Norman Minetta

Alt+F4 said:
Hehehe....my bad. $125 million
Click to expand...


All I can say is it's about time you Americans crossed to the dark side and went metric.

Won't someone think of the spaceships? Dear lord! Please someone think of the spaceships!

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
All I can say is it's about time you Americans crossed to the dark side and went metric.
Click to expand...

We will never go metric because it.....makes sense!

As for the Mars Climate Observer, NASA Scientist Group A makes calculations in inches while NASA Scientist Group B makes calculations in centimeters resulting in a very, very confused spaceship burning up in the Martian atmosphere.

But according to the CTers, it's these same evil (yet brilliant) NASA scientists that can create the WTC destroying star wars beam.
 
gumboot said:
All I can say is it's about time you Americans crossed to the dark side and went metric.

Won't someone think of the spaceships? Dear lord! Please someone think of the spaceships!

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

[derail]

This is totally off topic but your post reminded me of the crash of a 767 in 1983 that was nearly catastrophic (but for expert piloting, the passengers and crew would probably all have died) because of a faulty conversion from metric to imperial or vice versa shortly after Canada went metric.

The plane ran out of fuel at 26,000 feet and far short of its destination because of faulty conversions at the time of refuelling.

Twelve kilometres above the Manitoba countryside, the unthinkable happens: a brand new Air Canada Boeing 767 runs out of fuel. The 120-tonne, $40-million plane becomes a glider, dropping at over 600 metres per minute with no hope of reaching Winnipeg. Amazingly, the powerless plane makes a successful emergency landing at an abandoned airbase in Gimli, Manitoba. Air Canada reveals how the newest plane in their fleet simply ran out of gas...
Click to expand...

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/gliding_into_infamy.htm

Basically, what happened is that the ground crew at Dorval made a mistake converting the fuel density into weight, and although the plane was carrying the correct 20,345 units of fuel, those were pounds instead of kilos.

[/derail]
 
Alt+F4 said:
We will never go metric because it.....makes sense!

As for the Mars Climate Observer, NASA Scientist Group A makes calculations in inches while NASA Scientist Group B makes calculations in centimeters resulting in a very, very confused spaceship burning up in the Martian atmosphere.

But according to the CTers, it's these same evil (yet brilliant) NASA scientists that can create the WTC destroying star wars beam.
Click to expand...

That's not supposed to get out. The dimensional stressor beam, which outputs alternating metric and imperial measurement fields, changing the length of an object alternately from 25.4 mm to 1 inch, at rates varying from a million cycles per second to a MHz, is supposed to be a secret. Blabbermouth.
 
maccy said:
However, I still think we have a chance of getting a decent argument from him so we certainly shouldn't be jumping the gun and accusing him of being a sock-puppet for Pdoherty (ie effectively a troll).
Click to expand...


I agree. I was taking a subtle poke at our friend pdoh. Sorry timmy!
 
TjW said:
That's not supposed to get out. The dimensional stressor beam, which outputs alternating metric and imperial measurement fields, changing the length of an object alternately from 25.4 mm to 1 inch, at rates varying from a million cycles per second to a MHz, is supposed to be a secret. Blabbermouth.
Click to expand...

Ah, so what you're saying is that it was the dilithium crystals....damn you Scotty!
 
Alt+F4 said:
We will never go metric because it.....makes sense!

As for the Mars Climate Observer, NASA Scientist Group A makes calculations in inches while NASA Scientist Group B makes calculations in centimeters resulting in a very, very confused spaceship burning up in the Martian atmosphere.

But according to the CTers, it's these same evil (yet brilliant) NASA scientists that can create the WTC destroying star wars beam.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, the Mars Climate Observer anomaly was a mismatch between software expecting metric (JPL) and a parameter file containing thruster values given in Imperial units (Lockheed Colorado). And both sides failing to check with each other.

Also the cost was higher -- $328 million. A measly $125 million will barely get you a Moon lander. Launch vehicle alone was about $90 million, not counting upper stage.

It happens. Try getting a mathematics professor to do arithmetic on a blackboard and watch the results.
 
Nooooooo!!!

It was a conspiracy!!

Everything has to be a conspiracy. We CANNOT have random chance and error intruding into our perfectly ordered world...it's just not....nice!

OK, so govt spooks in an effort to prevent yet another mission to mars which might discover evidence of alien civilisation/our secret bases/a chocolate bar factory cause two of the contractors to mismatch their system of measurement by intercepting emails and changing them while simultaneously planting explosives within the concrete core of the space craft...just to be certain.

OK I feel better now.
 
you guys might want to edit the wikipedia entry for norman mineta.
I'm still confused about his testimony. Although it certainly isn't as simple as it initially appeared to me. so thanks for pointing out the details.

For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up. I don't see too much difference between executing 3000 americans at the WTC and sending thousands of troops to die in a war based on lies. This is more of a social/cultural debate and I can't be arsed continuing debating things like this here as the conversation isn't really getting anywhere. I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
 
Last edited:
timmyg said:
I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
Click to expand...

Good luck. From what I have seen in my travels, those aren't the two options. The two options are '911truth cultiness' and 'rational people'.
 
timmyg said:
you guys might want to edit the wikipedia entry for norman mineta.
I'm still confused about his testimony.
Click to expand...

If you stick around here you have the opportunity to clear up your confusion. Relying entirely on wikipedia for your view of the world is not going to help with your confusion.

For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up. I don't see too much difference between executing 3000 americans at the WTC and sending thousands of troops to die in a war based on lies.
Click to expand...
The difference is that you can understand how people can rationalise the war - they aren't engaging in a pre-meditated attempt to murder those troops, in fact they hope that none of the troops will die. Nevertheless they can rationalise that it is necessary to put those troops in danger. You may not agree with them (I certainly think they are wrong), but surely you can see how it is easier for somebody to think they're doing the right thing in these situations?

The other important distinction is the level of evidence: there is plenty of evidence for the Iraq war; for serious flaws in the intelligence leading up to it; and for the failure to find WMDs. The supposed evidence of an 'inside job' is lagely based on incorrect and selective anaylisis of photographs and videos; inept scientific analysis of the physics of collapsing buildings; and focussing on testimony that contradicts the official version while ignoring testimony that supports it.

This is more of a social/cultural debate and I can't be arsed continuing debating things like this here as the conversation isn't really getting anywhere.
Click to expand...
The conversation isn't getting anywhere because you are not prepared to do the work of familiarising yourself with the evidence. You aren't prepared to talk about the details of the matter. To assume that the only debate when it come to the validity of a piece of evidence is a "social/cultural" one is intellectual laziness in the extreme.

If I agree with you that the US government is capable of great evil (and, with reservations, I do) how does that make the Mineta testimony more relevant? Surely it stands or falls on its own merits?

Furthermore, you haven't even been very clear about what you think Mineta's testimony indicates about the events and what Cheney was doing.

I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
Click to expand...
Again, you're implying that the members here are rejecting evidence of a conspiracy on principle. That does a great disservice to the time and effort that many people have put in to analysing the claims made by both sides.

There is a lot of information in this forum and I think you could learn a lot by staying. If you do your research and can offer a substantive criticism of any part of the official account of then you will receive a great deal of respect and we can guarantee an interesting discussion.

However, on the subject of Mineta you have shown only ignorance so far and rather than confront this and learn about the subject you have attempted to derail the discussion into a general political discussion and refused to reply to specific points about the evidence. This forum is hardcore skeptic only in the sense that nobody can expect to make a broad statement and not be expected to back it up.


Edited to add:

While I was typing all that, you edited your original post to add:
Although it certainly isn't as simple as it initially appeared to me. so thanks for pointing out the details.
Click to expand...
And I'm glad you added that. I apologise if what I read above comes accross too harshly - and I still think it would be useful to hang around here and talk as dispassionately as possible about specific problems you have with the official version. Do it as a mental exercise, to gain information about why people here have reached the conclusions they have - don't try and win the argument or have a political discussion. Once you've got a good idea of peoples reasoning then you can start to argue from solid fondations.

All the best, anyway.
 
Last edited:
timmyg said:
For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up. I don't see too much difference between executing 3000 americans at the WTC and sending thousands of troops to die in a war based on lies. This is more of a social/cultural debate and I can't be arsed continuing debating things like this here as the conversation isn't really getting anywhere. I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately what you believe and actually prove are far apart. I'm sorry you have also got such a dim view of those that work in Government and class them as immoral and capable of covering up mass murder of their fellow countrymen by thier co workers.

It appears you see absolutely no difference between war and mass murder of Americans carried about by Americans. Please allow me to enlighten you with one blatant difference.

Wars are fought between nations; they generally are fought between the armed forces of those nations. Some times wars erupt inside nations, these are called civil wars. Wars in general are a very bad thing and generally speaking lots of innocent people get caught up in them and get killed. Wars between nations generally erupt because of disputes over borders, differences of opinions between leaders and can on occasion erupt through the most trivial of things. The war inside Iraq was and is part of longer champagne stretching back to the first Gulf war. Whether you believe the present situation there is immoral or not is not the point. The point is that it is being fought, rightly or wrongly. The decision to fight it has been made and has been made openly and publicly.Some people support the decisions made, some do not.

Mass murder of your own citizens on the other hand is not like a war, it is a crime, the most heinous crime imaginable. There is no excuse; there is no get out clause. It is cold blooded, coldly calculated, heartless mass murder. This you accuse the US of, this you do with the slenderest of evidence. The decisions to do this are not made openly and publicly.Nobody supports mass murder, period.

I am disappointed in your views and I hope you find another forum that will indulge you in your theories. I actually think it is commendable that people here will not condemn the US for mass murder without any evidence.

Maybe you are better off over at the British truth movement.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
well i think i was encouraged to derail the debate a bit due to being attacked as to why I was asking this question.

I also said 'I don't see too much difference' between war on lies and countries attacking their own people.. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing.

I am guilty of being lazy by asking you guys for your opinion on here (as I know you all do a lot of research which is pro-the official story) and not searching through threads. yes. sorry. I am lazy sometimes.
 
timmyg said:
well i think i was encouraged to derail the debate a bit due to being attacked as to why I was asking this question.
Click to expand...

If you'd said "Would just like to know what skeptics here think about Norman Minettas testimony" then I doubt that anyone wouild have given you a hard time.

What you actually said was

timmyg said:
Would just like to know what skeptics here think about Norman Minettas testimony that idicates Dick Cheney specifically ordered flight 77 not to be shot down.
Click to expand...

The second part of the question is an assumption about the testimony - so effectively you're making a statement as well as asking a question. It was this statement that was attacked and not you.

To reiterate, even if we only go by Mineta's testimony it indicates that he believes that the order was to shoot down Flight 77.

In other words, Mineta's testimony indicates the opposite of what you said it did, and you have to do some pretty convoluted mental gymnastics to interpret it as a "no shoot down" order.

I also said 'I don't see too much difference' between war on lies and countries attacking their own people.. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
You're resorting to a semantic argument. Nevertheless, your implication was that sending troops to war based on lies is enough like murdering your own people to indicate that that a government is capable of murdering its own people, because it sent people to war on a lie. Whether you say "I don't see too much difference" or "they are exactly the same" is irrelevant, you are arguing an equivalence - that one indicates the possibility of another. My argument is that the justication that someone can use to start a war is significantly easier than that used to deliberately murder their own people.

Also, you can't assume that the US Government knew there were no WMDs - I'm pretty sure they assumed they would find something (they certianly looked pretty stupid when they didn't), their lie was to state that the evidence for WMDs was conclusive when it wasn't. Add to that the fact that they saw other reasons for a war, which the UN would not have accpeted, I can still see how they would justify the war to themselves, even knowing that the WMD evidence was week.

I can't however, see a self-justifcation for the events of 9/11 in terms of what was to be gained versus the cost in US lives that makes any sense to imagine for any part of the US Government.

I'm going to make a new post about plausible hypotheses that clarifies some of my thinking about this. Briefly, I think you're muddling your argument by trying to talk about two things simultaneously.

I am guilty of being lazy by asking you guys for your opinion on here (as I know you all do a lot of research which is pro-the official story) and not searching through threads. yes. sorry. I am lazy sometimes.
Click to expand...
I was only accusing you of laziness on one point:

maccy said:
To assume that the only debate when it come to the validity of a piece of evidence is a "social/cultural" one is intellectual laziness in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Other than that, I don't think you need to apologise. Edit to add: but you can't expect to be able to argue with people without getting facts straight first. If you're asking questions, fine. If you're trying to make a point, expect to get called on your lack of knowledge.

It's fine by me to ask questions, but see my fist point about combining them with assumptions.

Finally, how can research be pro the official story? Evidence is evidence. Presenting it selectively can give it bias, as can interpretation; but carrying out research can only add to the available evidence.
 
Last edited:
In the hope that timmyg is going to stick around, and to get this clear in my head, here's an attempt think about how we discuss 9/11 and how this discussion can get muddled.

It seems to me that there are two separate processes here that we shouldn't confuse.

The first process is coming up with a plausible hypothesis. It seems to me that simplest form of the hypothesis is "9/11 was an inside job". This raises a number of questions, among them:

What would be the motivation for the perpetrators?
How many people would have to be involved?
How, morally, could all the people involved justify mass murder?
What did they need to carry out their actions, in terms of time, raw meterials, money and expertise?
How did they get the money and raw materials?
Assuming nobody directly involved leaked details, how was all this kept secret from government oversight organisations, government investigative departments that weren't involved in the plot, journalists around the word and foreign intelligence agencies?

Discussion about these issue is necessarily speculative, but by basing it on past actions of governents and people in general we can get an idea if a hypothesis is likely or not. Timmyg's comparison of the Iraq War with a 9/11 inside job hypothesis is an argument around these issues - he is trying to show that the US Government is morally capable of carrying out 9/11. Discusion about Northwoods and PNAC is also concerned with the plausibility of the hypothesis.

The second process is testing a hypothesis against evidence. It doesn't have to be a hypothesis that accounts for the whole of 9/11, but once we agree on what we're testing, general discussions about its plausibility take a back seat to assessing the evidence. The hypothesis we are testing here is "Dick Cheney ordered Flight 77 not to be shot down, even though it was being tracked all the way to the pentagon".

In favour of the hypothesis, we have a very particular interpretation of Norman Mineta's testimony. Against it we have all the other testimony, NORAD records and discrepancies between what Mineta says the President was doing and what we know from elsewhere. We also have Mineta's own testimony that he isn't sure about what was happening and when.

Simply on the balance of evidence, I say we have to reject the hypothesis - speculation about whether Dick Cheney (or any other part of the Government) is morally capable of a conspiracy, or that he had something to gain from it, has no bearing on the evidence.

However, if we accept that it is possible that Cheney did do this (and I don't think we can, purely on the evidence) then these questions willl return as we would still have to build this into a hypothesis that plausibly accounts for the whole of 9/11 as an inside job. I still haven't seen this done.
 
Last edited:
timmyg said:
For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up.
Click to expand...



Many? How many? 60%? 80%? Are they focused in particular agencies? Or are a percentage of all government workers in all agencies "completely immoral"? Is your postman one of them? What about the local police?

-Gumboot
 
timmyg said:
well i think i was encouraged to derail the debate a bit due to being attacked as to why I was asking this question.

I also said 'I don't see too much difference' between war on lies and countries attacking their own people.. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing.

I am guilty of being lazy by asking you guys for your opinion on here (as I know you all do a lot of research which is pro-the official story) and not searching through threads. yes. sorry. I am lazy sometimes.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out one difference to you Timmy. Now please stop being lazy and start trying to think in rational and sensible manner about these theories.

Opinions here vary and differ depending on whatever subject is being discussed and this is why I personally take exception to the cters use of the Iraq war to justify their believes. As I have said some people here support it some do not but the vast majority of people here do not support these theories.

It is objectionable when cters start using the Iraq war to make people feel bad about themselves for not believing the conspiracies. This “Look here is what Bush as done to Iraq and you support him" or” here look at this picture of a dead Iraqi child, this is what you support". I have seen it Timmy, I have seen it on the very forum you come from. Whether people support or oppose the Iraq war is entirely up to them and in the same token is an entirely different debating topic. It is only the cters that try to merge 911 and the Iraq war into one issue, they are not. This simplistic view that the US had no problem sending 3000 of their own troops off to be killed in Iraq, therefore they would have no problem killing 3000 innocent citizens is grossly naive. It simply does not wash to say " Well look at Iraq, therefore they must have done 911".

I hope you can see this Timmy and maybe just try to separate the two issues because not only does it undermine those that object to this war, I’m sure pretty it is annoying to those who do not object.
 
firecoins said:
what? You expected me to know where you from?:D
Click to expand...

;) I woulda thought my signature would be a bit of a giveaway.

It's all good though, I don't mind being called an Aussie... the ANZAC spirit is still strong in this one... and being an Aussie is still better than being from any of those silly "northern hemisphere" places.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
;) I woulda thought my signature would be a bit of a giveaway.

It's all good though, I don't mind being called an Aussie... the ANZAC spirit is still strong in this one... and being an Aussie is still better than being from any of those silly "northern hemisphere" places.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Its NZ flag, right? :blush:
 
gumboot said:
Yus. :D Admittedly it looks a lot like Australia (easiest distinction is Australia = white stars, NZ = red stars). But there's also the kiwi...

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Sorry the image is too small for me.

Anyway...make your toilet flush right and we will use the metric system!:D
 
firecoins said:
Sorry the image is too small for me.

Anyway...make your toilet flush right and we will use the metric system!:D
Click to expand...



What's really neat is draining a bath as you cross the equator. It starts going one way (slowly), then goes straight down, then reverses.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
What's really neat is draining a bath as you cross the equator. It starts going one way (slowly), then goes straight down, then reverses.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
If that's happening, it's due to an overactive rubber ducky, not to the coriolis effect. :D That "drain water goes in opposite directions" thing is an urban myth. The rotation of the earth can have such an effect on oceans and weather, but doesn't act measurably on your bath drain.
 
Gravy said:
If that's happening, it's due to an overactive rubber ducky, not to the coriolis effect. :D That "drain water goes in opposite directions" thing is an urban myth. The rotation of the earth can have such an effect on oceans and weather, but doesn't act measurably on your bath drain.
Click to expand...


I believe it starts to have an affect after about 5 hours of sitting still. Before that the natural rotation of the water entering the tub dictates draining direction.

-Gumboot
 
Gravy said:
If that's happening, it's due to an overactive rubber ducky, not to the coriolis effect. :D That "drain water goes in opposite directions" thing is an urban myth. The rotation of the earth can have such an effect on oceans and weather, but doesn't act measurably on your bath drain.
Click to expand...

Oops, I have been down under and it does go the other way. You have to aim your guns different also if you want to sink the Bismarck, or what ever ship those guys missed.

Which was do your tornado's turn?
 
timmyg said:
I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see you stay around. You seem pretty reasonable, and I'd like to see some back-and-forth between the regulars here and a CT who's not batscat-insane like TS1234 and Christophera.

So please hang around, but just do a little more digging next time you start a thread.
 
Here is the problem!

Mineta's testimony contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s Report by revealing the fact that Cheney knew about the aircraft approaching the Pentagon, long before the impact. This testimony was broadcast on C-Span and is also available online though the 9/11 Commission’s official website where the entire transcript of the May 23rd, 2003 hearing is available. This testimony was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report and no explanation of the contradictions has ever been adequately addressed.

Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, questions Norman Mineta.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it 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?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

----------------------------

Later in Mineta ’s testimony, he was asked to explain in more detail, the events surrounding the shoot-down order in the PEOC. From his experience in the Military, he inferred that “the orders” were orders to have the plane approaching the Pentagon shot down.

9/11 Commission Hearing Testimony:

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.

MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?

MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

------------------------

There are, however, three problems with Mineta's [shoot-down] assumption.

In the first place, this interpretation would imply that Cheney had given shoot-down authorisation at some time before 9:25, which is much earlier than even Clarke says.

Mineta's interpretation would not fit with the subsequent facts, because the aircraft headed towards the Pentagon was not shot down.

Third, Mineta's interpretation would not make the episode intelligible. Had Cheney given the expected order - the order to have an aircraft approaching the Pentagon shot down - we could not explain why the young man asked if the order still stood. It would have been abundantly obvious to him that it would continue to stand until the aircraft was actually shot down.

His question would ONLY make sense, however, if "the orders" were ones that seemed unusual.

Analysis of this event proposes that “the orders” that the “young man” referred too, were in fact to stand down, rather than shoot down.
The military uses the excuse, backed by the 9/11 Commission Report, that they were only made aware of the plane approaching the Pentagon at 9:34, less than four minutes before it struck the Pentagon when the plane was 6 miles southeast of the White House. If it is revealed that Cheney knew of the plane approaching the Pentagon when it was 50 miles out at 9:27, rather than when it was 6 miles out at 9:34, it would prove that the Military would have had enough time to intercept the approaching aircraft and shoot it down, thereby saving the lives of 125 employees killed as a result.

-------------------------
Checking Mineta’s Timeline

According to Mineta’s testimony, the plane approaching the Pentagon was “50 miles out” at around 9:26. Since the Pentagon was hit at 9:37:46, it therefore took about 12 minutes for the plane to fly 50 miles, make a 330 degree turn descending 7000 feet and strike the Pentagon.

The 9/11 Commission Report:

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker piloted then advanced the throttles to maximum power and drove toward the Pentagon.

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.

Because the pilot “advanced the throttle to maximum power” after his 330 turn, we know the plane must have traveled the 45 miles at a speed significantly under 530mph. And since we know that at 9:34, the plane was 5 miles out, the plane would have traveled 45 miles in about 8 minutes according to Mineta’s timeline. Assuming the plane traveled at 400mph, it would have taken almost 7 minutes for the plane to travel 45 miles. From this calculation, Mineta’s timeline is accurate to within a couple of minutes. Mineta arrived at around 9:20 and he recalled that the “young man” told Cheney the plane was “50 miles out” about 5 or 6 minutes after he entered the PEOC. Mineta’s memory that the plane was “50 miles out” at 9:26 proved to be very close to the actual time that the plane was in fact 50 miles out, which would have been around 9:27, only 1 minute off.

So when Mineta said the conversation occurred “probably about five or six minutes” after he arrived, it would have been more like six or seven minutes, or maybe he arrived closer to 9:21, or some combination thereof.

The bottom line is that Mineta’s timeline proved to be as accurate as could be expected and nearly exactly fits with his assumption that the conversation concerned the plane approaching the Pentagon.

To confirm the accuracy of the time when the plane was “50 miles out” which was calculated above to be around 9:27, the 9/11 Commission Report also tells us that the plane was 38 miles out at 9:29.

9/11 Commission Report:
“At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59
At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77.”


So if the plane was 38 miles out at 9:29, then when would it have been at 50 miles out? Assuming this fact and that the plane was traveling at around 400mph, the plane would have been 50 miles out at right around 9:27. Again, Mineta’s timeline completely fits with the subsequent facts presented to us in the 9/11 Commission Report. So Cheney knew where it was going.
 
Before I get...Maybe it was Maybe United 93 was “50 miles out”?

Maybe United 93 was “50 miles out”?

According the 9/11 Commission Report, it would seem possible that the young man and Cheney could be talking about United 93, which went down at 10:03 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. This seems like it could account for Mineta’s testimony assuming he was confused on the time, except for the fact that United 93 crashed approximately 125 miles away from Washington D.C. Therefore, United 93 was never “50 miles out” of the White House, Pentagon, or any other specific target. It especially was not “30 miles out” or “10 miles out”.

However, 9/11 Commission tries to paints a picture of incompetence and confusion that still makes it seem possible that Mineta witnessed the young man and Cheney discussing United 93 or a medevac helicopter or some combination thereof.

The argument is quite farfetched and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with respect to Mineta’s testimony, especially considering it has Cheney giving an order to shoot down a plane which was already down and an order to shoot down a medevac helicopter.


9/11 Commission Report:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania. 217

At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. 218

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

At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President. 220

The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary. 221

Minutes went by and word arrived of an aircraft down in Pennsylvania. Those in the shelter wondered if the aircraft had been shot down pursuant to this authorization. 222

At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to "engage or "take out" the aircraft. At 10:33, Hadley told the air threat conference call: "I need to get word to Dick Myers that our reports are there's an inbound aircraft flying low 5 miles out. The Vice President's guidance was we need to take them out." 223

Once again, there was no immediate information about the fate of the inbound aircraft. In the apt description of one witness, "It drops below the radar screen and it's just continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it." Eventually, the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter.224

When looking at the rest of Mineta’s testimony in response to Lee Hamilton’s questions, it does not seem very plausible that the plane which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out could have been Flight 93.

9/11 Commission Hearing Testimony:

MR. MINETA: And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.
MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.
MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?
MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.
MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.
MR. MINETA: I did not.
MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: No, sir.

Mineta clearly explains that there were no orders to shoot down United 93 and that “the orders” referred to AA 77 that he knew had been given from the conversation he overheard between the young man and Cheney. <--- See The contradiction here....

Mineta explains that the first time they heard of United 93, it had crashed!!

Though that would still technically be true based on the 9/11 Commission Report, Mineta makes no mention or reference to the fact that they were tracking and attempting to shoot down United 93 after it already crashed or that they almost shot down a medevac helicopter.


Skeptics still maintain that Norman Mineta is only one man and are therefore faced with the option of 9/11 being an inside job, or that Mineta was terribly confused.

People who cannot fathom their government committing such atrocities find more comfort in believing that Mineta’s testimony is grossly inaccurate when faced with the horrifying alternative.

Mineta’s testimony clearly places Cheney in the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck and both Richard Clark and David Bohrer can also corroborate that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:37.

I'll await replys with abaited breath on this one??
 
You forgot this part.

MR. HAMILTON: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

MR. MINETA: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.

MR. HAMILTON: Could you help me understand a little the division of responsibility between the FAA and NORAD on that morning?

MR. MINETA: Well, FAA is in touch with NORAD. And when the first flight from Boston had gone out of communications with the air traffic controllers, the air traffic controller then notified, I believe, Otis Air Force Base about the air traffic controller not being able to raise that American Airlines flight.
Click to expand...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm#panel_one

Do you honestly expect us to take you seriously when you are twisting the man's words?
 
Last edited:
Err..

I'm not twisting my or anyone else words. I used the parts that I thought were relevent to the topic and my arguement. Sorry would you like me to post his complete testimony??

So lets says, there were planes ready to shoot down commerical planes, then how comes it never happened?

3 of the planes hit there intended targets!

And again this contradicts the what is said and happens in the NORAD Tapes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom