Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Ron Ecker]

Geez, how long are you going to pimp these lies Ron? You have ANY honor left?

F**k you.

[Craig Lamson]

Geez, how long are you going to pimp these lies Ron? You have ANY honor left?

F**k you.

Spoken like a cornered rat....way to go truther.

[Shanet Clark]

Excuse me, but is this the thread about the

REICHSTAG FIRE ?

[Evan Burton]

Craig, the official report does say they hustled him out of the office pretty quick. My guess would be in less than one minute.

WHEN? "shortly after 9am"? 9:30? One thing we do know is than none of the sources Ron quotes tells us WHEN?

Nope - it just says that when they collected him, they got him out of there pretty fast. The USSG logs say that was 0936 (IIRC).

[Len Colby]

Ron wrote:

"Scott believes that Cheney left his office soon after 9 as various accounts indicate"

Which sources are those?

Geez. Read the thread, including your own posts.

I was asking you about Scott’s sources not the ones discussed here. But let’s take a look at those.

The photographer account (just after 9),

It’s not clear that the photographer said when VP was evacuated or just what the SS agent said at the time. Note the example of a similarly confused sentence written by an Ivy League educated philosophy professor, why can’t an anonymous hack at ABC news possibly an intern have made a similar error?

the Richard Clarke account (Cheney preparing to leave his office as Clarke left it, "probably between 9:08 and 9:20" - Len Colby),

Gathering his papers, couldn’t that have taken 20+ minutes? During the “Meet the Press” interview from 9/16/01 cited by Scott he said he made some phones calls at that time trying to get various VIP’s to safe locations. Note that when Clarke left the agents were in the outer office and the photographer wasn’t there yet.

and Cheney in the PEOC busy tracking an airplane at 9:20 (Norman Mineta)..

Mineta has shown considerable confusion regarding the timing of events that morning giving different times for the same events and saying some happened at times well before we know they did. He said he saw the WH being evacuated as he was pulling up to the gate then spoke to Clarke for 4 -5 minutes (which presumably happened after Bush spoke at 9:30). Even if he only spoke to Clarke for a minute or two we would have to allot 5 minutes from the time he approached the gate till he reached the PEOC. Find me evidence of a WH evacuation at 9:15 or at least anytime before 9:32.

Scott only cited one source the VP himself during a TV interview: (from pg 197)

... what time did Cheney arrive in the underground bunker beneath the White House?

Cheney himself first told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that it was before the Pentagon was hit, in other words before 9:37 a.m.

http://www.amazon.com/11-Conspiracy-James-.../dp/0812696123/ (Type Cheney or another keyword in thr "Reader" search box)

But the quote isn’t as clear-cut as he makes out.

…after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center,

[…]But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ne...vp20010916.html

So Cheney said soon after he arrived they we told the Pentagon had been hit. “Has/had been”, as in something that happened previously. But more importantly what he omitted was that Cheney later said that he was in the tunnel leading up to the PEOC conference room when they found out about the Pentagon. Not in his office or an undisclosed location. The tunnel has a TV and secure phones. People’s arrival in the tunnel not the room was logged. He described the PEOC as “a corridor, locked at both ends”. Is unreasonable to assume Cheney was referring to his arrival in the tunnel which could be considered part of the PEOC?

He also ignored another part of the interview that indicates a post 9:32 evacuation:

…my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and... […]they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly… into an underground facility under the White House…they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.

There are no accounts of the WH being aware of the plane till 9:32.

EDIT - Typos

Edited July 5, 2007 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Mineta has shown considerable confusion regarding the timing of events that morning giving different times for the same events and saying some happened at times well before we know they did. He said he saw the WH being evacuated as he was pulling up to the gate then spoke to Clarke for 4 -5 minutes (which presumably happened after Bush spoke at 9:30). Even if he only spoke to Clarke for a minute or two we would have to allot 5 minutes from the time he approached the gate till he reached the PEOC. Find me evidence of a WH evacuation at 9:15 or at least anytime before 9:32.

Mineta could very well be confused and not clear on the times. However, I don't believe that Mineta was hallucinating when he heard Flight 77 being tracked by Cheney and the unnamed "young man," beginning, as I recall, "80 miles out," and eventually (again as I recall) down to "10 miles out." This could not be Flight 93, as the official story would have us believe, since I don't think Flight 93 ever came within 80 miles of the Pentagon, much less 10. How far is Shanksville, PA from Washington?

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38. One way to determine at what time Mineta heard the young man say "80 miles out" is to calculate how long it took 77 to fly 80 miles. In any case, what Mineta was hearing occurred before 9:38 (and before the 9:45 WH evacuation, which shows there is some confusion), and could very well have occurred (depending on the flight time) as early as 9:20, when Mineta thinks he got there.

No cierto? (Well, that's Spanish, not Portuguese.)

