Mineta's testimony not part of 9/11 report

Just finished reading what Gumboot and Cylinder wrote. I'm looking into that.
Richard Clark does seem important here. I'll get back.
 
OK, here...


I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The only thing that others have given is, "I assumes the logs say...."
or, "The evacuation time seems to be..."

But as far as sworn testimony, regarding Mineta's arrival, or any other aspect of the PEOC time-line....

Mineta's account is the only one that exists.

Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.

Also, the official reports account of where AA77 was, agrees with Mineta.

The official report states that AA77 was 60 miles from the Pentagon at 9:26.

It agrees with Mineta, give or take a minute or two.
 
I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The Secret Service testified that the evac alarm was not activated until 0936. Sec. Mineta testified that his arrival coincided with that alarm.

Mineta testified that he was sent directly to the PEOC where he remembered the call-outs directed at Cheney. Cheney was not in the PEOC tunnel until ~0935 - three minutes before AA77 impacted the Pentagon.
 
What day was that? Do you have a name?

Rocco Delmonico, who I assume to be a Secret Service agent on the White House detail, was interviewed by the USSS on Oct 1, 2001. The results of this interview was presented to the Commission on Jan. 29, 2004.
 
Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.


Bear with me Mutton-Head. This is about the timeline I am interested in. Now, we'll try again.

Do you agree that the timeline I presented reflect's Mineta's testimony?

This is a yes or no question Mutton-Head. I do not require additional remarks from you. Just a yes or a no.

-Andrew
 
Since I cannot find a copy of Executive Summary: US Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11, 2001 to October 3, 2001 (dated Oct. 3, 2001) anywhere on the web or any information about its public release (or lack thereof), I've filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the US Secret Service to obtain a copy.

Since at least some of the specific information contained in the memo is already in the public record, I expect to at least get a redacted copy. The Secret Service has 20 days to respond.
 
Since at least some of the specific information contained in the memo is already in the public record, I expect to at least get a redacted copy. The Secret Service has 20 days to respond.
Hmm yes, but that means "20 days to reply". So you'll get a letter back saying "thanks, we've got your FOIA request & will now process it as normal". The only way you'll get anything within a month of that is if they say "no", otherwise expect a long wait.

Not that I want to put you off! And congrats for making the effort, it's a pity more people don't bother. Just don't expect anything to happen in a hurry.
 
OK, here...


I see no testimony to dispute that Mineta arrives at PEOC at 9:20

The only thing that others have given is, "I assumes the logs say...."
or, "The evacuation time seems to be..."

But as far as sworn testimony, regarding Mineta's arrival, or any other aspect of the PEOC time-line....

Mineta's account is the only one that exists.

Gumboot, you gave me a time-line from 8:45 to 9:45, but I'm only interested in 9:20 to 9:38. So far, there is nothing to doubt Mineta's testimony.

Also, the official reports account of where AA77 was, agrees with Mineta.

The official report states that AA77 was 60 miles from the Pentagon at 9:26.

It agrees with Mineta, give or take a minute or two.


You want to know what the ironic thing is?

You think this is all very important.

I, on the other hand, don't care.

And yet, we will both have the exact same impact on future 9/11 investigations... none.
 
I thought the same, but the law is actually quite the opposite:

5 USC §552 (a)(6)(A):

(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall—

(i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

Sub B provides for agency extensions in "unusual circumstances" which are defined by statute as:

(I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;

(II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or

(III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.

The Act does not specify a deadline for the black helicopters to begin flying over my residence and place of business, so I'll just have to wait for that.
 
I thought the same, but the law is actually quite the opposite:
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#limits for some of the tricks that can be used to extend this. And I'm speaking from experience, not theory -- I have FOIA requests outstanding from March (Dod x 2, FBI x 1, DIA x 1) and May (Air Force x 1), and none have gone beyond the acknowledgement letter stage. I'd love you to get this document in a couple of weeks and prove me comprehensively wrong, but somehow I suspect you won't.
 
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#limits for some of the tricks that can be used to extend this. And I'm speaking from experience, not theory -- I have FOIA requests outstanding from March (Dod x 2, FBI x 1, DIA x 1) and May (Air Force x 1), and none have gone beyond the acknowledgement letter stage. I'd love you to get this document in a couple of weeks and prove me comprehensively wrong, but somehow I suspect you won't.

I appreciate the benefit of experience. My initial hope is the since the USSS is such a small agency that the request will stay of the nether regions of US bureaucracy. Time will tell.

What requests have you submitted, if it's not too personal?
 
I appreciate the benefit of experience. My initial hope is the since the USSS is such a small agency that the request will stay of the nether regions of US bureaucracy. Time will tell.
It would be great to get the document, so I hope you're right.

What requests have you submitted, if it's not too personal?
Not at all. Go to http://www.911myths.com/html/foia_and_911.html

Read the first bit, up to "22nd July". Then, because it's done blog-style, go to the bottom and read upwards. If you see what I mean. (It's all a bit confusing, I know, I'm going to fix it when I have the time.)
 
It would be great to get the document, so I hope you're right.

I'll forward a copy to if I ever get results. At some point we may require a separate thread to pool resources. I've been looking through the Report footnotes looking for little gaps in primary source information and quotes.

Since the 9-11 conspiracy hypotheses seem to be evolving into another Who Shot JFK or Did We Really Land on the Moon?, I think it's a fairly worthwhile effort.

Are you aware of any other requests for this particular document or the reputation of the USSS in regards to FOIA requests in general? Google only returns hits to the Report footnote itself.

