Norman Minetta

[rwguinn]

You're assuming the conclusion and then trying to make you evidence fit that conclusion.

People here are basing their conclusion about Mineta on the evidence, not a pre-conceived notion of the government's capabilities and motives.

On what occasions prior to 9/11 was the US attacked by its own?

It is absolutely no use arguing with the willfully stupid. That's what these guys are.
one more time.--for the idiots out there:
If the timestamp on your entry to the building says 09:30, the logon to your computer says 09:37, The e-mail you sent is stamped 09:45, and your coworkers say they couldn't talk to you till 09:50, it does absolutely no good to say you cameto work at 07:00.

They cannot comprehend this.
That is what we are up against. 25% ers

 

[firecoins]

Lets all agree that Bush and Cheney did not even want to testify before the commission. Not to mention, that when finally pressured to do so, it was under their terms. Cheney refused to allow Bush to be questioned alone, the session was to be in private and they did not have to swear under oath. They presented a list of questions they would be willing to answer and elaborate on.

Bush didn't even want a commission at all!

and this means to what to you? Bush and Cheney were not under oath but everyone else who did testify under oath contradict Minetta. If commission is flawed why in Norman Minetta's testimony truthful?

 

[firecoins]

Fact: The US gov't did not commit 9/11

evidence: videotapes, radar returns, recorded phone calls, dna, pieces of crashed airplanes at crash sites, millions of eyewitness testimony in NY and Washington. All of this contradicts the various CT theories that have to further theorize how that evidence was faked.

You find some anomolies in Minetta's terstimony and it is evidence Bush did it. This despite Minetta saying he was mistaken under oath, despite everyone else who testified under oath contradicting Minetta's testimony.

 

[CurtC]

Hell no, anyone with any minor backround in psychology could tell you that the human brain is capable of recalling the most vivid of details and even more so when the event in question was extremely significant.

And that's why people who witness a crime always agree with each other 100%. Yes, I've been on three criminal juries, and I can state for sure that all the witnesses in each trial all told stories that didn't contradict each other at all.

 

[maccy]

Forgive me for not replying sooner, I don't frequent this board yet, nor can I post links...but soon enough.

As for the post you're asking about...First off, is it a quote? Secondly, what is the source.

Would I agree people have a hard time recalling events? Hell no, anyone with any minor backround in psychology could tell you that the human brain is capable of recalling the most vivid of details and even more so when the event in question was extremely significant. I can tell you exactly where I was at 3:13am August 29th 1999. I was in the Angeles National Forrest at a Rave called "Juju Beats". I was listening to DJ Dan spin an amazing house set with my friend while surrounded by about 5,000 other people. I remember looking at my watch for the first time in a few hours, and realizing it was now my 19th birthday. I must also mention that I was extremely high on mushrooms, and weed. I can recall the faces of the girls I was dancing with, all kinds of detailed information.

My point here is that all it takes is one look at a wrist watch or wall clock and most people will remember it. Not to mention, its very easy to tell when someone is lying, telling the truth, or unsure about an answer when recalling events. Most people are completely un-aware of the body language we exhibit when recalling events. Mineta was not lying or unsure.

From another thread, here are some posts I made about eyewitness testimony:

On a related note, here's an interesting article about the problems of eyewitness memory

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html

Edited to add:

and a couple of articles about how we perceive things

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connecte...illa05.xml&pos=portal_puff1&_requestid=347199
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B5245-6805-128A-A3C683414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=9

False dichotomy. They don't have to be liars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connecte...illa05.xml&pos=portal_puff1&_requestid=347199
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
http://psy.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/eyetest.htm
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc51.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//////shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05130/501866.stm
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Eyewitness testimony is not independently reliable.

Witness testimony is often presumed to be better than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of a person's faulty observation and recollection, because of a person's bias, or because the witness is lying. If several witnesses witness a crime it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts of individual descriptions. One study involved an experiment in which subjects acted as jurors in a criminal case. Jurors heard a description of a robbery-murder, then a prosecution argument, then an argument for the defense. Some jurors heard only circumstantial evidence, others heard from a clerk who claimed to identify the defendant. In the first case, 18% percent found the defendant guilty, but in the second, 72% found the defendant guilty (Loftus 1988). Lineups, where the eyewitness picks out a suspect from a group of people in the police station, are often grossly suggestive, and give the false impression that the witness remembered the suspect. In another study, students watched a staged crime. An hour later they looked through photos. A week later they were asked to pick the suspect out of lineups. 8% of the people in the lineups were mistakenly identified as criminals. 20% of the innocent people whose photographs were included were mistakenly identified (University of Nebraska 1977). Weapon focus effects in which the presence of a weapon impairs memory for surrounding details is also an issue.

