Ed Moving On is coming.

[Moving On]

TAM,

I believe the Mineta testimony was in regards to Flight 77. They were calling out the distances to DC. My assumption that his directive "the orders still stand" ended up resulting in the Pentagon being impacted could have been to let it come in. It is confusing I agree. There were aircraft on the ground within in range for intercept at that time. They flew over the Pentagon post impact.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Dave,

I agree with the premise that the passengers may have had notice of what was happening and it is reasonable to assume they may have chosen action over passivity.

That still does not explain Cheney's premonition in my mind.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

TAM,

The value of the $3 million on my part was subjective - yes.

I do not have a direct comparison to any other investigation except to Clinton as you mentioned.

The 9/11 Commission was eventually awarded $15 million I believe.

We agree that the attempted avoidance of it doesn't seem appropriate for the situation.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

That still does not explain Cheney's premonition in my mind.

I think Scientologist brought very probable explanations for this in his last post.:

As for Cheney's comment of "heroism," why do YOU take it to mean the passengers taking over? Couldn't a pilot have retaken the plane in those last minutes and wouldn't that have been a "heroic act?" Couldn't the plane have been shot down as far as Cheney knew and could that not also have been a "heroic act" considering how difficult emotionally it would be for a pilot to do that knowing that innocent Americans were on board? To me, you are more basing your beliefs on gut feelings that stem from paranoia and assuming the worst in people rather than facts, but that's just me.

 

[Moving On]

TAM,

We both have certain premises we reject for arguments.

One that I reject is that if the government can't do so and so right, then how could they pull off 9/11. That is just to be straightforward and not to ridicule the idea.

I believe the detailed operations were most likely carried out by external forces who valued American lives less than their own survival. I do not believe necessarily they were acting on behalf of a government or a people officially. I believe elements within any government past present and future have a capacity for a dark side.

You can see my implication here and I do not go into much detail on this subject because of the misunderstandings involved. I do not blame any person or group of people for acting out a desire to survive. If it were my own family involved I would still function in the role of asking honest questions. I am not anti-anything or anyone.

I see the global scene as a petri dish with a slight bias towards the goodness of the individual people in my own country.

Russell

 

[stateofgrace]

stateofgrace,

I linked to the MSM article about Cheney's statement.

I believe you have to look at the 9/11 Commission, phone records etc. for the answer to that. There are so many links tied into it that it would be cumbersome to post here.

It appears that the shootdown order may have been illegal for Cheney to do without the authorization of the president at the time. That may have something to do with why there was to be no accurate record of the Bush/Cheney testimony. They would also only testify as a pair.

Since then the laws on issuing shootdown orders have been revised.

The time given for the Flight 93 impact initially was 10:06. But the Moussouai trial revealed the CVR ended at 10:03.

The time controversy can be looked at here with links to other sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Or here on a CT site: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

Rumsfeld slipped and indicated 93 was shot down on MSM. Quite a stir the next day when Jamie McIntyre tried to explain it away the next day.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

Russell

I will look at the links, thanks. For now I will leave this thread as there are so many issued being raised, you are simply being swamped by it all.

I do remember reading in the 911 commission that the 10:06 time came from seismic readings but had been put aside in favour of the FDR which was more accurate and gave a time of 10:03. This was put down to seismic data not being as accurate due to poor signal to noise returns. I will have a look for the actual reference to it.

Anyways I'll leave you just now as you look a bit bogged down.

stateofgrace

 

[Moving On]

Scientologist,

If the official story had indicated the pilots were involved I would have addressed that. But as I understand it they may have been incapacitated at the time and I see no evidence in the transcripts they were in the cockpit in the final moments of the flight.

I can assure you my paranoia and fear levels are very low.

I see the human heart 99.9% of the time as essentially good but sometimes misguided.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, could Cheney's "premonition" be just simply good instincts? He is the vice president of the United States after all..