ETA: Nice site, BTW. I'll take the time to study it closely.
 
Are you aware of any other requests for this particular document or the reputation of the USSS in regards to FOIA requests in general?
No. You'll be the first, if you get it!

And yes, the dates are 2006. The first application was before then, as I say, but everything else is this year.
 
No. You'll be the first, if you get it!

And yes, the dates are 2006. The first application was before then, as I say, but everything else is this year.



I've just clicked that you're responsible for the 911myths site? (I know, call me slow...)

Fantastic job.

Just flicked through, notice your Afghanistan section, wondered if you'd come across any of the material that demolishes the notion of Afghanistan's importance full stop?

For example, the fact that Unocol wanted a GAS pipeline, not an oil one. The specific reasons that led to them seeking this less-than-appealing solution for Caspian Sea gas fields, and the reason it's all now irrelevant?

I can't for the life of me recall where I read the analysis, but it was a great read.

-Andrew
 
I've just clicked that you're responsible for the 911myths site? (I know, call me slow...)
Yes. And thanks!

Just flicked through, notice your Afghanistan section, wondered if you'd come across any of the material that demolishes the notion of Afghanistan's importance full stop?
That is too short a section right now, and you're right, I do need to add something about the pipeline. Especially as some people keep going on about how it's been/ being built, when they've not even agreed on it yet. I'll get something done eventually...
 
Mutton, might I suggest a semantic change? Rather that saying the Commission implicitly denies, yada yada, try saying the Commission does not acknowledge Mr. Mineta's testimony. This is closer to the truth and also leads logically to the question of WHY the Commission is not acknowledging the testimony. This is the approach that a fair-minded investigator would take. Then you could make FOIA requests and whatnot to try to arrive at an answer. If you're not willing to consider this, I can only conclude that you're not interested in the real truth but only in spreading your perception of it to others.

The reason for the statement:

"the 9/11 commssion implicitly deines the event described by Mineta,"

Is because of the time-line the commission gives for Cheney's arrival in the PEOC.
The commission says that Cheney arrived and 9:37,
and AA77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38.

The commission is saying that,
"There is no way that the events described by Mineta ever happened.
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC before Mineta arrived.
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."

They say that there is no way that these events occurred, or could have occured, because of the time-line that they offer. This is different than not acknowledging. If the commission had simply "not acknowledged," then a later revision could simply add the statement. Mineta's statement cannot be added, because the time-line does not permit it.

This is implicitly denying.
 
Bear with me Mutton-Head. This is about the timeline I am interested in. Now, we'll try again.

Do you agree that the timeline I presented reflect's Mineta's testimony?

This is a yes or no question Mutton-Head. I do not require additional remarks from you. Just a yes or a no.

-Andrew

Sorry Gumboot, I haven't gone through his entire time-line. I'll assume that your compilation of his statements is correct.
That would be a yes.
 
Ai caramba.

Having given up on the deceitful "Speakthetruth," I'll remain patient with you, Mutton-Head, despite the fact you keep repeating the same uninteresting drivel over and over and over again.

It occurs to me that I was once faced with a similar situation. Bear with me -- I will show you how inconsistencies in testimony, or "implicit denials" as you call them, happen all the time.

Some years ago I was on the jury of a street racing trial. The incident in question happened around midnight. The bulk of evidence presented was in the form of testimony from police officers and arrest report documentation.

The arresting officer testified that he was approaching an intersection, five minutes before midnight, when he saw the defendant launch from it and take off. A brief chase ensued, vehicles were pulled over and sorted out, and the suspect was taken into custody about quarter past midnight.

"Aha!" says the defense attorney. That's not what the arrest report says! The report clearly stated -- in writing -- that the chase began at 2155 and no arrest was made until 0015 hours. That's almost two hours of following the suspect! Harassment, or the slowest chase of all time! In either case, not guilty.

Well, no. It was transparently obvious to me that the young police officer simply wasn't familiar with military time. He looked at his watch, read 11:55, and in the heat of battle added 10 hours to it instead of 12. An honest mistake. People make these, including sworn officers of the peace, even transportation secretaries.

We found the defendant guilty. We did not bother to correct the police record. In summary, the finding of the court "implicitly denied" the sworn statement of a professional law enforcement officer. As it should.

I'm still not impressed with the discrepancy in Mineta's testimony. Give the man a break already.
 
The commission is saying that,
"There is no way that the events described by Mineta ever happened.
1. Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20
2. Cheney was in the PEOC before Mineta arrived.
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."

Sec. Mineta's testimony in this regard is not reliable. Once you tease out the particulars, it's easy to show that his time-line if quite a bit off as illustrated by live media reports presented that day, other official testimony, subsequent statements by the participants of those events and physical evidence presented to the Commission.

For instance. in his testimony to the Commission, Sec. Mineta relates the time-line of events from his arrival at the White House:

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too.

I want to follow up on what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and try to understand that day a little bit better. You said, if I understood you correctly, that you were not in the room; you were obviously coming from the Department of Transportation, where you had been busy in a meeting in official business, but you had not been in the room when the decision was made -- to what you inferred was a decision made to attempt to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. Is that correct?

MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.

MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"

MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.

According to the testimony provided above, Sec. Mineta claims the following events occurred between 0920 and 0926:

  • Sec. Mineta arrives at PEOC:
    This is disputed by the USSS alarm log presented the the Commission that shows the time as 0937 (Report pp. 39-40), by Secret Service agents Nelson Garabito,and Terry van Steenburgen who testified to the Commission that the VP had not yet evacuated at 0933 at the time time of the Reagan Nat'l Airport call to the White House Secret Service detail (Report p. 39), by Secret Service agent Rocco Delmonico who testified to the actual timing of the evacuation (Report pp. 39-40) among others.

