Mineta Reiterates 9/11 Commission Testimony (1845 hits)
Category: NewsRating: -0.45 on 86 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-06-26 19:00:40 EDT
http://digg.com/world_news/Norman_Mineta_Confirms_That_Dick_Cheney_Ordered_Stand_Down_on_9_11
Let me attempt to break this down for you in very straightforward terms...
In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Norman Mineta stated the following:
"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!?"
He also told them that he arrived at 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11.
His testimony, which directly contradicted Dick Cheney's own testimony to the Commision that he didn't arrive in the PEOC until about 9:58 a.m. (after the Pentagon was hit), was omitted from the final 9/11 Commission Report.
Beyond the obvious question of why this testimony was omitted from the final Report, one might be inclined to ask the next obvious question why wasn't this line of questioning persued further, either by the Commission itself or the media, in the interest of clearing up the glaring inconsistencies? If nothing else, it would serve to put these wild conspiracy theories about Cheney's "stand down" order to bed, would it not?
The link at the top contains video of Mineta recently reiterating his testimony he gave to the Commission to a couple 9/11 Truth journalists in Seattle. At very least, this confirms that his testimony was not a fluke, and, at least in Mr. Mineta's mind, is in direct opposition to Dick Cheney's testimony.
Decide for yourselves if you think it might be worthwhile to investigate this further.
User Reviews
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-06-28 18:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tedious ain't it? I don't blame you for not caring. The only reason you should care, being a citizen of another country, is that your country is still affected deeply by these post 9/11 policies. You're still in Iraq with us, Gordon Brown is calling for a New World Order, surprise surprise... You've got cameras on virtually every street and microphones in public places; some cameras talk back at you, and now you have aerial spy planes that will patroling your skies. There is a great deal more madness going on in Britain from what I can tell than here, if that's possible.
If I were you I'd care. For my own sake if not my family's.
-------------------------
M'eh!
My country is still adjusting to the aftermath of September 11th but if the truth be told I think far too much significance is placed on that one event in relation to the growth and expansion of the United Kingdom as a nation.
Close-circuit television cameras were in wide-spread use before September 11th and while the number of cameras in use has dramatically increased since then there is only tenuous evidence to suggest that the system is violating or even infringing on my liberties as a citizen. Moreover, this kind of surveilance was in use during the Thatcher years - when, if I'm not mistaken, there were still a few Pro-Russian traitors in our midst. Not that I'm excusing or condoning this violation of privacy but I certainly would not have been prepared to simply exchange one mildly-paranoid regime for one that rounded up dissenters and sent them to the gulags.
In this country, the enemy is at home. While I am aghast at some of the Draconian measures my government as introduced over the last seven years, I am also very aware of what they are up against: radicalised Islamic fundamentalists, xenophobic right-wing groups that are preying on the disenfranchised, and an hysterical media that is more interested in witch-hunts than serving justice or harmony.
I'm no fan of Gordon Brown - but I certainly have no intention of voting for David Cameron or Ming Campbell. At the moment, it is very much a case of The Devil You Know.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-06-27 17:32:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I also just realized how ironic your dismissal of my comment was; At the start of this post's comments, you were trying to point people to the point you're trying to make, while instead they were just berating you for another clichéd post making the American government out to be evil bastards. Just a little while later, you belittle me for giving off the same old cliché, while not even trying to answer the question inherent in the comment.
The crackpot is calling the sheepkettle black.
Perhaps now you can seriously answer my question instead of just dismissing me. You're probably not religious (fuck knows I'm not), but isn't a man supposed to do unto each other as one would have done unto himself? It really was a serious question, ETS.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-06-27 17:02:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And as selecting minute things you said is concerned, isn't that what you conspiracy theorists do all the time? Go fold twenty dollar bills to depict the burning WTC, fucking retard.
======================================
holy shit fucking burn...
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-06-27 16:54:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:31:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You never learn. Why do you keep on doing this? Can't you see that both sides of this (frankly ridiculous) argument are locked in their opinions, and that nothing you will say here will matter in the least?
I think I remember that you said you were desperately trying to lead the sheeple to the light (not in those words, I know). Do you think posts like this help?
Calling Cheney Darth Vader also had a very positive effect on both your credibility and the point you're trying to make, didn't it?
Maybe you should stop trying, ETS, seeing as you think we're all unworthy debators who never question anything but go straight to personal insults whenever you pop up to spout your wonderfully concocted theories.
-------------------
I find comments like this at once among the most interesting and more infuriating of the cliched comments these posts attract. They start by attempting to inform me of the futility of the quest for truth (a notion I, and all of science for that matter, flatly rejects).
Then they move on to selecting something I said - usually the most passing, insignificant thing I said in the post or comments - and, by taking it out of context or color, or by completely misunderstanding it, using it as some kind of flacid, weak...attack, if you could call it that.
Of course, they are always sure to slip in some reference to the "us" - the manifold masses that oppose me with their reason and wisdom - being sure to place themselves firmly in the centre of this cozy mass of reassurance.
