Norman Minetta

[maccy]

Welcome back pdoherty.

Before this gets silly, Timmyg is definitely not Pdoherty and probably not even aware who Pdoherty is. Timmyg is a poster on http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board you can find his posts there and compare styles if you want. Pdoherty is busy on the Loose Change board (he's top poster there) bitching about "JREF trolls" and Killtown.

Timmyg is even quoted on this board as being remarkably sane:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1962796#post1962796

I think timmyg is apt to start making statements without looking at the evidence first and then being oversensitive to some robust responses he's getting and so runs the risk of getting off on the wrong foot here. However, I still think we have a chance of getting a decent argument from him so we certainly shouldn't be jumping the gun and accusing him of being a sock-puppet for Pdoherty (ie effectively a troll).

 

[hellaeon]

hmmm bad thread, indicates the need for a 9/11 faq and perhaps have it as a sticky to read before asking too many 9/11 questions!

 

[timmyg]

Some of you lot are as paranoid as many of the folks on nineleven.co.uk!! I do not post on the loose change forums. I have no hidden agenda other than to try and get a more balanced view on things by taking in all sides of the argument.

I apologise for making an apparent accusation. I perhaps should have considered my wording more carefully.

I think I have much less faith in establishment than many people here do. I am anti-class system and not a fan of monopoly capitalism.The fact is that if people in/connected to the government are responsible in some way for the events of 9/11, then theres very little chance of them being brought to justice as they effectively own the justice system. If I commit a crime and pay a friend to investigate it and promise him more work if I like him in the future, theres a good chance I'll get away with the crime. I know from your point of view this is probably an outrageous statement to make, but this is my perspective I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm too critical of establishment and government, which is why I've come here to take in the other side of things.

I do read many comments on here which come across to me as an irrational defense of the whitehouse. Some of you have too much faith in government than is desirable in the context of an independent debate I think.

Ideally we'd have Dick Cheney interviewed to explain what he was talking about. That would be the simple solution wouldn't it? The fact that Bush and Cheney were questioned in private just adds to the suspicion for me.

 

[maccy]

Ideally we'd have Dick Cheney interviewed to explain what he was talking about. That would be the simple solution wouldn't it? The fact that Bush and Cheney were questioned in private just adds to the suspicion for me.

Yes, but we don't have the opportunity to interview Dick Cheney about this, so we have to work from what we got.

First off, Bush and Cheney being interviewed in private and not under oath doesn't have any bearing on the reliability of Mineta's testimony. You can't argue from personal suspicion of the government to the conclusions that Mineta's testimony indicates what really happened and that all the evidence that contradicts him is wrong. You shouldn't start with a conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit it, you should look at all the evidence and try and see what is most likely.

Go back over the threads I link to and you'll see plenty of evidence to show that Mineta can't be talking about a plane approaching the Pentagon. If you have a problem with the evidence in the thread, quote it here and explain why you don't think it stands up. Don't accuse people of ebing too trusting of the government and unable to see the real picture, stick to the evidence that we have - anything else is insinuation and speculation.

But here's some speculation anyway, imagine we could question Cheney:

Questioner: Do you remember a specific time you were talking to a young man and Norman Mineta overheard you?

Cheney: No, I wasn't aware of Norman Mineta listening to me, can you tell me what he heard me saying and when?

Questioner passes Mineta testimony to Cheney

Cheney reads it.

Cheney: Norman must be confused about the time, I wasn't talking about the Pentagon at that moment.

Is there anything compelling about Mineta's testimony that would make you doubt Cheney if he said this?

 

[WildCat]

I apologise for making an apparent accusation. I perhaps should have considered my wording more carefully.

Yes, and you can start by explaining just where in his testimony Mineta says that Cheney specifically ordered Flight 77 not to be shot down. Can you do that timmy? Or are you just here to make unfounded accusations and spout your political views which are irrelevant to the topic at hand?
BTw, here's the part of Mineta's testimony where he talks about AA 77:

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too.
I want to follow up on what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and try to understand that day a little bit better. You said, if I understood you correctly, that you were not in the room; you were obviously coming from the Department of Transportation, where you had been busy in a meeting in official business, but you had not been in the room when the decision was made -- to what you inferred was a decision made to attempt to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. Is that correct?
MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.
MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"
MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.
MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?
MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

Do you see why people here have little patience with you? A minute's worth of research would have found that for you. Mineta actually says the opposite of what you claim, that he assumed there was an order to shoot down AA 77.

There is a politics section here if you want to discuss politics. If you go there, I hope you make an attempt to be better informed than you have been in this thread.

 

[maccy]

I do read many comments on here which come across to me as an irrational defense of the whitehouse. Some of you have too much faith in government than is desirable in the context of an independent debate I think.

OK you've added "come across to me" and "I think" to make it look like you're not making an accusation, but there only two possibilities here:

1. people are making an irrational defense of the Whitehouse and you are correct in your perception; or

2. people are not making an irrational defense of the Whitehouse and your perception of them is wrong.

Which is it?

If it is 1. then I suggest you start a new thread about it and quote some posts that you see as being an irrational defnese and say why.

If it is 2. then I suggest that you apologise for your insinuation and are more careful in you analysis in future.

In general, I think it is better to stop speculating about the motivations of the people here and stick to the evidence.

If you want some insight into what some of the people here think are problems with the government account of things, read this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67513

But it's worth saying, here, that problems with the mainstream theory do not give authority to an alternative one, the alternative one has to have evidence of its own. The "God of the Gaps" theory is favoured by Creationists/IDers and Holocaust Deniers as well as by pretty much every conspiracy theory ever.

If you want to get some idea of the range of political beliefs here, have a look around in the politics section.

 

[timmyg]

You shouldn't start with a conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit it

fair point. obviously. in the same way I feel that Mineta's testimony hasn't been concluded, and people are happy to dismiss it (what ever the truth of it may be) because it doesn't fit with their own conclusions. People here have suggested that it was flight 93 he was talking about, yet in his original testimony he was quite clear that they didn't know about flight 93 until it crashed. The suggestion in one of the threads on here is that he is just confused and that there is no need to consider anything he has to say. Some people are saying that the conversation he overheard didn't happen at all.
I'm not saying it has to be evidence of an 'inside-job', but I feel uncomfortable when people agressively defend the right not to investigate something, whatever the outcome of the investigation might be. It's like being told the 911 commission are definately right in their conclusions and its disgusting to suggest some things need further investigation.

 

[WildCat]

fair point. obviously. in the same way I feel that Mineta's testimony hasn't been concluded, and people are happy to dismiss it (what ever the truth of it may be) because it doesn't fit with their own conclusions.

timmy, nowhere in his testimony does Mineta say what you claim he did. You've had ample opportunity to verify this for yourself, the fact that you haven't yet done so reflects poorly on your ability to discuss this subject in a rational manner.

Your premise is false.

 

[maccy]

People here have suggested that it was flight 93 he was talking about, yet in his original testimony he was quite clear that they didn't know about flight 93 until it crashed.

Mineta overheard a conversation and infered that it was about AA77, how does his not knowing about flight 93 until it crashed make him correct in his inference?

Why is it not likely that Cheney was talking about Flight 93 and that Mineta when recalling it assumed that it must have been flight 77 that Cheney was talking about?

 

[maccy]

I'm not saying it has to be evidence of an 'inside-job', but I feel uncomfortable when people agressively defend the right not to investigate something, whatever the outcome of the investigation might be. It's like being told the 911 commission are definately right in their conclusions and its disgusting to suggest some things need further investigation.

People are suggesting that the evidence is sufficient to discount Mineta's testimony, they aren't "defending the right not to investigate something" whatever that may be.

I suggest that you take some time, read over the posts and come up with a timeline that explains Mineta's testimony and what Cheney was doing. You'll also need to account for the NORAD timeline, the known movements of the president (including when we could see him on TV) and the other testimony of wirness in the 9/11 report.

I suggest you start by carefully re-reading this thread:

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

And by studying the NORAD timeline:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752

In general, I think you are rushing to conclusions without showing your reasoning or presenting evidence. You need to be much more methodical and take things a step at a time.

 

[WildCat]

In general, I think you are rushing to conclusions without showing your reasoning or presenting evidence.

Which is par for the course amomg the tinfoil hat crowd. I don't have much hope that timmy will show any ability to back up any of his claims or present even a bit of evidence for them. He could surprise me, but he fits the pattern all to well.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm not saying it has to be evidence of an 'inside-job', but I feel uncomfortable when people agressively defend the right not to investigate something, whatever the outcome of the investigation might be. It's like being told the 911 commission are definately right in their conclusions and its disgusting to suggest some things need further investigation.

Timmy what are you unsatisfied about with the investigation into 911?

From what I have seen the investigation into 911 was massive and comprehensive, carried out by many academics, experts and specialists.

At this moment and from where I sit, I have no need to aggressively defend anything. It strikes me the only aggression comes from those demanding a reinvestigation because of small anomalies.

There is a mountain of evidence that Al Quada carried out this attack, which was one of many they have carried out. There is a mountain of evidence to support the fact that the Towers fell through massive and catastrophic structural failure. I could go on but at this moment, five years after the event, the "official story" is almost universally accepted by academics, scientists and engineers across the planet.

Equally so, across the globe there seems to be universal acceptance from every single media outlet of what happened. If there was anything, and I mean anything to suggest that the US administration was involved in mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens can you honestly imagine it would not be splattered all over the papers or at least some main stream papers and not simply confined to internet forums?