 

[T.A.M.]

wrt to Mineta...yes it was AA77, my mistake. According to the commission statements. However, the question Mineta was asked was when did he become aware of the "Shoot down" order, and this is when he made the comments about he first heard about it via the aide coming in with the "50 miles out" comments. So from this I think that the order Cheney was standing by was a "shoot down" order, not a dont shoot down order.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: 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. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

Bolding mine. You notice Mineta does not dispute whether or not the order was a "shoot down" order, so I would take his lack of speaking up on such a critical point, to mean he had the understanding it was a "shoot down order". Many CTists have said the order was a "DO NOT SHOOT DOWN" order, so that the crash into the Pentagon could be allowed to occur.

What are your thoughts on this?

TAM

 

[Moving On]

Hi, Russell. I want to ask you a few things about some of your bullet points. I am mainly interested because I am curious about the mental processes you go through to reach some of your opinions, conclusions, or suspicions. Note that I am asking purely out of curiosity, and not out of any desire to necessarily prove you wrong or even debate.

(Bolding mine).
In your opinion, how would one go about falsely believing onesself to be a hijacker?

If it was their intention (which I do believe in real terrorists) and they had no awareness that they were being facilitated is another way of saying it.

* All related evidence and documentation aside, what, in your opinion, makes a subsequent admission of guilt less credible than an initial denial?

My opinion is that taking initial responsibility for the claim would have been highly valuable in the mindset of that community.

* Which other terrorist groups initially claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks? How about for the OKC bombing? Note that I don't know the answers to these questions myself, just wondering.

That makes two of us.

* How is it determined what constitutes "normal" behavior for a terrrorist group?

Many of their patterns have historical precedent and some are dictated by near absolute thinking in the extreme elements of those cultures. If they did not have some predictable patterns then we should recognize that and forget ever winning the "war on terror".

* What, specifically, is "unrealistic" about bin Laden remaining free?

If I had $300 billion dollars and unlimited resources it is my belief that Osama would be captured and a lot of other people would be alive if that was my single focus. I could be wrong but I don't think so on this one.

I can't understand why a drill for a scenario would preclude the actual scenario taking place, or vice versa. Either the two are coincidental or they are not. If they are not, what possible purpose would it serve to have a drill, and then do the thing you're drilling for?

The calculated odds on the exact details, numbers of buses and locations being the same must be very rare.

If a "false flag" is simply the idea of, to be blunt, pulling a stunt and blaming it on someone else, what is the drill for?

One example is that if they had a drill and paid a few kids to participate unknowingly there is your cover and your "bombers". There are many other benefits as well. In retrospect there is a pattern of simultaneous drills and terror. That can't be denied.

I would like to understand the thinking behind this. I remember on the LC forums, there was a post where someone linked a news story (mainstream press) about a scheduled emergency response drill in Chicago. Lots of the CT-minded people posted things like, "omg false flag, don't be surprised if there's a 'terrorist attack' in Chicago on that day!!".

I do not make predictions. The fact that there are any number of drills on any given day makes this idea unrealistic from the start. Not all drills result in the real incident. But many terror events are accompanied by drills. The 7/7 one had remarkable similarity and that is why I chose it as the best example.

We used to have fire drills in elementary school, and one time the school cafeteria actually caught fire during the fire drill. That was over 25 years ago, and to this day I can't see how the drill and the real fire are related.

Coincidence is obviously very valid in life and well documented. But the accumulation of coincidences in close proximity to one another and patterns of coincidence at some point indicate intention in my opinion.

ETA: I'm posting this stuff from work, and it takes me ages to complete a post as I must also simultaneously get work-stuff done, so feel free to ignore me if these questions have already been asked between the time I started and the time I actually clicked "save". It seems at least a coupoe of them have.

I may get behind but I try not to ignore.

In fact, I am taking a break to eat and watch a movie.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Russell, could Cheney's "premonition" be just simply good instincts? He is the vice president of the United States after all..

I guess we would have to ask Mr. Randi about that one. Maybe Cheney could win the contest.

That was just for fun! I do have a sense of humor.

You can get me later.

Russell

 

[Scientologist]

Scientologist,

If the official story had indicated the pilots were involved I would have addressed that. But as I understand it they may have been incapacitated at the time and I see no evidence in the transcripts they were in the cockpit in the final moments of the flight.

My point is very simple. If Cheney said "a heroic act" just took place, he didn't have to be referring to the passengers overtaking the hijackers, he could have been referring to any number of things that could have taken that plane down. The fact is, at this point, they had surmised that the terrorists meant to strike a target on the ground. He didn't say "Those passengers are heroes." Understand?