You know what I say to them... They are fucking cowards, every one. You huddle together because you're fucking afraid. Even over the internet, where no one knows you and nothing you say really matters, you're afraid...of ruining your internet 'street cred', of appearing weak or ineffectual, of apologising, of admitting mistakes... It's all the same with you fucking people. I can most closely liken the experience of dealing with you on a semi-daily basis to attending high school.
It's really pretty sad.
_______________________
Wow, you not only managed to avoid the implicit question in my comment, you also consider yourself capable of profiling any random idiot who tries to talk some sense into you.
Okay then, I'll put it in a syntax you can understand:
'If you think the users of Ubersite are all retards who can't carry a discussion, then why try to start one up?' This has nóthing to do with your Great Quest For Truth, because I've not seen any new points come up out of these discussions so far. Do you really consider going on here and venting your theories 'finding the truth'?
And as selecting minute things you said is concerned, isn't that what you conspiracy theorists do all the time? Go fold twenty dollar bills to depict the burning WTC, fucking retard.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 16:43:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
filthyassistant is an alter
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-27 16:24:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
JonnyX
worthless, as usual.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-06-27 16:08:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-06-27 14:42:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fortunately, the CIA has revealed documents proving GENUINE CONSPIRACY SHENANIGANS yesterday...$20 says Brad completely ignores them.
===
He made a post about that five days ago, which you commented on.
Dumb as a bag of rocks.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-06-27 14:42:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
worthless, as usual.
Fortunately, the CIA has revealed documents proving GENUINE CONSPIRACY SHENANIGANS yesterday...$20 says Brad completely ignores them.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-06-27 13:24:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Cheney doesn't have to care. He's been clear from the get-go that "Fuck you. I'll do what I want, when I want, in secret if I want to."
Haven't you heard? He's not even part of the executive branch anymore.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-06-27 12:45:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm merely asking for a REAL investigation, one which does not OMIT testimony from credible witnesses because it might be embarrassing or inconsistent to the VP's. That's all.
=====================================
Im sorry, but have you always been this naive to the world around you? The very investigations that your asking for ARE RUN BY THE PEOPLE YOU WANT INVESTIGATED. Those little shit committees and examintation boards will NEVER come up with any real incriminating evidence because all of their information has to go through people that would be allowing their own beheadings! Like I've said before I agree with some of your points and alot of people do, but the type of "break out" investigation that will "finally get to the truth" is never going to happen, and if it did it sure as hell wouldnt turn up anything useful. There are too many powerful heads involved in the situation to allow that to happen. Arguing about it is as pointless as putting up a post and hoping for shlongy to give it a +2.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2007-06-27 11:35:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-06-27 11:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-27 11:04:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
true. this is why you should move on from these jobs once you finish college, or get around that age where you should've finished. you go fucking bonkers.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:48:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:41:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:01:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell you what, scratch that.. I don't even want to hear any more of your stupid shit. I'm going to bed.
===
it's what...9 AM in indiana? wtf are you doing going to bed at 9 AM you deadbeat?
get a fucking job
-----
grave shift customer service.
===
no wonder he's insane.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:41:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:01:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell you what, scratch that.. I don't even want to hear any more of your stupid shit. I'm going to bed.
===
it's what...9 AM in indiana? wtf are you doing going to bed at 9 AM you deadbeat?
get a fucking job
-----
grave shift customer service.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:30:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I still think that the joos had something to do with it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:01:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell you what, scratch that.. I don't even want to hear any more of your stupid shit. I'm going to bed.
===
it's what...9 AM in indiana? wtf are you doing going to bed at 9 AM you deadbeat?
get a fucking job
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:04:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're still in Iraq with us, Gordon Brown is calling for a New World Order
------------
Is he?? Hmm not Sure.... Kevin Nash is looking a bit past it and Scott Hall COULD be a good Chancellor but he needs to stop chewing that toothpick.
Good ole Gordon, knew he would be better than Blair.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:03:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This argument makes absolutely no sense.
The single haziness about the exact time - which to re-re-re-iterate for the umpteenth time the 9/11 Commission Report couldn't even get right, putting Cheney as arriving there at 9:58 for some reason - does not negate the substance of his testimony when the time can be generally referenced with respect to the known events of that day and the times they occured.
All you've got is a self-delusion of correctness and some personal insults. Otherwise, you are WAY fucking off. This post is a study in mob mentality. You're so fucking blinded by it you'll have another and another and another stupid thing to say after this genuinely not knowing that all this can be solved simply by saying we need another investigation.
It's really that simple. But again, this is about "winning" to you people, not truth. This is about internet points and delusions of grandeur.
-----------------
You ability to cherry pick information from this thread is nigh on incredable.
I'm too lazy to check but I don't think I insulted you personally yet YOU told me to 'get lost'.
You insinuated that Cheyney is a liar who cannot be trusted and therefore you would believe this other chap over Cheyney.
