Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Guest Post On Mineta and Cheney

(Disclaimer: I am posting this article by Adam in the interests of presenting both sides of the story, and because it is well-written and extensively researched. As I mentioned to Adam in an email, this is the essence of good investigative blogging; taking online resources and comparing them to other resources available off-line. Neither James nor I endorse the contents of this post.)

Full Paper (web - open in Internet Explorer): http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/minetaweb.mht

Norman Mineta, the acting Secretary of Transportation on 9/11, testified before the 9/11 Commission in a public hearing that he entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. where Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge. In his testimony, Mineta explained that “probably about five or six minutes” after he entered the PEOC, he observed a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young aide.

“… 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?"”

Mineta's Testimony [VIDEO] (00:03:54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-Srod3XUs

This testimony contradicts the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report because according to its revised version of events, Cheney did not enter the PEOC until 9:58. Accounts by Richard Clark, a White House photographer, ABC News and Cheney himself, all place Cheney in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was struck. The 9/11 Commission Report explains that F-16 fighter jets were not attempting to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon, as previous sources state, but were instead chasing a phantom aircraft. The military was not notified at 9:24 about the plane approaching the Pentagon (as previous public records and testimony showed), but instead claims that the military only learned, by chance, that AA 77 was lost at 9:34, minutes prior to the impact. Mineta’s testimony proves that Cheney knew about the incoming aircraft with sufficient time to intercept and shoot it down, thereby saving the 125 victims who died at the Pentagon. The orders that the young man was referring to when he asked if “the orders still stand” must have been orders to stand down and allow the aircraft to hit the Pentagon. This proves that 9/11 was an inside job.

Three Questions for Supporters of the Official Story:

Question 1: Did Mineta witness a conversation between a "young man" and Dick Cheney where the "young man" said "the plane is 50 miles out"? (Yes/No)

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: Yes

Question 2: Did Mineta witness this conversation before or after the Pentagon was hit? (Before/After)

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: After

Question 3: If this conversation occurred after the Pentagon was hit, why would Mineta think that the young man and Cheney were discussing the plane approaching the Pentagon?

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: Due to the confusion of the day, Mineta was mistaken about the time this conversation occurred and based on this; he incorrectly assumed it was the flight that struck the Pentagon. This conversation occurred sometime after 9:58 and therefore could not have been concerning the plane that struck the Pentagon.

But what if I could prove to you that Norman Mineta was not confused about the time he entered the PEOC? What if I could prove that Mineta did witness this conversation before the Pentagon was struck? What if I could prove that Dick Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58? What if i could prove Cheney was in the PEOC even before 9:20? Would you conclude that Mineta’s testimony is accurate and that Cheney did know about the plane approaching the Pentagon? Would you conclude that the 9/11 commission report covered this up and that we need a new investigation?

Mineta testified that he “met briefly with Richard Clark[e]” and was then escorted down to the PEOC. It was after this that he stated that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Richard Clarke described in his book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” his account of the events in the White House. Since he was the man in charge on 9/11, I could not imagine a more credible source. Richard Clarke confirms Mineta’s timeline of when he arrived in the PEOC and when Cheney was in the PEOC. He directly contradicts the 9/11 commission report in many areas. He clearly explains that Cheney would have definitely been in the PEOC before 9:28. He also states that his brief meeting with Mineta also occurred before 9:28 and that Mineta also joined the Vice President in the PEOC before 9:28. Richard Clarke could not possibly be confused about his timeline, as further evident by his notice of when the President made his address on CNN and when the Pentagon was struck.

I’ve quoted from his book and left “…” spaces to leave out sections that are irrelevant to this discussion. This is given in chronological order, and “…” spaces represent events occurring and the passing of time. Therefore notice that Clarke sent Mineta to the PEOC before 9:28, and Mineta’s recollection of the time of 9:20 proves to be accurate considering Clarke’s narrative. Clarke explains that Mineta called in from his car, went briefly to the Situation Room where Clarke sent Mineta to the PEOC to be with Vice President Dick Cheney. Also, Mineta was only 1.7 miles away when he left for the White House. Therefore when he called in from his car, he would have only been a few minutes away at most from the White House.

Richard Clarke’s Book:

Cheney began to gather up his papers. In his outer office the normal Secret Service presence was two agents. As I left, I counted eight, ready to move to the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, a bunker in the East Wing.



“You’re going to need some decisions quickly,” Rice said off camera. “I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.”

“What I need is an open line to Cheney and you.”

...

Shortly thereafter, Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President.


It was now 9:28.



The television screen in the upper left was running CNN on mute. Noticing the President coming on, Lisa turned on the volume and the crisis conference halted to listen.



Garvey read from a list: “All aircraft have been ordered to land at the nearest field. Here’s what we have as potential hijacks: Delta 1989 over West Virginia, United 93 over Pennsylvania…”

Stafford slipped me a not. “Radar shows aircraft headed this way.” Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing



Ralph Seigler stuck his head into the room, “there has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!”



Roger Cressey stepped back into the video conference and announced: “A plane just hit the Pentagon.”



“I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen,” I replied, “so the whole building didn’t get hit”.


Now, if you would like to hear the whole story from the mouth of Richard Clarke himself, he narrated his book. After listening to him read his full account, I ask you if this man seems confused about his timeline? Could there be a more credible source? Could you want any more proof that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58? Well, there is more proof, but the fact that Mineta’s testimony agrees with Clarke’s account is indisputable proof that Mineta and Cheney were in the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck.

Part 1 [1.3 MB] – 3min 56sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke1.mp3

Part 2 [1.4 MB] – 4min 04sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke2.mp3

Part 3 [1.7 MB] – 5min 01sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke3.mp3

Part 4 [1.5 MB] – 4min 30sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke4.mp3

And if you needed any more proof, Cheney himself admitted that he was in the PEOC with Mineta before the Pentagon was struck on Meet the Press, September 16th, 2001.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ... Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...
MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.

Between Popular Mechanics, Debunking 9/11 Myths, Screw Loose Change, or any debunking site, no one has ever even attempted to publish an explanation for Mineta's testimony. These groups have attempted to debunked virutally every single claim made by the 9/11 truth movement except this one. Is Mineta's testimony undebunkable?

To debunk this testimony you must start with an explanation for when Cheney entered the PEOC. This is what the debate boils down too. This question must be addressed first, and any other arguments are a distraction from this central claim. Explain how Mineta and Clarke could be so mistaken, how their testimony is inaccurate, and explain why the evidence that says that Cheney entered the PEOC at 9:58 is more credible.

