| Viewing Single Post From: Shanksville Chapter extra | |
|---|---|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 4 2008, 06:05 PM |
|
Gideon, I totally understand the point of view in which you're looking at it, but there's not a single thing in any of the reports stating that the events and verbal statements referred to on 9/11 took place before 10:03 while the plane was still in the air, and not during the timeframe (10:07 to about 10:15) of the official version found by analyzing the NORAD recordings, FAA recordings, and so on. They simply don't give a timeframe for any of this. You can assume this all took place while the plane was still in the air, but this is your opinion, not a fact. You cannot use your opinion as evidence. "and he was referring to the shootdown order he’d just been passed." No, he wasn't. He said "there's something we can do about it". There is absolutely nothing in the report indicating that we was spefically talking about a shoot-down order. Again, you can assume this is what he's referring to, but that's just an assumption of yours, not a fact, not evidence. "We’re not turning this into a Mineta debate." I agree. And I'm still surprised that many still believe the incoming plane referred to was Flight 77, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was Flight 93. If the plane were Flight 77, then Norman Mineta would have had to had arrived at the bunker at 9:20 (which is the time he gave to the commission). However, every piece of evidence shows he couldn't have arrived at 9:20. He says the White House was being evacuated when he arrived. This didn't happen until 9:45. He says Dick Cheney was in the bunker and the phone with Bush when he arrived. Secret Service says Cheney was moved to the bunker at 9:34. Richard Clark wrote in his book that around 9:28, he was on the phone with Mineta, who was in a car in traffic, and told him to head to the White House bunker. Several other people heard Cheney's conversation with the young man and angrily snapping at him that of course the order still stands, but they all say that the plane referred to was Flight 93. The list of evidence goes on and on. I have no doubt that to this day, Mineta sticks to his story, but the evidence speaks for itself. As far as WeAreChange's video, I love that their title on YouTube is something like "Norman Mineta confirms stand down order", when he's only asked about the time when he arrived at the bunker. Regarding his original testimony to the commission, Jason Bermas, Jim Fetzer, and others went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and said that in his statement, he said when Cheney says "Of course the order still stands", that this was "a direct stand-down order" (Jason's own words). In fact, it's clear to anyone that Mineta was asked when he became aware of the shoot-down order, and he says he became aware of it when Cheney says of course the order still stands... the order being THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER given at 10:15, not a stand-down order. Mineta never mentioned a stand-down order to begin with, and in this video his interviewers claim that he "confirmed" the stand-down order, when he never mentions it in the video! That's about as dishonest as you can get. Do these people know the definition of misquoted? Anyway, enough about Mineta. "Millions, eh? That’s very generous of you but last time I checked the ticker on the video, it had about 334 views." Didn't Loose Change 2nd Edition get something like 10 million views? They promoted the hell out of Final Cut, despite making many false statements such as announcing that they'll be donating more to victims' causes than Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Paul Greengrass combined. To date, I'm not aware of them donating a penny to victims' causes. I'll end by asking you what motive would NORAD, the FAA, or the 9/11 Commission have in trying to cover up the fact, if there were indeed that case, that NEADS was aware of Flight 93 before its crash and was in the process of sending fighters to shoot it down? It's an embarrassment to our country's military that they were caught so off guard, so why wouldn't the 9/11 Commission (if it was really controlled by Bush as you imply) try to present the military in a competent and strong light? I could understand why they might want to cover up Flight 93 being shot down if it were indeed shot down, but even the reports you refer to say that Flight 93 wasn't shot down. Despite the lack of evidence that the military was aware of Flight 93 prior to 10:07, I just don't see why they would attempt to cover it up to begin with. Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 4 2008, 06:10 PM.
|
 |
|
| Shanksville Chapter extra · Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup | |
5:42 PM Nov 28