  • President Bush departed for Barksdale, AFB:
    This is deputed by countless media reports (CNN, USSS shift log of Sept. 11, 2001 (Report p. 39) and by your (Mutton-Head's) own claims (Bush stayed in the classroom reading My Pet Goat until after 0915.)


    [*]Pres. Bush and VP Cheney concluded a phone call:
    This is disputed by Lynne Cheney's arrival time at the PEOC ("According to contemporaneous notes, at 9:55 the Vice President was still on the phone with the President advising that three planes were missing and one had hit the Pentagon." Report p. 40)


    [*]President Bush issued a shoot-down order through VP Cheney:
    This is disputed by VP Cheney, the PEOC Shelter Log, White House phone logs, AF-1 phone logs, and Ari Fleisher which place the call around 1010. (Report pp. 40 - 41.)


    [*]VP Cheney passed the order to the military:
    This is disputed by DoD Transcript for its Air Conference Call which placed the time that the order was disseminated at 1014. (Report p. 42)



[Edit for clarity: Note that I am not claiming these events did not occur - I am claiming that none of them occurred in the 0920-0926 timefarme as Sec. Mineta's testimony asserts.]

Actually, what Sec. Mineta witnessed being tracked is UA93:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft —presumably hijacked— heading toward Washington.That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA.The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return.Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.217
At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President.The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage.The Vice President again said yes. 219

The call-outs, the confirmation request... Sound familiar?

You simply cannot have Mineta's testimony a priori and the My Pet Goat story. One of them has to be wrong. Either he sat in the classroom and listened to the children read or he jumped into action and made phone calls.

Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Why the official version about Cheney and the PEOC is wrong - and mineta may be right

Wait, don't discredit Mineta's testimony that fast. You should focus first on the official story.

Mineta may not be 100% right concerning the details, but plz consider the alarm log evidence is shallow: there is no documentary evidence.

Everybody seems to say that he actually witnessed a discussion about Flight UA93, and not flight AA77

Conerning the timeline:

- Cheney basicaly only has USSS to back him up (check the notes)

- Mineta's version has Richard Clarke and White House photograph Bohrer (Cheney leaving for the PEOC right after 0900)

The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

Only flight 77 was that close. If you consider Mineta's account (under oath, unlike Cheney or Bush) he mentions "50 miles out" "30 miles out" "10 miles out". Then only does it make sense. Maybe he's deaf.

2 - The official timeline mentions all this happened AFTER UA93 actually crashed (at about 1001)

_______________

Therefore, even though Mineta' testimony might not prove reliable on all facts, the major flaws in the official version forces us to consider it possible, and even likely.

_______________

PS: if you read carefully the official account, the commission actually comes up with an idea to explain the flaws i've exposed in the official story. the commission says that the USSS, FAA may have have been relying on the "projected path" of UA93. Check note 217, the commission found this hypothesis after an interview with a guy named Tim Grovack. If you know who this guy is, i'm interested.And they're using "may".

That doesn't seem very reliable to me.

_______________

The nature of the order Cheney pretends to have given, and the orders he might have given concerning flight 93 is another question.


Thanks you for reading.

Busherie.
 
Wait, don't discredit Mineta's testimony that fast. You should focus first on the official story.


That fast? This thread is 8 pages long.



Mineta may not be 100% right concerning the details, but plz consider the alarm log evidence is shallow: there is no documentary evidence.


As you'd know if you read this thread, that is not our only evidence.


Everybody seems to say that he actually witnessed a discussion about Flight UA93, and not flight AA77

The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

Only flight 77 was that close. If you consider Mineta's account (under oath, unlike Cheney or Bush) he mentions "50 miles out" "30 miles out" "10 miles out". Then only does it make sense. Maybe he's deaf.

2 - The official timeline mentions all this happened AFTER UA93 actually crashed (at about 1001)


If you read this thread you'd know that the conversation was about a PROJECTED flight path for UA93. They did not know UA93 had crashed, and the USSS were projecting the flight path of UA93 based on its previous known position.

In this post I demonstrated how this conversation cannot possibly be about AA77.



PS: if you read carefully the official account, the commission actually comes up with an idea to explain the flaws i've exposed in the official story. the commission says that the USSS, FAA may have have been relying on the "projected path" of UA93. Check note 217, the commission found this hypothesis after an interview with a guy named Tim Grovack. If you know who this guy is, i'm interested.And they're using "may".


You believe the USSS has primary radar scopes at the White House?

-Gumboot
 
The so-called Shoot Down order cannot have been related to UA93:

1 - The official report mentions "80 miles out" and confirmation at "60 miles out". UA93 was never closer to Whashington DC than 130 miles (check flight path on googleearth for yourself)

How do you know that they were talking about Washigton DC?

And they're using "may".

If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't hey have used a more definitive term?
 
Answers to Gumboot and Pardalis

To Gumboot


First let me reply to the post that is linked in your answer: the june 2006 one. I see you worked hard on this one.

I believe your calculations are right, but your timings, solely based on the final report, are not back with sufficient evidence, and are contradicted by many accounts.

First, you know that many accounts say Flight 77 (though not identified as such) was found before 0932, by Dulles Airport controllers, among others.