-Adam
http://www.truth911.net

52 Comments:

At 19 December, 2006 14:24, Blogger Alex said...

It's a shame to see so much work dedicated to a side issue. I've yet to see anyone explain why exactly it matters what time Cheney entered the PEOC.

 
At 19 December, 2006 14:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't they debunk this on the JREF forum?

For anyone interested, here is the complete transcript from Mineta's testimony. Altough i think most of you have already seen this or read it.

 
At 19 December, 2006 14:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, Jay,

You got nothing.

 
At 19 December, 2006 14:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James, Pat,

Very good of you to post this.

 
At 19 December, 2006 14:56, Blogger CHF said...

Wow, that's quite the rebuttal BG.

Mineta's timeframe is off by 20 minutes and there's nothing you can do about it.

 
At 19 December, 2006 15:15, Blogger MarkyX said...

Whether or not the time was incorrect, the testimony still doesn't reveal much.

For starters, the whole "50 miles out, 30 miles out" and so forth doesn't really help your cause. How frequent were the updates coming to the young man and Dick Cheney? A minute or several?

Norman's statements aren't exactly clear and he does admit later that he finds out about the scramble orders. He also admits that it was mostly hearsay, hearing the information from other people.

So timeline or not, his testimony is extremely fuzzy and I would never use this "evidence" in any court.

 
At 19 December, 2006 15:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MarkyX said...

Surprise! I agree with you, which is why I say in a previous comment post here at SLC Blog that the huge import of Mineta testimony is not the testimony. The huge import is that no official body has yet to follow up with any satisfactory review, or further documentation to sort out how some testimony could be at odds with the official story.

This lack for careful investigation and follow up is completely consistent with many other instances of sloppy or incomplete work. It provides a prima facie case for the corruption within the 9/11 Commission and of other investigative bodies.

 
At 19 December, 2006 16:26, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

what's to follow up on with regards to Mineta's testimony?

It's clearly off by 20+ minutes. You really need someone to sit you down and slowly explain how an evacuation at 9:45 could not have taken place at 9:20?

It's very revealing that this kind of "evidence" gets so much attention from twoofers like BG. No matter how obviously wrong it is they still insist it's important for some reason. Why? It just is.

 
At 19 December, 2006 20:01, Blogger Alex said...

lets doo the tiiiiime waaaaarp agaaaaaain!

 
At 19 December, 2006 20:37, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

BG wrote:
The huge import is that no official body has yet to follow up with any satisfactory review, or further documentation to sort out how some testimony could be at odds with the official story.


When individual accounts are anomalous because they are contradicted overwhelmingly by the bulk of evidence it's probably best to employ good old parsimony: people can remember things wrong. Discovering this aspect of reality does not require another investigation.

 
At 19 December, 2006 22:01, Blogger FatOllie said...

I don't understand why the poster thinks that the order that was allowed to stand was a stand down order of some sort. It seems more likely to me that the man was questioning whether the extraordinary order to shoot down civilian aircraft {which had been given by the president} was still in effect.

Taking down a U.S. flag civilian aircraft would be an extraordinary mission for any military person and I would expect them to verify the vailidity all the way up to the time that the button got pressed. I know if I were the pilot or the officer in command of an air defense weapon (which, of course, were not available in this case) I would need that verification, and I'm not extraordinary.

To put it more succinctly: prior to 911 nobody had authority to shoot down U.S. flag civilian planes. As the morning of 911 progressed, the president was advised of the possible necessity of a shoot down and he gave the order. The man questioning Cheny was trying to make sure that if and when the plane got shot down that it was a result of the president's authority -- i.e. "that the orders still stand."

I wish that the parties concerned would come forward and explain all these niggling little questions, though the answers don't seem very important to me and I'm certain that truthful answers would not change many conspiracy theorists minds.

 
At 20 December, 2006 03:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read more (about the lack of air defense on 9/11) here:

- Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm

 
At 20 December, 2006 03:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its an ex air traffic controller. He was fired in 1981. You can find his info on pilotsfor911truth.

 
At 20 December, 2006 05:31, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

James, Pat, Kudos for the post. 1. Question, why don't you accept it as fact what Chaney, Minneta, and Clarke all testified to when you scream for experts, officials, and evidence for everything else the Truth Movement questiions?

Well it certainly sounds like checkmate in this issue.

Chaney it appears allowed for the Pentagon to be attacked. And there is nothing you OS'ers can do to prove otherwise.

You can cry 'side issue' or claim Mineta is wrong, but you cant get any more of an expert explanation than the three central characters involved.

Now to deny this, your going to have to explain
What Meds you are on?
How retarded are you?
How many terrorist you have supported?
Why do you lie?
Explain why we should not call you Deniers after this exposure?

You will also have to declare the size of your tin foil hat.

Now will be supporting any investigation into the actions of Chaney on that day? Do you find it at all suspicious?

Mark Go read the testimony again. You really think it takes a 'jet liner' several minutes to travel 20 miles? These were instant updates as to the object that was on course to hit the Pentagon. Any other reference places the plane too far away to any relative target.

CHF Why do you continue to deny those three central characters all stating the same thing? I really think you in a total state of denial with this issue.

Reverand So all three people were wrong? I think not.

Fatollie
To put it more succinctly: prior to 911 nobody had authority to shoot down U.S. flag civilian planes.

You are completely wrong or you are lying.

The fact, of course, the US Air Force has (and had) well-defined procedures for dealing with such suspicious events in the skies over the US (that's part of what they are paid to do), in particular, with suspected hijackings. The procedures were stated in DoD Directive Number 3025.15 dated 1997-02-18, with the title "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities". This document includes the following:

4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following ways:

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).

 
At 20 December, 2006 05:34, Blogger MarkyX said...


Mark Go read the testimony again. You really think it takes a 'jet liner' several minutes to travel 20 miles? These were instant updates as to the object that was on course to hit the Pentagon. Any other reference places the plane too far away to any relative target.


Thank you for proving my point :)

If the jet was going that fast, then there would be physically impossible to respond. This goes against the theory of a "stand down order"

 
At 20 December, 2006 05:57, Blogger 911coverup said...

There is video evidence of a stand down by the president. It is reportedly that Rumsfeld kept himself out of loop. Both the president and Rumsfeld have the authority to order a shoot down, not cheney. Cheney never testified under oath. All of which are clearly undeniable facts.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

 
At 20 December, 2006 06:15, Blogger MarkyX said...

Who said Cheney gave the shootdown?

