Norman Minetta

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For the sake of argument lets assume Mineta was mistaken. Does this exclude anyone else from lying about the events of that day?


See above.

Since we are assuming Mineta is mistaken, what is there to suggest anyone else is lying about the events that day?

First off, Bush is only guilty of crimes against humanity through association. At no point do I consider him to be a genius playing the part of a moron.

If you have evidence to be able to say this definitively (which you have), then present it.

Secondly, is it not common knowledge that NORAD either lied about or covered up information presented to the 9/11 commission?

As covered in the Vanity Fair article? Yes. Beyond the Vanity Fair article? No.

See here we are with the time thing again. How can everyone here forget the time line of events?

"Everyone" does not have to, only Mineta.

First off, we are all in agreement the conversation about Flight 77 being "50 miles out, 25miles out, etc" occurred?

No, as it is assumption based upon Mineta's testimony.

Secondly, what time did Flight 77 hit the pentagon?

9:38 AM, Sept 11, 2001.

So how is it possible that the conversation took place after Flight 77 hit the pentagon?

You are assuming that the conversation was about Flight 77, and therefore could not have occurred after it hit.

So now how is it possible that Mineta is more then 30 minutes off about when he arrived at the PEOC? Forget about the Shoot-down/Stand-down order. Look at the sequence of events.

Sorry about not posting links, 3 more posts, and I refuse to just post BS to get to 15.

Why is it so unreasonable that he is/was 30 minutes off?

 

[CurtC]

First off, we are all in agreement the conversation about Flight 77 being "50 miles out, 25miles out, etc" occurred?

No, we are most definitely not in agreement about whether the conversation was about Flight 77. You and stundie are the only ones who say that. Minetta was the only one who connected that conversation to AA77, and he admitted that his assumption that it was, was quite possibly unjustified.

All the witnesses agree with each other about what the major events were. All the witnesses agree with each other, and with the hard evidence such as contemporaneous notes and public appearances, with one exception, and that is Norman Minetta's estimate of the time when that conversation happened. It's just simpler to figure that he was mistaken about that one point.

 

[Big Les]

Eckolaker, assuming for one moment that any of what you say is accurate, and not simply down to innocent discrepancies (as appears to be the case), how is any of it evidence of US government complicity?

 

[Firestone]

Actually, I am quite surprised that there was such a difference (30 minutes) between Mineta's statement and the others.

Although I don't see any evidence of US-government involvement in the attacks, I would expect the administration to closely coordinate the statements of its cabinet members to the commission. However, even that hasn't happened!

Doesn't look like a Big Cover Up then.

 

[gumboot]

Mineta's assumption that the distance readings were for AA77 were based on two pieces of information:

1) He thought the conversation occured at 0925-26
2) UA93 did not reach within these ranges of Washington DC

It is worth noting that at the time NO ONE knew what the flight numbers were for the aircraft that were being tracked. And I do mean no one. Not the FAA, not ATC, not NORAD, not the executive. No one.

Mineta concluded the conversation was about AA77 BASED ON WHEN HE THINKS THE CONVERSATION OCCURED.

However Mineta's account does not match other verifiable accounts of what happened such as:
1) The time of the evacuation of the White House
2) The time the shoot down order was given
3) The time Bush boarded Air Force One
4) The time the VP entered the bunker
5) AA77's flight path
6) NORAD's scramble orders

Of course, Mineta didn't know others gave different accounts of these events, but he did know he wasn't sure and he specifically told the Commission they should talk to other people to find out this sort of information. Obviously this is exactly what the commission did. In addition, Mineta did not have available the following facts:

1) The USSS tracked a projected path for UA93 long after it had crashed
2) At 0854 AA77 disappeared from Secondary Radar on Indianapolis Centre's scopes. It was not identified again until it was spotted by Boston Centre at 0935, six miles from the White House (although it wasn't known at the time that it was AA77). In addition it is physically impossible for a Boeing 757 to perform the speed performance required to match Mineta's timeline. This means it is impossible for the conversation Mineta describes to have been regarding AA77.
3) The Shoot Down order had not been given at 0925.
4) Other witnesses describe a nearly identical conversation to what Mineta described, however it occured after 10am, and was regarding the projected UA93.

The ONLY logical explanation for all of this information is that Mineta got his times wrong. Simple as that.

-Gumboot

ETA.