I pointed out that this other chap (aqgain... too lazy to even look at his name) is lying/unsure of the truth so you start banging on about further investigations...when in essence this post was ALL ABOUT CHEYNEY BEING UNTRUSTWORTHY OVER THIS OTHER CHAP.
I'm done boy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 10:01:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell you what, scratch that.. I don't even want to hear any more of your stupid shit. I'm going to bed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:59:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Zero argument?
I'm just following your logic.
---------------------
Logic is the last thing you're following.
Enlighten me...what is, in your estimation, "my logic".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:58:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You really don't get that everybody could be lieing to cover their own asses."
--Oh, no, I get it. This is, AGAIN, precisely why we need another fucking investigation, particularly one that doesn't conveniently omit one man's testimony for what appears to be arbitrary reasons.
"I'm just using your evidence at hand to refute your argument."
--Speculation refutes nothing. And that's exactly what everything you just said is, speculation.
Get some real facts then we'll talk. Until then, you're a 2 bit hack without a leg to stand on.
"That's called debate."
--No, that's called being a complete moron who can't except that he's been bested.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Zero argument?
I'm just following your logic.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:52:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:46:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Where is this "young man" today who said the plane was "50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out...do the orders still stand?" Surely he still lives. He could corroborate Mineta's story or he could corroborate Cheney's. All that's needed is a willing investigative body to find the truth you're so willing to dismiss as being somehow unattainable.
----
Who's to say that person is real.
Mineta may have made it up.
-------------------
Now who's the conspiracy theorist here? Honestly, listen to yourself.
Ok, suppose he did make it up, beyond the obvious question of why he'd make that up and commit perjury, which if that's the case needs to be investigated anyway, the 9/11 Commission certainly wouldn't have known because they didn't even have the investigative integrity to follow up this lead in any way whatsoever. They have made no attempt to locate John Doe, to my knowledge. At least not that made it into the report or was entered into their record.
See, again, you have absolutely ZERO argument that makes sense here. Just admit that we need a new investigation because one of these two men was obviously lying, and I'll leave it alone.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:50:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
a new world order would be cool, we'd be like the Terrans in starcraft and perphaps we'd have a council of jedi to contain the separatists
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:23:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Meh, I don't really care any more.
What always happens here is that users reply to an argument or factual claim of ETS's by attacking or appealing to him rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
It reduces any pertinence of what is being discussed because users are either queuing up to kick Brad in the balls or lick them clean of cheese.
Of course, if some clown actually does make a compelling argument or produces a valid piece of evidence then he or she gets lost in the maelstrom of insults and threats that these posts nearly always become.
These last few days I've been more distressed by the news of the Chris Benoit Double Murder/Suicide than I have anything else.
I'm not sure what that means but I'm putting it out there.
------------------
Tedious ain't it? I don't blame you for not caring. The only reason you should care, being a citizen of another country, is that your country is still affected deeply by these post 9/11 policies. You're still in Iraq with us, Gordon Brown is calling for a New World Order, surprise surprise... You've got cameras on virtually every street and microphones in public places; some cameras talk back at you, and now you have aerial spy planes that will patroling your skies. There is a great deal more madness going on in Britain from what I can tell than here, if that's possible.
If I were you I'd care. For my own sake if not my family's.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:46:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Where is this "young man" today who said the plane was "50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out...do the orders still stand?" Surely he still lives. He could corroborate Mineta's story or he could corroborate Cheney's. All that's needed is a willing investigative body to find the truth you're so willing to dismiss as being somehow unattainable.
----
Who's to say that person is real.
Mineta may have made it up.
You really don't get that everybody could be lieing to cover their own asses.
You just immediately believe whomever opposes the same people you do.
I'm just using your evidence at hand to refute your argument.
That's called debate.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oh ya, I almost forgot, eat shit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:00:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
M: Absolutely. I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there
-----
OH VERY DEAR.
Do you see that ETS?
Can you understand what it means?
The guy doesn't know FOR SURE what the time was.
End of argument.
-----------------------
He said also that Cheney was there BEFORE he arrived, and the plane they were discussing was the one that hit the Pentagon. His 9:25, while not necessarily correct, was closer than the eventual 9/11 Commission Report, which didn't put Cheney there until after the plane had hit the Pentagon, directly contradicting BOTH Mineta AND Cheney himself, who said he'd gotten there at like 9:38.
Look into it and you'll see why this is a major problem.
------------
To use a tactic that you have already used in this post and the reviews...
HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY TRUST A WORd THIS MAN SAYS? HE HAS LIED ONCE SO PROBABLY DOES IT ALL THE TIME??!?
HOW CAN WE TRUST THAT CHEYNEY WAS THERE BEFORE HIM WHEN HE CAN'T EVEN GET THE TIME RIGHT.
A judge would throw out his testimony ETS (as well you know).
Beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
(and nice way to tell me to 'get lost'. What a case you built...)
---------------------
This argument makes absolutely no sense.
The single haziness about the exact time - which to re-re-re-iterate for the umpteenth time the 9/11 Commission Report couldn't even get right, putting Cheney as arriving there at 9:58 for some reason - does not negate the substance of his testimony when the time can be generally referenced with respect to the known events of that day and the times they occured.
