Norman Minetta

[timmyg]

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.

So far I've not heard an 'official' explanation for it.
There is no mention in the commission report of this testimony.

 

[Gravy]

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.

So far I've not heard an 'official' explanation for it.
There is no mention in the commission report of this testimony.

Mineta's testimony indicates no such thing. Interpreting it as such is pure idiocy. Use this forum's search function. This has been discussed at length here.

 

[maccy]

I think I have more patience for this sort of question the Gravy does, but he's right - any question you have will probably have already been answered so it's worth doing a search first and finding the thread that covers this. If you still have questions, you can start a new thread or bump an existing one.

Anyway, for fear that you'll take Gravy's admonisment the wrong way and flee the forum without looking at the facts, here are some threads on this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65485
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62417
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60315

By the way, it's worth checking your spelling before doing a search

 

[Gravy]

I think I have more patience for this sort of question the Gravy does, but he's right - any question you have will probably have already been answered so it's worth doing a search first and finding the thread that covers this. If you still have questions, you can start a new thread or bump an existing one.

Anyway, for fear that you'll take Gravy's admonisment the wrong way and flee the forum without looking at the facts, here are some threads on this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65485
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62417
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60315

By the way, it's worth checking your spelling before doing a search

I would have much more patience if Mineta had said anything like what the OP claims. Good point about the spelling.

 

[MarkyX]

No such order took place. In fact, Norman mentions the shoot down order further in his testimony. 9/11 Deniers leave that part out.

 

[Foolmewunz]

TimmyG,
Are you perhaps the second cousin twice removed of a Miss JessicaR. You don't spell so good as Jessica, but then again Jessica's third cousin on the maternal side started off in all lower case with a mythical broken arm, so costuming isn't a problem.

My CT paranoia may be getting the best of me, but this pattern is rather familiar by now. Sincere and even-tempered opening... ask a bunch of questions promising to just be looking for verification, and then never once acknowledging that the answers are available, proven, re-proven, and long-since dismissed as a topic. You abandoned your opening thread, although much of your conjecture was addressed.

You also stroll into other threads, drop a point or a question, and then let the thread trail off when it's not to your liking. That's another pattern that's all too recognizable.

If you believe the nonsense about Mineta's testimony then you're a step away from "Norad Stand Down", and that'll wake a certain Kiwi.

((I assume it's too much to hope for that you'd really be P. Dodiddy but it's been dull around here for a bit.... and I do seem to recall one of his alter-egos showing up with a two-month old membership at the time of his first post.))

 

[firecoins]

Minetta's opening remarks to the 9/11 commission.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing2/witness_mineta.pdf

 

[timmyg]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

minettas testimony is in contradiction with everyone elses testimony and other records, therefore his statements were considered in error and dismissed (the other option being consider everyone else in error and dismiss their testimony)

 

[uk_dave]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

Timmyg,

I think you have to bear in mind that the question you asked, whilst in itself not an unreasonable question bearing in mind that you came here from a CT forum in the first place, but it is a question which will have been asked and answered on a number of occasions and, I guess, those here who do have an informed grasp of the subject can become understandably tetchy when the same old talking points are raised again and again.

I'm fairly new to the whole 9/11 ct, and new to this site, and even I groan when I see comments on other forum re-stating the same tired old spin and lies which form the basis for much of the CT core belief.

So, try not to take it to heart if they get a little bit rough over issues such as the question you posed.

 

[maccy]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

Careful not to get into a pointless argument here timmyg. Gravy has been around here a long time and is definitely an independent thinker, having amassed a great deal of information. If you suggest that he's having a go at you because you disagree with him you are wrong, it's because you're initial post indicates you don't, currently, know very much about the circumstances of the Mineta testimony. Gravy has been over this many times, so maybe you can understand his impatience?

If you continue to disagree after you've availed yourself of the facts I'm sure you'll get a much more reasonable discussion.

Nevertheless not everybody here is an angel and you may get brusque replies and even insults thrown your way by some posters. This should make no difference, in the end, if your arguments are good and your facts are straight - but you shouldn't expect not get a rough ride every now and again.

I repeat though, arguing about the way people treat you will only distract you from the issues. If you want to see this writ large, follow the progress of RussellPickering in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656

He comes in halfway down page 3...

 

[Donal]

Also, nobody's testimony is in the report itself. Its the findings of the commission and some suggestions. The testimonies are on the website, however.

 

[Gravy]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

Suck it up, big guy. You opened this thread with an accusation that a few minutes' research – such as reading Mineta's testimony – would have shown to be false. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Check your facts before making accusations.

 

[rwguinn]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

Nope-
Gravy's right--
You came on with an accusation, accepting the word of somebody, and didn't bother to find out if any of it were true.
You deserve a 2nd chance, maybe--but make da&n sure you have checked facts before making accusations.

 

[Brainster]

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.

What "idicates" that to you?

 

[Metullus]

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.

So far I've not heard an 'official' explanation for it.
There is no mention in the commission report of this testimony.

Can you give us a quote from Mineta's testimony wherein he says that the VP "ordered flight 77 not to be shot down"?

If you want comments you should first establish the basis of your understanding of events...

 

[timmyg]

jeezuz guys.

i didn't make any accusations.. from viewing the video of mineta's testimony, it seems to suggest that dick cheneys orders may have been to not shoot a plane travelling towards the pentagon on 9/11/2001.

I am trying to find an innocent explaination for mineta's story.

So Mineta was mistaken and the conversation he overheard was about flight 93? That is the general stance of the people on this forum?

 

[CurtC]

i didn't make any accusations.. from viewing the video of mineta's testimony, it seems to suggest that dick cheneys orders may have been to not shoot a plane travelling towards the pentagon on 9/11/2001.

If you were to simply say that you were a little brash in your first post, and thank the others for the real info, you woud be welcomed and your first little misstep would be overlooked.

But you did make accusations, and you're not telling the truth when you say you didn't. As a reminder, here's exactly what you 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.

You asked what we thought about Mineta's testimony that Cheney "specifically" ordered 77 not be shot.

And yes, people on this forum generally think that Mineta's testimony was confused, self-contradictory, and contradicted by the testimony of other, less-confused people, so we discount the CTers' inferences about it.

 

[Gravy]

jeezuz guys.

i didn't make any accusations.. from viewing the video of mineta's testimony, it seems to suggest that dick cheneys orders may have been to not shoot a plane travelling towards the pentagon on 9/11/2001.

I am trying to find an innocent explaination for mineta's story.

So Mineta was mistaken and the conversation he overheard was about flight 93? That is the general stance of the people on this forum?

timmyg, not only did you make an accusation, it is an incredibly serious charge. You don't see that? Please read your OP again. Then, why not read the threads and posts on this forum about Mineta's testimony, which you've been encouraged to do? Then you'll know what's been said. Sound reasonable?

 

[Mince]

I think I asked a reasonable question. I don't see any reason for the smug and insultive responses. For people who claim to be independent thinkers, I'm suprised some of you are keen to immediately direct ridicule at anyone who might not share your opinions.

thanks maccy and firecoins for your reasonable replies.

i will read through these links.

Welcome back pdoherty.