• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

MikeW

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
1,910
I've thought about covering Mineta on 911myths before, but always decided against. It such an important story that I felt I had to cover it definitively, come up with something solid and new to prove my point. I've put in a couple of FOIA applications that might do just that, but nothing has come back yet.

To be honest, it's also seemed like an intimidating amount of work. People use Richard Clarke's timeline to support Mineta, bring in the "when did Cheney arrive at the PEOC?" line as well, and there's just a lot to do.

A couple of weeks ago, though, I wondered: if I were to do something on these issues now, without my FOIA documents, what would it look like? So I started work, and was surprised by just how many issues I discovered.

Let's take just one example: Richard Clarke's account of talking to FAA administrator Jane Garvey. He says Mineta hasn't reached the White House at this point, so Mineta defenders say it happened around 9:10. This is what Garvey is supposed to have said:

Jane Garvey, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, was in the chair. "The two aircraft that went in were American flight 11, a 767, and United 175, also a 767. Hijacked."

"Jane, where's Norm?" I asked. They were frantically looking for Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, and, like me, a rare holdover from the Clinton administration. At first, FAA could not find him. "Well, Jane, can you order aircraft down? We're going to have to clear the airspace around Washington and New York."

"We may have to do a lot more than that, Dick. I already put a hold on all takeoffs and landings in New York and Washington, but we have reports of eleven aircraft off course of out of communications, maybe hijacked."

Richard Clarke, Against all Enemies

One obvious problem here is that Clarke has Garvey pointing to eleven "maybe hijacked" planes at 9:10. Does anyone else say that? I don't think so.

But another is the claim that the FAA were "frantically looking" for Mineta, they couldn't find him. That's especially interesting because Mineta says, in two separate accounts, that she was in his conference room for the second WTC strike at 9:03.

Mineta also says he heard of a phone call from her before he left his office, reporting that the Delta Airlines CEO had called to say he couldn't account for all of his aircraft. (An issue in itself. Why would he be saying that prior to 9:15?)

So what we're being asked to believe is that Garvey was with Mineta after 9:03 (if only for a few seconds), then had time to return to the FAA (admittedly just down the street), get briefed on the situation, call Mineta's office to pass on a Delta warning, then get to the point where they're "frantically looking" for him... all in 7 minutes? Am I the only person who finds that a little, uh, unrealistic?

Anyway, there's plenty more across three pages, if you're interested.

The Richard Clarke teleconference
Dick Cheney at the PEOC
Norman Mineta

They really need more cleaning up and wikifying, adding links etc, but that'll have to wait: real life calls. In the meantime, though, feel free to let me know if you spot any mistakes, or other details I can add.
 
... That's especially interesting because Mineta says, in two separate accounts, that she was in his conference room for the second WTC strike at 9:03.

That is especially interesting!

I kid, I kid...
 
If you look into it Dick Clarke's timeline is so full of holes it's not funny. He contradicts just about every timeline I can think of.

I do find the comment from the FAA that they had both flights confirmed rather interesting.

American Airlines did not confirm that AA11 hit WTC1 until 0930.

At 0916 the FAA's ATCSCC (The Herndon National Command Centre) did not know with certainty the identity of either aircraft that had hit the WTC towers.

At 0925 the FAA's ATCSCC ordered a nation wide Ground Stop, and at the same time first notified the FAA HQ in Washington DC of the third suspected hijack - AA77.

As late as 0934 the American Airlines Special Operations Centre thought that the two aircraft that had hit the WTC towers were AA11 and AA77.

At 0942 (in response to the impact of AA77) the FAA's ATCSCC declared ATC Zero for the entire national air traffic system.

Another thing to consider was that supposedly Washington ARTCC and New York ARTCC had grounded all departures at 0910, but there's no reason for Washington ARTCC to have done anything at this point. New York ARTCC declared ATC Zero at 0905 and Boston ARTCC stopped all departures and declared ATC Zero at about the same time.

I can't find any evidence that aircraft in Washington were ground stopped prior to the national ground stop at 0925.
 
Excellent work, Mike! You are the most thorough researcher out there.
 
...
People use Richard Clarke's timeline to support Mineta, bring in the "when did Cheney arrive at the PEOC?" line as well, and there's just a lot to do.
...

Ghosts of the past...

New photos - many, of not all, probably taken by Cheney's White House photographer David Bohrer, have just been released to the public:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/sets/72157656213196901

Discussion about at 911Blogger.

Truther "Shoestring" found a couple of interesting pictures:

Cheney in his White House office at 9:31, watching Bush speaking in Sarasota

Cheney in his office at 9:33, watching ABC news

Still watching TV at 9:36
(A comparison with video from archive - made by our dear MirageMemories)

So now we know that Cheney couldn't have arrived at the WH bunker (the PEOC - or rather the tunnel outside of the PEOC initially) until after AA77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 (perhaps they took off at 9:37, or even still 9:36, but it should take a couple of minutes to go down there).