All you've got is a self-delusion of correctness and some personal insults. Otherwise, you are WAY fucking off. This post is a study in mob mentality. You're so fucking blinded by it you'll have another and another and another stupid thing to say after this genuinely not knowing that all this can be solved simply by saying we need another investigation.
It's really that simple. But again, this is about "winning" to you people, not truth. This is about internet points and delusions of grandeur.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:23:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Meh, I don't really care any more.
What always happens here is that users reply to an argument or factual claim of ETS's by attacking or appealing to him rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
It reduces any pertinence of what is being discussed because users are either queuing up to kick Brad in the balls or lick them clean of cheese.
Of course, if some clown actually does make a compelling argument or produces a valid piece of evidence then he or she gets lost in the maelstrom of insults and threats that these posts nearly always become.
These last few days I've been more distressed by the news of the Chris Benoit Double Murder/Suicide than I have anything else.
I'm not sure what that means but I'm putting it out there.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:22:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:27:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have no argument against this besides the source of the post? How pathetic.
Why don't you try a real argument once in a while? You know, one that involves addressing the issue at hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did that, pointing out the many and varied scientific, factual and logical errors in your supposed evidence, and even the fact that a couple of key things in some of your hypothisese were actually physically impossible.
but you refused to admit that you're wrong, so now we jsut sit here and call you an idiot.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:19:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
everybody is saying the same thing, that ETS needs to learn how to debate properly.
usually, when everybody says the same thing, you're the problem but according to ETS we're just a chanting mob which is hypocritical considering that's really what he does.
just like foolproof, i've heard children who sounded less stupid.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:00:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
M: Absolutely. I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there
-----
OH VERY DEAR.
Do you see that ETS?
Can you understand what it means?
The guy doesn't know FOR SURE what the time was.
End of argument.
-----------------------
He said also that Cheney was there BEFORE he arrived, and the plane they were discussing was the one that hit the Pentagon. His 9:25, while not necessarily correct, was closer than the eventual 9/11 Commission Report, which didn't put Cheney there until after the plane had hit the Pentagon, directly contradicting BOTH Mineta AND Cheney himself, who said he'd gotten there at like 9:38.
Look into it and you'll see why this is a major problem.
------------
To use a tactic that you have already used in this post and the reviews...
HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY TRUST A WORd THIS MAN SAYS? HE HAS LIED ONCE SO PROBABLY DOES IT ALL THE TIME??!?
HOW CAN WE TRUST THAT CHEYNEY WAS THERE BEFORE HIM WHEN HE CAN'T EVEN GET THE TIME RIGHT.
A judge would throw out his testimony ETS (as well you know).
Beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
(and nice way to tell me to 'get lost'. What a case you built...)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:02:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:47:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, I'm paying attention and you are getting your arse handed to you on a plate in the reviews on this post.
It really is quite something to see, if you take the time and energy to read the reviews carefully.
---------------------
Jesus fucking Christ. Just get lost.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 09:00:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
M: Absolutely. I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there
-----
OH VERY DEAR.
Do you see that ETS?
Can you understand what it means?
The guy doesn't know FOR SURE what the time was.
End of argument.
-----------------------
He said also that Cheney was there BEFORE he arrived, and the plane they were discussing was the one that hit the Pentagon. His 9:25, while not necessarily correct, was closer than the eventual 9/11 Commission Report, which didn't put Cheney there until after the plane had hit the Pentagon, directly contradicting BOTH Mineta AND Cheney himself, who said he'd gotten there at like 9:38.
Look into it and you'll see why this is a major problem.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:50:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HEY GUYS, FREE DONUTS!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:48:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:42:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
youre a career IT help-desk worker who married a woman you met on the internet. start playing World of warcraft and youre the middle american dream, pal.
------------------
What a pathetic comeback.
---
seems to have gotten to you...
oh, and slacker uni kids are most the people that you call 'boss' after you trudge your way to your meaningless job. theyre they ones that actually solve IT issues, not spoonfeed morons the most basic of information like yourself. why? because they went and actually (and heres the important bit) *did* something, instead of talking about doing something.
you can give me shit about my degree when you get some sort of qualifiation outside of a windows certification.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:47:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:43:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:13:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
---------------
you fucking idiot.
That is what foolproof said in his VERY FIRST REVIEW.
-----------------
I've got a wider point though that he's not addressing. Pay attention.
----------
Oh, I'm paying attention and you are getting your arse handed to you on a plate in the reviews on this post.
It really is quite something to see, if you take the time and energy to read the reviews carefully.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
M: Absolutely. I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there
-----
OH VERY DEAR.
Do you see that ETS?
Can you understand what it means?
The guy doesn't know FOR SURE what the time was.
End of argument.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:43:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:13:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
---------------
you fucking idiot.
That is what foolproof said in his VERY FIRST REVIEW.
