Mineta's testimony not part of 9/11 report

Mutton-Head said:
As far as I know, the answer is no.

[Edit: I did answer you. "The time line given in the report implicitly denies that they could have taken place. No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims.
Click to expand...

"No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims." Does not answer my question, but that is moot now, as you have now answered it. So, the Commission, so far as you know, has made no indication of why his testimony was left out of the report. The next step would be to find out if we can get the reason from them. I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
"No other sworn testimony contradicts Mineta’s claims." Does not answer my question, but that is moot now, as you have now answered it. So, the Commission, so far as you know, has made no indication of why his testimony was left out of the report. The next step would be to find out if we can get the reason from them. I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Hey, can't a guy just ask questions?

And just make accusations without evidence?

And just accuse people of evading questions?

While doing the same himself?
 
So, are we all agreed that Mineta's statements

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

Do we all agree that these statements were left out of the report?
 
Mutton-Head said:
So, are we all agreed that Mineta's statements

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

Do we all agree that these statements were left out of the report?
Click to expand...

Ok, lets look at reality. I know it will be a stretch for you, but try.
Nobody, but nobody goes anywhere in any secure defense facility without either signing in or presenting a badge to a sensor. The time is recorded, as well as the name. It is also my understanding (unverified) that every phone call from the White House is either recorded, or the numbers and times recorded.
Do you not think it possible, that in the tension of the situation, the stress of uncertainty over events occurring rapidly, and the confusion of conflicting reports due to purely human second-guessing-- that possibly Mineta confused the times just a bit, and that the written and recorded time conflicted with his recollection? That would certainly cause his testimony to be considered less-than-credible.
 
rwguinn said:
Ok, lets look at reality. I know it will be a stretch for you, but try.
Nobody, but nobody goes anywhere in any secure defense facility without either signing in or presenting a badge to a sensor. The time is recorded, as well as the name. It is also my understanding (unverified) that every phone call from the White House is either recorded, or the numbers and times recorded.
Do you not think it possible, that in the tension of the situation, the stress of uncertainty over events occurring rapidly, and the confusion of conflicting reports due to purely human second-guessing-- that possibly Mineta confused the times just a bit, and that the written and recorded time conflicted with his recollection? That would certainly cause his testimony to be considered less-than-credible.
Click to expand...


Once again, you keep trying to take it back to the issue of what time it was. The official report's time-line does not give any room for the events that Mineta descibed to have ever happened.

Not only are the items that Mineta testified to:

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

Not only are they absent from the report, but the report's time-line implicitly states that the events never happened. Not that Mineta's Time-line is wrong.

That they never happened.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Once again, you keep trying to take it back to the issue of what time it was. The official report's time-line does not give any room for the events that Mineta descibed to have ever happened.
Click to expand...
That's why the time he was there is important. Without coroborating proof of when he was there, it calls into question his testimony.
 
Mutton, you keep repeating the same argument over and over again. Have you read any of the replies the posters of this board have made since the begining of this thread? They make pretty damn good arguments, you might like to read them.
 
Last edited:
Mutton-Head said:
No it was sworn testimony.
Click to expand...


Just because it's a sworn testimony doesn't mean it's important.



Mutton-Head said:
By Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. He is important, he is credible, he was detailed.
Click to expand...


False on all points. The Transportation Secretary is not important in the events of 9/11.

Norman Mineta's testimony is demonstratably false, as it is physically impossible for things to have occured as he claims. This means his recollection is faulty, which brings into question his credibility.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague, full of assumptions made after the fact, and lacking in detail at all. The only detail he gave whatsoever (the time the conversation re: the aircraft occured) is completely false. Mineta himself repeatedly acknowledges that his testimony is vague and full of assumption.



Mutton-Head said:
The only thing in the Commission's report that could have contradicted his account, would be some written logs.
Click to expand...


And the physical reality of the world we live in. The physical reality of the world cannot be altered by scheming government neocons. If physical reality and Mineta are in conflict, Mineta must be wrong.

Bear in mind Hutton-Head, the only ACTUAL thing in question here is WHAT TIME the conversation Mineta overheard took place. Nothing else is in question.

It is physically impossible for the conversation to have taken place at the times Mineta claims. Therefore it occured at some other time. Therefore there is no conflict.

-Andrew
 
Even if we assumed that this supposed "evidence" were accurate, why do people automatically take the story down the road of "Cheney is responsible for 9/11"? In a situation where there could be dozens of rational explanations, including all of the ones which we have put forth, why does it all boil down to a single, uncorroborated accusation?
 
Perihelion said:
Even if we assumed that this supposed "evidence" were accurate, why do people automatically take the story down the road of "Cheney is responsible for 9/11"? In a situation where there could be dozens of rational explanations, including all of the ones which we have put forth, why does it all boil down to a single, uncorroborated accusation?
Click to expand...

Political Agenda.
 
CptColumbo said:
That's why the time he was there is important. Without coroborating proof of when he was there, it calls into question his testimony.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Question. And when there is a question, you look for an answer. The commission did not. They dropped it. They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question. They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.
 
Pardalis said:
Mutton, you keep repeating the same argument over and over again. Have you read any of the replies the posters of this board have made since the begining of this thread? They make pretty damn good arguments, you might like to read them.
Click to expand...

I see no arguments. I see assumptions. And you all keep trying to bring it back to "Mineta's recollection of the time is wrong." The time-line discrepency is not the problem. (Well, it's a problem, but not the biggest.) The commssion says that Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:37. AA77 hit the Pentagon a minute later. The commssion is implicitly stating, on record, that Mineta's statements

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

Never happened.
Not that they happened at a different time,

But thay they never happened.
 
Mutton-Head said:
They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question.
Click to expand...

How do you know?


They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be because Mineta's timeline was faulty? Besides, they never said Mineta's events never took place, they just didn't feel it was important enough to put it in the report.
 
gumboot said:
Just because it's a sworn testimony doesn't mean it's important.






False on all points. The Transportation Secretary is not important in the events of 9/11.

Norman Mineta's testimony is demonstratably false, as it is physically impossible for things to have occured as he claims. This means his recollection is faulty, which brings into question his credibility.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague, full of assumptions made after the fact, and lacking in detail at all. The only detail he gave whatsoever (the time the conversation re: the aircraft occured) is completely false. Mineta himself repeatedly acknowledges that his testimony is vague and full of assumption.






And the physical reality of the world we live in. The physical reality of the world cannot be altered by scheming government neocons. If physical reality and Mineta are in conflict, Mineta must be wrong.

Bear in mind Hutton-Head, the only ACTUAL thing in question here is WHAT TIME the conversation Mineta overheard took place. Nothing else is in question.

It is physically impossible for the conversation to have taken place at the times Mineta claims. Therefore it occured at some other time. Therefore there is no conflict.

-Andrew
Click to expand...



False, and wrong, and illogical, and idiotic reply.

You guys are so stuck with this one. Go back to the Loose Change thread.

Amateurs

You got nothing.

Mineta shows that Cheney was involved, and it's just sticking in your throats.

Norman Mineta's testimony is vague,
Click to expand...


1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

That ain't vague. That is specific.
 
Pardalis said:
I think Gumboot makes a pretty good point.
Click to expand...


Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

You can't even admit a basic proven fact.

Mineta said:

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

And the 9/11 commission implicitly denies it

And your argumets are all weak and amateur
 
Mutton, calm down.

There are transcripts and video of his testimony, so we all agree that he said what he said, there's no doubt. Nobody is denying that.

Your assumption is that the Commission Report denies even the existence of his entire account, which is stupid (see my previous paragraph).

Everybody here has been polite and patient enough to show you possible reasons why the Commission decided to disregard Mineta's testimony. Because that is the only thing we can do. Nobody here has inside knowledge of the Commission reports, all we can do is speculate on the reasons why they dismissed Mineta's accounts. Alot of people here have offered valid explanations.

You on the other hand is the one accusing the Commission of lying and hiding evidence. You have not offered any proof of that.
 
Mutton-Head said:
All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

You can't even admit a basic proven fact.

[...]

And the 9/11 commission implicitly denies it

And your argumets are all weak and amateur
Click to expand...
Speaking of "weak and amateur," here's a stupid idea... How about you ASK Mr. Mineta why his remarks weren't in the report? As Transportation Secretary during and long after 9/11, with a share of responsibility in the events of the day, I imagine he'd have spoken up if he was grossly misrepresented.

To misquote the infamous Dylan Avery, "We're just asking questions (and deliberately asking the wrong people)."
 
Pardalis said:
Mutton, calm down.

Your assumption is that the Commission Report denies even the existence of his entire account, which is stupid (see my previous paragraph).
Click to expand...

No, that's fact. The commission's time-line implictly denies that his account occurred. Do you understand implicit and explicit?

Pardalis said:
Everybody here has been polite and patient enough to show you possible reasons why the Commission decided to disregard Mineta's testimony. Because that is the only thing we can do.

You on the other hand is the one accusing the Commission of lying and hiding evidence. You have not offered any proof of that.
Click to expand...


Damn straight I'm accussing them of lying.
 
Pardalis said:
May I use that in my signature?
Click to expand...
Please do.