It is known that Cheney talked to Bush, who had just left the Emma Booker Elementary School after his short speech there at 9:30, while in the tunnel before entering the PEOC proper. The 9/11 Commission put the latter at 9:58. According to all accounts, even those that are otherwise incorrect about time stamps, Mineta arrived at the PEOC after Cheney and Cheney's wife (logged in at 9:52) - most likely after 10:00. UA93 crashed at 10:03.
 
^^^ thanks Oystein. :thumbsup:
This only backs what has been known as fact for 8+ years. I really don't see how this effects the arguments that the "truthers" present.

They ignore history and live in their own fantasy world.

I'm really done caring about this unless they actually present any evidence to support their fantasy. We all know this will never happen.

This sub-forums traffic is indicative of the attention the world pays to "truthers". They are no more. Hell, they can't even generate traffic that would put them over the statistical "lunatic fringe".
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much Mineta's suit cost. That blazer was near a thousand I bet.

Oh yea about the timeline nothing could be more meaningless.
 
...
Oh yea about the timeline nothing could be more meaningless.

In the sane world of reality, you are right.
This is the 9/11 CT forum though. To truthers, the following two twoofs are paramount:
1. Cheney is evil incarnate; he can't possibly be or do right.
2. David Ray Griffin is God - he can't possibly be or do wrong.

From these premises follows: Since Griffin said that Cheney knew about AA77 and UA93 ahead of time and ordered a stand-down order to ensure murder procedes as desired by the eevil overlords, and since Mineta's timeline allows for this conjecture, Mineta must be right, except for the part where Mineta says that Cheney had issued a shoot-down order. Never mind that Mineta's timeline is physically impossible. If facts contracict the conclusions, you know that you have to change the facts.

As a result, truthers in 2015 are very much surprised that the 9/11 Commission was right after all in 2004, DRG was wrong in 2005, and we had debunked him no later than 2006.

You probably can guess already how they square the new evidence against Mineta with their reality: The photos could be faked! :D
 
In the sane world of reality, you are right.
This is the 9/11 CT forum though. To truthers, the following two twoofs are paramount:
1. Cheney is evil incarnate; he can't possibly be or do right.
2. David Ray Griffin is God - he can't possibly be or do wrong.

There is the ironic direct analogy to two "memes" which are ever recurring from the debunker side on this forum. viz:

1) All truthers are evil liars; they cannot possibly be or do right.
2) Zdenek Bazant is God - he can't possibly be wrong.

Obviously the Cheney and David Ray Griffin ones get unqualified support.

..BUT when someone like me dares to raise the other two - about once every six months since 2010... :o

(
 
There is the ironic direct analogy to two "memes" which are ever recurring from the debunker side on this forum. viz:

1) All truthers are evil liars; they cannot possibly be or do right.
2) Zdenek Bazant is God - he can't possibly be wrong.

Obviously the Cheney and David Ray Griffin ones get unqualified support.

..BUT when someone like me dares to raise the other two - about once every six months other post since 2010... :o

(

FTFY ;)
 
So true - and well spotted. I'm not afraid of referring to things which should be "bleedingly obvious" or committing lèse majesté against NIST, Bazant or any other authority when they are wrong. That possibly is "every other post since 2010". ;) That was when I got my thinking clear on "Limits of Applicability of Bazant" - I never gave Bazant much thought before then.

My focus when drafting the previous post was on those less frequent episodes where I post solidly reasoned explanations which result in evasive mental gymnastics and personal attacks directed at me.

But I "watered down" the comments. Remind me in six months and I'll post another explanation of what is wrong with those arguments about "Missing Jolt", "Tilt Causes/Prevents Axial Contact" and "Bazant's later papers are correct explanations for Twin Towers progression collapse". Who knows - one day I may get a serious reasoned response. :boggled:


:runaway
 
Last edited:
This only backs what has been known as fact for 8+ years. I really don't see how this effects the arguments that the "truthers" present.

They ignore history and live in their own fantasy world.

You would think this would settle the argument once and for all, but they are already speculating that the photos were staged at a later date.

The only question I have is, are those illuminati cookies on the table in the PEOC? They look scrumptious.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10797380#post10797380

[excerpt]
Ozeco41
....My focus when drafting the previous post was on those less frequent episodes where I post solidly reasoned explanations
which result in evasive mental gymnastics and personal attacks directed at me.
Ozeco41 [quote]Who knows - one day I may get a serious reasoned response.[/quote][/excerpt

Fonebone>
Flapdoodle -
You issued a challenge
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10696916#post10696916
and I accepted your challenge.
You replied with a tsunami of "evasive mental gymnastics" and "personal attacks directed at me."

Serious reasoned response-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10673704#post10673704

But I "watered down" the comments.
Dessicate your comments and we'll meet over here-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10673704#post10673704






 
Last edited:
The only question I have is, are those illuminati cookies on the table in the PEOC? They look scrumptious.

No Boone-Those are the taxpayer's cookies-paid for by the sweat of working American citizens and their families .
Technically the top echelon of leaders in a fairly elected
democracy are civilian employees the citizens and are renumerated by
the citizen taxpayers for their services from the public till.
Therefore the cookies on that table , if paid for by the taxpayers , should be the same cookies served to our soldiers and school children
procured by the same procedure ie competitive bidding.

The illuminati merely allows their minions, by statutes, the right to purchase cookies from outside sources of their choice
on the taxpayers dime and considered a perk
Those cookies could very well be cookies from this source-

http://bakemeawish.com/cookie-delivery.php?category2=12&promo=corppage
One Dozen Assorted Gourmet Cookies
$24.99

******
Boone>
You would think this would settle the argument once and for all, but they are already speculating that the photos were staged at a later date.
If "they" are correct in their speculation that those photos "were staged" at a later date in order to create the impression AKA "proof"
that the accepted timelines for Cheney et al poffered by DGM...
This only backs what has been known as fact for 8+ years
The technical term for the creation of exculpating "evidence" is a felony known as "obstruction of justice".
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obstruction-of-justice.html
[excerpt]
What Is Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of justice is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation.
Obstruction can be either a federal crime or a state crime, depending on the type of proceeding interfered with.
To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a person must have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding and attempt to influence it. [/excerpt]
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obstruction-of-justice.html#sthash.DLLeHWbQ.dpuf [/excerpt]

If this new evidence was fabricated the motive might be as you state
"settle the argument once and for all"
What is the penalty for a conviction of "obstruction of Justice" ?
 
Last edited:
No Boone-Those are the taxpayer's cookies-paid for by the sweat of working American citizens and their families .
Technically the top echelon of leaders in a fairly elected
democracy are civilian employees the citizens and are renumerated by
the citizen taxpayers for their services from the public till.
Therefore the cookies on that table , if paid for by the taxpayers , should be the same cookies served to our soldiers and school children
procured by the same procedure ie competitive bidding.

The illuminati merely allows their minions, by statutes, the right to purchase cookies from outside sources of their choice
on the taxpayers dime and considered a perk
Those cookies could very well be cookies from this source-

http://bakemeawish.com/cookie-delivery.php?category2=12&promo=corppage
One Dozen Assorted Gourmet Cookies
$24.99

******
Boone>
If "they" are correct in their speculation that those photos "were staged" at a later date in order to create the impression AKA "proof"
that the accepted timelines for Cheney et al poffered by DGM...
The technical term for the creation of exculpating "evidence" is a felony known as "obstruction of justice".
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obstruction-of-justice.html
[excerpt]
What Is Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of justice is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation.
Obstruction can be either a federal crime or a state crime, depending on the type of proceeding interfered with.
To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a person must have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding and attempt to influence it. [/excerpt]
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obstruction-of-justice.html#sthash.DLLeHWbQ.dpuf [/excerpt]

If this new evidence was fabricated the motive might be as you state
"settle the argument once and for all"
What is the penalty for a conviction of "obstruction of Justice" ?

Such speculation must, of course, have greater credibility than mere evidence, lest one's head asplode with the realization that even a meme weighs more than vague assertions...
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10797380#post10797380

[excerpt]
Ozeco41
....My focus when drafting the previous post was on those less frequent episodes where I post solidly reasoned explanations
which result in evasive mental gymnastics and personal attacks directed at me.
Ozeco41 [q.uote]Who knows - one day I may get a serious reasoned response.[/q.uote][/excerpt

Fonebone>
Flapdoodle -
You issued a challenge
fonebone - you cannot be serious.

My reference to "..evasive mental gymnastics and personal attacks directed at me" is a simple factual statement. I posted a comprehensive explanation of the initiation stage of WTC1 or WTC2 collapse for the benefit of Jango. It was in "layman language".

Oystein OPed a "peanut gallery" thread. I received a number of commendations in brief posts by debunkers. The only "serious" disagreeing comments were by several debunkers who resorted to personal attacks and not one of those few responded to my arguments.

and I accepted your challenge.
That is an outright untruth. There are two legitimate ways of "accepting a challenge" - they are:
1) Respond with reasoned counter argument to my comprehensive and coherent explanations; OR
2) Post an alternate and comprehensive reasoned argument.

You did neither. You posted random collections of WTC related graphics with zero or near zero reasoned argument.

I could not decide if you were simply trolling OR were making a poor effort at Poeing.

This statement:
You replied with a tsunami of "evasive mental gymnastics" and "personal attacks directed at me."
Must be a joke. It is simply untrue as you must well know.

If you want to debate my claims/explanations take ONE of the two acceptable paths:
A) Respond with reasoned argument to what I said; OR
B) Preset your own reasoned counter argument.

Are you Trolling? Poeing? or Serious? - - your call. I'll respond to serious comments. I'll continue to ignore the other two just as I ignore personal attacks.
 
Such speculation must, of course, have greater credibility than mere evidence, lest one's head asplode with the realization that even a meme weighs more than vague assertions...

Wouldn't implode be a better term for a 9/11 truther?:D
 
Fonebone has it. They are obviously fake photographs staged later. Any fool can see that.
 

Back
Top Bottom