-----------------
I've got a wider point though that he's not addressing. Pay attention.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:42:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
youre a career IT help-desk worker who married a woman you met on the internet. start playing World of warcraft and youre the middle american dream, pal.
------------------
What a pathetic comeback.
Hell, I could turn this around and talk about how you're nothing but a slacker uni kid who thinks he's the shit and tries to project this air over the internet, but in reality he's the type of asshole no one wants to even have lunch with because he acts like a fucking know-it-all, and not in the interesting, oh-i-could-learn-much-from-him way, but in the gee-could-you-be-any-more-of-a-clueless-tool way.
You are compensating for something by attempting to take away from others, on the internet, no less.
It should go without saying how utterly pathetic that is, but, again, here on the internet, you've got plenty of company.
So, you win. Congratulations...I got BURRRRRNNNNEED!!!! OHHHHHH!!!!
Now fuck off, boy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:31:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You never learn. Why do you keep on doing this? Can't you see that both sides of this (frankly ridiculous) argument are locked in their opinions, and that nothing you will say here will matter in the least?
I think I remember that you said you were desperately trying to lead the sheeple to the light (not in those words, I know). Do you think posts like this help?
Calling Cheney Darth Vader also had a very positive effect on both your credibility and the point you're trying to make, didn't it?
Maybe you should stop trying, ETS, seeing as you think we're all unworthy debators who never question anything but go straight to personal insults whenever you pop up to spout your wonderfully concocted theories.
-------------------
I find comments like this at once among the most interesting and more infuriating of the cliched comments these posts attract. They start by attempting to inform me of the futility of the quest for truth (a notion I, and all of science for that matter, flatly rejects).
Then they move on to selecting something I said - usually the most passing, insignificant thing I said in the post or comments - and, by taking it out of context or color, or by completely misunderstanding it, using it as some kind of flacid, weak...attack, if you could call it that.
Of course, they are always sure to slip in some reference to the "us" - the manifold masses that oppose me with their reason and wisdom - being sure to place themselves firmly in the centre of this cozy mass of reassurance.
You know what I say to them... They are fucking cowards, every one. You huddle together because you're fucking afraid. Even over the internet, where no one knows you and nothing you say really matters, you're afraid...of ruining your internet 'street cred', of appearing weak or ineffectual, of apologising, of admitting mistakes... It's all the same with you fucking people. I can most closely liken the experience of dealing with you on a semi-daily basis to attending high school.
It's really pretty sad.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 08:22:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 06:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 06:23:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you want to debate a point, make one. Don't just sit there and decry like a little bitch that I am actually presenting evidence. Hell, at least I make a counter argument to any of the official story points you people try to pull out, the least you could do is not be so goddamned lazy that you can't return the favor.
----
We can't debate with you.
You pull the same shit you did with me. How do you know your man was telling the truth? How do we know Cheney was telling the truth?
We don't. We never will. I accept that, you don't.
---------------------
Haven't you ever heard of a Congressional inquiry? A preponderance of evidence? A subpoena for a witness? Where is this "young man" today who said the plane was "50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out...do the orders still stand?" Surely he still lives. He could corroborate Mineta's story or he could corroborate Cheney's. All that's needed is a willing investigative body to find the truth you're so willing to dismiss as being somehow unattainable.
Can you not understand this? If you can't, I pity the people of whatever town you supposedly work in law enforcement for, because you obviously know jack shit about conducting a proper investigation. It doesn't take fucking Columbo to figure out that if there were other witnesses and they can be subpoenaed, the truth CAN be attained, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. And in combination with the litany of other evidence pointing to government involvement floating about, an assertion of guilt based on preponderance of evidence should be enough to convict at least certain people with knowingly covering up facts, obstruction of justice, wanton endangerment, and a host of other criminal charges including, potentially, HIGH TREASON!
This is nothing to sneeze at, and I do not level these charges lightly.
We need an investigation, only you can't say it. That's because you know that if you capitulate on that point, I've won. This is about "winning" to you. It has nothing to do with finding the truth or finding justice for the family members of 9/11, or real closure for our country. This is about pride points with you. You, like a lot of the other assholes like iddqd who frequent this site, want to think you know more than me somehow, you want to appear to be in a position of high ground, but you're so deluded you can't even see where your argument is lacking. Obviously, seeing some of the stupid comments calling me a dumbass on your behalf, there are plenty of other dumbasses more than willing to add their 'dumbassness' to your cause.
But a mob does not have the ability to debate or reason, a mob just shouts slogans and asserts itself without listening. Good if you're picketing, bad if you're trying to learn something.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:31:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You never learn. Why do you keep on doing this? Can't you see that both sides of this (frankly ridiculous) argument are locked in their opinions, and that nothing you will say here will matter in the least?
I think I remember that you said you were desperately trying to lead the sheeple to the light (not in those words, I know). Do you think posts like this help?
Calling Cheney Darth Vader also had a very positive effect on both your credibility and the point you're trying to make, didn't it?