Second, you say that at 0925, Flight 77 was about 100 miles away from Washington. That is taken from the the official story. Monte belger for instance, FAA deputy administrator, says the bunker was told around 0927 that "an unidentified plane was 50 miles away".

It is possible that Mineta's figures concerning time (09h26 and on, and starting from "50 miles out") may not be accurate.

But the timing on which you base your calculations are not accurate either, because they are contradicted by many other accounts.

Moreover, don't forget flight 77 allegedly made a long (and pretty slow) turn before hitting the Pentagon. Final minutes -flight path, speed and altitude) are not clearly known though. (even the black boxes data doesn't fit with the evidence on the ground - ie broken light poles - check pilotsfor911truth)

That's why the final 10 miles when flight 77 was supposedly found took so long before 0938 (pentagon crash).

So I'm not saying Mineta's account is completely accurate, but the official account, in many of its conclusions (timing, distances etc) is even less accurate!

But flight77 path is in itself a tough topic!
_________________________________

I. Concerning the projected path of flight UA93 , I know the official story: projected path, not real location of the flight. If you check the notes, you'll see that indeed this hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to back it up. It's a suggestion by "Tim Grovack". (note 217) Nothing else supports it. Without access to the interviews, and in the absence of any information about M. Grovack, we can only consider this hypothesis as secondary. In my view, it's there to explain the major flaws (incoherent timing and distance of flight 93).

II. Concerning USSS primary radar information: I believe they had such capability on 9/11. According to several sources (which you can read at cooperativeresearch.org, late 2000, sorry I can't manage to paste the URL) USSS has been using since late 2000 the "Tigerwall" system which they use for airspace monitoring. I don't know the details about it though: I don't know its range, exact capabilities. Cryptome.org had intel about it on its website until 2004, when they were forced to take it out...

We also have accounts saying they were using it on that day. We have for instance Barbara Riggs, future deputy director of the USSS. hoever, i cannot be sure 100% right now. (see the above source) I can elaborate on the Tigerwall system in another post, if you want me to.

With this system they may been able to locate flight 77 well before 0920. That would explain why Mineta hears confirmation of an order given about flight77, order which have had to be given before 0920.


To Pardalis

Concerning the mentionned distances (80, 60 etc..) the most likely explanation is they are refering to the distance from the plane to Washington DC:

- They know the plane is getting closer (80, 60, and not the contrary)
- if it's not Washington, what location could it be refering to? I did not find any information about that in the report or anywhere else (like another radar, airport, city...) Without it, we have to assume it's Washington.

Concerning the incoherent numbers and time (80, 60 etc.. when UA93 never was closer to Washington DC than 130 miles; 1010-1015 when it crashed at about 1001 --> plz see above)

Concerning the use of may, it can be, as you mention it, the proof of a serious investigation. It can also be a way of showing you don't have any evidence for that asumption.... I believe the second explanation is the best.

__________________________

ANYWAY, as I have tried to demonstrate:

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.

- therefore, Mineta's testimony becomes clearly possible.
 
To Pardalis

Concerning the mentionned distances (80, 60 etc..) the most likely explanation is they are refering to the distance from the plane to Washington DC:

- They know the plane is getting closer (80, 60, and not the contrary)

How do you know they were talking about the plane getting closer to them?

What was point zero?

- if it's not Washington, what location could it be refering to? I did not find any information about that in the report or anywhere else (like another radar, airport, city...) Without it, we have to assume it's Washington.

Then it's your assumption.

Concerning the incoherent numbers and time (80, 60 etc.. when UA93 never was closer to Washington DC than 130 miles; 1010-1015 when it crashed at about 1001 --> plz see above)

If they weren't talking about Washington, these numbers could be correct.

Concerning the use of may, it can be, as you mention it, the proof of a serious investigation. It can also be a way of showing you don't have any evidence for that asumption.... I believe the second explanation is the best.

I don't.

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.

- therefore, Mineta's testimony becomes clearly possible.

Or:

-the official accounts mostly fit with one another, except Mineta's.

-therefore, Minesta's testimony is errored.
 
Concerning the distances and point zero: read the offcial report, page 41, chap 1. "A plane heading toward Washington DC..." and next paragraph the distances (80 miles out, 60 miles out). Therefore, they specify (I shoulfd have checked) the plane is inbound to WDC, and it's getting closer.

Here's a clear answer.

Therefore the numbers (80, 60) are not correct: it can't be flight 93.

Concerning the use of may, and the explanation for the "projetcted path" story, I suggest you read note 217 for chap1: you are free to take it on face value. Or bring me anything about Tim Grovack.

Conclusion:

- the distances and timing dont fit.

- Mineta's account, though not entirely accurate, is the most likely. And it's supported by other accounts.

________

Now, debunk this , plz.
 
Busherie,

Please provide a timeline that fits Mineta's account and explains how Cheney knew it was flight 77 (ie how he got the information from NORAD) and how it possible for Cheney to either order the plane to be shot down or not shot down. ie what planes or other weapons were available to shoot down flight 77.

Also please indicate what you believe the order was. If this contradicts what Mineta believes the order was, please explain why you think Mineta was wrong.

Once you have constructed this well-reasoned and argued timeline please say how how it indicates that 9/11 is an inside job.

If you are happy with your account, please take it to tall the news outlets you can. I suggest you start here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B58E2D15-7053-4126-8483-A396EFD6C697.htm

If you can't be bothered to do this then I guess you'll remain both dissatisfied with the explanations given and entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Concerning the distances and point zero: read the offcial report, page 41, chap 1. "A plane heading toward Washington DC..." and next paragraph the distances (80 miles out, 60 miles out). Therefore, they specify (I shoulfd have checked) the plane is inbound to WDC, and it's getting closer.

You are mistaken.

page 41 is about flight 93 and the shootdown order.

You are looking at page 41 of the pdf file.

page 41 of the comission report is page 58 of the pdf file.

The 80 miles referrence is dated at 10:15, and has nothing to do with mineta's account.
 
To Gumboot

First let me reply to the post that is linked in your answer: the june 2006 one. I see you worked hard on this one.

I believe your calculations are right, but your timings, solely based on the final report, are not back with sufficient evidence, and are contradicted by many accounts.


My timings are not based on an "official report". They are based on relevant sources. Which timings are contradicted by "many accounts"?



First, you know that many accounts say Flight 77 (though not identified as such) was found before 0932, by Dulles Airport controllers, among others.

Evidence?

AA77 was identified by Dulles Approach at 0932, at which point an ANG C-130H aircraft was directed to follow the aircraft and see where it was headed.

Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)



Second, you say that at 0925, Flight 77 was about 100 miles away from Washington. That is taken from the the official story. Monte belger for instance, FAA deputy administrator, says the bunker was told around 0927 that "an unidentified plane was 50 miles away".


Actually, according to the "offical story" AA77 was about 220 miles from Washington DC at 0906, and 35 miles west of The Pentagon at 0929, so at 0925 it would have been between 65 and 70 miles west of The Pentagon. But the problem is, no one knew it was there. Indianapolis Centre had lost contact with AA77 at 0854, and at 0935, when NEADS found out from Washington Centre that AA77 was missing, none of the ATC centres, nor the FAA had any idea where AA77 was or where it was heading (they didn't even know it had turned around).

However...

At 0922 NEADS were (incorrectly) informed that AA11 was still airbourne and headed towards Washington DC. The Langley F-16s were scrambled and directed to take up a blocking position over Baltimore, about 50 miles from Washington DC.



It is possible that Mineta's figures concerning time (09h26 and on, and starting from "50 miles out") may not be accurate.


It goes without saying that Mineta's fgures concerning time are not accurate.



But the timing on which you base your calculations are not accurate either, because they are contradicted by many other accounts.


Care to provide some evidence that demonstrate anyone was tracking primary on AA77 between 0854 and 0935?



Moreover, don't forget flight 77 allegedly made a long (and pretty slow) turn before hitting the Pentagon.


The turn lasted about 2 minutes. It doesn't explain the significant errors in Mineta's timeline.




Final minutes -flight path, speed and altitude) are not clearly known though. (even the black boxes data doesn't fit with the evidence on the ground - ie broken light poles - check pilotsfor911truth)


Crazy JDX's flight data analysis is hopelessly flawed.



That's why the final 10 miles when flight 77 was supposedly found took so long before 0938 (pentagon crash).


AA77 would have had to taken a 13 minute scenic tour of Washington DC before crashing, in order to explain the serious flaws in Mineta's timeline.



[
93 [/B]Concerning the projected path of flight UA93, I know the official story: projected path, not real location of the flight. If you check the notes, you'll see that indeed this hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to back it up.


Not at all. I don't know what the "official story" has to say about it. We determined this explanation ourselves, based on the testimony of witnesses at the scene.

II. Concerning USSS primary radar information: I believe they had such capability on 9/11.


Firstly, without collaborating secondary radar information (from ATC) having primary would be completely useless. Secondly, I'm not going to accept that the USSS has primary radar capability as the White House until I see some evidence, because I find it HIGHLY unlikely.



That would explain why Mineta hears confirmation of an order given about flight77, order which have had to be given before 0920.


Except Mineta claims the White House was being evacuated, which it wasn't until much later. He also claims a shoot down order, which was not given until after 10am, as the NEADS recording shows:

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: **** the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

And lastly his claim of when the VP was in the bunker directly contradicts the VP himself and the USSS, who put him there. It also does not gel with the Bush timeline (which is collaborated by independent live media coverage).



ANYWAY, as I have tried to demonstrate:

- the offical account just doesn't fit. Timing, distances are incoherent with Flight 93.


It fits with a projected path for UA93, and multiple sources claim the USSS were tracking UA93 on a projected flight path AFTER it had crashed.

-Gumboot
 
Many answers to many questions

Ok, i'm gonna try my best to answer your questions.


To Pardalis:


The official account (as in the 9/11 commission report) claims an shoot down order (SDO) was given between 10h15 by the vice president. It claims it was an order to shoot down FUA93.

As you know, at 10h10, the plane was already down. And as you also know, the report mentions distances: according to it, the plane was located 80 miles, and few minutes later 60 miles from Washington DC, when Cheney allegedly confirmed his order. The problem is, in short: the plane was already down (1001). The plane never was closer to Washongton DC than 130 miles.

Therefore, the orders cannot have been related to Flight 93.

The report claims these flaws are explained by the fact they were relying on the projected path (ie not real) of flight UA93.

Now, the report does not present any evidence for this, except an interview with Tim Grovack, apparently a USSS personnel. There is no documentary evidence for this. The alleged interview is not available. (see note 217 for chap 1) i'm not even sure the guys exist!

Therefore I cannot take this asumption (projected path) at face value. The official version has serious flaws.

Gumboot says you guys determined, based on accounts, that there were relying on a projected path. I would ask you evidence! I admit the projected path story would be the only explanation for these flaws. That's why i think they actually made it up to find an easy answer. I need evidence on this. You request some from you: let me do the same with you.

