Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Paul Rigby]

I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb.

Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people!

Thirded - and this is where I came in...

"Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul?

Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply.

I particularly liked the fact a BBC documentary couldn't bring itself to include eyewitness accounts from, er, BBC reporters. Shifty types, you understand, not to be trusted.

[Ron Ecker]

Since there was no shoot down authorization at that time, nor any even discussed,

How do you know?

I'm going by the government's story, which is admittedly foolish.

It seems unlikely they would include such low level people in such a plot there would have been no reason to do so

You think Cheney would sit there and do all the work himself? He could have any low level participants eliminated later, if they were even aware of what was really going on.

at 500+ mph it would have taken the plane 1 – 6 minutes to fly 10 – 50 miles not enough time to evacuate a building as large as the Pentagon

I see. So since there wasn't time to evacuate the building, everyone just had to stay inside. Getting ten, twelve or so people to safety wouldn't be fair to all the others. Would they shoot anyone who tried to leave?

[Sid Walker]

I do agree with you, having now viewed the video, that the 9-11 Conspiracy Files demolition is superb.

Well done to Shayler and the Bristol 9-11 Truth people!

Thirded - and this is where I came in...

"Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul?

Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply.

I particularly liked the fact a BBC documentary couldn't bring itself to include eyewitness accounts from, er, BBC reporters. Shifty types, you understand, not to be trusted.

I think it's called 'self-denial'.

Len reminds me of the kind of friend you don't take to the movies twice.

Demands to know the storyline before the show begins. Munches popcorn noisily. Shouts 'boring' after 20 minutes and walks out in a huff, loudly repeating his glib, know-all 'review' in the foyer on the way out to anyone who'll listen.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

I particularly liked the fact a BBC documentary couldn't bring itself to include eyewitness accounts from, er, BBC reporters. Shifty types, you understand, not to be trusted.

Which “BBC reporters” ‘couldn’t they bring themselves’ “to include eyewitness accounts from”?

a) The one(s) who wrote the later retracted story about hijackers being alive or

the one who said nothing that contradicts the “official version” or

c) all of the above

I imagine Sid is the kind of guy who could sit enthralled through the umpteenth installment of some crappy horror film franchise and despite having seen all the previous versions still think he’s seeing something new.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Since there was no shoot down authorization at that time, nor any even discussed,

How do you know?

I'm going by the government's story, which is admittedly foolish.

Let’s think about this logically.

I don’t think anybody on this forum denies the Bush Administration lied about aspects of 9/11, even the Commission said they’d been fed misinformation.

Minetta said as early as 9/14/01 he’d heard them talking about the approaching plane.

Your theory is based of course on the presumption he wasn’t “in on it”.

So if there really was this big conspiracy and he over heard a confirmation of a “proceed to target” order a little after 9:30 why didn’t they simply lie once again and say the order had been given by then? I don't remember when exactly did they say the order had beem given?

It seems unlikely they would include such low level people in such a plot there would have been no reason to do so

You think Cheney would sit there and do all the work himself? He could have any low level participants eliminated later, if they were even aware of what was really going on.

Do you have any evidence of Pentagon personnel who mysteriously died shortly after 9/11?

How would he transfer the order if he didn’t know what it was about?

What didn’t the guy telling the “young man” how far the plane was discreetly tell Cheney himself since ‘outsiders’ were present?

Why did they need confirmation literally at the last minute, hadn’t the attack been planned for years?

at 500+ mph it would have taken the plane 1 – 6 minutes to fly 10 – 50 miles not enough time to evacuate a building as large as the Pentagon

I see. So since there wasn't time to evacuate the building, everyone just had to stay inside. Getting ten, twelve or so people to safety wouldn't be fair to all the others. Would they shoot anyone who tried to leave?

“Getting ten, twelve or so people to safety” would probably put a much greater number at risk. If you didn’t know exactly were the plane would strike being inside would be safer than outside. Supposedly they were starting to evacuate the White House and Capitol but stopped when they got news of the Pentagon crash and then resumed a few minutes later.

[Ron Ecker]

“Getting ten, twelve or so people to safety” would probably put a much greater number at risk. If you didn’t know exactly were the plane would strike being inside would be safer than outside.

Well, you can stay inside if you want to. I'm getting my butt out, so I can see the plane coming, then I'm going to run like hell in some other direction.

[Evan Burton]

Even one of the posts or articles (I can't remember which) says that the times ranged from 0900 to 0930 - so some of those reports must be wrong. Why must it be assumed that the USSS logs must be wrong? They agree with the ATC logs of when the USSS Ops Center was notified of an inbound.

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined the time? He says in that interview that he could have been mistaken about the time. What about the White House photographer - did he look at his watch and note the time, or did he recollect the time later?

I have to point out again, if Mr Mineta was incorrect about his time of arrival, then all the events match up.

This is why we make logs - to record the time, and what happened.

[Craig Lamson]

Even one of the posts or articles (I can't remember which) says that the times ranged from 0900 to 0930 - so some of those reports must be wrong. Why must it be assumed that the USSS logs must be wrong? They agree with the ATC logs of when the USSS Ops Center was notified of an inbound.

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined the time? He says in that interview that he could have been mistaken about the time. What about the White House photographer - did he look at his watch and note the time, or did he recollect the time later?

I have to point out again, if Mr Mineta was incorrect about his time of arrival, then all the events match up.

This is why we make logs - to record the time, and what happened.

If the WHite House photographer was doing his job...taking pictures of the events...there IS a log, the metadata embedded in the digital photographs. Why not ask him for the timestamps?

[Evan Burton]

Even one of the posts or articles (I can't remember which) says that the times ranged from 0900 to 0930 - so some of those reports must be wrong. Why must it be assumed that the USSS logs must be wrong? They agree with the ATC logs of when the USSS Ops Center was notified of an inbound.

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined the time? He says in that interview that he could have been mistaken about the time. What about the White House photographer - did he look at his watch and note the time, or did he recollect the time later?

I have to point out again, if Mr Mineta was incorrect about his time of arrival, then all the events match up.

This is why we make logs - to record the time, and what happened.

If the WHite House photographer was doing his job...taking pictures of the events...there IS a log, the metadata embedded in the digital photographs. Why not ask him for the timestamps?

We'd have to be sure that the time was correctly set on the camera - which it probably was (+/- 5 mins) - but anyway: EXCELLENT point Craig.

[Ron Ecker]

Here's the point. A real investigation would have cleared this whole question up, like a thousand other questions about 9/11. Mineta would have been grilled till he got his story straight or else it was determined that his story is true and some people, logs etc. were lying. Instead the 9/11 Whitewash Commission just scratched its head over Mineta's testimony and tried to ignore it.

America's "investigation" of 9/11 is a national disgrace rivaled only by its "investigation" of the JFK assassination. I don't even want to think about what will have to be "investigated" next.

[Evan Burton]

Here's the point. A real investigation would have cleared this whole question up, like a thousand other questions about 9/11. Mineta would have been grilled till he got his story straight or else it was determined that his story is true and some people, logs etc. were lying. Instead the 9/11 Whitewash Commission just scratched its head over Mineta's testimony and tried to ignore it.

But you simply assume he is right, and everything else is a lie! You do not allow for the possibility he is mistaken and everything else is correct.

The investigation appears to have investigated and determined that it was Mineta that was mistaken, because all the other evidence matched up.

Michael, Ron would appear to be what I term a 'truther'.

[Ron Ecker]

But you simply assume he is right, and everything else is a lie! You do not allow for the possibility he is mistaken and everything else is correct.

Well, you are the one who is lying, if you have read this thread. I have stated:

Mineta's testimony is corroborated by a White House photographer who says that Cheney was evacuated right after the second tower was hit, not half an hour later. I'll believe these two men, innocently recounting what they remember, over Dick Cheney and company. See also the link provided by Michael of Mineta confirming that this was before the Pentagon was hit and thus had nothing to do with Flight 93.

That means that when stories conflict and neither story can be proven wrong, I tend to believe those who appear to be respectable men and those who are known to be bastards. But the only way to prove who is right and who is wrong at present (which I don't know and you don't either) would be to have a real investigation.

It's certainly possible that Mineta could be confused about his times.

What don't you understand about that statement?

However, if Mineta was mistaken, the eyewitness account of when Cheney left his office still raises the question of where Cheney went for around half an hour before showing up (according to the official timeline) at the bunker.

Again I allow that Mineta would be mistaken, I don't just "assume he is right."

If Mineta is correct on the time

Note I said "if." He may not be correct on the time.

And quoting you:

Michael, Ron would appear to be what I term a 'truther'.

I'll just say that I have an opinion of you too.

[Len Colby]

“Getting ten, twelve or so people to safety” would probably put a much greater number at risk. If you didn’t know exactly were the plane would strike being inside would be safer than outside.

Well, you can stay inside if you want to. I'm getting my butt out, so I can see the plane coming, then I'm going to run like hell in some other direction.

Ron you have to remember they would have had no idea where the plane was headed.

You're only one person. About 29,000 people work in the Pentagon*. How many could have been evacuated in 5 minutes or less? How many would be left crowded in the parking lots and lawn? A big crowd of people would have been a tempting target for the pilot of a Boeing intent on killing as many people as possible. The elapsed time between the plane coming into visual range and crashing would have been a few seconds

* http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/general.html

Back to the question of the Stinger at 7 WTC the author of a book about former FBI agent John O'Neill says the Secret Service had one their though he doesn't indicate a source.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006...nterforcoop-20/ (Search for stinger and read pg 395)

EDIT - Link fixed

Edited July 3, 2007 by Len Colby

[Kevin M. West]

Here's the point. A real investigation would have cleared this whole question up, like a thousand other questions about 9/11. Mineta would have been grilled till he got his story straight

And then you'd be here accusing them of coercing him into telling the story they wanted to hear.

Eyewitness testimony is NEVER fully consistant, everyone sees and remembers things differently. A real investigation doesn't try to get everyone to tell identical stories, it try's to find the commonalities between their stories and figure out which parts are accurate and can be verified.

[Ron Ecker]

Thanks for educating me on what real investigations do. I didn't mean to imply that Mineta would be coerced into saying what investigators wanted to hear. By getting his story straight I meant getting the story straightened out, i.e. finding the truth, whatever it was.