In addition, all of this information, in exhaustive detail, has been covered in the previous Mineta thread. I myself compiled an extensive post explaining how the conversation could not possibly have been regarding AA77. I also compiled a detailed timeline based on Mineta's testimony and other interviews from him, and identified the number of places where his timeline is verifiable incorrect. If Stundie and others continue to claim there is no evidence for our claims that Mineta was incorrect in his time estimates, they are being grossly and willfully ignorant, therefore I must assume they have no interest in the truth whatsoever.

 

[Eckolaker]

Beyond the Vanity Fair article, I'm pretty sure that Tom Kean's book also talked about the NORAD/FAA lies/distortions/omission.

Secondly, I tend to take first words at face value. People tend to change their story as time goes on. That I will admit is where we begin to see in-accuracies in a persons recollection. Ex: You could tell the same story to two different people, and that story may differ slightly. However, I think people consciously and sub-consciously distort a story depending on who they are telling it too.

Again, we go back to assumptions and speculations. This group tends to assume politicians and men in power don't lie. I tend to assume people tell the truth the first time you ask them to recall an event. I think people put under pressure may have a reasoning for retracting statements or making corrections about them. Its funny how most of the corrections or retractions made by Mineta came after he was confronted on the issue by Ray McGovern.

Regardless, If correct in his first account, Mineta's testimony only points to the fact that Cheney is a pathological liar.

If I may digress, I have several bullet points I would like to see some input on. If you guys could direct me to previous threads on these topics that would be great. As you can see I am very new here.

1. Sibel Edmonds
2. Rumsfeld's announcement of $2.3Trillion in missing pentagon funds on 9/10/2001.
3. Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad
4. Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss
5. Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6th 2001
6. 2001 G8 World Summit Security Measures.

 

[gumboot]

Beyond the Vanity Fair article, I'm pretty sure that Tom Kean's book also talked about the NORAD/FAA lies/distortions/omission.

Do you actually know what the difference was in the NORAD testimony and what actually happened?

CTers often cite it, but I've yet to meet one who knew what the "deception" actually was.

Its funny how most of the corrections or retractions made by Mineta came after he was confronted on the issue by Ray McGovern.

First words count for more right? So these "first words" by Mineta hold some weight?

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

...

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

...

Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

...

Subsequently I found that out.

...

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

...

Frankly, I don't recall.

...

Commissioner Roemer, I would assume that a decision of that nature would have had to be made at a much higher level than the people who were in the Situation Room.

...

Again, that would be speculation on my part as to what was happening on that day, so I just wouldn't be able to really answer that -- on that inquiry.

...

I'm not sure that the aircraft that were scrambled to come up to the DC area from Norfolk were under orders to shoot the airplane down. As I said, I just --

...

It was an inference, without a doubt. And that's why, in thinking about the United plane that went down in Pennsylvania, the question that arose in my mind --

...

Regardless, If correct in his first account, Mineta's testimony only points to the fact that Cheney is a pathological liar.

No, it indicates many, many people are liars and fraudsters at all levels of government in many agencies. It also points to the faking of a great deal of primary evidence, including media reports and radar read-outs. In addition it points to some fairly physics-defying antics by AA77.

Balance all of that against ONE man getting the time wrong.

If I may digress, I have several bullet points I would like to see some input on.

If you want to discuss other topics start new threads. This thread is about Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission. We don't appreciate games of wack-a-mole.

-Gumboot

 

[maccy]

1. Sibel Edmonds
2. Rumsfeld's announcement of $2.3Trillion in missing pentagon funds on 9/10/2001.
3. Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad
4. Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss
5. Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6th 2001
6. 2001 G8 World Summit Security Measures.

Use the the search function for these (it's in the menu bar at the top of the page). If you don't find anything, start a new thread (as Gumboot has alreday suggested). Digressing too much in a thread just confuses things.

There's a thread about possible financial reasons for a conspiracy here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

Here is a post from that thread about the missing trillions:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2130139#post2130139

 

[Gravy]

You keep going on about reading classes, yet fail to produce any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE?? Of course certainy is subjective and not a guarantee of accuracy, but what has this got to do with Mineta testimony? and if testimony is subjective and not a guarantee of accuracy, then how do we establish that anyone elses testimony is accurate? You continue too clutch at straws here Gravy!