 
At 20 December, 2006 06:15, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Directly from the Washington Post:

"It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it," Abshire said. "I didn't know exactly what it was. It didn't rumble. It was more of a direct smack." - Air Force Lt. Col. Marc Abshire

· Washington Post. 'Extensive Casualties' in Wake of Pentagon Attack. By Barbara Vobejda. September 11th, 2001.

Witnesses in the Shardon Hotel, 1.6 miles away, felt the shock wave.

Directly from the Leader Telegram:

“When it hit, the whole hotel shook." Deb Anlauf
The shock waves of that same crash were felt in the Chippewa Valley

· Leader Telegram. Area woman watched as Pentagon exploded. By Julian Emerson and Eric Lindquist. September 12th, 2001.

Any explanation for the above? Why no shockwaves in the other attacks?

 
At 20 December, 2006 06:18, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

If the jet was going that fast, then there would be physically impossible to respond.?

Is that so? Explain to me where the fighter cover was located in realtion to the Pentagon attack. Two, explain the speed/distance ratio of said fighter cover. Three, please list the speed of air to air missiles or the speed and rof of guns/cannons aboard said fighter cover.

Thanks.

 
At 20 December, 2006 06:32, Blogger Stevew said...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
Analysts defend NORAD’s 9/ 11 role
By Pam Zubeck
The international command that monitors incoming airstrikes shouldn’t be blamed for being unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks because no one could have foreseen the strikes, defense policy analysts said Wednesday. Their comments came in response to a New York Times report that the independent government panel investigating the attacks is expected to harshly criticize the Colorado Springsbased North American Aerospace Defense Command. The analysts said the inability of the Air Force to launch fighter jets in time to shoot down the hijacked planes was more a result of the Cold War’s end than neglect. "If bin Laden had attacked us when Ike was president, it would have been a different response. We were locked and loaded back then, and we were twitchy," said John Pike, executive director of the defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. "Under the circumstances I think it would have been difficult for them (fighter jets) to have made a difference," he said. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States is expected to accuse NORAD, a joint United States and Canadian command, of being slow and confused on that day. "On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen," the report will say, according to a Wednesday New York Times account. "What ensued was a hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
The report also will suggest that a more organized response by NORAD might have allowed fighter pilots to reach one jetliner and shoot it down before it flew into the Pentagon, nearly an hour after the first of the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, the Times reported. Instead, the commission reportedly has concluded, an emergency order from Vice President Dick Cheney authorizing the hijacked planes to be shot down did not reach pilots until the last of the four commandeered jetliners had crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania. NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhart and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify today at the commission’s last hearing before it reports its findings late next month. NORAD officials did not address the commission’s reported findings Wednesday, saying in a statement they did not want to "pre-empt Gen. Eberhart’s testimony before the commission."
While some criticize the Air Force for not having fighters on alert close to likely targets such as Washington, D.C., and New York, defense analysts aren’t surprised. After the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, continental air defense was turned over to the Air National Guard, Pike said, noting that the days of planes being fueled, armed and ready on the tarmac ended long ago. "Given the prevailing attitudes at the time, it would have been an uphill struggle" to have fighters on alert for a homeland attack, Pike said. As it was, fighters that responded to Washington, D.C., came from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, and those sent to New York City flew from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass. The Air Force has closer bases where fighters could have been placed but weren’t, said Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Washington, D.C., think tank Lexington Institute. "Nobody took the continental air defense mission seriously before 9/11," Thompson said. "It was the bottom of the list for the Air Force. Neither NORAD or the Air force assigned a high priority to the mission. Most of the aircraft that were on alert weren’t even armed."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911panel_statement17.pdf
No one had attacked the continental United States from the air since the Japanese tried to drop incendiary weapons on the West Coast from balloons in World War II. Even if fighters had been based in the right place and ready for deployment, however, it’s sheer guesswork whether they could have shot down the airliners in time, said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C. "The more important factor is no one anticipated this," Carpenter said. "The danger is much more evident in retrospect than it was at the time." Carpenter said NORAD’s mission was to monitor threats from outside the borders, not from within. "To me, this illustrates one of the problems with the 9/11 commission trying to assess blame for a situation that would have been very difficult to anticipate," Carpenter said. Pike said the commission’s findings are of interest only in terms of identifying changes. After Sept. 11, the Air Force launched Operation Noble Eagle, which sent fighters patrolling over select targets. It continues today. NORAD has expanded its mission to monitor threats from within the United States and has taken steps to enhance communication with other agencies. In addition, the military has been given authority to shoot down aircraft under certain circumstances without seeking presidential approval.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911panel_statement17.pdf
page 22
It explanes why the air defence did not respond and much more. the whakos think we and the world should have known they were going to fly into the towers etc. I still think these conspiricy kooks do it for hate of W, to make themselves feel important and give their pitiful lives meaning. The fact it would have taken thousands of people and they would of had to keep it secret, is just silly. People screwed up but I was is shock and I am good in a crunch. People involved in this must have been going nuts and there was very little time to do anything. I watched it live and it seemed like it only was a few min's when the sceond hit. when dealing with a stiualtion that was unthinkable, people hesitate before they react and it doesn't take much to cause a domino effect. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground. I wonder how all these critic's would do if they were in the position of these folks but most are not qualified. The first and formost thing you have to take in to concideration is that the pilots had no rules for engagement which means that the pilots could do nothing till they have rules of engagement. There were no rules for the airforce to shoot down Amercian civilian planes. This alone could have taken more time than they had and were not given til after 10:00. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
Doesnt' everyone know where most of the blame for 9/11 should go by now?
"9/11 Commission to Question Air Defense Cutbacks
For its final public hearing on Thursday, the Sept. 11 Commission will focus on
Why U.S. air defenses were unprepared to stop an airborne attack on America, a topic that could raise questions about the decision by the Clinton administration to abolish the New Jersey Air National Guard wing that had been designated to protect New York City airspace.
When the Sept. 11 terrorists struck, the entire continent of North America was defended by just 20 fighter aircraft, arrayed in pairs in 10 locations.

Of the U.S.-based fighters, two were in Massachusetts, two in Virginia and two in Florida.
But before Clinton-era military cutbacks, the nation's air defense system also included an Air National Guard fighter wing that was stationed in Atlantic City, which had two F-16s ready to scramble 24 hours a day.
Eleven days after the attacks, former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler told the New York Times that the Atlantic City base was shut down in 1999, leaving New York City airspace defenseless.
'Up until a few years ago we had an F-16 fighter wing here in New Jersey that would be capable of intercepting one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center,' Schundler said in a follow-up interview with WABC Radio.
'They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts.'
Two F-16s had scrambled out of Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod after American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into World Trade Center Tower 1, but didn't arrive in New York airspace until 15 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC Tower 2.
'They could not"
There were thousands of planes in the air at the time. Where do you shoot them down, over the city? Prior to 911 the continental US was not part of NORAD's mission. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground.