 

[Moving On]

TAM,

You notice Mineta does not dispute whether or not the order was a "shoot down" order, so I would take his lack of speaking up on such a critical point, to mean he had the understanding it was a "shoot down order". Many CTists have said the order was a "DO NOT SHOOT DOWN" order, so that the crash into the Pentagon could be allowed to occur.

What are your thoughts on this?

It seems that way - yes. But the countdown and the resulting impact with aircraft nearby to intercept makes it confusing.

This one is up for grabs I feel.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

I guess we would have to ask Mr. Randi about that one. Maybe Cheney could win the contest.

That's not what I meant. I meant that he may have had a good overview of the situation and he made a good projection. This happens all the time. How many times have you made a good guess?

It seems that you are making the false dilemma fallacy.

You're saying either he knew what was going on, or he had psychic powers. Since we all know the latter is impossible, therefore he knew what was going on.

He just as well could have made a good assessment of the situation. In this case, he nailed it.

 

[Moving On]

Scientologist,

My point is very simple. If Cheney said "a heroic act" just took place, he didn't have to be referring to the passengers overtaking the hijackers, he could have been referring to any number of things that could have taken that plane down. The fact is, at this point, they had surmised that the terrorists meant to strike a target on the ground. He didn't say "Those passengers are heroes." Understand?

The most reasonable idea is that a shootdwon pilot or the United pilots would be the hero(es). But if that was the case then he assumed it to be a shootdown or a intentional crash. If it was a shootdown he should of told us that in the Commission testimony.

So the other option is that he thought at the time it was a heroic story about a shootdown pilot or the United pilots, but then those turned out not to be true. Then we have another coincidence to explain which is that the story ended up being a story of heroism in another form than the reasonable assumptions.

But if you review the article again it was said in the context of, "'The vice president was a little bit ahead of us,' said Eric Edelman, Cheney's national security advisor." That implies to me it is being directly linked to the actual outcome of the Flight 93 story as it has been relayed to us.

What other realistic hero options are there?

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

"'The vice president was a little bit ahead of us,' said Eric Edelman,

That's why he's the vice-president of the United States of America.

 

[Nevermore]

... If you read the transcript of the Voice recorder, It does not indicate until the very end that they were able to get into the cockpit, and that was after considerable beating upon the cockpit door....

Sorry to interrupt, but do you have a link for this? I would like to read more about it.

I was curious if the cockpit voice recorder also captured the sound of the terrorists breaking into the cockpit.

 

[T.A.M.]

In the end, this is all speculation (re: Cheney comments), and that often has so much to do with an individuals pov, and the side of things they see as the "truth", that it is essentially pointless to argue it, except of course, to get a better idea of where your opinions lie, Russ...and where our views lie, for you to ponder of course.

TAM

 

[Moving On]

That's not what I meant. I meant that he may have had a good overview of the situation and he made a good projection. This happens all the time. How many times have you made a good guess?

It seems that you are making the false dilemma fallacy.

You're saying either he knew what was going on, or he had psychic powers. Since we all know the latter is impossible, therefore he knew what was going on.

He just as well could have made a good assessment of the situation. In this case, he nailed it.

What precedent do we have for such a thing to even have factored into an intuitive "assessment"?

If you are satisfied with your conclusion then it is fine with me. There is no difference in your outcome being based on a no-conspiracy situation than there is on my outcome based on a conspiracy. Logic is not absolute in my experience. The same matter can appear logical from contradictory points of view.

We have both started with dispositions that are equal and valid and come to different conclusions is all.

Both no-conspiracy events and conspiracy events have occurred in history.

Our outcomes are simply a matter of preference ultimately. The question will be which preference will end up aligning itself with the greatest body of verifiable data?

Just so you know I don't know the names of various argument methods and do not "use" any of them. I am simply sharing my observations and beliefs here in response to honest questions. I have valid reasons to believe what I do.

I am not just slinging some crazy slogan at you with a chip on my shoulder.

Russell

 

[T.A.M.]

Sure do, but it is a PDF File:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Go down to the Phase 2 exhibits.

it is the one labeled P200056T

TAM