btw, I followed the link to the original post (iirc correctly, I posted Socks twice in two different threads). How the hell did you manage to dig this post up from Christophera Monk's thread?
Norman Minetta
- Thread starter timmyg
- Start date
btw, I followed the link to the original post (iirc correctly, I posted Socks twice in two different threads). How the hell did you manage to dig this post up from Christophera Monk's thread?
sleahead
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 406
beachnut said:
Yes, I believe so, but this sock has yet to banned. The star.logic sock was called, whereupon the stundie sock appeared. Here is a star.logic thread about UFOs:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69070
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Not sure. Å is what we always used for angstroms. I hope that symbol comes through. I'm not sure what that thing on the site is supposed to be.
I do wonder about him being described as "a few extra pounds", because that guy in the picture looks like a pencil-neck geek to me.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
btw, I followed the link to the original post (iirc correctly, I posted Socks twice in two different threads). How the hell did you manage to dig this post up from Christophera Monk's thread?
I remembered commenting on the picture, so I searched the thread for variations on "First Cat" and "socks". I think it was the socks that did it. It did take a bit of doing, as the search function seems to die of exhaustion on such a long thread. Now I have that post bookmarked
Hi,
The discussion about Norman Mineta, his testimony, the flaws in the official story concerning a shoot down order...
All available at
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60315
Pages 8 and 9 have seen some significant progress (in my view..) showing the official story is based on no documentary evidence.
Find for yourself!
Busherie
The discussion about Norman Mineta, his testimony, the flaws in the official story concerning a shoot down order...
All available at
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60315
Pages 8 and 9 have seen some significant progress (in my view..) showing the official story is based on no documentary evidence.
Find for yourself!
Busherie
The only other possible explanation that could account for Norman Mineta’s testimony is to claim that Mineta witnessed a conversation between Cheney and a young man about United 93. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it would seem possible that the young man and Cheney could have been talking about United 93, which they claim crash landed at 10:03 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania because the passengers tried to overtake the cockpit from the hijackers. This could account for Mineta’s testimony, assuming he was confused on the time of his arrival in the PEOC.
This claim does not however account for the inconsistencies about Cheney’s timeline of when he entered the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center). It cannot account for the stories by ABC news and the changing account of the Military’s response to AA 77 which included Phantom AA 11. This claim also cannot explain Richard Clarke’s account. The Government’s changing official story of what happened to United 93 is absurd and contradicted by many credible sources, most notably Richard Clarke.
Since day one, there have been suspicions that United 93 was shot down by the U.S. Military because of the fear that it would have been used as a weapon to attack targets on the ground. The 9/11 Commission Report therefore attempted to eliminate any suspicion of this allegation by claiming that military notification of United 93 came after the plane already crashed, and authorization to shoot down hijacked aircrafts came long after United 93 was down.
The first problem with claiming that Mineta overheard a discussion about United 93 is that it crashed approximately 125 miles [61] away from Washington D.C. Therefore, United 93 was never “50 miles out” of the White House, Pentagon, or any other specific target. It certainly was not “30 miles out” or “10 miles out” either.
However, the 9/11 Commission paints a picture of incompetence and confusion that still makes it seem possible that Mineta witnessed the young man and Cheney discussing United 93 or a medevac helicopter or some combination thereof. The argument is quite farfetched and doesn’t make sense with respect to Mineta’s testimony, especially considering it has Cheney giving an order to shoot down a plane that was already down and an order to shoot down a medevac helicopter.
9/11 Commission Report: [62]
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington . That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington , not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217
At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, "in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing." The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes.219
At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.220
The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.221
Minutes went by and word arrived of an aircraft down in Pennsylvania . Those in the shelter wondered if the aircraft had been shot down pursuant to this authorization.222
At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to "engage or "take out" the aircraft. At 10:33, Hadley told the air threat conference call: "I need to get word to Dick Myers that our reports are there's an inbound aircraft flying low 5 miles out. The Vice President's guidance was we need to take them out."223
Once again, there was no immediate information about the fate of the inbound aircraft. In the apt description of one witness, "It drops below the radar screen and it's just continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it." Eventually, the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter.224
Although the 9/11 Commission Report does not address Mineta’s testimony, some defenders of the official theory claim that Mineta witnessed a discussion about Flight 93, not the plane approaching the Pentagon. When looking at the totality of Mineta’s testimony in response to Lee Hamilton’s questions, it does not seem plausible that the plane which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out could have been Flight 93.
9/11 Commission Hearing Testimony: [63]
MR. MINETA: And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania , then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.
MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: 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.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.
MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?
MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.
MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.
MR. MINETA: I did not.
MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: No, sir.
Based on the conversation that he overheard between the young man and Cheney, Mineta clearly explained that there were no orders to shoot down United 93 and that “the orders” referred to AA 77. Mineta explained that the first time they heard of United 93, it had already crashed. Mineta makes no mention or reference to the fact that they were tracking and attempting to shoot down United 93 after it already crashed, or that they almost shot down a medevac helicopter.
This claim does not however account for the inconsistencies about Cheney’s timeline of when he entered the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center). It cannot account for the stories by ABC news and the changing account of the Military’s response to AA 77 which included Phantom AA 11. This claim also cannot explain Richard Clarke’s account. The Government’s changing official story of what happened to United 93 is absurd and contradicted by many credible sources, most notably Richard Clarke.
Since day one, there have been suspicions that United 93 was shot down by the U.S. Military because of the fear that it would have been used as a weapon to attack targets on the ground. The 9/11 Commission Report therefore attempted to eliminate any suspicion of this allegation by claiming that military notification of United 93 came after the plane already crashed, and authorization to shoot down hijacked aircrafts came long after United 93 was down.
The first problem with claiming that Mineta overheard a discussion about United 93 is that it crashed approximately 125 miles [61] away from Washington D.C. Therefore, United 93 was never “50 miles out” of the White House, Pentagon, or any other specific target. It certainly was not “30 miles out” or “10 miles out” either.
However, the 9/11 Commission paints a picture of incompetence and confusion that still makes it seem possible that Mineta witnessed the young man and Cheney discussing United 93 or a medevac helicopter or some combination thereof. The argument is quite farfetched and doesn’t make sense with respect to Mineta’s testimony, especially considering it has Cheney giving an order to shoot down a plane that was already down and an order to shoot down a medevac helicopter.
9/11 Commission Report: [62]
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington . That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington , not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217
At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, "in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing." The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes.219
At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.220
The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.221
Minutes went by and word arrived of an aircraft down in Pennsylvania . Those in the shelter wondered if the aircraft had been shot down pursuant to this authorization.222
At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to "engage or "take out" the aircraft. At 10:33, Hadley told the air threat conference call: "I need to get word to Dick Myers that our reports are there's an inbound aircraft flying low 5 miles out. The Vice President's guidance was we need to take them out."223
Once again, there was no immediate information about the fate of the inbound aircraft. In the apt description of one witness, "It drops below the radar screen and it's just continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it." Eventually, the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter.224
Although the 9/11 Commission Report does not address Mineta’s testimony, some defenders of the official theory claim that Mineta witnessed a discussion about Flight 93, not the plane approaching the Pentagon. When looking at the totality of Mineta’s testimony in response to Lee Hamilton’s questions, it does not seem plausible that the plane which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out could have been Flight 93.
9/11 Commission Hearing Testimony: [63]
MR. MINETA: And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania , then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.
MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: 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.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.
MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?
MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.
MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.
MR. MINETA: I did not.
MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: No, sir.
Based on the conversation that he overheard between the young man and Cheney, Mineta clearly explained that there were no orders to shoot down United 93 and that “the orders” referred to AA 77. Mineta explained that the first time they heard of United 93, it had already crashed. Mineta makes no mention or reference to the fact that they were tracking and attempting to shoot down United 93 after it already crashed, or that they almost shot down a medevac helicopter.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Cite?
Why do you think Mineta's testimony SHOULD account for them? We know what NORAD actually did, and we know what they claimed they did. Applying that Mineta was wrong in his times fits his testimony perfectly with the records of what NORAD did.
Richard Clarke's account of what?
Cite? The only official account of what happened to UA93 is the 9/11 Commission Report. If you think there is another official version, please cite it. Blanket unsuported statements are not looked on fondly.
This is not a "claim" randomly invented by the commission. It is documented in recordings from the NEADS command bunker.
And then:
As you can see, NEADS did not know about UA93 until 4 minutes after it crashed, and a further 3 minutes later there was still no shoot down order.
(Incidentally, Mineta specifically refers to the Langley fighters in his statement to the commission, which were under command of NEADS, so the conversation he witnessed MUST have taken place AFTER 10:10:31.)
Furthermore the FDR from UA93 has been released.
At the time of impact:
United 93 was not shot down by anyone.
On 9/11 NEADS and the FAA responded to and tracked projected flight paths numerous times. This happened because the hijackers disabled the aircraft transponders and the aircraft were lost from primary radar.
In addition, on 9/11 there were many many false alarms. NEADS responded to 11 hijacking alerts in the first 90 minutes alone. There were dozens more throughout the rest of the day.