Maybe you should stop trying, ETS, seeing as you think we're all unworthy debators who never question anything but go straight to personal insults whenever you pop up to spout your wonderfully concocted theories.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:13:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I.T is the FUTURE!!!!!!!
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:13:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
---------------
you fucking idiot.
That is what foolproof said in his VERY FIRST REVIEW.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
youre a career IT help-desk worker who married a woman you met on the internet. start playing World of warcraft and youre the middle american dream, pal.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-06-27 07:04:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
*looks around*
THATCHER FOREVER.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-27 06:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 06:23:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you want to debate a point, make one. Don't just sit there and decry like a little bitch that I am actually presenting evidence. Hell, at least I make a counter argument to any of the official story points you people try to pull out, the least you could do is not be so goddamned lazy that you can't return the favor.
----
We can't debate with you.
You pull the same shit you did with me. How do you know your man was telling the truth? How do we know Cheney was telling the truth?
We don't. We never will. I accept that, you don't.
You never will. You just make glaring accusations towards those you oppose and blindly follow the "evidence" you support. You don't want debate. You want agreement. 100%, unquestioning agreement with your side.
If we don't agree, you blantantly call us ignorant of the facts and make personal attacks on our character. You can't deny that. Every comment you leave on anything opposing you is the same.
"You don't see the truth as I see it. You are stupid. You can't find anything that says my evidence is wrong!"
Seriously, my 4 year old has more adult debates than you could ever dream of having.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 06:23:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 04:24:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth? "
----
thats not his point, douche. the point is that youre so invested in 'evidence' thas supports your point of view that you are completely unable to accept or even see anything that might contradict it. any evidece that stands in opposition to your point of view is lies and anything that agrees with you is truth, no matter how unreliable or spurious the source. but foolproof is just another in the litany of people who have pointed out this obviousand glaring fault in your argument, and yet you still fail to listen to it.
ps. youre an ineffectual piece of shit who does nothing to change the evils of the world as you see them, merely some loudmouthed fool who mistakes empty rhetoricising with action. kill yourself. seriously.
-----------------
Awww... Am I taking away some kind of attention from you? You're acting like a jealous sibling.
"the point is that youre so invested in 'evidence' thas supports your point of view that you are completely unable to accept or even see anything that might contradict it."
Oh no, shame on me for bringing forth evidence - god forbid I do that, first of all. Not only that, shame on me for pointing out the evidence that supports the viewpoint I harbor. You're right, I should just accept that this should be an opinionated argument - like whether the toilet paper should go with the free end at the front or the back - only so that those without a real argument have a chance at debating something that all the evidence says elements of our government was involved in.
If you want to debate a point, make one. Don't just sit there and decry like a little bitch that I am actually presenting evidence. Hell, at least I make a counter argument to any of the official story points you people try to pull out, the least you could do is not be so goddamned lazy that you can't return the favor.
Oh, and PS, you don't fucking know me. Get over trying to pigeonhole me to make yourself feel better.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-27 04:24:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth? "
----
thats not his point, douche. the point is that youre so invested in 'evidence' thas supports your point of view that you are completely unable to accept or even see anything that might contradict it. any evidece that stands in opposition to your point of view is lies and anything that agrees with you is truth, no matter how unreliable or spurious the source. but foolproof is just another in the litany of people who have pointed out this obviousand glaring fault in your argument, and yet you still fail to listen to it.
ps. youre an ineffectual piece of shit who does nothing to change the evils of the world as you see them, merely some loudmouthed fool who mistakes empty rhetoricising with action. kill yourself. seriously.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 02:28:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's an MIT engineer and research scientist reaching similar "over the top" conclusions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peUB03Qjk7g&NR=1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 02:06:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:14:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can sit there any try to superimpose your own completely uninformed INTERPRETATION on this, or you could shut the fuck up and do some investigating.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him leave his fucking opinions out of it and look at facts, I suppose.
===
how are the over the top conclusions that you draw from this anything else than interpretations?
-------------------
"Over the top conclusions"?
First of all, in this post at least, I have drawn no conclusions except that we need another fucking investigation. Second of all, even if I'd came out and said I trusted Mineta's testimony over Cheney's, I hardly think that conclusion would be thought "over the top" by many individuals who'd been paying attention over the past 6 years.
The conclusions I've reached about 9/11 have been influenced by a hell of a lot more than just this almost incidental piece of information that just so happens to have HUGE ramifications on the official 9/11 timeline. There are literally dozens of smoking gun pieces of evidence that, alone, should cause any rational individual to seriously question the official story and DEMAND another independent investigation that did not omit or cover up evidence and testimony like Mineta's, like building 7, like the reports of bombs going off inside the towers before they collapsed, like the state of the lobbies when firemen entered the buildings, like the reports of molten steel, Giuliani's and FEMA's removal of all the steel evidence, the finding of a PAPER PASSPORT in the streets of Manhattan, the finding of a treasure trove of "evidence" supposedly left behind by Atta at the airport, including his Koran and his WILL?!?....and on and on and on it goes...