(Incidentally Watergate, took less than a year to break, it brought Nixon down. It broke after 2 investigative reporters working the story without the aid of the internet and thousands of man hours by thousands of people, just think about it)

 

[maccy]

I think I have much less faith in establishment than many people here do. I am anti-class system and not a fan of monopoly capitalism.The fact is that if people in/connected to the government are responsible in some way for the events of 9/11, then theres very little chance of them being brought to justice as they effectively own the justice system. If I commit a crime and pay a friend to investigate it and promise him more work if I like him in the future, theres a good chance I'll get away with the crime. I know from your point of view this is probably an outrageous statement to make, but this is my perspective I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm too critical of establishment and government, which is why I've come here to take in the other side of things.

Without derailing to much into politics, how then do you account for the outcome of the Watergate and the Iran/Contra affairs, to name but two. You can argue that the punishments weren't sufficent but you can't argue that facts didn't come out.

 

[Gravy]

I'm not saying it has to be evidence of an 'inside-job', but I feel uncomfortable when people agressively defend the right not to investigate something, whatever the outcome of the investigation might be.

timmy, I feel comfortable saying that all of us here will aggressively defend your right not to investigate something, just as we would defend your right not to make a ham sandwich for lunch. That doesn't make for very interesting or informative forum discussions, however, so it's best when making accusations to have done some research.

 

[Larry Lovage]

If I commit a crime and pay a friend to investigate it and promise him more work if I like him in the future, theres a good chance I'll get away with the crime.

That option is no more available to the President of the United States than it is for you and me. Ask Spiro Agnew, Bob Haldeman, John Erlichman, John Dean. Only this year the king of the real life "mysterious powers behind the scenes that really control everything" started his trial: Jack Abramoff.

 

[stateofgrace]

If I commit a crime and pay a friend to investigate it and promise him more work if I like him in the future, theres a good chance I'll get away with the crime.

So do you have many friends that would cover up your involvement in mass murder, of three thousand of your fellow countrymen, for five years in order to gain a quick promotion?

 

[gumboot]

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

That is correct, although Mineta *thought* it was AA77. The Secret Service were not actually tracking the aircraft (surprise, surprise, there's no radar scopes in the Whitehouse!) but were tracking the projected path of UA93 based on its previously known position.

Hence while the "fifty miles out" conversation was underway, UA93 was actually a smoking hole in the ground. But no one at the Whitehouse knew that.

Mineta makes it clear in his statement that at the time he had no idea what they were referring to. He later assumed it had been AA77 (as that was the only flight that came that close to Washington DC).

However, as has been demonstrated before, Mineta's testimony is consistantly wrong in timeframe. My guess is he determined AA77 was the flight in question, approximated the time of the conversation based on that, and worked backwards from there.

What I find odd is CTers who put so much stock in Mineta's testimony, and yet at the same time claim it was a stand-down order even though, in his testimony, Mineta CLEARLY states he believes it was a shoot-down order.

So, what is it to be? Is Mineta's testimony accurate? Or is it not? You cannot have it both ways.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

If I commit a crime and pay a friend to investigate it and promise him more work if I like him in the future, theres a good chance I'll get away with the crime. I know from your point of view this is probably an outrageous statement to make, but this is my perspective I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm too critical of establishment and government, which is why I've come here to take in the other side of things.

The bolding above indicates your mistake. Do you know anyone who either does, or has, worked for the government? I am guessing, since you think they're all friends, that you haven't.

Indeed, in my experience government employees (civil servants, military, police, and so forth) are the MOST critical of government. Why? Because unlike everyone else, they have to deal with the bumbling lethargic behemoth that is government on a daily basis.

IMHO Government employees would be the FIRST ones to blow the whistle - I'd find it far more likely that employees in the private sector would keep quiet.

Furthermore, relationships BETWEEN government agencies are indefinately less than smooth. If the CIA were involved in 9/11 you can guarantee the FBI would love nothing more than the bust them for it. And so forth.

You're understanding of government appears to be very simplistic and inaccurate, which may be responsible for your distrust of them.

-Gumboot

 

[Alt+F4]

Furthermore, relationships BETWEEN government agencies are indefinately less than smooth.

Not to mention the total inability of the federal government to pull off 9/11 due to it's overall incompetence:

1993 – ATF vs. Branch Daividians: overdone, botched seize and attack leaves 76 dead in Waco
1999 – NASA vs. Mars: mixup between inches and centimeters results in burn up of $125 Mars Climate Orbiter
2003 - CIA vs. WMD: U.S. Intelligence completely wrong in the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD after 1998.
2204 - FBI vs. Computers: $170 million Virtual Case File (VCF) software program scrapped due to FBI mismanagement
2005 - FEMA vs. Hurricane Katrina: need I say more?

 

[gumboot]

Not to mention the total inability of the federal government to pull off 9/11 due to it's overall incompetence:

1999 – NASA vs. Mars: mixup between inches and centimeters results in burn up of $125 Mars Climate Orbiter

$125 for a spaceship? Where did they get it, Walmart?

-Gumboot