The aircraft discussed in the conversation Mineta witnessed could have been any number of things. There's only two things we know for sure. It was not AA77 and it did not occur when Mineta thinks it did.
-Gumboot
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Can I ask something that has been bugging me for a while.
What exactly does Mineta's testimony mean. What does it add to either the truth movement or the debunkers.
What exactly does it mean to the whole big picture of 911 - If Cheney lied was mistaken or Clarke or Mineta or any combination of lie miss understanding or straight error.
What does it matter?
Where people were standing on that day and at what time... What exactly does it matter?
What exactly does Mineta's testimony mean. What does it add to either the truth movement or the debunkers.
What exactly does it mean to the whole big picture of 911 - If Cheney lied was mistaken or Clarke or Mineta or any combination of lie miss understanding or straight error.
What does it matter?
Where people were standing on that day and at what time... What exactly does it matter?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
It's the crack in the wall, into which they can drive a wedge (or at least that's how they see it). In their world, if they can unquestionably prove a single example of the official story being a lie, that immediately brings the entire story into question.
I don't agree, however I do weigh different aspects.
For example, if they could prove NIST specifically lied in their WTC report, that'd be significant.
Likewise, if Mineta was correct in his times and his conclusion that it was AA77 Cheney was giving a shoot-down for, that instantly makes an enormous volume of other evidence false, which brings into doubt the entire AA77 and UA93 aspect of 9/11.
-Gumboot
I fail to see how we all seem to trust Dick Cheney's word at face value.
He has proven himself to be a liar. Take his statements about WMD's in Iraq.
he is on record stating that we know they have them, and then he was on record saying he never said that.
He has proven himself to be a liar. Take his statements about WMD's in Iraq.
he is on record stating that we know they have them, and then he was on record saying he never said that.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
It's not about taking Cheney's word at face value. It's about taking all the evidence and ALL the words of those involved and coming up with an informed, rational opinion.
IMO, If it came down to Cheney's word being the only thing to go on, I wouldn't give his testimony the time of day.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Seriously, do you actually read the posts on this forum, be honest. If you did, you would know that your question is stupid. If you don't believe me, then read the forum.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Yes I agree with you, nobody should take Cheney’s word at face value, but in this particular case he is surrounded by not only people but the actual timings of the said events to back up what he says.
For Cheney to be lying then everybody around his also has to be lying, those people who are mentioned in the 911 Commissions report are.
- The President of the USA, who Cheney phoned at 10:20.
- The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20.
- The Vice President's chief of staff, Scooter Libby who was at next to Cheney.
- Mrs Cheney who was sat next to Cheney
- The White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten who witnesses Cheney give the shoot down order.
- The commander of NORAD, General Ralph Eberhart,who confirmed there was a shoot down order.
- General Larry Arnold who broadcast the order at NORAD.
- Personnel at NEADS who also received the shoot down order.
- The secret service personnel who logged Mrs Cheney’s arrival
- And most importantly IMO the Defence Secretary Rumsfeld.
Here is what was said as recorded in the 911 Commissions report.
Ok Why is this call so important IMO?
For a start they are clearly talking about a shoot down order and it is also clear that Cheney mistaken believes an aircraft has already been shot down, the 911 Commission also comments on this and says he was mistaken. It is also very clear they are not talking about a stand down order, nor allowing a plane to slam into a building order
Secondly Cheney is calling a guy who was at the Pentagon, a guy who actually helped injured people outside the building, somebody who had just come out of a building that had had a plane slammed into it.
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 09:37 and one hour later Cheney is on the phone to somebody who was there and talking about a shoot down order. If Cheney had allowed flight 77 to hit the Pentagon as alleged by the cters, it makes no sense whosesoever that Rumsfeld would just agree with him. It makes no sense that Rumsfold would simply allow this phone call to go on record and protect Cheney, he was inside the Pentagon.
Would you not agree that anybody who survived the attack on the Pentagon and found out later that that attack had been allowed to happen by somebody else would be rather annoyed, rather upset, but no Rumsfeld agrees with Cheney, he actually backs him up with this call by going on record with it. Equally so had this call been about anything else they would have simply denied it ever happened.
I assure you I like you do not trust a word any politician says but in this particular case the evidence is so over whelming that Cheney is not lying and did in fact order the shooting down of Flight 93 sometime between 10:12 and 10:20, I can only draw the Conclusion that Mineta is mistaken about his times.
He said so himself.
That the people I've underlined in italics could have been lying is not impossible. Cheney on WMDs in Iraq; Libby (currently on trial for perjury); USSS who are at the VP's service and basically do what the VP wants; the Prez if Cheney says "cover my back" etc...
I'm not saying they all did. But you know, when you wanna find out the truth about something, you take the persons that were involved in the situation and you interrogate them one after the other and you see if their stories match or not. This is basically what Bush Cheney refused to do when the 9/11 commission asked them to testify. just a hint...
Moreover, the problem about Mineta is not so much finding out if there were shoot down orders given at some point. It is not impossible that Cheney gave shoot down orders about F93 (altough Mineta specifies clearly they didn't hear about 93 until after it had crashed, but who knows).
The problem here IMO is to know when Cheney actually got to the PEOC. Because if he lied to cover it up, then Mineta's testimony would mean a lot. Did Cheney arrive at the PEOC between 0905 and 0920? did he hear about F77 soming in (through USSS tigerwall system or openline with FAA)? Did he give orders about that flight? What was the nature of these orders?
So it pretty much goes down to the time he got to the PEOC, and not so much wether he afterwards (at 1000, or 1015) he gave orders.
Busherie
Assuming that:
1. There is no evidence that anything other than the planes described in the official account hit the wtc towers and that this caused the collapse
2. There is no evidence that anything other than the plane described in the official account hit the pentagon
3. There is no evidence that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville in exactly the way described in the official account
4. There is no evidence that a new world order exists, consisting of masons/illuminati/jews/reptoids
5. There is no evidence that the worlds media and aviation, law enforcement and construction professionals are involved in a cover up
There's kinda very little point in assuming that cheney, libby and the USSS contingent is lying, but quite alot of EVIDENCE that Mineta is mistaken.
1. There is no evidence that anything other than the planes described in the official account hit the wtc towers and that this caused the collapse
2. There is no evidence that anything other than the plane described in the official account hit the pentagon
3. There is no evidence that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville in exactly the way described in the official account
4. There is no evidence that a new world order exists, consisting of masons/illuminati/jews/reptoids
5. There is no evidence that the worlds media and aviation, law enforcement and construction professionals are involved in a cover up
There's kinda very little point in assuming that cheney, libby and the USSS contingent is lying, but quite alot of EVIDENCE that Mineta is mistaken.
CurtC
Illuminator
And if all their stories match, except one, but that one person tells you that he's not sure about the interpretation of what he was overhearing, and you have zero other evidence that his story was correct, which direction does that lead you?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Busherie, may I?
Inside Job...Inside Job
Minetta is the only true patriot
Inside Job...Inside Job
Everyone else kept to the perps script
Inside Job...Inside Job
Evidence was planted
Inside Job...Inside Job
Evidence was tampered with
This is to easy
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I have bolded the flaws in your line of reasoning busherie. There can be no room for error here nor can the be any if or buts.
Either everybody you have cited is lying or they are not. There is no room for “they could be lying” nor is there any room for " because if".
Accusing the people you have highlighted of lying in this particular instance is a very serious accusation and one that must be backed by solid evidence.
I'm afraid if you can offer nothing but it’s and maybes there you are doomed to failure. Mineta statement does contradict what many people said happened on that day, but it does not automatically prove they are lying. It highlights a discrepancy, nothing more, it says somebody is mistaken.
IMO Mineta is mistaken, simply because, as I have stated everybody else’s versions fits in perfectly with what everybody else said and the events of the day. The evidence in their favour is quite literally over whelming.
When you replace “If Cheney is lying" Or "Cheney could be lying" with” I have absolute prove that Cheney and all those around him are lying" then yes I will be more included to believe there is a case against him in this instance.
Incidentally the mistakes that were making prior to the invasion of Iraq are well documented; they are in the public domain and have been for years. This I believe is why the present US administration has seen its popularity drop recently. Many people are fully aware of the poor Intel prior to the Iraq war. These failings, equally so are not prove of anything with regard to 911. They are not secrets; they are blunders and quite public ones at that.
The same people who make such blunders you would have me believe pulled off the biggest hoax ever, come on.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I wonder how successful a prosecutor would be if he could only counter evidence that showed the defendant to be innocent with "well, they COULD be lying and the evidence COULD be faked. I'm not saying they are and I don't have any solid evidence they are, mind you, but it's possible. Therefore your client is GUILTY!"
Yikes.
Yikes.
If anybody is interested, Adam Letalik, from truth911.net, has written a pretty long Mineta paper:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/mineta.html
I've just skimmed through it and although it is very long, it seems to just be repeating the usual nonsense: drills, NORAD standown, Flight 93 shot down, calls couldn't have been made etc.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/mineta.html
I've just skimmed through it and although it is very long, it seems to just be repeating the usual nonsense: drills, NORAD standown, Flight 93 shot down, calls couldn't have been made etc.