[Len Colby]

Mineta has shown considerable confusion regarding the timing of events that morning giving different times for the same events and saying some happened at times well before we know they did. He said he saw the WH being evacuated as he was pulling up to the gate then spoke to Clarke for 4 -5 minutes (which presumably happened after Bush spoke at 9:30). Even if he only spoke to Clarke for a minute or two we would have to allot 5 minutes from the time he approached the gate till he reached the PEOC. Find me evidence of a WH evacuation at 9:15 or at least anytime before 9:32.

Mineta could very well be confused and not clear on the times. However, I don't believe that Mineta was hallucinating when he heard Flight 77 being tracked by Cheney and the unnamed "young man," beginning, as I recall, "80 miles out," and eventually (again as I recall) down to "10 miles out."

I don’t think he hallucinated either but rather that he conflated the tracking of flights 77 & 93 (see post 78 on the previous page) the former was tracked till it crashed the latter according to the Washington Post and 9/11 Commission was “tracked” till it was ‘60 miles out’. The young man asked about the shoot down order concerning ‘flight 93’ after 77 crashed.

This could not be Flight 93, as the official story would have us believe, since I don't think Flight 93 ever came within 80 miles of the Pentagon, much less 10. How far is Shanksville, PA from Washington?

Shanksville is about 130 miles from D.C. thus flight 93 was ‘tracked’ about 70 miles (about 8 minutes at 530 mph) after it crashed. The 9/11 C. suggested that this might have been based on its projected course. Since the transponder was turned off they would have had to track it with primary radar which doesn’t identify any of the blips. There are some regions where primary coverage is spotty if it exists at all. Since it would depend on a line of sight from the low lying DC area tracking in a hill region like that might not have been easy. I also imagine they might have confused 93 with another plane there must have been thousands still up in the air, a few were in visual range of the Boeing when it crashed.

Evan – Since you are presumably the only person here qualified to do so I hope you can add your ‘2 cents’ about the above.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38. One way to determine at what time Mineta heard the young man say "80 miles out" is to calculate how long it took 77 to fly 80 miles. In any case, what Mineta was hearing occurred before 9:38 (and before the 9:45 WH evacuation, which shows there is some confusion), and could very well have occurred (depending on the flight time) as early as 9:20, when Mineta thinks he got there.

It would take a plane flying a 500+ mph would take 9 minutes to fly 80 miles and 7 minutes to fly 60. Though the official evacuation time was latter the WH SS announced there was a plane headed there way at about 9:32.

Certo?

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

I think we've pursued this about as far as we can pending a real investigation, and/or pending Norman Mineta being put under hypnosis. (I'd like to be there for that.)

Ron

[Evan Burton]

Shanksville is about 130 miles from D.C. thus flight 93 was ‘tracked’ about 70 miles (about 8 minutes at 530 mph) after it crashed. The 9/11 C. suggested that this might have been based on its projected course. Since the transponder was turned off they would have had to track it with primary radar which doesn’t identify any of the blips. There are some regions where primary coverage is spotty if it exists at all. Since it would depend on a line of sight from the low lying DC area tracking in a hill region like that might not have been easy. I also imagine they might have confused 93 with another plane there must have been thousands still up in the air, a few were in visual range of the Boeing when it crashed.

Evan – Since you are presumably the only person here qualified to do so I hope you can add your ‘2 cents’ about the above.

The radar coverage is very much dependent on the system in use, the terrain, the height of the target, the range of the target, and where the radar mast is located. I'm not familiar with systems in use, so I can only give a generalisation.

In my day, it was called SSR - Secondary Surveillance Radar and as the name suggests, it was an aid to control and NOT to be used as a primary reference. We always relied on primary radar returns.

There can be interruptions to primary (raw) / secondary (SSR) returns, and you don't want the system to dump its tracking data because it lost contact for a couple of sweeps. It therefore continues to plot the track based on last known data, known as Dead Reckoning. It might do this based on the last 5 seconds data, the last 10 sweeps, the last 30 seconds data, the last 60 seconds data, whatever. Some systems might use SSR data as the primary reference, and revert to raw radar within specified parameters if SSR is lost. In other words, if it loses SSR data but there is a primary return very close and in the expected position of the track, it assumes that the primary return is that track and assigns itself to that return. This works well normally, but if there are returns close by it can accidentally 'jump' onto the wrong target. How it assigns itself can also cause errors. For instance, we used the SV1022 radar in our Coastwatch aircraft and that system employed what was called a Kalman video filter for tracking. It looked at the brightness values displayed on the screen. In short range scales where there was a lot of sea return, the tracker might accidentally jump onto a sea return because it had a larger value brightness and try to follow that.

In any case, if the track went into DR mode, it would be displayed to the operator in some form - a change in symbology, change of colour, the displayed symbol flashing, whatever. How long it continues in DR mode is another matter; some systems will drop the track if no updates are received after 60 seconds, others will continue on merrily until told otherwise. It all depends on the system programming.

I'm assuming that the ATC system in use continues in DR mode until the track is dropped, and considering the chaos that was occurring at the time, it was quite possible that the controller didn't notice this was a DR track.

Overall, I still think that Mineta (how do you pronounce that? Mine-Ta? Min-Et-A? My-Neeta?) simply confused times & durations. I would imagine we have all experience what I call 'time dilation', where a couple of minutes can seem like 20 minutes, or an hour can seem like 5 minutes. I think the explanation I posted earlier seems to be a best fit. Until I see some more conclusive evidence to the contrary, I'll place my faith in logs and recorded times.

[Len Colby]

Thanks Evan

In other words the explanation that the plane’s projected path was being tracked is reasonable. I haven’t seen this aspect of the story challenged by Pilots for Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html), air traffic controllers or anybody else.

[Sid Walker]

Overall, I still think that Mineta ... simply confused times & durations. I would imagine we have all experience what I call 'time dilation', where a couple of minutes can seem like 20 minutes, or an hour can seem like 5 minutes. I think the explanation I posted earlier seems to be a best fit. Until I see some more conclusive evidence to the contrary, I'll place my faith in logs and recorded times.

You must be very forgiving, Evan - and that's an excellent virtue in most cases, IMO.

Now imagine the 9-11 murderers had snuffed out at least one of your own family members.

Would you still be so sanguine about all the discrepancies, anomalies, willful destruction of evidence, astonishingly poor memories and inconclusive inquiries?

Or would you just shrug, mutter "whatever!" or "they did their best!" or "pity about their memories!" like the decent, trusting forgiving man you obviously are?

[Evan Burton]

Sid,

I just don't see any major "...discrepancies, anomalies, willful destruction of evidence,..." etc.

As I have said before, if Mineta was mistaken about the time then it all fits. Unless I see credible evidence to the contrary, I'll go with the records.

[Len Colby]

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11

Former Transportation Secretary Disputes 9/11 Commission Report Timetable for

Dick Cheney and Reveals Lynn Cheney Was Also in PEOC Bunker Before Attack

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | June 26, 2007

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when

he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker

already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it

was omitted in their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the

Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say 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!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying "When I overheard

something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that

they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in

written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand

down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.

After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to

keep NORAD fighter jets from responding-- evidence that Cheney is

guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.

The idea that "the order still stands" matches up with a change in NORAD and Pentagon orders--issued on June 1, 2001, only months before 9/11. The document revoked the default standing orders to shoot down errant or hijacked aircraft and instructed them instead to stand down until they were given orders by the President, Vice President or Secretary of Defense.

Mineta was still in the PEOG bunker when the plane was reported down in Shanksville,

Pennsylvania.

"I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, 'Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'Let's find out.' So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let's say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, 'No, we didn't do it.'"

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld has stated before that the plane over Shanksville was "shot down," though whether it was a mistatement or a freudian slip of the truth is arguable. It certainly would seem that the story presented in United 93-- a dramatized account of the official government story-- is much, much less plausible than the plane simply being shot down.

Norman Mineta's Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission-- which was NOT included in the final report and which DISPUTES the Commission's timetable for Vice President Dick Cheney on 9/11

Also, the two hour time delay is suspicious given the Vice President's own account of the dedicated video communications available that morning, as he told it to Tim Russert of Meet the Press on September 16, 2001.

"We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of

Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties

together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable

facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a

position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make

decisions in terms of acting with it."

At a bare minimum, this confirmation by Norman Mineta is in gross contradiction to the 9/11 Commission Report and poses serious questions about the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11.

Nothing new there. We have been discussing this in the "Identifying 9/11 aircraft" thread.

Jack, do you mind if I merge your thread with that one? Seems logical to keep all the information in one thread where it can easily be found and referred to.

If you actually watch the interview Mineta said he “might have been mistaken on the 9:25” the “truther” in true trurther style got his facts wrong, the 9/11 C. said the VP got to PEOC at 9:37 or 9:38

Mineta never “made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in

written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand

down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.”

[Len Colby]

Funny Paul and Sid so championed the movie that they claimed destroyed the BBC documentary and by extension the “official” explanation for 9/11 but when pressed to cite specific parts of the film the normally vocal pair fall silent. Most curious! Is this a tact admission on their parts that nothing in the movie really debunks the BBC?

Actually the makers made one legitimate point the NOVA animation didn’t accurately illustrate NIST’s collapse initiation scenario.

[Michael Hogan]

Funny Paul and Sid so championed the movie that they claimed destroyed the BBC documentary and by extension the “official” explanation for 9/11 but when pressed to cite specific parts of the film the normally vocal pair fall silent. Most curious!.....

A cursory reading of this short thread demonstrates that Paul and Sid had little or no interest in involving Len Colby in the discussion, despite Len's several attempts to interject. Len always makes it abundantly clear that he relishes his role of arbiter as to what is off-topic, what constitutes name-calling, and what sources are credible and which are not, and in this case, what direction the thread should take - another endless back & forth.

Paul and Sid appear to be immune from Len's goading, and refuse to let him set the agenda of the discussion.

Call me a neutral third party.

Is this a tact(sic) admission on their parts that nothing in the movie really debunks the BBC?

I think the answer to that question can be found in the only mention of Len's name in this thread I could find:

....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 15, 2007 by Michael Hogan