I have READ all the relevant sections, so instead of making schoolboy comments, why don't you emlight me. You keep telling me I need reading lessons, so educate me with your wisdon, because you have failed to do so in plenty of other posts.

I'll await proof!

If you're still asking for specifics, you obviously have not read the relevant sections, which we directed you to. Goodbye, troll.

 

[maccy]

Again, we go back to assumptions and speculations. This group tends to assume politicians and men in power don't lie.

I know this is part of a bigger argument (which I shall leave to others to reply to) but I just wanted to pick up on this assumption that you've made about the people who post here.

We are not a group, we don't all necessarily agree or have the same attitude towards politicians. Nor do we necessarily feel obliged to defend the actions of the US government which, incidentally, is not the government of a large number of posters here.

Personally I am sure that people in power do lie. I know that Nixon lied over Watergate, I'm pretty sure that Reagan lied over Iran/Contra and I know that many officials did. I am sure that the US regime lied about its real reasons for invading Iraq and it backfired on them when they didn't find any WMDs (I'm sure they thought they'd find something). I think that post-war US foreign policy has largely been a bad thing and the actions of the CIA in many countries is nothing short of reprehensible. I was opposed to, and protested against, both gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan. If I was an American citizen there is no way I would have voted for either of the Bushes or Reagan.

Nevertheless I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job for two simple reasons: the hypothesis is implausible and there is no compelling evidence for it. My attitude to the US government doesn't affect my assessment of the inside job hypothesis and the evidence - you shouldn't let your attitude affect your assessment.

 

[Gravy]

Ahh I'm starting to understand you guys now. Norman Mineta was completely wrong and unable to recall correctly his where-abouts, movements, and time of day on 9/11, but Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the gang all recalled the events of that day perfectly, and thus are excusable from any sort of further inquiry?

Got it!

Welcome to remedial reading class, Eckolaker. You have some catching up to do.

1) Read the linked and quoted material from the 9/11 Commission report that we've posted here and in the original Mineta thread.

2) Tell us how it fits with Mineta's testimony.

Clear enough? Have at it.

 

[maccy]

Welcome to remedial reading class, Eckolaker. You have some catching up to do.

1) Read the linked and quoted material from the 9/11 Commission report that we've posted here and in the original Mineta thread.

2) Tell us how it fits with Mineta's testimony.

Clear enough? Have at it.

For reference, here is the original Mineta thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60315

 

[stundie]

So, you want links to the evidence? Why can't you search it out yourself, when we've told you where to look? I've quoted the relevant passages of the Commission's report, which indicates which footnotes to check for their sources. Now, here's the text of those footnotes, since you're still too lazy or ignorant to look for them yourself. Can I trust you to google the sources cited in these, or will you be too lazy or ignorant to do that, too? Don't answer, I think I already know.

I think you are the lazy one because your post has a conflicting time line regarding Dick Cheney.

I asked

Again along with Cylinder, Horatius, Moshuma....Why don't you show me links to prove that Minetas testimony is wrong or his time line is wrong?

The only reason you think Mineta is wrong is because of the POEC log?? What you have posted is one of the many 9/11 Commission distortions....

At 9:52; Mrs. Cheney arrived White House and joined him (Dick) in tunnel

Then it states....

White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes (9:55; he is on phone with President);White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2 (“And when I got there, he was on the phone with the President . . . But from that first place where I ran into him, I moved with him into what they call the PEOC”);

So Lynne arrives at 9:52am and when she gets there, Dicks on the phone to Bush, but from that 1st place where she ran into him, she moved with him into the POEC?

The PEOC Shelter Log says Dick arrived at 10:00am. But Lynnes has already seen him there before 10:00am??

So this means that....

A) Lynne Cheney is also a liar!

or...

B) Dick Cheney was at the POEC before 10:00?

You can't have it both ways! (I forgot you guys can because I posted 2 contradictory statements from PM & NIST which you guys claim is the same thing! lol)

I'm more inclinded to believe B because there are other accounts claiming that Cheney doesn’t leave until sometime after 9:30 a.m.

In this account, Secret Service agents burst into Cheney’s White House office. They carry him under his arms—nearly lifting him off the ground—and propel him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002; BBC, 9/1/2002; Newsweek, 12/31/2001; New York Times, 10/16/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]

Then you get these accounts too....