Another study looked at sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible (Borchard p. 367).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

Unsurprisingly, research has consistently found that the longer the gap between witnessing an incident and recalling the incident, the less accurate the recollection of that incident becomes. There have been numerous experiments, usually related to a staged event, that support this contention.

The most substantial body of research has concerned leading questions, which has consistently shown that even very subtle changes in the wording of a question can influence subsequent testimony.

One of the most notable researchers in this field is Elizabeth Loftus who has been investigating eyewitness testimony for over thirty years. In one of her classic studies, participants witnessed a film of a car accident and were asked to estimate the speed of the cars involved. One group of witnesses were asked to estimate the speed of the cars when they ‘contacted’ each other.

A second group of witnesses were asked to estimate the speed of the cars when they ‘smashed’ each other. On average the first ‘contacted’ group gave an estimate of 31.8 miles per hour. Whereas, the average speed in the second ‘smashed’ group was 40.8 miles per hour.

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html

In one experiment, people who were walking across a college campus were asked by a stranger for directions. During the resulting chat, two men carrying a wooden door passed between the stranger and the subjects. After the door went by, the subjects were asked if they had noticed anything change.

Half of those tested failed to notice that, as the door passed by, the stranger had been substituted with a man who was of different height, of different build and who sounded different. He was also wearing different clothes.

Despite the fact that the subjects had talked to the stranger for 10-15 seconds before the swap, half of them did not detect that, after the passing of the door, they had ended up speaking to a different person. This phenomenon, called change blindness, highlights how we see much less than we think we do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connecte...illa05.xml&pos=portal_puff1&_requestid=347199

Memories don't just fade, as the old saying would have us believe; they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed--colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions, increased understanding, or a new context.

Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities. We interpret the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things up. Thus our representation of the past takes on a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers--powers even to make us believe in something that never happened.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//////shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

If it is contradicted by other eyewitness testimony and/or physical evidence, then eyewitness testimony must be assumed not to be reliable.

Such induced autobiographical memories reflect a number of factors," she noted. "Repeated questioning or thinking about an event increases the details that are remembered or confidence in the memory. Encouraging participants to embed a 'memory' in personally relevant details creates supporting evidence. Also, individuals with high imagery ability seem to be more susceptible to induced false memories, presumably because they embellish more or create representations that are more like perceptions."

In real life, the creation of memories about real events is "influenced by our expectations, imaginations and other ruminations, seeing photographs, hearing other people's accounts, and even seemingly unrelated events, and by our goals and motives at the time of remembering," explained Johnson.

"False memories arise from the same encoding, rehearsal, retrieval, and source monitoring processes that produce true memories; thus one can never be absolutely sure of the truth of any particular memory," she noted. "Remembering is always a judgment call."

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v30.n21/story7.html

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

Over the last 30 years, researchers have discovered that our memories are not always accurate; they are not analogous to video recordings. Rather, our memories are reconstructions in which we use bits and pieces of different events and our current perspective to form a whole. We have all experienced memory distortions. How do these distortions occur? Research has demonstrated that there are numerous factors that can lead to distortions in memory and even the creation of whole false memories of events that never took place.

Studies examining how new information affects memory for previously witnessed events use a simple procedure. Participants first see a complex event, such as a simulated automobile accident. Next, half of the participants receive misleading information, or information that is inconsistent with the previously witnessed event, whereas the other half receive neutral information. Finally, all participants try to remember the original accident. The typical finding is that people erroneously remember the suggested misleading information (Loftus, 2005).

Even the smallest suggestion or the slightest nudge can affect a witness’s memory. These suggestions can come from erroneous reports in newspapers or other forms of media. They can also be made by police, often inadvertently.