 
At 20 December, 2006 07:36, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Swing Dangler:

Reverand So all three people were wrong?


Oh, God no, you're simply wrong about the other two. Cheney clearly doesn't state he was in the PEOC prior to 9:28 in the quoted section of testimony (in the quoted section he claims to have arrived approximately around the time the Pentagon was hit, which of course was 9:37 - which is shockingly also when the 9/11 Commission Report has him arriving) and Clarke's book is being misquotated by ommission.

Essentially you're trying to equivocate between the conference room of the PEOC with another secured area elsewhere in the building and Cheney's arrival at the building. Individual testimony is frequently unclear about this itself and you're attempting to hide in this ambiguity despite the bulk of evidence being far clearer. Minerta is the only one who specifically contradicts the content of the 9/11 Commission Report and then only in time. Allegations of what he was witnessing are entirely speculative on his part and entirely innuendo on yours, which is pretty much par for the course.

 
At 20 December, 2006 08:28, Blogger FatOllie said...

Swing Dangler said
So all three people were wrong? I think not.

About the important question, the money question, there is no disagreement among these people and I've seen you cite none. You claim that there was a standard order or procedure in place to shoot down commercial planes and that that order was countermanded by one of the mass-murdering co-conspirators. None of the three asserts that. None has either explicitly or implicitly denied that, prior to 911, for a commercial plane to be shot down required presidential authority. I am curious as to how that authority was excercised -- how it was, by some accounts, that it was Cheney and not Bush who gave the shoot-down order -- but there is no rational dispute that the order was necessary and that it was given.

 
At 20 December, 2006 09:11, Blogger FatOllie said...

Swing Dangler said
(with reference to my comment:
"To put it more succinctly: prior to 911 nobody had authority to shoot down U.S. flag civilian planes.")

You are completely wrong or you are lying. The fact, of course, the US Air Force has (and had) well-defined procedures for dealing with such suspicious events in the skies over the US (that's part of what they are paid to do), in particular, with suspected hijackings. The procedures were stated in DoD Directive Number 3025.15 dated 1997-02-18, with the title "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities".

He then goes on to quote the document which states, in part:

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).

What does reference (g) say? I haven't looked it up (and don't know if I can) but I seriously doubt that it says that civilian aircraft are to be shot down upon the request of civil authorities or that it says that members of the chain of command at levels lower than CINC have authority to order that civilian planes be shot down.

First, it's just goofy to state or imply that the DoD would cede such authority (establishing rules of engagement) to those outside the chain of command.

Second, DoD policies/directives are promulgated under the authority of the president, the CINC. The DoD, deriving its authority from the president, establishes rules of engagement -- when force may be used, how much force may be used, and so on. According to all the players, on 911 and prior, the rules of engagement in force, the established procedures, required a presidential order to shoot down a civilian plane. I've not seen you, or anyone else, present contradictory evidence. In other words, that requirement (direct CINC order) is not contrary to the directive as you quote it.

It's commonly understood that the right of self defense is inherent in all rules of engagement. But, exactly how imminent the threat needs to be to invoke this right, how potentially damaging the threat must be, and how certain it must be that the threat exists (rather than just a misinterpretation of events); all these are thorny issues.

Perhaps I will comment later on the question of self defense with respect to flight 77 and how military leaders respond to vague directives/procedures such as those offered up by the SwingDangler.

 
At 20 December, 2006 09:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fatollie, here is the paper SD is referring to.

 
At 20 December, 2006 09:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And here is Dod 3025.1

 
At 20 December, 2006 09:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems SD forgot to paste the important stuff.

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be
informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written
request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance
shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent
information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall
notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other
appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities'
written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon
as it is available.


So i don't think they are talking about hijackings, although i could bewrong ofcourse.

 
At 20 December, 2006 10:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok... first of all... i have still not seen anything that could be considered a convincing or detailed account to explain your side of the story. As stated in my post, you guys must start with your evidence for when CHeney and Mineta entered the PEOC. so arguing about what "the orders" were, or anything else is a distraction from the main point, as i stated in the post. Some of you suggested Mineta's timeline was off by 20min. this would still not debunk anything. first, you provided no evidence or rational argument for this. Second, the 9/11 commission report says Cheney entered the PEOC at 9:58, so mineta's timeline would have to be off by more than 40min. Cheney entered the tunnel on the way to the PEOC at 9:37, and entered the PEOC at 9:58 according to the commission report. Mineta witnessed the conversation in the PEOC. Mineta's account is confirmed by Clarke. So it's both Mineta's and Clarke's account that directly contradicts the commission report. Clarke's quotes were not taken out of context. Listen to the mp3s and you'll see there was no distortion in his quotes and they reflect what he was saying (i wasn't going to post the whole 7 pages of his book. just listen to the mp3s for the full account).

Someone asked how this was significant or proved 911 was an inside job. Well, this proves Cheney knew about the plane approaching the pentagon when it was 50 miles out at 9:27. The fighter jet that was in the air at 9:30 could have intercepted the flight before it hit the Pentagon. So now they claim that they didn't know about the plane approaching the pentagon so that they could not be blamed for not intercepting the plane. btw, intercept and shoot down are different. the fighters should have been able to intercept even if shoot down authorization had not been given. so the significance of mineta's testimony is that 1) the commission report is wrong. 2) the military is to blame for not intercepting the plane approaching the pentagon because from Mineta's testimony we know Cheney knew about the plane with enough time to intercept it. This is strong evidence to suggest that the military stood down and didn't intercept the plane despite the fact that they were aware of the plane when it was 50 miles out. This was no debunked in the JREF forum or anywhere else. if you think it has, please provide a full and detailed explanation to debunk this. i find it strange that despite the fact that you guys have a counter argument for every other point the truth movement brings up, no one has ever provided a convincing or detailed explanation for Mineta's testimony. the only counter argument given here that provides anything that could be considered a relevant argument is the evacuation of the white house. for some reason, you guys brush off virtually all mineta's testimony as inaccurate yet you say that the only accurate part is when he mentioned that the white house was being evacuated when he arrived. The order that Clarke gave to evacuate the white house was made shortly after 9:03, before Mineta arrived. So the order had been given, and they were in the process of carrying out that order when mineta arrived. this is a reasonable explanation to account for the single inconsistency that you have pointed out in his testimony. though i admit that the evacuation wasn't in full swing until 9:45, it is certainly possible Mineta was aware of the evacuation order when he arrived. After he arrived, he met with Clarke in the situation room for a brief period of time, before being sent to the PEOC. Both Mineta's testimony and Clarke's account refer to this meeting as occurring around 9:20. Even if you were to just look at Clarke's account alone, Clarke also directly contradicts the official story and he was the man in charge on 9/11. The NORAD stand down is not a side issue and has been a central claim made by the 9/11 truth movement for a long time. no convincing or detailed account has ever been provided to explain mineta's testimony.

 
At 20 December, 2006 10:27, Blogger FatOllie said...

Jay, thank you for the links.

Interesting that in directive 3025.15 we find:


4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counterterrorism Operations. The employment
of U.S. military forces in response to acts or threats of domestic terrorism may be
requested only by the President (or in accordance with Presidential Decision
Directives) and must be authorized by the President. All requests for assistance in
responding to acts or threats of domestic terrorism must also be approved by the
Secretary of Defense.


Another question about this that comes to mind. If the story were as the conspiracists claim, who, exactly was the civilian authority that requested that the plane be shot down and exactly who was it that countermanded that order and in what manner?

This is a good example of the stuff that leads me to believe that it would require hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators and accessories to implement such a conspiracy and then to keep it quiet.

And what's more, if I were one of the thousands, who must have been aware of the supposed stand down order, I wouldn't keep it a secret -- no how, no way. I don't know anyone who would. Can anyone point me to even one individual who was not part of the conspiracy who would keep the secret? (or any of the other secrets) Clearly Avery, Burmass, Barrett, et al are willing to risk their lives (stop that laughing, I say, stop it!). How is it that only craven poltroons comprise this legion of conspirators and accesseories?

 
At 20 December, 2006 11:31, Blogger FatOllie said...

truth911.net said...
[a bunch of stuff which doesn't really amount to anything]

I don't think that there's a lot of dispute about whether or not Cheney was aware that there was a plane (flight 77) heading towards Washington perhaps seven to ten minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Somewhere in the recent comments on this blog is reference to Cheney's appearance on NBC where he states that (or something very close, I don't have the quote at hand). That doesn't establish, as claimed, that there was a stand down order.

The argument the conpiracists are making here seems to be something like:

If Cheney was aware that a plane was approaching Washington minutes before it hit the Pentagon, then there must have been sufficient time for the fighters to intercept flight 77. Therefore, if the fighters failed to intercept flight 77, there must have been a stand down order.

:

If cheney was aware and
if there was no intercept,
there was a NORAD stand down order.

But, the way that I understand what happened:

There were exactly four fighters in the air in response to the hijacked airplanes: two from Otis, and two from Langley. At the time the Pentagon was hit, the two Otis planes were somewhere in between New York and Washington trying to locate one of the planes that had hit the WTC towers. The pilots thought that one of the hijacked planes that had been in the NYC area was still in flight and headed towards DC and they were looking for it/pursuing it(if you can pursue plane that does not exist).

When the two planes from Langley first took off, they were not informed as to the precise reason that they were scrambled. They did not know that they were responding to a threat from hijacked airplanes that were west of the DC area and heading in. The pilots did what they had been trained to do -- they went east, over the Atlantic, so that they could intercept a foreign launched air threat.

When everybody finally figured out that there was a plane coming in from the west that very much needed intercepting, neither the Otis nor the Langley planes could intercept in time.

The Langley fighters took off at 9:24 and headed east. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon somewhere around 9:37. The Langley jets got as far out as 150 miles from DC. Even if the fighters could have turned on a dime and headed back towards Washington at 900 mph (and they can't)it would have taken ten minutes to get there. Do the math (or get Judy Wood to do it for you): they flew out for 150 miles or so and would have had to fly an other 150 miles or so to get back to DC. If they averaged 900 mph, that would have taken 20 minutes which would put them over DC at 9:44 -- too late. (Oops, tell Judy we don't need her.)

So, the reason your argument fails, dear 911truth.org, is because, inherent in your argument, there is the premise that there was sufficient time for an interception to occur and that premise is false.

A stand down order is not necessary to explain the events of 911 as we know them. Because there is no evidence at all, circumstantial or direct (none, nil, nada), that a stand down order was given, I see no readon to believe in one.

Unless you believe "I have a list" David Ray Griffin's bizarre claim that he has a secret informant. David Ray Griffin: nothing more than Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy in silk panties. At least McCarthy had an excuse, being drunk most of the time and all. What's Griffin's excuse?

 
At 20 December, 2006 11:38, Blogger Alex said...

Someone asked how this was significant or proved 911 was an inside job. Well, this proves Cheney knew about the plane approaching the pentagon when it was 50 miles out at 9:27. The fighter jet that was in the air at 9:30 could have intercepted the flight before it hit the Pentagon. So now they claim that they didn't know about the plane approaching the pentagon so that they could not be blamed for not intercepting the plane.

Those fighters would have had trouble intercepting even if the pilots had gotten their orders before they took off, let alone if they received them at some point after takeoff, but regardless, I gotta ask: so what? You're still not answering the actual question. How does any of this make 9/11 an inside job? Even if we accept all your facts, there's only two ways your scenario could have ended:

1) The plane is shot down.
2) The plane is NOT shot down.

If the plane had been shot down, are you seriously saying that you would take that as a sign that 9/11 is NOT an inside job? Somehow I doubt it. Your compadres seem to think that flight 93 was shot down, and to them that's a sign that 9/11 MUST have been an inside job. So, regardless of what action may or may not have been taken regarding shooting down those planes, it's utterly irrelevant to the case you're trying to make. If a plane is shot down, you claim it's evidence the government carried out 9/11. If a plane ISN'T shot down, that's also evidence that the government carried out 9/11. Right. Stop playing silly games and let's see some actual evidence instead of pointless speculation.

 
At 20 December, 2006 12:11, Blogger Stevew said...

They babble about the F15's how they could have gotten there.
F15 not doing their job.

F15
Performance : maximum speed (time limited) 1,650 mph (2655 km/h) or Mach 2.5 at altitude, or 936 mph (1506 km/h) or Mach 1.23 at sea level; action about 600 miles (966 km). With afterburner which can not be used except in short bursts, that is why the Raptor with super cruse is a far better plane, the F15 can't supercruse
They calim that because the F15 can go M2.5, they had time to get there but never explain that 2.5 is at altitude.

 
At 20 December, 2006 16:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok... fatOlli said "I don't think that there's a lot of dispute about whether or not Cheney was aware that there was a plane (flight 77) heading towards Washington perhaps seven to ten minutes before the Pentagon was hit."