(9:10 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Rice and Cheney Apparently Go to White House Bunker. According to counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke and others, Vice President Cheney goes from his White House office to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a bunker in the East Wing of the White House, at about this time.

National Security Adviser Rice, after initiating a video conference with Richard Clarke in the West Wing, goes to the PEOC to be with Cheney. There is no video link between response centers in the East and West Wings, but a secure telephone line is used instead. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 3-4; ABC News, 9/14/2002; New York Times, 9/16/2001; Daily Telegraph, 12/16/2001]

However, according to counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, Rice leaves the meeting for Vice President Cheney’s office. Clarke meets her there a few minutes later and only then does she go down to the basement bunker. [Richard A Clarke. Against All Enemies: Inside Americas War On Terror - 2004, pp. 1-2]

Then of course you have Mineta claims that Cheney was already at PEOC when he arrived at about 9:20.

So if Dick was there before 10:00.....Then how does this make Minetas time or statement wrong?? Because no else statement to the commission contradicts Minetas time line or statemen does it??

Again...I'll await a reply from you debunkers!

 

[stundie]

Amendment to the above statement.

POEC Logs at 9:52am Lynne Cheney arriving!!

 

[CurtC]

So Lynne arrives at 9:52am and when she gets there, Dicks on the phone to Bush, but from that 1st place where she ran into him, she moved with him into the POEC?

The PEOC Shelter Log says Dick arrived at 10:00am. But Lynnes has already seen him there before 10:00am??

So this means that....
A) Lynne Cheney is also a liar!
or...
B) Dick Cheney was at the POEC before 10:00?

What's the problem with Lynne meeting Dick at 9:52, then a very few minutes later (remember, Dick was on the phone with W), they head into the POEC? That seems consistent with all accounts. How do you figure that someone is lying?

 

[twinstead]

That's the problem. It appears that some people are telling us that if we choose to think Mineta is wrong, that means we are listening to Bush and Cheny exclusively and taking their word for it.

BS. The preponderance of testimony, from hundreds of people, support the official story. Mineta's testimony is an expected anomaly. It's not odd that we are discounting his testimony, it's odd that some of you are latching on to it like a bulldog despite reams of conflicting evidence.

 

[uk_dave]

What's the problem with Lynne meeting Dick at 9:52, then a very few minutes later (remember, Dick was on the phone with W), they head into the POEC? That seems consistent with all accounts. How do you figure that someone is lying?

Probably in just the same that he can figure $600 million for all port authority buildings actually means $600 million for the two WTC towers, and how he can assume that since in his world aviation fuel and flammable debris cannot burn for an extended period of time, then thermite can.

Go figure

 

[stundie]

Since we are assuming Mineta is mistaken, what is there to suggest anyone else is lying about the events that day?

Yep...Thats right ASSUMING!! No evidence to suggest Minetas times are wrong or mistaken!!

Why is it so unreasonable that he is/was 30 minutes off?

Why is it reasonable to suggest he is 30 mins out??


Not one single testimony contradicts Mineta regardless of what you Skeptics keep telling me about...unless you can prove otherwise, which I doubt!

 

[stundie]

Probably in just the same that he can figure $600 million for all port authority buildings actually means $600 million for the two WTC towers, and how he can assume that since in his world aviation fuel and flammable debris cannot burn for an extended period of time, then thermite can.

Go figure

Here we go with the misquoting, I said that the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle for the abatement program for the clean up at WTC.

Yes the Port Authority has over 1000 buildings, but not all of there building have Asbestos....Regardless of what Gravy tells you. lol

"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna39.htm

Anyway UK Dave, Keep to the thread!!

 

[stundie]

That's the problem. It appears that some people are telling us that if we choose to think Mineta is wrong, that means we are listening to Bush and Cheny exclusively and taking their word for it.

BS. The preponderance of testimony, from hundreds of people, support the official story. Mineta's testimony is an expected anomaly. It's not odd that we are discounting his testimony, it's odd that some of you are latching on to it like a bulldog despite reams of conflicting evidence.

Where is this so called reams of conflicting evidence.

I read an earlier thread with Mutton-Head and you fail to point to any of the instances other than the POEC Log!!

I've noticed a similar pattern on that thread. You guys seem to gang up in your numbers on people who disbelieve the offical story saying it's wrong, but then fail to produce ANY evidence.