And sorry for the wrong page count (i did not check on the pdf file).

____________________________________


To Gumboot: I'll try my best to answer all the questions.


1. I said many accounts showed Flight 77 was located prior to 0932. You asked for evidence: let's look at yours.

This is taken from coopeartive research.

I'm gonna show exactly how the commission did its report. Let's see:


" According to the 9/11 Commission, the Dulles Airport terminal control facility in Washington has been looking for unidentified primary radar blips since 9:21 a.m. and now finds one. Several Dulles flight controllers “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed” and notify Reagan Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan and Dulles airports notify the Secret Service. The identity or aircraft type is unknown. However, other accounts place the discovery of this plane by Dulles around 9:24 a.m. , and Vice President Cheney is told radar is tracking Flight 77 at 9:27 a.m."

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

Let's read the official version: (in blue)

"The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the
Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary
targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers
“observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”and
notified Reagan National Airport.FAA personnel at both Reagan National and
Dulles airports notified the Secret Service.The aircraft’s identity or type was
unknown.146
"

(chap 1 page 25 of the pdf file)

That's your account, right? Dulles finding about 77 at 0932? Let's be precise, let's check the note? 146

"146. John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)."

Hum, who is this John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, not much...

Could it be, just like our famous "Tim Grovack" (the projected path, remember?), a way of inventing a testimony to make the official story believable?

I looked it up, there are a couple of john does. But who is this guy? He's THE commission evidence to prove dulles located 77 at 0932. They have nothing else.


And now, in green, plenty of accounts saying 77 was located before 0932.


The Commission did not take them into account. Instead they rely on an unpublished interview with a guy we know nothing about.

DON'T YOU SEE?

That is the way, just like for the projected path story ("Tim Grovack"), they can say whatever they want, conlude whatever they want.

Now, if you have evidence for the projected path, the 0932 location, I'm interested.

But plz take into account what I ve said. Check it out by yourself!!!

________________

Ok i'm being way too long here.

2. "Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)"

I might wanna believe that. here you have a point. The NTSB report seems bogus, even though it's supposed to be based on the Flight date recorder. but that's another problem.


__________________

2. For evidence someone was tracking F77 between 0854 and 0935, check the above cited accounts. (from cooperative research)

__________________

3.Concerning Mineta's timeline, I might wanna believe they are precisely accurate. After all, he did not take not, nor did he have any documentary evidence.

But the official story being even more inaccurate, I think you should not say out of the blue (ie based on the official account) that it's impossible.

__________________


4. As for John Doe X from pilots for 911 truth, plz provide evidence his analysis is flawed. As you said "Washington Centre notified NEADS of AA77 at 0935, at which point it was "6 miles South-east of the White House". (This suggests the final turn AA77 made was much wider than presented by the NTSB)"

His analysis is based on the NTSB report: their report is probably bogus. That's the problem.

___________________


5. if you determined yourself they were based on projected path, plz evidence. it's an hypothesis, but without documentary evidence (or testimony: Tim Grovack?) It's very weak.

___________________


6. For Cheney's arrival at the PEOC, USSS interviews are not proof to me! I don't buy on face value. We need real people, or at least the interviews.

Concerning Bush's timeline on this, sorry i don"t have time to check right now. i'm sure we can find something interesting.

___________________

7. "Except Mineta claims the White House was being evacuated, which it wasn't until much later. He also claims a shoot down order, which was not given until after 10am"

Well he doesnt exactly say it was a shoot down order, he says he assumes it was one. he wasn't there when the order was given. he just says he understand afterwards. but he doesnét say when (on the PEOC, in the media?, we don't know)

He also says the PEOC learnt about F93 when it was already crashed...

Check the video if you wanna be sure.
__________________


8. Finally, once again, the official account saying a shoot-down order was given to take out F93 just doesn't fit:

- unless you prove their was a projected path they were relying on, there are timing and distances problems.


_________________


To Maccy

If you managed to read the above reply, you'll see that the official timeline concerning F77 doesn't fit.

Now, I'm not saying Mineta's is precisely accurate, i'm saying that the major flaws in the official one (cnocerning 77 location at 0932, the shoot down oder of 93) lets us believe that his testimony is importante.

It should not have edited out of the report.

____________________



I know the official version is twisted, false on many points.

I know Cheney lied real bad about many things that morning.

I can tell you later what I think he in fact did, but plz first acknowledge what i've exposed in the above.

Thanks very much for reading.

Busherie.

PS sorry i cant paste URL's I'm new to this forum. it's not available until i post 15 posts.
 
To Maccy

If you managed to read the above reply, you'll see that the official timeline concerning F77 doesn't fit.

Now, I'm not saying Mineta's is precisely accurate, i'm saying that the major flaws in the official one (cnocerning 77 location at 0932, the shoot down oder of 93) lets us believe that his testimony is importante.

It should not have edited out of the report.

____________________

I want to see your timeline. What do you think happened?

If you don't know, then shut up.
 
Last edited:
The official account (as in the 9/11 commission report) claims an shoot down order (SDO) was given between 10h15 by the vice president. It claims it was an order to shoot down FUA93.

As you know, at 10h10, the plane was already down...

Therefore, the orders cannot have been related to Flight 93.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from the fact that the plane was already down, to the conclusion that the shoot-down order could not have been related to UA93. Want to try again?

PS sorry i cant paste URL's I'm new to this forum. it's not available until i post 15 posts.
Just past the URL without the http:// part in front. It's not a clickable link, but we can handle it!
 
