Mineta Follow up

[Yurebiz]

I didn't see this posted before so...
Discuss.
I remember there was one other argument against his timeline though. I don't recall what was it though.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6653

--------

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html
When faced with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony -- about Cheney's stand-down order as the plane approached the Pentagon -- Defenders of the official story have tried to discredit Mineta by saying that he got his times mixed up.
Specifically, Mineta claims:

"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC."
***
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?"
​

Defenders of the official myth say that the White House was not being evacuated at the time Mineta said, and that this proves Mineta got his story wrong, and that in fact Cheney wasn't in the PEOC until later -- after the Pentagon was hit.
CNN Backs Mineta
However, a CNN news report from 9:52 Eastern Time on 9/11 states:
"The White House Has Been Evacuated
Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
We also have a report now that it was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and we have a large fire at the Pentagon. The Pentagon is being evacuated as we speak now. The White House had been evacuated as well.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's John King joins us on the phone. John?
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESP.: Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park, directly across the White House, perhaps about 200 yards away from the White House residence itself. The Secret Service has pushed most people all the way back to the other side of the park. I'm trying to avoid having that done to me at the moment.
Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.



[... moar on the link...]


---
theres also an "updated" timeline up there in another entry I think.

 

[boloboffin]

Yurebiz, did you know that Mineta's sons were pilots for United Airlines?

Edited: No, this isn't correct. I got that from Clarke's book. In March 2002, one son is getting laid off from Horizon, and another still worked for Delta. Both were commercial pilots, though. His two other sons have other jobs.

 

[Horatius]

When faced with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony -- about Cheney's stand-down order as the plane approached the Pentagon --

Well, right off the bat, this fellow is getting things wrong. Mineta himself has said he thought they were discussing a shoot down order. It's pure CT speculation that the "order" was some sort of a stand-down.

I leave it as an exercise for the student as to why such a glaring error is allowed to go unchallenged.

 

[gumboot]

It's worth pointing out that Mineta doesn't KNOW it's AA77. He made the assumption that it was AA77 heading for The Pentagon, based on the time he thinks the conversation happened.

The reality is it couldn't have been AA77 because at 0925, when the incident was alleged to have happened, AA77 was missing on radar, miles from Washington DC, and no one knew it had turned around. As late as 0934, Washington Centre still had absolutely no idea where AA77 was.

It wasn't until a minute and a half later that Boston Centre found AA77 - six miles from the White House. And they didn't know that it was AA77.

-Gumboot

 

[boloboffin]

Gumboot, I believe Mineta thinks the plane he heard about was Flight 77 because of the mileage callouts. 93 didn't get close and 77 did, so Mineta assigns that memory to 77 and reconstructs his day accordingly.

However, great volumes of testimony point out (as you have) that the plane couldn't be 77. Mineta is mistaken, Yurebiz.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, I believe Mineta thinks the plane he heard about was Flight 77 because of the mileage callouts. 93 didn't get close and 77 did, so Mineta assigns that memory to 77 and reconstructs his day accordingly.

I'm not so sure on that. Bear in mind there were many more hijacking reports than just the four flights, and he would know that.

Remember that this conversation was not important to Mineta, and it wasn't why he was brought in to testify. He commented on it as an aside and some of the Commission Staff got fixated on it.

-Gumboot

 

[boloboffin]

Mineta is pretty sure the plane being talked about was the one that hit the Pentagon. I'm quite sure he's wrong about that, but he is clear on that belief of his.

 

[gumboot]

Mineta is pretty sure the plane being talked about was the one that hit the Pentagon. I'm quite sure he's wrong about that, but he is clear on that belief of his.

Absolutely. I'm just saying the main reason he thinks it was AA77 was because of timing, rather than distances. (Because a lot of other suspected hijack flights got that close to DC and the conversation could be about them, if it was only based on distance readings).

-Gumboot

 

[CptColumbo]

Jiminy Christmas, are we really starting yet another thread about this particular topic. Use the search function!

 

[Yurebiz]

Oh my gosh!

Hey Hey Hey, first, get in your heads that I'm not arguing anything at all. I'm just passing foward information from 911blogger that I haven't seen mentioned here at all

This refutes some claims I've seen here about Mineta's timeline being wrong. I don't doubt it could have been another plane, and that the testimony doesn't say anything at all.

But thats not the issue for crying out loud.

Can you admit that his timeline is correct, as some had argued? I don't want to mine old quotes and put em up cuz I think it's unecessary. Those who argued for it can remember what they said by themselves...

Geez, I can't post a single thread without getting bashed at And I didn't even ARGUE anything, lol. Well now I did. Proceed bashing.

 

[gumboot]

Can you admit that his timeline is correct, as some had argued? I don't want to mine old quotes and put em up cuz I think it's unecessary. Those who argued for it can remember what they said by themselves...

No, I can't. I have this brain that's violently opposed to admitting facts that aren't true. Mineta's testimony timeline is in violation of the laws of physics. Therefore it is wrong.

For what it's worth, Mineta is also a VERY OLD man. Old men get things like that wrong.

-Gumboot

 

[CurtC]

For what it's worth, Mineta is also a VERY OLD man. Old men get things like that wrong.

I heard last week about a study of people's recollection, and their confidence in their recollections. I heard it in Scientific American's weekly podcast "Truth or Bogus" section, where the clue was that older people (not necessarily old) were better at evaluating the accuracy of their memories.

