Merged E-4B flying around pentagon / Norman Mineta timeline

[Senenmut]

You have no idea who was watching the coast track do you? I suggest you read his interviews for the commission along with Mineta's. They had to assume the coast track was the real aircraft because they had lost the real aircraft. Stop being dense.



So? Mineta is wrong and you are avoiding the subject now. Please try and prove Mineta times are correct given the information I have provided. The coast track was the track that was being relayed to the PEOC. They did not know that Flight 93 had already crashed. Flight 77 was only spotted again by the controllers very near Dulles going at a high rate of knots towards DC. This was not the 50-40-30-20 call out aircraft. This information regarding Flight 77, and when it was spotted again, is in the controllers interviews, I suggest you read them also.



Off topic, political claptrap and irrelevant. Stick to Mineta please.

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

 

[gumboot]

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

How many times do you have to be told that the DRA Mineta heard the reports about, and the radar data of the flight turning and hitting the Pentagon are two totally different aircraft tracks?

Seriously, are you even reading this thread? I've told you about four times, and I'm not the only one.

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

Mineta wasn't informed of anything. He heard staff at the PEOC being informed of it. For all we know they already knew something had happened at the Pentagon (having been told before Mineta arrived), and all Mineta witnessed was the confirmation that it was an airliner (the initial reports were of an explosion, a car bomb, or a helicopter crash). Of course to Mineta, it would have been the first news he heard of anything happening at The Pentagon at all.

 

[gumboot]

cheapshot was talking about flight 11. one would think monte knew some basic signs if flight 93 went into coast track all the way there.

Why would you think that? In the USA the senior positions in the civil service are political appointments. Often the person appointed to head a government agency has never worked in that agency in their life.

What makes you think the Deputy Administrator of the FAA would have any knowledge of the TSD whatsoever? Jane Garvey (head of the FAA at the time) had never worked for the FAA before. The closest she had come to such a job was Director of Logan International Airport. Her lower level work experience was as a teacher.

 

[gumboot]

i would take norman mineta's testimony more serious than anything that cheney and his neocon cabal say!!

The primary physical evidence alone totally refutes Mineta's testimony. No need to rely on the statements of other politicians.

 

[Senenmut]

How many times do you have to be told that the DRA Mineta heard the reports about, and the radar data of the flight turning and hitting the Pentagon are two totally different aircraft tracks?

Seriously, are you even reading this thread? I've told you about four times, and I'm not the only one.


Mineta wasn't informed of anything. He heard staff at the PEOC being informed of it. For all we know they already knew something had happened at the Pentagon (having been told before Mineta arrived), and all Mineta witnessed was the confirmation that it was an airliner (the initial reports were of an explosion, a car bomb, or a helicopter crash). Of course to Mineta, it would have been the first news he heard of anything happening at The Pentagon at all.

can a tsd or a coast track pass over the pentagon, turn around and come back into it (the pentagon). mineta makes it sound like they are one and the same. what are you suggesting made that track?

 

[Senenmut]

Why would you think that? In the USA the senior positions in the civil service are political appointments. Often the person appointed to head a government agency has never worked in that agency in their life.

What makes you think the Deputy Administrator of the FAA would have any knowledge of the TSD whatsoever? Jane Garvey (head of the FAA at the time) had never worked for the FAA before. The closest she had come to such a job was Director of Logan International Airport. Her lower level work experience was as a teacher.

somebody was watching that track very closely.

 

[Senenmut]

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

 

[Algebra34]

The primary physical evidence alone totally refutes Mineta's testimony. No need to rely on the statements of other politicians.

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

 

[gumboot]

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

Hi Senenmut,

Mineta's account of 9/11 is wrong.

Regards,
Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

If you see any fault in my assessment of the evidence, please provide it. Myself and others on these forums have exhaustively analysed Mineta's testimony and the corresponding evidence. His account just does not stand up to scrutiny, and even the most cursory glance makes this clear.

 

[gumboot]

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?

It wouldn't actually update via radar sweep (because the data isn't coming from radar) but it does update periodically, and displays a history of the last few positions of the aircraft, just like a radar does.

Monte Berger was at FAA HQ. FAA HQ does not receive a radar feed. This is a fact. Berger cannot have been looking at a radar screen. Heck, even the ARTSCC doesn't receive radar.

 

[Reheat]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

My better judgment tells me to ignore this obstinate twoofer, but I suspect Gumboot has lost patience and won't respond again.

For those who are interested Monte Berger was located at FAA Headquarters where THEY HAVE NO RADAR. So, quite obviously information was being passed to him or he was looking at a TSD Display (which is available at FAA Hqs). As Gumboot explained he likely wouldn't know the difference.

In order for your implications to be true Mineta (who is not a toofer) and Berger as well as several hundred people within the FAA would have to be in on the conspiracy and have kept their mouths shut for over 8 years now. In addition to the FAA, the USAF 84th RADES Squadron would be implicated too because there is NO RADAR RECORD of this radar track.

If you don't understand that, it means there is NO EVIDENCE of this supposed radar track. All that exists is the twoofer misinterpretation of of a discussion of issues they know absolutely nothing about. It is simply twoofer "cherry picking" a conversation that occurred during a period of intense anxiety and confusion.

I will not respond to any other twoofer delusions in this thread as it is pure unadulterated nonsense.

ETA: Gumboot beat me to it...... Good-Bye twoofers, I have no more time for you on this subject.

 

[funk de fino]

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

Pay attention, two different tracks. One real, one coast.

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

The important word is confirmed.

ETA - You did not watch the video did you? Utterly pathetic, some researcher you are.

 

[funk de fino]

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

The controllers were watching the coast track and calling this out to their superiors who were calling it out over the phone which was being passed to the PEOC. For gods sake read the controllers signed statements it is all in there. Mineta could not see anything at the time. Monte was getting the info over the phone.

 

[funk de fino]

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

Unfortunately for you Mineta's statements, Belger's statements and the signed statements from the controllers debunk the claims made by Senenmut.

I can see why he is reluctant to go read them. Perhaps you might want to try?

 

[MikeW]

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

The balance of evidence clearly shows that Mineta's timeline is wrong: he wasn't in the PEOC at 9:20, & in fact didn't arrive until some time after the Pentagon had been hit.

 

[Senenmut]

It wouldn't actually update via radar sweep (because the data isn't coming from radar) but it does update periodically, and displays a history of the last few positions of the aircraft, just like a radar does.

Monte Berger was at FAA HQ. FAA HQ does not receive a radar feed. This is a fact. Berger cannot have been looking at a radar screen. Heck, even the ARTSCC doesn't receive radar.

monte said "we're". that means there was more than one person looking at that radar. and you are wrong with the coast track. they might have their own "secret bunker", who knows at faa headquaters! it would be nice to interview monte now wouldnt it!!!

from a cheapshot quote at pft:
"Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope."

and you still havent expained how a coast track or tsd could pass the pentagon come back and into the pentagon and mineta stated.

 

[Senenmut]

Pay attention, two different tracks. One real, one coast.

The important word is confirmed.

ETA - You did not watch the video did you? Utterly pathetic, some researcher you are.

so are you saying flight 77 came DRA passed the pentagon, turned around and came back into it?

 

[Senenmut]

The balance of evidence clearly shows that Mineta's timeline is wrong: he wasn't in the PEOC at 9:20, & in fact didn't arrive until some time after the Pentagon had been hit.

well, you know how uninfored the national security council guys are if mineta did get there 20 mins after the pentagon got attacked. even though by then it was all over the news!! maybe the peoc should of had a tv on to get "confirmation"!!!!

mineta:
"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, before the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).

 

[funk de fino]

so are you saying flight 77 came DRA passed the pentagon, turned around and came back into it?

No, Flight 77 track is flight 77 track. It was never a coast track as the controllers could see the real radar track they knew roughly what speed it was going and roughly how low it was. It flew the track as given in the NTSB report.