Who cares and why would it matter, what guys in a box are talking about?

Talk can not shoot down planes, planes shoot down planes.

Guys in a box are suppose to have a clue?

The events of the day are what happen; the talk in a box are not what happen. (so they have a radar scope in this box where they are hiding)

Would the CT world be happy? if they knew Bush did set up the VP but things when wrong and the hit on the VP failed. Proved later when Dick was so mad the President did not go hunting so he could get revenge, he shot his friend instead.

"do the orders still stand" who cares, it does not make any sense at all since the Dick in the box has no weapon and really does not control the pilot who if he had enough information may just ack on his own and his commanders orders. NORAD has the authority without the President to shoot down anything that is a threat to the United States; if it did not then why would you have NORAD. I was in the Air Force and if I was a pilot or the commander and I had all this Monday morning quarterback knowledge, you know we would be messing with the dumb terrorists. What individual gives a flying leap what the M man says the Dick man said!!!
 
Gumboot says you guys determined, based on accounts, that there were relying on a projected path. I would ask you evidence! I admit the projected path story would be the only explanation for these flaws. That's why i think they actually made it up to find an easy answer. I need evidence on this. You request some from you: let me do the same with you.

Then there's nothing I can do for you. I do not have access to such information.

Maybe you could call Washington and ask them.

ETA: and if the orders can't have been for flight93, then it can't have been for any other highjacked plane because... that was the last one.
 
Last edited:
Answers: getting serious

Hi,

Here are a couple of answers.

To CurtC:

The report says:

"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President.The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage.The Vice President again said yes.219"

At 10h10, the plane was down, 130 miles away from Washington.

So, if the order concerned UA93, there was a information problem. The report says they were relying on a "projected path". But they don't have any evidence supporting it (exept a Tim Grovack interview, which is probably bogus).


"I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from the fact that the plane was already down, to the conclusion that the shoot-down order could not have been related to UA93. Want to try again?"

I'm not saying Cheney never gave an order to take out 93, i'm saying the above account is false when it states the order Cheney confirmed concerned 93.

In my view, it is the official account that looks like the Mineta's account, and not Mineta's that looks like the official one. Why? because the official account just doesn't fit.

I do not exclude though that an order wasgiven later to scramble fighters to shoot 93 down.

but it's 77 we're talking about here.

Thx for the tip with the URLs

___________________

To Maccy

I don't think anybody who has serious doubts about the official version should shut up.

My timeline is based, to start with, on the fact that the official one is not backed up by any documentary evidence available.

1. In my view, not only did radars found F77 before 0932 (which is the official time) but they found it NORTH not WEST of Washington:

1.Why the official account saying F77 was lost until it was found by Dulles only at 0932 is false

This is taken from coopeartive research.

" According to the 9/11 Commission, the Dulles Airport terminal control facility in Washington has been looking for unidentified primary radar blips since 9:21 a.m. and now finds one. Several Dulles flight controllers “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed” and notify Reagan Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan and Dulles airports notify the Secret Service. The identity or aircraft type is unknown. However, other accounts place the discovery of this plane by Dulles around 9:24 a.m. , and Vice President Cheney is told radar is tracking Flight 77 at 9:27 a.m."

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

Let's read the official version: (in blue) as it's written in the report

"The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”and notified Reagan National Airport.FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service.The aircraft’s identity or type was unknown.146
"
(chap 1 page 25 of the pdf file)

If you say several controlers at Dulles only found it, eastbound, at 0932, you have to cite a source.

let's check the note? 146

"146. John Hendershot interview (Dec. 22, 2003)."

Who is this John Hendershot and where is the interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, i found a bunch of guys who lived in the 19th century, or a Califirnian citizen whitout any connection to 9/11... Maybe an undercover USSS agent...

But who is this guy? The commission's evidence to prove Dulles only located 77 at 0932 is unsubstantiated. They have nothing else.


And now, in green, plenty of accounts saying 77 was located before 0932.

The Commission did not take them into account. Instead they rely on an unpublished interview with a guy we know nothing about.


2. According to other sources: F77 was located before 0932:
  • 9:24 a.m.): By Some Accounts, FAA Notifies NORAD Flight 77 Is Hijacked and Washington-Bound; 9/11 Commission Claims This Never Happens
Shortly after 9/11, NORAD reported that the FAA notified them at this time that Flight 77 “may” have been hijacked and that it appears headed toward Washington. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; CNN, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/12/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001] Apparently, flight controllers at Dulles International Airport discover a plane heading at high speed toward Washington; an alert is sounded within moments that the plane appears to be headed toward the White House. [Washington Post, 11/3/2001] In 2003, the FAA supported this account, but claimed that they had informally notified NORAD earlier. “NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001), but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 5/22/2003] Yet in 2004, the 9/11 Commission claims that both NORAD and the FAA are wrong. The 9/11 Commission explains that the notification NEADS received at 9:24 a.m. was the incorrect information that Flight 11 had not hit the WTC and was headed south for Washington, D.C. Thus, according to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight 77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34 a.m. (see 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
  • Monte belger at 0927
________________


My real point is many radars saw F77 inbound to Washington from the North-east. It flew along the White House, and later did a sharp descending turn to hit the Pentagon.

However, the exact F77 flightpath remains very controversial, so let's not elaborate too much on this now

_________________

Finally, why do i think happened? Well, i think Cheney lied about when he got to the PEOC. he lied to cover the fact he monitored the incoming F77. How did he do it? hard to say. All I know is the USSS has in theory the technical means to do it. Check that cooperative research timeline post:

(September 2000 and after): Secret Service Has Air Surveillance Capabilities

It is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House Complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown. The Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] Furthermore, since 1974 the Secret Service operations center has possessed a special communications line from the control tower of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This hotline allows air traffic controllers monitoring local radar to inform agents at the White House of any planes that are off course or appear to be on a “threatening vector.” [Time, 9/26/1994]

cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=tigerwall&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go


___________________________


So not only the official account is fuzzy (Dulles in fact located inbound 77 before 0932) but i think there are serious chances USSS was actually monitoring F77 as it flew above Washington on its way to the Pentagon.

Now, what kinf of weapons could they use that day to shoot or stand down?

I think there were no fighters around (even tough with real willingness to do something they may have intercepted F77).

However it is known USSS also has anti-aircraft capabilities. (FM-92 Stingers) Since the 1994 crash, the P56 airspace was defended. The Pentagon may not have had defenses. The White House had some.

So I made a scenario includng all my findings. I'll post it if you find major flaws in what i've just exposed.

Thanks very much for reading.








 
But they don't have any evidence supporting it (exept a Tim Grovack interview, which is probably bogus).

Why? Because you say so? Your confirmation bias is showing.

In my view, it is the official account that looks like the Mineta's account, and not Mineta's that looks like the official one. Why? because the official account just doesn't fit.

Because there are conflicting reports, therefore Mineta's account is correct?

This sound fallacious.

but it's 77 we're talking about here.

No.

My timeline is based, to start with, on the fact that the official one is not backed up by any documentary evidence available.

Not available to you on the internet maybe, who knows if you dig deep enough you won't find it?

Call Washington if you have to.

Ok, we have conflicting reports here: official (discovered at 0932) and others, before.

snip

Who is this John Hendershot and where is the interview (Dec. 22, 2003)? I looked it up on the internet. Apart from web pages citing the official report, i found a bunch of guys who lived in the 19th century, or a Califirnian citizen whitout any connection to 9/11... Maybe an undercover USSS agent...

Have you tried getting this information besides with Google?

Call them.

However, the exact F77 flightpath remains very controversial, so let's not elaborate too much on this now

Don't tell me you're a no planer... :(

Finally, why do i think happened? Well, i think Cheney lied about when he got to the PEOC. he lied to cover the fact he monitored the incoming F77. How did he do it? hard to say. All I know is the USSS has in theory the technical means to do it.

In theory.

So not only the official account is fuzzy (Dulles in fact located inbound 77 before 0932) but i think there are serious chances USSS was actually monitoring F77 as it flew above Washington on its way to the Pentagon.

Serious chances?

The Pentagon may not have had defenses. The White House had some.

So they couldn't have done much.
 
  • Tim Grovack, John Hendershot... Who are these guys. Whenever the official story wants to be back itself with an evidence, they come up with an interview with some guy nobody knows about. the interviews are not available. Why are they not? Not a question of space. if it's a question of intelligence security, why not say it?
  • I'm not saying i'm sure these guys (and they arguments they pretend to prove) are bogus. I'm saying this is very suspicious. gettin' my case ready for a serious questionning... I'm gonna keep diggin' to see if this evidence exists or was built on purpose.
  • Yes, we are talking about F77: it's the only plane that would fit in the official story about the "orders": F93 was too far, too late...
  • I'm not a no-planer: i think F77 crashed in the Pentagon. There are just no real evidence it did not crash there, just doubts. Not enough.
  • However, the F77 flight path is not clear: did it come from the West (as NTSB says) or from the North (as other accounts pretends). that is a question i haven't answered yet.
  • Concerning Tigerwall and USSS monitoring capabilities: they had them since late 2000. We got witnesses saying they were using it. i'd say we have serious hints. not just theory (see my previous post for tigerwall)
  • When I say Pentagon had no SAMs but White house, it doesn't mean White house could have done nothing. I've calculated that if F77 came from North, not West, then FM-93 Stingers (which are small range missiles, like 3miles or so) could have taken it out. if th WH had AMRAAM then it's different: they could have got it no matter when it came from.
You know, you always imply i have no 100% proof. You're mostly true except for one thing. My asumption have more probabilities than the official story on this point. The report doesn't have enough evidence to be coherent.

The SLC and CT debunkers just don't have much on their side on this one...

Thx

Busherie
 
I'm not saying i'm sure these guys (and they arguments they pretend to prove) are bogus. I'm saying this is very suspicious.

Keep diggin'. Noone is stopping you.

Yes, we are talking about F77: it's the only plane that would fit in the official story about the "orders": F93 was too far, too late...

Flight 77 already crashed into the Pentagon. Talk about too late...

I'm not a no-planer: i think F77 crashed in the Pentagon. There are just no real evidence it did not crash there, just doubts. Not enough.

?

However, the F77 flight path is not clear: did it come from the West (as NTSB says) or from the North (as other accounts pretends). that is a question i haven't answered yet.

Oh please... not with that again!

Concerning Tigerwall and USSS monitoring capabilities: they had them since late 2000. We got witnesses saying they were using it. i'd say we have serious hints. not just theory (see my previous post for tigerwall)

What you posted doesn't show that this Tigerwall was implemented before 9/11. It even states that:

[Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown.


When I say Pentagon had no SAMs but White house, it doesn't mean White house could have done nothing. I've calculated that if F77 came from North, not West, then FM-93 Stingers (which are small range missiles, like 3miles or so) could have taken it out.

You don't know that.
 

Back
Top Bottom