This was the one out of the four that was false. Older people not only had worse recall, their confidence in their (incorrect) recollections was higher than for younger people.

 

[gumboot]

Geez, I can't post a single thread without getting bashed at And I didn't even ARGUE anything, lol. Well now I did. Proceed bashing.

Er... at the risk of further "bashing" you... you posted some information and asked us to discuss it.

We did.

No one has actually "bashed" you at all. In fact, of the eight messages posted after your initial post, only one was directed specifically at you, and it was an entirely innocent question, not a "bash" by any standard.

Calm down. No one is bashing you.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

No, I can't. I have this brain that's violently opposed to admitting facts that aren't true. Mineta's testimony timeline is in violation of the laws of physics. Therefore it is wrong.

For what it's worth, Mineta is also a VERY OLD man. Old men get things like that wrong.

-Gumboot

Gotta hate old men. With their... dementia. I agree. How old are you btw? Nah, just kidding, haha.

Er... at the risk of further "bashing" you... you posted some information and asked us to discuss it.

We did.

No one has actually "bashed" you at all. In fact, of the eight messages posted after your initial post, only one was directed specifically at you, and it was an entirely innocent question, not a "bash" by any standard.

Calm down. No one is bashing you.

-Gumboot

OK. *takes a deep breath*
I must be hallucinating again. Gotta take my pills

 

[gumboot]

Gotta hate old men. With their... dementia. I agree. How old are you btw? Nah, just kidding, haha.

Now, now, I'm not trying to attack or discredit Mineta.

But if you ask a 71-yr old what time he arrived at a given place on a given day, a year and 8 months earlier, do you honestly think his answer will be unquestionably correct?

-Gumboot

 

[scooby]

The reality is it couldn't have been AA77 because at 0925, when the incident was alleged to have happened, AA77 was missing on radar, miles from Washington DC, and no one knew it had turned around. As late as 0934, Washington Centre still had absolutely no idea where AA77 was.

Would this be the alternate reality of the non-reality based community?
That reality eh?

It's a good one this, the myth of the missing planes.

Plenty of press all about transponders being turned off, and then the old 1-2 switcheroo as that is subtly manipulated into radar blips disappearing off screens - if only someone had told the US air force that was the trick, they wouldn't have had to go to all that bother inventing Stealth Planes.

It's other incarnation, which I heard again somewhere the other day, goes something like this ... "they switched off the transponder, and the poor radar operator was left with nothing but an anonymous blip in a sea of other blips, ahh if only, if only!" ... conveniently forgetting to point out, that this would be the only blip in that sea with its transponder switched off - duh - making it stand out like a sore thumb.

 

[Pardalis]

It's other incarnation, which I heard again somewhere the other day, goes something like this ... "they switched off the transponder, and the poor radar operator was left with nothing but an anonymous blip in a sea of other blips, ahh if only, if only!" ... conveniently forgetting to point out, that this would be the only blip in that sea with its transponder switched off - duh - making it stand out like a sore thumb.

How so?

 

[Pardalis]

Well? ...

this would be the only blip in that sea with its transponder switched off - duh - making it stand out like a sore thumb.

Please explain.

 

[rwguinn]

Well? ...



Please explain.

It's easy:
"Last night I saw upon the stair, a little man who wasn't there!"

 

[R.Mackey]

It's other incarnation, which I heard again somewhere the other day, goes something like this ... "they switched off the transponder, and the poor radar operator was left with nothing but an anonymous blip in a sea of other blips, ahh if only, if only!" ... conveniently forgetting to point out, that this would be the only blip in that sea with its transponder switched off - duh - making it stand out like a sore thumb.

There were two little radar sets,
Each on a little ship;
And when the ships collided,
The little sets went "Blip."

Unattributed, from A Children's Almanac of Words at Play, W. Espy​

----

This whole Mineta argument is pretty poor. I've stayed out of it thus far, primarily because poster gumboot has done a masterful job of explaining the inherent contradictions it contains, while also showing that it doesn't match the verifiable evidence. This is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who views the evidence honestly.

But apparently that's not good enough for some. Some people see any contradiction as fertile ground to inflate their hypothesis, using tortured logic to accomodate both sides of the contradiction, and in so doing requiring ever more fantastic consequences. This is fun for them.

Let me try a different tack.

I once met Norm Mineta. He was my representative in the U.S. House for many years, and was very good about holding community meetings with those he represented. This is not some faceless member of the Evil Government we're talking about. He's also still alive and available for comment.

Suppose what you're saying is true, namely that Mineta gave testimony that uncovers some deep, dark secret about the Conspiracy. So what then? What does he do about it?

• If he's part of the NWO, then why would he say this in the first place? Simple error? Why would he not immediately issue a retraction?
• And if he's not part of the NWO, why would he let this lie? He's already spoken out "against them," by the CT's hypothesis, but he's not willing to follow up? Why would he speak out in the first place?

Your position requires me to believe that this man, a man whom I knew to be honorable, blew the lid off a monumental scandal, and then just walked away from it -- because he's lazy, because he's too stupid to "see" what you see, because he's paid off...

It doesn't matter what your excuse is. Whatever it is, it's baseless and deeply disrespectful.

Now knock it off. Witness statements rarely agree. Everyone in the world knows this, even you guys.