It simply rankles me what passes for "research" among the CTs. No real work at all. I mean, you think they'd at least watch an episode of Frontline or something to learn the basics of investigational inquiry.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Exactly. Question. And when there is a question, you look for an answer. The commission did not. They dropped it. They never corroborated any of the logs, or whatever else they had that questioned Mineta's account. They never asked or sought to answer the question. They dropped it. They promoted a time-line that implictly denies that the evcents that Mioneta described ever even happened.
Click to expand...

I assume you have filed a FOIA request to obtain said information, since you deem the answer critical. Is this correct?
 
Mutton-Head said:
False, and wrong, and illogical, and idiotic reply.

You guys are so stuck with this one. Go back to the Loose Change thread.

Amateurs

You got nothing.

Mineta shows that Cheney was involved, and it's just sticking in your throats...
Click to expand...
Mutton-Head said:
Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.

Amateurs.

...And your argumets are all weak and amateur
Click to expand...
As someone who recently stuck up for your presence in these discussions based on your demonstrated behavior thus far, I have to tell you your tone has taken a downward turn. I find gumboot to be very rational, analytical, and articulate regardless of the topic, and think you might wish to reconsider how best to proceed. In my opinion, insults and other personal attacks do nothing to advance your point.

Is your ego beginning to become involved in all of this, as I suggested elsewhere is often the case with such discussions?
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Speaking of "weak and amateur," here's a stupid idea... How about you ASK Mr. Mineta why his remarks weren't in the report? As Transportation Secretary during and long after 9/11, with a share of responsibility in the events of the day, I imagine he'd have spoken up if he was grossly misrepresented.
Click to expand...
This seems entirely reasonable. Your reaction, Mutton?
 
Pardalis said:
So Mutton, what could we say to make you happy? :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for asking.

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

I want everyone to agree that my contention is correct.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Thanks for asking.

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

I want everyone to agree that my contention is correct.
Click to expand...

Get it through your thick skull, "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." DOES NOT EQUAL "The 9/11 commission did not include his testimony in the report." The second is a statement of what we know, the first is an assumption you are making. How's that FOIA request coming?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Get it through your thick skull, "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." DOES NOT EQUAL "The 9/11 commission did not include his testimony in the report." The second is a statement of what we know, the first is an assumption you are making. How's that FOIA request coming?
Click to expand...

OK, fine, agreed. When I said "does not include his testimony," I meant "does not include any of the aspects of his testimony which deal with events in the PEOC." The problem, is making the thread title small enough. If you will notice, all of my arguments have been that the commission threw-out that one particular event that Mineta described in the PEOC, and, the entire line of questioning by Hamilton and Roemer concerned only this event. It apears that you haven't noticed, probably due to your thick skull.

So, to clarify

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

does everyone agree?
 
Mutton-Head said:
OK, fine, agreed. When I said "does not include his testimony," I meant "does not include any of the aspects of his testimony which deal with events in the PEOC." The problem, is making the thread title small enough. If you will notice, all of my arguments have been that the commission threw-out that one particular event that Mineta described in the PEOC, and, the entire line of questioning by Hamilton and Roemer concerned only this event. It apears that you haven't noticed, probably due to your thick skull.

So, to clarify

My contention with this thread is as follows:

Mineta testified that:

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred.

does everyone agree?
Click to expand...


No. We do not agree; because "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO "The 9/11 commission did not include Mineta's testimony in the report". The 2nd is a statement of fact, the first is a conjecture of opinion. You keep making huge leaps of (il)logic in an attempt to get to the conclusion you want.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Gumboot repeats the same old evasions.

1. Mineta isn't credible

2. His timing is wrong

3. The Commission decided it wasn't important.


All assumptions made by you.
Click to expand...


Mutton-Head, please try to read what is being said. Take these 3 points above...

These are not "assumptions" made by me. These conclusions are made from a chain of logic. It begins with (2).

I demonstrated why Mineta's timing is wrong. The conversation about the plane approaching the Pentagon could not have been about AA77 at 0925. AA77 was over 100 miles from the Pentagon at 0925, lost in a Primary Radar screen.

At 0932 (when it was identified) it was almost 60 miles from the Pentagon.

Mineta claims from 0925 until 0926 the aircraft in question went from 50 miles out, to 10 miles out.

How did AA77 average a speed of 2,400 MPH over this 1 minute? That is Mach 3.2. The two fastest aircraft in the world are:

Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird - Mach 3.3+
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25P "Foxbat-A" - Mach 2.8 (limited by engine redline)

The same aircraft crashed into the Pentagon at 0938 - 12 minutes after Mineta claimed it was "10 miles out".

How did the SAME CRAFT cover the final 10 miles at an average speed of 50 MPH before slamming into the Pentagon?

This is physically impossible, Mutton-Head.

