Funny thing is, I'm sure because of the strange events, Mineta would know roughly where he was that day and at what time?

Possibly. Possibly not. All of the accounts he describes occured AFTER the times he gives. It is not a single isolated part of his testimony that does not fit the timeline. His ENTIRE testimony is out by the same approximate time.

As I explained in my previous post, it COULD NOT have been flight UA 93.

No one knew WHAT aircraft it was at the time. You are making a very foolish mistake. You are assuming they knew the flight numbers. You are assuming they spoke about the flight numbers.

Norman Mineta states clearly in his testimony that he did know know what flight it was. He later concluded it was AA77. Incorrectly.

UA93 is tracked closer and closer to what? If you are relating this "50 miles out" please explain how you come to this conclusion as I've read the previous posts and yet no one as explained it.

Are you playing dense for fun? Closer to Washington DC.

Cheney Nervous?? Oh Really...Your conslusion is based on what again? Here is something that will totally blow your arguement out of the water!

"9/11 Commission Report:

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

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

Does that sound like a nervous Dick Cheney?? Unless Libby is also a liar...Actually I'll retract that!!

You do realise the quote you have made above is about the same conversation Mineta overheard, correct? You can't possibly be that stupid can you?

I could laugh at you here. Talk about misinformation. The flight he was refering too was AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

Mineta did not know about UA93 until it had crashed in Penslyania. Here is another insert from his testimony about "Oh My God, Did We Shoot It Down" reaction that you refer too. Read the bottom for proof.

See above.

So in conclusion.

1) Mineta could not have been out by 40-60 minute. He claimed he came in about 9:20, (You are saying he arrived at PEOC about 10:00-10:20am ) so if he was out timewise as you say and have supposedly proved then he would not have:-

A) Heard about the plane crashing into the Pentagon...It would have already have happened. Pentagon Crashes at 9:37:46am

He didn't hear about AA77. He *thinks* he did because he *thinks* the conversation was about AA77. He probably concluded this because
a) UA93 never got that close to Washington DC
b) He had his arrival time incorrect.
Mineta also states when he arrived the White House was being evacuated. This didn't occur until AFTER AA77 hit The Pentagon. Clearly he is mistaken about his arrival time.

B) Would not have heard any conversation about 50 miles out etc...because the attacks were over unless he is lying of course.

*yawn*

1) The USSS were tracking a PROJECTED path and did not know UA93 had crashed
2) There were dozens and dozens of other false alarm hijacking all day - there were 11 in the first 90 minutes.

2) Breaches of Science?? What BREACHES?? You have not shown me a single breach of science yet? Infact I have proven in my previous posts how Minetas testimony ACTUALLY adds up. Minetas time line is only wrong by a few mintues.

Have you actually read the other thread on this topic?

I have demonstrated how the conversation cannot possibly have been AA77 and be accurate with Mineta's timeline.

At 0937 AA77 hit The Pentagon.

According to Mineta:
At 0926 it was 10 miles from Washington DC
At 0925 it was 50 miles from Washington DC

That means, from 0925 - 0926 AA77 averaged 2400 MPH. That's as fast, or faster than the SR-71 Blackbird - the fastest aircraft in the world, and faster than the MiG-25 Foxbat - the second fastest.

Then, from 0926 until 0937 AA77 covered 8 miles (The Pentagon is about 2 miles from the White House) in 11 minutes, averaging less than 45 MPH.

It is physically impossible for any airbourne object on the planet - manmade or animal - to travel at both of these speeds.

Again, all of this is VERY CLEARLY presented in the previous thread on this exact topic. We have discussed it to exhaustion. EVERY SINGLE ONE of your points has been addressed. PLEASE READ THE PREVIOUS THREAD.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Well considering at this point both WTC had been attacked with Passenger planes and he is TRAINED to do this job in drills...like the one happening on that day. I'm sure he would be nervous, but if the VP had given the order, he would be absolved from ANY RESPONSIBILITY!

Absolutely not true.

"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate defense against a warcrime. This is Laws of Armed Conflict 101.

and its not like this guys is personally shooting the plane down himself. I'm not a military man, but I thought you were supposed to obey order given by superiors without question.

Laws of Armed Conflict 101.

All soldiers are required only to obey lawful orders. Obeying an unlawful order is a violation of the International Laws of Armed Conflict, and may result in prosecution as a war criminal.

Unlawful orders include the intentional killing of civilians or destruction of civilian property. Such as airliners, for example.

The pilots were perfectly correct in requesting clarification of the orders (you do know that the aide was merely carrying the message to the VP from the pilots, right?)

If you want to avoid demonstrating your ignorance again, do some research before making such statements as above.

-Gumboot

 

[maccy]

Again, all of this is VERY CLEARLY presented in the previous thread on this exact topic. We have discussed it to exhaustion. EVERY SINGLE ONE of your points has been addressed. PLEASE READ THE PREVIOUS THREAD.

And don't say "I've read the other thread and it doesn't explain..." and then just repeat youself. If you have a problem with the explanations given in the otyher thread either quote the relevant posts in this thread - or (better still) bounce the other thread.

 

[uk_dave]

Wrong.

You're in danger of looking very silly very soon.

Stundie, I did warn you!

 

[Horatius]

Well considering at this point both WTC had been attacked with Passenger planes and he is TRAINED to do this job in drills...like the one happening on that day. I'm sure he would be nervous, but if the VP had given the order, he would be absolved from ANY RESPONSIBILITY!

Yeah, because we all know that being absolved of legal responsibility also eliminates any feelings of guilt or remorse, right?

And this guy would never have to watch TV coverage of the families of those people attending funerals. And of course, no one in the families would ever second guess his actions, either, right?

And it's not like five years down the road, some wackjob CTist might accuse him of being part of a plot to kill someone on that plane who might have had some connection to something somewhere, right? Because that never happens either.

So no soldier in any war has ever developed emotional problems, right?

Absolved, my a$$.

 

[Gravy]

This is about as good as a debate as I get with you Gravy.

You keep telling me it's been debunked or discussed, but you are suppose to be into evidence, yet you seem to lack any.

So far you have told me.

WTC was fireproofed to 34th Floor! When it's the 64th!

False. I said the north tower had asbestos fire protection up to the 38th floor. You believe different? Produce your evidence. I produced mine. Remedial reading class continues.

Dick Cheney arrives at POEC at 9:52, when it was Lynne who arrived at this time.

False. Prior to that Cheney was in the hallway, where he made calls and watched television. He moved to the PEOC after Lynne Cheney's arrival in the hallway. Believe different? Produce your evidence. Mine is in the Commission report. Read the footnotes. Remedial reading class continues.

Norman Minetas a liar - You have not proved this and in an earlier post, I show how it is possible that he must be telling the truth.

False. You're the only one who's suggested that Mineta lied. I explicitly said that there's no reason to believe he lied. Remedial reading class continues.

Molten Metal was debris etc. Yet you cannot show me ANY science that woudl suggest that is possible, even though NIST, PM and anyother debunkers have failed to do this.

If you claim there weren't fires in the piles and that temperatures, even at the surface, weren't hot enough to melt metal, show me your evidence. I suggest that you first read the accounts of the people who were there.

As I've already explained, we have little patience for arguments from incredulity.

I do not know where you are getting you info from,

That's odd, because I've repeatedly told you. Remedial reading class continues.

 

[Gravy]

The argument is wheter Mineta lying or commiting perjury, which he isn't, as I have proven in earlier posts!

You keep saying that. So when you misremember specifics about an event that happened long ago, you're automatically guilty of lying? I'd hate to live in your world. You can't even remember what's been written here from a few hours ago. What kind of crazy liar does that make you?

 

[maccy]

You keep saying that. So when you misremember specifics about an event that happened long ago, you're automatically guilty of lying? I'd hate to live in your world. You can't even remember what's been written here from a few hours ago. What kind of crazy liar does that make you?

If stundie misrepresents this to say that you're accusing him of lying then I call sock puppet.

 

[Bell]

You keep saying that. So when you misremember specifics about an event that happened long ago, you're automatically guilty of lying? I'd hate to live in your world. You can't even remember what's been written here from a few hours ago. What kind of crazy liar does that make you?

I've got people calling the police to inquire about a traffic accident they were involved. When I ask them when it took place, they answer -for example- last wednesday, around 4 pm. After some searching it turns out to have happened last tuesday, 3 pm.

Funny thing, the mind.

 

[Bell]

double post...