The question that remains for police officers is how can one trust the memory of a witness? The answer is not simple. A witness’s memory often contains errors and to use that memory as the sole basis for legal action can be problematic. This is not to say that police officers should not use witness accounts. However, police should be aware of the fragility of memory when witnesses are reconstructing events. Further, police should be wary that some tactics used in questioning may negatively influence memory.

The manner in which the preliminary investigating officer obtains information from a witness has a direct impact on the amount and accuracy of that information. When interviewing a witness, the preliminary investigating officer should always use open-ended questions ("What can you tell me about the car?") augmented with closed-ended questions ("What color was the car?"). Officers should avoid using leading questions ("Was the car red?") (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999).

http://www.gazette.rcmp.gc.ca/article-en.html?&article_id=205

 

[Horatius]

And that's why people who witness a crime always agree with each other 100%. Yes, I've been on three criminal juries, and I can state for sure that all the witnesses in each trial all told stories that didn't contradict each other at all.

Assuming you're being sarcastic here*, then they were obviously lying, as all the CTist will tell us that either lying or complete accuracy are our only options.

I'm growing quite fond of this black&white, black is white world they live in. It's ever so much easier than thinking, and more fun to boot!


*All I have to do now is figure out how to not figure out sarcasm, and the transformation will be complete. Then I can go take on R.Mackey!

 

[CurtC]

Sorry, Horatius, your sarcasm detector seems to be working fine. You might want to turn up the gain just a little, though.

 

[Eckolaker]

And that's why people who witness a crime always agree with each other 100%. Yes, I've been on three criminal juries, and I can state for sure that all the witnesses in each trial all told stories that didn't contradict each other at all.

Two things come to mind.

First: People lie in court. Especially in criminal cases.

Second: Jury duty does not make you an expert in human sub-conscious behavior.

 

[Eckolaker]

From another thread, here are some posts I made about eyewitness testimony:

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!

 

[Eckolaker]

Assuming you're being sarcastic here*, then they were obviously lying, as all the CTist will tell us that either lying or complete accuracy are our only options.

I'm growing quite fond of this black&white, black is white world they live in. It's ever so much easier than thinking, and more fun to boot!


*All I have to do now is figure out how to not figure out sarcasm, and the transformation will be complete. Then I can go take on !

There is no such thing as a Grey area in life. You either did or did not kill someone. You either do or do not drive. You either do or do not pay taxes. You either do or do not work. You either do or do not believe in god. (Even Jesus himself was quoted in the bible as saying this)

Those who talk about Grey areas are those that make excuses for their lives.

 

[maccy]

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!

So your theory is that everybody else lied or got it wrong and only Mineta was right, even though Mineta admitted himself that he was probably mistaken?

How likely is that?

And that's before you factor in Bush's appearance on TV at the school and the NORAD tapes.

Also, the only thing that Mineta needs to be wrong about is the time. His assumptions about the plane are based entirely on what time he thinks the conversation occurred.

Lastly, do you now admit that witnesses can be mistaken?

 

[maccy]

There is no such thing as a Grey area in life. You either did or did not kill someone. You either do or do not drive. You either do or do not pay taxes. You either do or do not work. You either do or do not believe in god. (Even Jesus himself was quoted in the bible as saying this)

Those who talk about Grey areas are those that make excuses for their lives.

The examples you give are not analogous to witness testimony. If a witness is wrong, it does not necessarily mean they are lying.

If you pay attention to only one of the many sources on this that I quote above, watch this video:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There is no such thing as a Grey area in life. You either did or did not kill someone. You either do or do not drive. You either do or do not pay taxes. You either do or do not work. You either do or do not believe in god. (Even Jesus himself was quoted in the bible as saying this)

Those who talk about Grey areas are those that make excuses for their lives.

False dilemma
This fallacy typically involves asking a question and providing only two possible answers when there are actually far more. It seems to be a favourite of politicians, especially when trying to win support for a none-too-plausible policy. Take this classic example:

You're either with us or against us.​

The implicit argument here is that two possible positions exist with regard to the matter at hand: in favour or opposed. If we are not in favour, then, it follows that we must be opposed; and vice versa. The use of such tactics often give us the opportunity of appreciating fine—if overblown—rhetoric, too, like "do you support this war to defend our way of life or are you a cowardly, treasonous blackguard?" To expose the question as a false dilemma, all we need do is show that an alternative response exits. Other names for the same thing are the black and white fallacy, which immediately calls our attention to the shades of grey that are ignored, or the bifurcation fallacy.
Take another example:

Either you support lowering taxes or you're content to see this country go to hell in short order.​

The person presenting such a choice presumably advocates the lowering of taxes and is offering us a choice of two options. Since the second one seems unpalatable, he or she assumes we will lend our support to the policy. Taking the best possible reading of this situation, we might have the following:

P1: We can lower taxes or the country can go to the devil;
P2: No other options exist;
C: Therefore, a person not agreeing with lowering taxes is content to see the country fall apart.​

Even this does not precisely address the statement as given; for instance, we could hold no opinion at all on the matter, or be insufficiently informed to do so sensibly. These are alternatives, so the choice given is a false dilemma. In the above formulation we could challenge P2, since it seems unlikely that only one policy has been proposed. A single alternative would again make the choice a false dilemma. As before, this is a fallacy of presumption.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#false_dilemma

 

[Hellbound]

Second: Jury duty does not make you an expert in human sub-conscious behavior.

Neither does posting patronizing, pedantic nonsense on an internet forum...which appears to be your only qualification.

Contrary to your assertion, anyone with a basic understanding of psychology would know that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable opf any. Eyewitnesses are often wrong, and memories, far from being things that are recallable and replayable like movies, are malleable, and intertwined with each associated event, including things that happen during the recall and retelling. And important/major events do nothig to enchance this; there are several cases where victims of rape, for example, have completely mis-identified their attackers...and this is when they had an up-close view for several minutes. Mistakes in indentification of vehicles in drive-by shootings are common, as well (not lies, but mistakes), even so far as wildly differing makes/models and completely different coloration. Entire histories of child abuse memories and ritualistic torture that lasted over spans of years have been revealed as fabricated memories with no basis or grounding in truth (the entire "repressed memories" movement, both for satanic ritualistic abuse and, more recently, UFO abduction).

Sorry, but if you're going to talk about what "basic psychology" tells us, you'll have to post somethig more than your opinion. Maccy and others have posted actual, links to forensic and psychology information about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and memory. You have any credible source to counter that, or are you smarter than every psychologist and psichiatrist out there today?

 

[maccy]

There is no such thing as a Grey area in life. You either did or did not kill someone. You either do or do not drive. You either do or do not pay taxes. You either do or do not work. You either do or do not believe in god. (Even Jesus himself was quoted in the bible as saying this)

Those who talk about Grey areas are those that make excuses for their lives.

If you believe in God and are a member of a Baptist church, do you believe in the same God as a Methodist or a Unitarian or a Mormon or a Jehovas Witness? How about a Catholic? A Greek Orthodox? A Jew? A Muslim? A Hindu?

If it's a clear case that there's this one thing, God, that you either believe in or don't, why aren't all these religions the same?

Furthermore, is it true that you are either short or tall? A child or an adult? An embryo or a human being? Where you do draw the line? What makes you correct in putting the line where you do? What is the significant change that occurs when that line is crossed.

If someone dies as a result of your actions does that mean you murdered them?

Why do you think criminal courts determine guilt "beyond reasonable doubt"? If the world is as black and white as you say it is, why not "beyond any doubt"? Why is the standard of proof in civil cases set "on the balance of probabilities?"

Edited to add:
Eckolaker: looking back over this thread, I see you are a US citizen. I should say that the standards of proof I've described above are those used n the England and Wales (Scotland also has a verdict of "not proven", which is interesting). Perhaps you could outline the degree of proof required in a US court and tell me how they fit with your "no grey area" theory.

Here are some links you might want to look at:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
http://www.btinternet.com/~justin.needle/
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/paradox4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap

Edited to Add:

If anybody wants to pursue this philosophical tangent, I've started a thread for it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69522

 

[Horatius]

Two things come to mind.

First: People lie in court. Especially in criminal cases.

Second: Jury duty does not make you an expert in human sub-conscious behavior.

See? They had to be lying. Not possible for them to just be honestly mistaken, right?

We really need to start running a betting pool on these predictions. I'd be cleaning up!

 

[Horatius]

Sorry, Horatius, your sarcasm detector seems to be working fine. You might want to turn up the gain just a little, though.

You see, just when I start thinking that, someone goes and post this:

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!

And this:

There is no such thing as a Grey area in life. You either did or did not kill someone. You either do or do not drive. You either do or do not pay taxes. You either do or do not work. You either do or do not believe in god. (Even Jesus himself was quoted in the bible as saying this)

Those who talk about Grey areas are those that make excuses for their lives.

This has got to be a put-on, right? No one would seriously post this as a response to a post complaining about black and white thinking, right? Right?

I need a beer.......


And just in case he is serious (!):

Norman Mineta was completely wrong and unable to recall correctly his where-abouts, movements, and time of day on 9/11

This is what's known as a Straw man. Check earlier posts for a definition, it's been posted a lot this week. The only major problem with Minetta's recall is the time of day issue. Because he didn't get the time right, his interpretaion of events was inaccurate. Pretty much everything else he described did happen, it just didn't happen when he said it did, and the topics being discussed weren't the ones he assumed they were. Get it right, don't just "get it".

but Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the gang all recalled the events of that day perfectly,

And straw man #2. One wonders when you'll run out of straw. The usual gang of idiots' testimony is considered to be more reliable because it was backed up by copious amounts of physical and documentary evidence, that didn't rely peoples' recall. Get it right, don't just "get it".

One would hope that with your wonderful, perfect memory, you'll remember this for next time, so we won't ever see this tripe from you again, right? Right?


I'll be over in the corner (not) holding my breath....

 

[apathoid]

Honestly, I know exactly what time I went to the store last night. +/- 2 minutes. However, in stating such, I'm sure I would only be subject to further inquiry. Then to just take it as I have an excellent memory and can easily recall things that happened years ago like they were yesterday.

OK, so you have a great memory - most people don't and if you dont believe me, click on some of Maccys links and start reading. People with terrific memories aside, do you think its typical for people to remember exactly what time an event occured in their day if its not easily correlated to a set schedule,(ie I went to the store last night at between 11:25 and 11:35. I know this because I got off work at 10:50 and the drive home takes 35-45 minutes.) months after the event occured?

I would think one could ballpark it, but when things get hectic, time tends to speed up. Ever looked at your watch and been suprised at how much/little time has past since you last looked? Perhaps Mineta last looked at his watch 30 minutes before moving to the bunker, and time elapsed alot faster than he thought.

Further more, I could accept someone being inaccurate on a time within a +/- 5 minutes., but 30 minutes? Thats quite a big difference. Quite a lot can happen in 30 minutes.

I beg to differ. 30 minutes is next to nothing during hectic times. After being involved in a fairly serious car accident, I was amazed at how fast the ambulance came. It seemed like less than 3 minutes, but the ambulance driver told me that he was sorry it took so long(20 minutes from when he got the call). I was suprised when he said that........(and BTW I have no clue what time the accident occured other than after sunrise and before around 10 AM - and it was a major event in my life.)

 

[apathoid]

I have no doubt that you have an excellent memory. But suppose you were certain of the time of day of an event 19 months ago. Then suppose there were multiple written, time-coded accounts and other records (such as phone records) made during that event that said otherwise. Would you still insist that you were right?

In regards to 9/11, I can tell you just about everything that I did that day. I could probably narrow everything down to a 15minute window even today. From the time I was woken up by my mom at 6:05am PST all the way until between 4:00am and 4:15am when the last thing I remember before falling asleep was military jets flying over my house.

I seriously, seriously doubt it. But if you can prove it, there just might be a cool million in it for you.
BTW - you didnt answer the question. What if your Mom showed you CCTV footage of her waking you up at 6:23 AM? Would you still be certain that you woke up at 6:05? Is your memory completely infallible?

 

[Eckolaker]

So your theory is that everybody else lied or got it wrong and only Mineta was right, even though Mineta admitted himself that he was probably mistaken?

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

How likely is that?

See above.

And that's before you factor in Bush's appearance on TV at the school and the NORAD tapes.

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.

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

Also, the only thing that Mineta needs to be wrong about is the time. His assumptions about the plane are based entirely on what time he thinks the conversation occurred.

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

First off, we are all in agreement the conversation about Flight 77 being "50 miles out, 25miles out, etc" occurred? Secondly, what time did Flight 77 hit the pentagon? So how is it possible that the conversation took place after Flight 77 hit the pentagon? 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.