There is no animal, no aircraft, no missile, no drone, no machine in existence, which can fly at both 50 MPH and Mach 3.2, while remaining airbourne.

Thus, by simple logic, number (2) on your list is a FACT. It is not an asumption made by me.

If (2) is true, (1) MUST be true. If one part of Mineta's testimony is categorically proven to be false (his times) that MUST bring into doubt the credibility of his overall testimony. Note I did not claim his entire testimony was completely false. I have repeatedly offered possible explanations for his error in time, while retaining the "truth" of most of his testimony. But as a result of (2) his testimony, as a single complete piece of evidence, is not credible.

So that leaves us with (3). You are right, (3) is an assumption made by me. Myself and others have REPEATEDLY acknowledged that we do not know what the Commissioners were thinking, or why they included some information and not others.

However.

By application of logic, if (1) and (2) are true (as demonstrated), it is logical to assume (3).

Thus our assumption is based on FACTS. Not mere speculation.

You have made accusations about my post that are unsubstantiated.

As shown, all of my claims stem from the errors in Mineta's timings.

Either withdraw your comments about my statement
OR
Identify a flying animal or machine capable of maintaining flight at both 50 MPH and Mach 3.2. THEN prove this animal or machine was what struck the Pentagon.

-Andrew
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
No. We do not agree; because "The 9/11 commissions denies that any of these things occurred." IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO "The 9/11 commission did not include Mineta's testimony in the report". The 2nd is a statement of fact, the first is a conjecture of opinion. You keep making huge leaps of (il)logic in an attempt to get to the conclusion you want.
Click to expand...


Try to follow Arkan. Quit playing with your sword and follow this simple logic that any grade-schooler could understand. The 9/11 commission gives a time-line that implicitly denies that the following events occurred (edit)

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."

Do you understand the concept "implicitly deny?" Do they teach you that where ever you're a grad student?

The time-line given by the commission implicitly denies these events, because it does not allow enough time for them to occur. One minute, from 9:37, to 9:38, is not enough time for all of these events to occur.

Therefore, once again:

The 9/11 commission denies that they occurred.

.
 
Last edited:
I hear your argument Gumboot, and it's actually sound.

However, the main problem still stands that,

The official report says Cheney arrived at 9:37, and AA77 hit at 9:38.

That leaves only one minute for the events that Mineta described to have occurred. All of those things could not have occurred in one minute.

Remember, Mineta says, "about five or six minutes after I arrived..."

If you'll notice my 4 main points, posted again:

1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."


I make no mention of "about five or six minutes." He says about. Maybe it was seven, or eight, or ten... It doesn't matter here.

the 9/11 commission, with their time-line of 9:37, to 9:38, implicitly denies that any of these things occurred.
 
Mutton-Head said:
I see no arguments. I see assumptions. And you all keep trying to bring it back to "Mineta's recollection of the time is wrong." The time-line discrepency is not the problem. (Well, it's a problem, but not the biggest.) The commssion says that Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:37. AA77 hit the Pentagon a minute later. The commssion is implicitly stating, on record, that Mineta's statements

1. I was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when I was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?"

Never happened.
Not that they happened at a different time,

But thay they never happened.
Click to expand...

By not writing that I went to work that day, the commission is denying it happened.
 
Mutton-Head said:
I hear your argument Gumboot, and it's actually sound.

However, the main problem still stands that,

The official report says Cheney arrived at 9:37, and AA77 hit at 9:38.

That leaves only one minute for the events that Mineta described to have occurred. All of those things could not have occurred in one minute.

Remember, Mineta says, "about five or six minutes after I arrived..."
Click to expand...
Gumboot's point is righton the ball. He shows that Mineta's recollection has some errors. If Mineta is known to be inaccurate, you trying to prove who-knows-what on his split-second timing is pretty stupid.

Since you must have missed it, I'll repeat -- why don't you get over your allergy to actual research, and see what Mineta himself has to say?
 
hellaeon said:
By not writing that I went to work that day, the commission is denying it happened.
Click to expand...


No, incorrect, they actually aren't. Because nothing in their report exludes you from having gone to work. However, once again,


Mineta says:
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC when Mineta was there.
3. Cheney was discussing the plane that would eventually fly into the Pentagon with a young man
4. The man asked Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?", To which Cheney replied, "Yes."


the 9/11 commission, with their time-line of 9:37, to 9:38, implicitly denies that any of these things occurred.


Does anyone on this board understand what it means to "implicitly deny?"
 
So after all the theories about CD's and thermite and holograms and missles and pods and Jews its come down to looking for the most minimal of discrepancies to 'prove' 9/11 was an inside job.

* yawn *

Using the math that gumboot puts up shows a simple error of timeline on minetas behalf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom