Evan Burton

Second Lady of the United States (i.e. Lynne Cheney)

Does anyone know if there is a standing procedure that, if the VP is evacuated, SLOTUS is also evacuated? I guessing there is. If she was nearby, she'd be taken to the same evacuation point.

The claim of SAMs or MPADs being on the Pentagon in 2001 is just so much bull.

Ron, do you have details of the photographer who confirms the timings?

I still believe Mineta was mistaken about his times; all other sources (stand fast the photographer) disagree with his timings.

According to Mineta, the following was underway between his arrival at 0920 and 0926 ("about 5 or 6 minutes"):

- VP in PEOC. USSS logs disagree (0937). It was also noted that as they entered the PEOC, they paused in the tunnel and saw television footage that the Pentagon had been attacked (report page 40)(impact at 0938).

- SLOTUS in PEOC. Logs disagree (arrived at 0952).

- President on way to Louisiana. Logs disagree; Air Force 1 didn't depart until 0954.

- White House being evacuated. Logs disagree; the Regan tower controller didn't notify the USSS Ops Centre until 0933 of an unidentified inbound (Report, page 39), and the evacuation was not ordered until 0936.

Now, if we assume that Mineta was mistaken about the times and arrived about 1005 or thereabouts, all the events match up. The VP is there, SLOTUS is there, Bush is in the air, the White House has been / is being evacuated, and he hears the conversation regarding UA93.

There was also much confusion and I'd say that Mineta was not aware that the Pentagon had been hit.

I'm more interested in knowing who the young man was who Mineta said kept telling Cheney how far out the plane was and if "the order still stands." This was before the Pentagon was hit, and the plane they were tracking was obviously Flight 77 headed for the Pentagon, where everyone supposedly remained unaware of the impending attack.

Thanks for the heads up, Mr. Vice President.

Ron, I posted this in another thread, but I'll also repeat it here.

I think that Norman Mineta is simply mistaken about the time he arrived. His testimony said he arrived at 0920 and that he heard the conversation with Cheney about 6 minutes later. The Secret Service logs, however, show Cheney was not evacuated until 0936 and entered the tunnel to the shelter at 0937.

I suspect that what he heard was actually the discussion about 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)

(9/11 Report, page 41)

I think that Norman Mineta is simply mistaken about the time he arrived. His testimony said he arrived at 0920 and that he heard the conversation with Cheney about 6 minutes later. The Secret Service logs, however, show Cheney was not evacuated until 0936 and entered the tunnel to the shelter at 0937.

I suspect that what he heard was actually the discussion about 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)

(9/11 Report, page 41)

That's quite alright, Michael - badger away!

Does it bother you that the 9/11 Commission never mentioned WTC 7 and its collapse? Was it relevant?

No, it doesn't bother me because it was collateral damage, not caused directly by the aircraft impacts. NIST is now preparing the report on its collapse, which includes an investigation of the controlled demolition claims.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Does it bother you that the Commission never published Norman Mineta's testimony in its report? Was it relevant?

Again, no, it doesn't bother me. His testimony was given in a public hearing, and his testimony is available online.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm

Does it bother you that the Commission claimed Mohammed Atta was the mastermind of the plot, but devoted only a few cursory paragraphs to his life and background?

Cursory? I disagree. A page or so on him directly, plus his contacts with the other hijackers, plus numerous mentions about his movements leading up to 9/11 (see section 5.3 of the report)

According to its preface, the 9/11 Commission was written "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." Do you think they achieved that, or came close?

I think they came pretty close.

If one suspects that there may be sinister explanations for why the Commission failed to address (among other things) the things I mentioned, does that brand them as a "truther?"

Possibly. If they are unaware of various data, then probably not. If they are aware of various data but choose to disregard it - particularly if the basis is simply a mistrust of the government - then yes, I would call them a truther. It's what many of them call themselves, by the way.

I just made up the 9/11ers. "truthers" normally refers to those people who claim to seek the 'truth' about 9/11 (but only accept their own versions of it) and normally consider themselves part of the "truth movement".

Not everyone belongs in that category. Nothing wrong with questioning or doubting aspects of the official 9/11 story. I, for one, believe there has been a certain amount of 'covering up' with regard to 9/11 and don't say the official report is "100% accurate". Not in what happened, but how people reacted to events. I think there were intelligence failures, poor judgment, and even incompetence in some aspects. People who should have been fired - or possibly even face criminal prosecution - have been protected.

On the other hand, I have no doubts that aircraft were hijacked and flown into the respective buildings (or crashed), and that buildings collapsed because of damage sustained by the impacts or from collateral damage from other building collapses.

It's just the 9/11ers game. Nowhere will you find in the report that the aircraft's engine had last undergone an overhaul on such & such a date; you won't find results of post-crash testing of the port outboard aileron hydraulic actuator; nor will you find any mention that it was confirmed that the aft cargo bay hatch was closed & locked at the time of impact. Why? Because they are not relevant.

The remains aren't viewable because of the significance of the incident. Can you go see the remains of the CHALLENGER? COLUMBIA? Apollo 1? No. Relatives have been allowed to view them, but the general public - including researchers - cannot. Can you view the remains of TWA800? I'm guessing not.

In the case of 9/11, even publishing the information about part numbers would serve no purpose because the "truthers" would just claim the information had been faked. It's typical of them - if the data does not fit your conclusions, ignore the data or claim it's wrong. Think about it - if, for instance, the NTSB provided the serial numbers of the engines fitted to the aircraft, showed those serial numbers on recovered parts, and showed maintenance logs showing they had been fitted to the said aircraft, do you honestly believe the majority of the "truthers" would say 'oh well - there goes that theory'?

Len,

You may be missing Dave's point. The Sun will indeed appear smaller; it's just that what Jack claims is the size of the Sun in the image, and what is the actual size, are two different things.

Dave,

Jack has never shown any interest in posts which invalidate his claims; what makes you think he'll start now?

T. Folsom,

John instituted the policy shortly after you joined the Forum:

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

Please adhere to them, or contact John or Andy if you require a waiver.

Lastly, I back Steve's comments about behaviour 100% - and I do not have a position on JFK, so it is not a matter of playing favourites.

Evan

Moderator

I've seen that post in many forms around the traps. I'm afraid I don't give it any more regard than I did a year or two ago.

Charles,

As you may know, I have no opinion on JFK, so I have to ask: are you a whinger?

T.Folsom,

Can I ask if John S or Andy W have allowed you to go without a bio / photo? It's normal forum etiquette to provide them. If you have reasons for withholding them, then John or Andy will normally give the okay for the omission.

BTW - I have no pertinent views on the JFK claims; I'm an Apollogist.

Also, many images were spoiled or poorly framed. The repeated claim that "all Apollo images were perfectly framed" or similar is totally incorrect.

Happy to provide multiple examples of this if anyone would like.

Mark,

The LRRRs left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 by themselves are not proof of a manned landing - though they support it when all the evidence is weighed up.

As Jack mentioned, some claim they were landed there with robotic probes. The Soviets did with their Lunokhod 1 and 2 probes (they were initially able to get a return reflection from Lunokhod 1, but the last reflection was back in the early 70s). That's possible but you have to consider some things with regard to that premise:

- The presence of the Apollo astronauts allowed precise placement and alignment of the LRRRs; this is why they are preferred to the reflector on Lunokhod 2.

- The astronauts were able to ensure the LRRRs were clean and free of dirt, again why they are preferred over the Soviet reflector.

- The LM was able to carry a larger reflector than the Soviet unmanned vehicles.

- There were no known lunar robotic vehicles launched by NASA.

More info regarding the "lack of information":

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=7world...kcity-ny-usa868

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

I'm disagreeing with Jack. I'm no expert in buildings but it doesn't seem that rapid to me. After all, the Empire State Building was build very quickly using far more "primitive" methods:

1930: Excavation of the site where the Empire State Building would stand begins on January 22nd.

1930: On March 17, construction of the Empire State Building began. Under the direction of architects Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, and a peak labor force of 3,000 men, framework rose at a rate of 4 ½ stories per week.

1930: The masonry work for the building, which began in June of the same year, is completed on November 13.

1931: On May 1st, President Hoover presses a button in Washington, D.C. officially opening and turning on the Empire State Building's lights.

Source: http://www.esbnycleasing.com/history.phtml

Actually, I agree regarding Iraq. Regardless of 9/11, I think there would have been events to initiate the removal of Saddam - justified or not.

AS IT HAPPENED

Broadcast Date: Friday 22 June 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm

Classifications: Documentary, M (CC)

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

(Part 1) Six Days In June - (The Six Day War)- The shooting lasted only six tense days in June 1967, but the Six Day War has never really ended. Every crisis that has ripped through this region in the ensuing decades had its roots in these fateful days. On the 40th anniversary of the war, the region remains trapped in conflict. This war has long been seen by Israel as the miraculous victory of their little state this enclave surrounded by an ocean of tens of millions of Arabs from all over the Middle East. For the Arab states, this was a humiliating defeat suffered at the hand of imperialistic plotters. Our two-part film tells the true story of the Six Day War beyond the images and propaganda clichés. (From France, in English, Hebrew and Arabic, English subtitles) (Documentary Series)

Little is known? I disagree.

Construction of the new 7 World Trade Center began in 2002, and was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million. The 52-story building is 750 feet (228 m) tall, and contains 1,700,000 square feet (158 000 m²) of leasable office space, starting at the 11th floor. The first ten floors will house an electrical substation, which will power most of Lower Manhattan. The office tower has a narrower footprint at ground level than its predecessor, because the course of Greenwich Street has been restored in an effort to re-unite TriBeCa and the Financial District.

The architect was David Childs, of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, who worked in conjunction with glass artist and designer James Carpenter. They used ultra-clear, low-iron glass to provide reflectivity and light, with stainless-steel spandrels behind the glass to help reflect sunlight. Artist Jenny Holzer created a large light installation inside the main lobby, with glowing text moving across wide plastic panels. The entire wall is about 30 meters wide by 7 meters tall; it changes color according to the time of day.

The building has 2-foot- (60-cm-) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts, whereas the original building used only drywall to line these shafts. The stairways are wider than in the original building, to permit faster exits. Steel columns are encased in much thicker fire protection. The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction".

7 World Trade Center is equipped with Otis destination elevators. After entering their floor destination on a lobby keypad, passengers are grouped together and directed to specific elevators that will stop at their particular floor. There are no buttons to press inside the elevators. This system is designed to reduce elevator waiting and travel times.

The building is considered New York City's first "green" office tower, and gained gold status in the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program. Rainwater is collected and used for irrigation of the park, and to cool the building, and recycled steel was used in the building's construction.

The triangular park was created by David Childs with Ken Smith and his colleague Annie Weinmayr, of Ken Smith Landscape Architect. It is between the now extended Greenwich Street and West Broadway, and comprises an open central plaza with a fountain and flanking groves of trees and shrubs. As the seasons change, so will the colors in the park, providing a natural complement to the adjacent tower. At the center of the fountain, sculptor Jeff Koons created Balloon Flower (Red), whose mirror-polished stainless steel represents a twisted balloon in the shape of a flower, at a monumental scale.

Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned the Freedom Tower.

The building was officially opened at noon on May 23, 2006 with a free concert sponsored by Larry Silverstein. The concert featured Suzanne Vega, Citizen Cope, Bill Ware Vibes, Brazilian Girls, Ollabelle, Pharaoh's Daughter, Ronan Tynan (of the Irish Tenors), and special guest Lou Reed.

From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit, hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor, before the space was leased and converted into offices.

The building has 42 floors of rentable space. As of March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased. In September 2006, Moody's signed a 20-year lease to rent 15 floors of 7 World Trade Center. As of May 2007, other tenants in 7 World Trade Center include ABN Amro, Ameriprise Financial Inc., Darby & Darby P.C., Mansueto Ventures LLC, business publisher of Fast Company and Inc., New York Academy of Sciences, and WNYX Business offices. Silverstein Properties also has offices in 7 World Trade Center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

http://www.wtc.com/inner_page.aspx?id=11

http://www.architectureweek.com/2007/0509/design_1-1.html

That is from a cursory glance via Google. I'm sure there is far more detailed information available for those who want more.

Just a minute - I SEE AN ANOMALY WITH THIS IMAGE!

Have a look at the two "spot lights" in the reflected image. Compare them to the REAL glass pyramid.

THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY STUDIO SPOT LAMPS.

This whole image was faked in a studio. That being said, I don't necessarily deny the existence of a country call France, a city called Paris, or that people may have visited those 'locations'; the image, however, ifs faked.

HOT DOCS: THE AMERICAN RULING CLASS

Broadcast Date: Tuesday 19 June 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 10.00 pm

Classifications: Other, M (L,A) (CC)

Timeslot Duration: 75 mins

In the freest nation in the world, class is, perhaps, the last taboo. This dramatic-documentary musical examines the existence of class, power and privilege in a democratic society. It follows renowned essayist and author, Lewis Lapham, and two recent Yale graduates as they ambush Pentagon briefings, high-society dinner parties, the World Economic Forum, philanthropic foundations, and corporate banks in search of an answer to the question: Who rules America? (From the US, in English) (Documentary)

And here's Evan's ... Along with accusing his opponet of being a "pot calling the kettle " etc .... A particular tactic which is has been quoted ad nauseum ...

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

And, as ever - you are wrong. I never said that. Nice try, though.