THANK YOU FATOLLI ! this is what all you wont admit too! that is the whole point i was trying to make, and everyone was disagreeing with me. this is the first step in the argument. you're right that this alone doesn't prove 9/11 was an inside job, but it is the first point that needs to be cleared up. i've been debating this with you guys for days, and none of you would admit this! congradulations

but also fatolli... your analysis of the fighters and the time taken to reach washington is completely wrong and distorted. the main fact that you must not be aware of, is that Langley is only 130 miles away from the Pentagon. So according to the 911 commission report, the fighter jets were actually further away from Washington D.C. at the time of the Pentagon impact than they were when they inially took off.


the F-16s should have arrived in plenty of time to prevent the Pentagon from being struck at 9:37:46. F-16s can fly at 1,500 mph (25 miles per minute). At this rate, they could have traversed the 130 miles to Washington in slightly over five minutes, leaving them almost three minutes to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down the hijacked aircraft. But according to NORAD’s September 18 timeline, the F-16s, far from getting to Washington at 9:35, were still 105 miles away at 9:37:46 when the Pentagon was struck. Critics who did the math could point out that NORAD’s account was absurd. It entailed that during their eight-minute flight after they were airborne, the F-16s had traveled only 25 miles, which would mean they had been flying at under 200 miles per hour.

the commission report stated that they were 150 miles away from the pentagon, which is 20 miles further away than when they started.

once everyone can agree, as you did, that Cheney knew about the plane 7 -10 minutes before the Pentagon impact... then we can move forward with the debate. this contradicts the 9/11 commission report, but futher investigation will prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

but before I go on to show that a stand down order was given, we need to agree that Cheney was in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was hit, that Mineta's testimony is accurate and therefore, that the 9/11 commission report is incorrect.

 
At 20 December, 2006 16:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and to respond to alex... we first need to make what time Cheney was in the PEOC and whether Mineta's testimony is accurate. Then we can go on with the debate.

The NORAD stand down a strong piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I think they should have shot down all the planes, but especially should have been able to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon. Our problem with United 93 is not that they shot it down, but that they wont admit that they shot it down. If they came out and said that they had to shoot it down before it hit the White House, we would have no problem with this. The problem with United 93 is that they did shoot it down, but claim that they didn't. They should have shot down all the planes, but especially should have shot down the plane that hit the pentagon, and should have admitted they shot down UA 93.

 
At 20 December, 2006 16:26, Blogger Stevew said...

T911
You really need to learn to read
F15
Performance : maximum speed (time limited) 1,650 mph (2655 km/h) or Mach 2.5 at altitude, or 936 mph (1506 km/h) or Mach 1.23 at sea level; action about 600 miles (966 km). With afterburner which can not be used except in short bursts, that is why the Raptor with super cruse is a far better plane, the F15 can't supercruse
The F15 can go M2.5, but that 2.5 is at altitude.
F15's are faster than F16's as well

If they shot 93 down wreakage would have been scattered over a much larger are

You make these claims but WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? Weure are not going to take your word for it.

 
At 20 December, 2006 17:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

stevew... listen, i'd be happy to debate with you about what happened to united 93, or the speeds and altitutes of fighter planes, but as i mentioned in my post, this is a distraction from my arguement (which i warned against in my post). What needs to be discussed first, is Cheney's timeline in the PEOC. that's it. don't run away from this point by bringing up arugments which are a distraction from this central claim. once we agree that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58, and before the Pentagon was struck, and before 9:20 as Clarke and Mineta state, then we can get into the details of the arugment. but for the mean time, we need to make it clear what time Cheney and Mineta were in the PEOC.

 
At 20 December, 2006 17:31, Blogger Stevew said...

Please do planes are in my backyard.

There have been points on both sides and so far I have yet to see you or any toofer provide hard proof of anything period. You say this about what time and we say this. You guys have beem defeated so badly that you have to cling to anything that you think will have merit. When the unthinkable happens all plans go out the window and debating this really makes little sence to anyone with common sense and you toofers have none.

Here is NORAD's timeline of events:
American Airlines Flight 11 Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles

United Airlines Flight 175 Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0843
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass.
Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles

American Flight 77 Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924
Fighters Airborne 0930
Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles

United Flight 93 Newark to San Francisco
FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)
Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles
(from DC F-16 CAP)
NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground. I wonder how the critics would do if you were in the position of these folks

The first and formost thing you have to take in to concideration is that the pilots had no rules for engagement which means that the pilots could do nothing till they have rules of engagement. There were no rules for the airforce to shoot down Amercian civilian planes. 'Up until a few years ago we had an F-16 fighter wing here in New Jersey that would be capable of intercepting one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center.

They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts.'

 
At 20 December, 2006 18:11, Blogger FatOllie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 December, 2006 18:13, Blogger FatOllie said...

truth911.net said...
[a whole bunch more stuff that doesn't matter]

You seem to think that putting Cheney in the PEOC before flight 77 hit the Pentagon is going to lead you somewhere, and you're wrong. It doesn't matter. The fighters left Langley and headed east. I've not heard anybody deny this -- it is what happened. When they started to turn around and head back to DC, they were about 150 miles out. They were further from the Pentagon than they had been before they took off. Langely is SSE of DC. When you fly east from Langley, you get farther away from DC -- there's no mystery here.

As far as Cheney's timeline goes, I have absolutely no problem putting him in the PEOC when AA 77 hit the Pentagon. He told Russert that when the Secret Service hustled him from his office it was because there was a possible threat to the White House and confirmed to Russert that that was AA 77. He said that he was with Mineta in the PEOC but doesn't give the time. Finally he says that "within a short order" of his arrival he "had word" that the Pentagon had been hit.

But, none of this matters a damned bit because we know what time the fighters took off from Langley, we know that they headed east and were about 150 miles out from DC when they started to turn around and we know what time AA 77 hit the Pentagon. If there is some confusion about exactly when Cheney arrived at the PEOC, it's a trivial matter.

As for this alleged stand down order that you hope to prove, you're not getting any closer to a proof and you won't. There is no credible evidence at all that it was given. All you have is some wet dream fantasies and some crackpot claims about secret sources from a couple congenital liars and moon calf cretins

 
At 20 December, 2006 18:36, Blogger FatOllie said...

truth911.net says:

Critics who did the math could point out that NORAD’s account was absurd. It entailed that during their eight-minute flight after they were airborne, the F-16s had traveled only 25 miles, which would mean they had been flying at under 200 miles per hour.

Only if those critics who are so good at math think that there is only one point that is 105 miles from the Pentagon. Actually, there are more such points than the total of all the brain cells of Scholars for 911 truth combined. Infinitely many more.

 
At 20 December, 2006 20:23, Blogger Alex said...

Also, he just admitted that he thinks it's suspicious that 93 was "shot down" while at the same time thinking that it's suspicious that 77 WASN'T shot down. Now, how the hell is anyone supposed to refute that sort of...."logic"?

It's quite obvious that no matter how events had gone, he would find SOMETHING suspicious about it. If, tomorrow, Bush went on public TV and said "yeah listen, what really happened is we shot down flight 93, and we decided not to shoot down flight 77", do you know what would happen? You'd probably think this clown would be jumping with joy, but you'd be wrong. Nope, the very next day he'd have a theory for you about how Flight 93 was really brought down by the passengers, and Flight 77 was actually an alien mothership.

It's obvious that he doesn't actually care about the truth; he only cares about arguing against "the official story".

 
At 21 December, 2006 03:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the only thing i'm trying to debate here is when Cheney and Mineta were in the PEOC. And i'm trying to prove that Mineta entered the PEOC around 9:20, and Cheney was there when Mineta arrived. that's it. until we all agree on this, then there is no point in talking about the fighter jets from langley, the distance and speed they had to travel, united 93, etc. so... here's what i'm trying to prove:

Was Cheney and Mineta in the PEOC at around 9:20 and is Mineta's testimony accurate? (yes/no)

fatolli seems to be the only one answering yes to this question. Once i can get everyone to agree that the answer to this question is 'yes' then we can move on with the discussion... because as i said in the post, there is no point in continuing with this debate until we answer this question.

so let's take a pole.. .who answers 'yes' and who answers 'no'. Keep in mind, that by answering 'yes' as Fatolli did, you directly contradict the 9/11 commission report.

so it does matter when Cheney entered the PEOC. for days i've been aruging that Cheney was in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was hit, and everyone has disagreed with me except for Fatolli. Fatolli, please explain to your buddies here that i'm right about this. And when everyone answers 'yes' to this question, then we can talk about the significance of this, the rules of engagement, etc. but until we all agree on this point, there is no sense in moving forward with the debate.

So... were CHeney and mineta in the PEOC before the pentagon was hit, maybe around 9:20? (yes/no)

before anyone responds, you must answer yes or no to this question.

and just to respond to alex, so that he doesn't think i'm avoiding a question... i think all the planes should have been shot down. the military should have been able to at the very least, protect it's headquarters. so if they shot down UA 93 and AA 77, i would have no problem with that if they said that they had to shoot down more hijacked planes so that they wouldn't kill more people on the ground. the problem with UA 93 is not that it was shot down, but the fact that the Military claims they didn't shoot it down and made up a story about passengers crashing the plane. IF they admit they shot it down, no one in the truth movement would have any problem with this, since they shoudl have tried to shoot down all hijacked planes that were to be used as weapons. now... this is a distraction from my agruement. before we continue, everyone in this post must answer 'yes' or 'no' to my question of Cheney and Mineta's timeline in the PEOC. Fatolli is so far the only one to answer 'yes' to this question. everyone else in this post and on the threads in the forums have answered 'no' so far. SO what's it gonna be people, 'yes' or 'no' ?

 
At 21 December, 2006 06:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

truth911 A very nice piece of work that you have done. No one on the OS can refute your work. They have nothing and that is why I suspect you will not see a long list of yes out of these guys in regards to your question. I say yes. It is very apparent and clear as to what you are saying.

For the record there is ample evidence that 93 was shot down. Kudos for whoever ended that flight. Check the eyewitness statements of people miles away from the actual crash site who gathered bits and pieces of paper, debris, and body parts. Miles away mind you, not at the crash scene.

The question then becomes, why did Cheney allow 77 to hit the Pentagon?

 
At 21 December, 2006 06:53, Blogger CHF said...

Mineta's off by 20 minutes but don't worry - his testimony still proves 9/11 was an inside job.

How can that be?

Dunno. It just is.

 
At 21 December, 2006 06:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey swing... thanks for the support... i don't know if that was a rhetorical question... but do you know who the victims were at the pentagon? one group was navel intelligence who may have been monitoring the war games. the other groups were accountants and budget people... when the day before, rumsfeld admitted they couldn't track 2.3 trillion in transactions...

and to everyone else, i wont respond to any more comments unless you answer "yes" or "no" to my question in the previous comment.

 
At 21 December, 2006 07:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf... off by 20 min? that still contradicts the 9/11 commission report. his testimony would have to be off by 40 min for it to agree with the commission report. so i'm guessing your answer is "no". but you haven't attempted to show how Clarke's account could be wrong also, and why Clarke's and Mineta's account agree with each other. Listen to fatolli, he agrees with me about this issue, why can't you guys get that?

 
At 21 December, 2006 07:51, Blogger FatOllie said...

truth911.net said...

You need to be careful, Baby Boy. What I have acknowledged, and there can be little misunderstanding about this, given Cheney's comments to Russert (available at whitehouse.gov), is that Cheney was informed about flight 77 approaching DC prior to the time it crashed into the Pentagon. Cheney says he was in the PEOC when he was told about it crashing; I am inferring that he was there before it happened-- partly because Cheney's account meshes reasonably well with Mineta's account. I don't know that Cheney was there before Mineta, but I really don't care. So, your claim that I have acknowledged that Cheney was there by 9:20 is wrong and your claim that I have acknowledged that Mineta's statements are accurate, appears to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I have written. It looks like you are starting to play fast and loose with what people write in these comments. It makes sense that you would, considering.

Is Mineta's account accurate? Mineta's account is reasonable, I suppose, and should be trusted about as much as any verbal testimony not substantiated with written records -- that is, less than 100%. Any times he gives are likely reasonably correct to his recollection. Nobody's personal recollections about such events should be totally accepted as fact -- the human mind and memory just do not work that way.

Whether or not the whole "50 miles out" thing happened the way Mineta recalls, I have no idea. But, it doesn't matter. Even if, as you claim, Cheney was aware that Flight 77 was approaching DC at 9:27, it doesn't matter. The planes from Langley were not in the air until 9:30, and then they flew in the wrong direction even though nobody gave them orders to fly in the wrong direction Even if they had taken off from Langley and heades straight for DC, they would not have gotten there on time. I believe it is not at all reasonable to assume that the fighters could cover that 130 miles in less than about 9 minutes considering they had to take off, turn, accelerate, climb, descend and so on. That gets them to DC after the crash.


If you disagree with this, prove it. Figure out how a plane gets from on the ground in Langley at 9:30 to in the air at the same elevation as Flight 77 and at essentially the same coordinates. Show your work. You must be able to tell me, for example, what were the planes coordinates, altitude, speed and direction for any time selected from 9:30 on. If you can't do that, your pissing in the wind and calling it rain because if you can't do that, none of the crap about Mineta and Cheney being in the PEOC at about 9:20 matters.

 
At 21 December, 2006 09:56, Blogger Stevew said...

Well put Fatollie, I was thinking the same thing but could not put it into words that well. With all the info we have provided all the whaks can do is cling to the nonsequiter.
Perhaps if they would read and try and understand what we have put fourth they might understand but I dought it. For some reason none of the whaks understand the pre 911 mindset

 
At 21 December, 2006 11:45, Blogger Alex said...

so let's take a pole.. .who answers 'yes' and who answers 'no'. Keep in mind, that by answering 'yes' as Fatolli did, you directly contradict the 9/11 commission report.

The word is "poll".

I still think Minettas testimony was off, and I still don't see how it's relevant. I don't really care if you want a yes/no answer, because that's a shitty debate tactic. You're basically saying "I won't show you any evidence until you agree with this". Well, screw that. I'll grant that you present a very complex case, but it's not convincing simply because of all the other nonsense that you lunatics believe. I KNOW that you've lied on many other matters, so I'm not willing to take your word on this unless I research it myself, and I'm not willing to research it myself unless you can show me that it's actualy important. That's the problem with throwing out so many insane ideas, lying about events, and misquoting people - even if you were 100% correct about this, nobody would believe you simply because you lack any credibility due to your past actions.

So the ball is in your corner. Show me why it's so important what time he got to the PEOC, and we'll see whether it's even worth discussing. Unless you can do that, don't expect anyone to care.

 
At 22 December, 2006 08:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok... fatOlli said "I don't think that there's a lot of dispute about whether or not Cheney was aware that there was a plane (flight 77) heading towards Washington perhaps seven to ten minutes before the Pentagon was hit."

that's all i'm trying to prove

and alex... if you want to see the relevance of this and all the information... read my god damn paper. it's over 70 pages and all all the references you need.

but, as i've stated, this is the first step of the debate and there's no point in talking more about it until we can clear up when Cheney was in the PEOC. i need everyone to admit to what Fatolli admitted too above.

 
At 22 December, 2006 13:58, Blogger FatOllie said...

ok... fatOlli said "I don't think that there's a lot of dispute about whether or not Cheney was aware that there was a plane (flight 77) heading towards Washington perhaps seven to ten minutes before the Pentagon was hit.

that's all i'm trying to prove


No it's not. Read your own comments. Your trying to use the fact that there is meaningless confusion over minor details to prove that there was a stand down order and that the planes from Langley had time to intercept Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. There is absolutely no evidence of such an order and the comments by Mineta that you cite, properly interpreted, say exactly that. There is no doubt that the order that Mineta was talking about was a shoot down order -- he confirms it. You can't rely on Mineta's timeline to establish that Cheney was in the PEOC at a particular time and then throw out the only thing of substance that Mineta has to say -- it's just plain dumb.

More to the point. Any discrepency about what time Cheney arrived at the PEOC has no probative value as to what happened on 911. You're trying to use what amounts to a spelling error to mean that we need a new investigation:


Would you conclude that the 9/11 commission report covered this up and that we need a new investigation?


No.

 
At 25 December, 2006 11:47, Blogger Thunder said...

I think we have the crux of the 911 consipiracy debate all wrapped up in this one admittedly "side" issue.

As I sit here in Baghdad it is Christmas day. I was taking a break and wandering through some blogs when I came through this one. 911 consiparicy theories were becoming a vice of mine prior to deploying to the Middle East, and I've lagged a bit since.

Having said that, the crux of much of the debate between opposite camps on this issue is the verocity, or lack thereof, of eyewitness testimony. On this, using my 12 years experience in the military, including combat experience, I have to decisively state that first reports are usually wrong. In very stressful situations, two people looking at the same event often come to very different conclusions as to what happened. Time takes on a different quality as well. What in reality has taken 30 seconds can feel like 10 minutes, and what in reality has taken 30 minutes can feel like 5. And I cannot count the number of times during After Action Reviews that trained soldiers and leaders (to include myself on a number of occasions) are flat out wrong about what happened during a given mission.

This was happening in abundance during 9/11. Read or listen to the confusion that reigned at NORAD for example, or on the emergency frequencies in NYC (Or our radio nets over here on any given day). What plane(s) was Cheney's aide talking about? Mineta doesn't say, but if memory serves NORAD wasn't even sure which plane(s) were hijacked yet, much less en route to the Pentagon. They had figher jets scrambling to a point over the Atlantic, not to D.C.

What order was he talking about? Mineta says later on in the testimony that he understood it later to mean the order to shoot down civilian aircraft, but he didn't know it at the time, even though he was sitting next to the Vice President.

And if this is confusing now, imagine what it must have been like for a decision maker on that fateful day. Working with incomplete and often incorrect information in a fast moving, stressful environment is as a matter of course going to create misconceptions in the minds of many.

I wince at including a movie quote in a serious discussion but do so only because it came directly from NASA transcripts: "Settle down people, let's work the problem, and not make things worse by guessing." Gene Kranz, flight director for Apollo 13, had it exactly right. A lot of people at the highest levels of government were guessing in the hours after the first flight hit the world trade center. I can't think of anyone besides the terrorists who had a complete picture of what was happening that day until much, much later. This is why people hearing "bombs" going off in the WTC are sure that's what they heard, but it's not necessarily so. First reports in combat are usually wrong, as are recollections much later on, especially of politicians trying to portray an image of being in charge when they really were useless or counterproductive. In this I lump Bush, Cheney and the rest of the government, but not in a bad way. Given the system we created and the assumptions our aviation and defense systems worked under, there was nothing they COULD do. The moment those terrorists stepped on the plane the deal was done. The one thing they could not have forseen, and the only real action taken that day, was by the passengers of flight 93 who, upon learning they were doomed, decided to go out with a bang. Gotta love 'em, let's roll.

All of this analysis is invalid, of course, if your assumption is that Cheney and Bush were in on the whole thing from the start. And my sense, having seen and read what I have, is that there's zero chance this is true. It makes for interesting reading, and would make a hell of a spy novel, but contains so many if/then equations that it makes you go batty just trying to calculate it all.

 
At 27 December, 2006 11:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Great post Thunder, I have been trying to say those very things but never seem to be able to find the right words like you did. Kudos and be safe

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home