Over the top conclusions?... Give me a break, you fucking Canadian. This is MY country, not yours. You might not give a shit to see it collapsing into a pit of criminality, but I care. It's not "over the top" to ask questions. It's not "over the top" to propose the only hypothesis that makes all-encompassing sense - aka the there was government involvement or at least complicity in 9/11. That's not "over the top", and neither is it "over the top" to care about your country or question your own government.
You go through just one of the videos I've recommended over the years and take each piece of evidence and dismiss it however you wish. I will not.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413&q=myth+or+reality
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:41:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:25:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is it "blasphemous" to question 9/11?
===
if you'd stick to questionning instead of making shit up like jones does on a daily basis, people who would have interrogations on the 9/11 official account wouldn't fear being tagged as weirdos.
everything you do nowadays, you have to be careful of the image you project. especially in media with so many available sources. just count the number of times you were foaming at the mouth because we wouldn't accept your "truth".
as i said before, you hurt you cause. btw, when do we get to see you eat your own shit after that IRS post?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:14:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can sit there any try to superimpose your own completely uninformed INTERPRETATION on this, or you could shut the fuck up and do some investigating.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him leave his fucking opinions out of it and look at facts, I suppose.
===
how are the over the top conclusions that you draw from this anything else than interpretations?
you pretend you only want investigations but a quick look at your past posts will show that you already made up your mind on this issue, no matter what answers you get: the govt did it.
that's precisely the reason why there will NOT be any investigation. any anomaly is ridiculously twisted and exaggarated by people like alex jones who have hijacked this issue and marginalized it.
i explained you that a number of times, but you seem to have a problem with reality.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:25:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is a great presentation by David Ray Griffin: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413&q=myth+or+reality
Is it "blasphemous" to question 9/11?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:11:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
10:10 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93, also hijacked, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, southeast of Pittsburgh.
Hmm, you might be onto something there Indo. Could it be that Mineta is confusing his timeline now? Or perhaps covering for something he said to the 9/11 Commission? oopsie.
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/12/16/911_investigation_key_911_facts.htm
A third example, a Pentagon spokesperson in claiming why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was attacked, claiming that the pentagon was simply not aware that the aircraft was coming our way. The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only one or two minutes before the Pentagon was struck.
But this claim is contradicted by the Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony about an episode that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Centre under the White House. In open testimony to the 9/11 Commission itself Mineta said:
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President that the plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out, and when it got down to the plane is ten 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 said that this conversation occurred at 9:25 or 9:26, hence many minutes before the Pentagon was struck. This example gives us one of the clearest examples that Zelikow led the 9/11 Commission and that the 9/11 Commission cannot be trusted. Having claimed that there was no knowledge that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until the last minute or so, it simply omitted Mineta's testimony to the contrary.
Then to rid out the possibility that the real episode Mineta had reported could have occurred, it claimed that Cheney did not even arrive down to the Presidential Emergency Centre until almost 10:00 o'clock; hence about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was struck. But this claim, besides contradicting Mineta's eyewitness testimony that Cheney was already there when Mineta arrived at 9: 20 also contradicts all other reports as to Cheney had already arrived there including a report by Cheney himself.
In summary, having compared the account of the official story about the put options, the secret service and Mineta's eyewitness testimony, we can reject as a Myth that the attacks were unexpected. However, even if the attacks had been unexpected, should they not have been prevented?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 01:03:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00069.htm
That is from 3 months ago.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 00:59:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me correct my previous statement. Mineta did say in this interview that he thought at the time Cheney said it that he had given some kind of shoot down order.
Here is the entire interview transcribed so we can compare notes easier:
Interviewer: I read the whole book the 9/11 Commission Report and I find it a little awkward they omitted a lot of your testimony. [Inaudible] They left very little of your testimony. My main concern is that in your testimony you stated that vice president Dick Cheney came into the POEC office at 9:20...um... rather 9:20 is when you arrived and he was already there. He's gone in front of Meet the Press and said he was there at 9:38, yet the 9/11 Commission Report put him there at 9:58 that morning...
Mineta: 9:58?
I: I don't know if you got a chance to read it...
M: No.
I: That's about a half hour later, so, I don't mean to ask a rhetorical question but to the best of your recollection was Dick Cheney already there when you arrived?
M: Absolutely. I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there.
I: Right.
M: It wasn't 10?...
I: 9:58. That puts him 38 minutes later, which does not make sense to us at all.
M: No...no...[shakes head].. I don't know how that comes about.
I: So, I mean, it goes against your testimony and it goes against his own testimony on Meet the Press where he says he was there at 9:38, that's a whole 38 minutes...
M: Yeah...
I: But as you've stated, he was already there...
M: Oh, absolutely.
I: And I think you even stated that you also thought that he basically was going through a shoot down order with the young man asking him "do the orders still stand"...did, did you talk about that?
M: Well, I was not involved in that conversation...I overheard...
I: But it just was that the young man also that the vice president said that the orders still stand...
M: Yeah, I heard that...
I: Well you stated that you thought that was a shoot down order but you learned later that you found out that was not the case...
M: Yeah, well, I... When I overheard something about "the orders still stand"...uh...and so what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down...
I: Yeah...
M: I remember later on when I heard about the Shankesville plane going down, the vice president was across from me and I said, "Do you think we shot it down ourselves?" He said , " I don't know." He said, "Let's find out."
I: Yeah...
M: So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe 10:30 or so. And we never heard back from the DOD until about 12:30, and they said, "No we didn't do it."
I: I'm very concerned because I've read this whole book and it's 400 pages of reading and it took a lot of my time and I read this book and I found your public video on the 9/11 Commission and you mentioned some important details, these details that we're talking about right now, and yet there were [inaudible] of it left out of the 9/11 Commission Report, and again, they cut out this whole testimony that you gave on your experience over there and really all that was left was that you had something else to say and that's about it. And again, timing was the biggest thing that all of us, on my block anyway, were wondering about. And I think this letter was written by a gentleman in Los Angeles. [Interviewer presents letter} And basically that's what he was looking for was an answer to the best of your recollection was vice president Cheney already there basically sitting comfortable doing his thing prior to you arrival, and I believe you said yes...
M: Well, I don't know about being comfortable...
I: But he was there 9:10? 9:25?...
M: He was there... so was Mrs. Cheney.
I: They were both there?
M: And there were other staff there...
I: Because this is prior to any airplane hitting the Pentagon...
M: This was before American Airlines went into the Pentagon, yeah.
I: Ok, great thank you so much..
M: Thank you.
And here is a timeline of the events of 9/11 for reference: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/
9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 00:07:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Talk about forcing a round peg into a square hole... I find it interesting how far some of you are willing to go to accept Cheney's word over Mineta's, or even how reluctant those of you who assume neutrality are to simply say "we could use another investigation of 9/11".
I'm always being accused of cherry-picking evidence to suit my beliefs, but you people are something else. It's warped.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-27 00:03:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-26 22:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
They left out his testimony because it makes no sense.
He says the conversation he overheard, which you quoted, occurred before the plane crashed into the pentagon and in the video he says he thought the order they were discussing was an order to shoot down planes because of what happened in PA (around 2:50 in the first video).
Why would he think that if the plane wasn't shot down before hitting the pentagon? Why would he think a conversation about (what he thought was) an order to shoot down a plane occurred half an hour before it could have been shot down?
-------------------------
Now you're just intentionally confusing the issue.
He says he LATER thought that might have been what Cheney was talking about. He didn't say that was his impression at the time it was happening. He says he thought that AFTER THE FACT and had a discussion with Cheney about it on 9/12/2001 as to whether we shot the plane in Shankesville down.
Then he dismissed that as being a possibility by saying that the Pentagon contacted them back and said "we didn't shoot it down".
Got it? (Somehow I fucking doubt it.)
It makes perfect sense if you just listen to what the man said.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 23:58:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-06-26 23:14:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:47:52 MDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
Wow, we could go on like this for DAYS couldn't we? Dumbest argument ever.
--------------------------
You fucking idiot. It's not an argument. He said, "You can't know who's telling the truth and who's lying." This is PRECISELY WHY WE NEED ANOTHER INVESTIGATION.
It's not a "dumb argument" whan all I'm saying is we need a real investigation that doesn't omit evidence and/or testimony.
READ.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-06-26 23:14:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:47:52 MDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
Wow, we could go on like this for DAYS couldn't we? Dumbest argument ever.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-26 22:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
They left out his testimony because it makes no sense.
He says the conversation he overheard, which you quoted, occurred before the plane crashed into the pentagon and in the video he says he thought the order they were discussing was an order to shoot down planes because of what happened in PA (around 2:50 in the first video).
Why would he think that if the plane wasn't shot down before hitting the pentagon? Why would he think a conversation about (what he thought was) an order to shoot down a plane occurred half an hour before it could have been shot down?
Isn't possible he is confused about the timeline? Or does it make more sense that an all powerful shadowy group of jew bankers went out of their way to start a war in the largest and most complicated conspiracy ever (but didn't have the power to plant a few WMD's)?
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-06-26 22:36:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
To think Bush & Cheney were involved in the attack is ridiculius. Later CYA coverups, sure, but the implicatgions of that Northwoods BS...
Why not get going on the intelligence community's failure to heed the Able Danger warnings? That's some interesting shit.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-06-26 22:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Tenement slum
Ooh, ooh, ooh....aaaahhh
You think that I don't feel love
What I feel for you is real love
In other's eyes I see reflected
A hurt, scorned, rejected
Love child
Never meant to be
Love Child
Born in poverty
Love Child
Never meant to be
Love Child
Take a look at me
Started my life
In a old, cold, run-down tenament slum (tenement slum)
My father left he never even married mama
I shared the guilt my mama knew
So afraid that others knew I had no name
This love we're contemplatin'
Is worth the pain of waitin'
We'll only end up hatin'
The child we may be creatin'
Love Child
Never meant to be
Love Child
(Scorned by) Society
Love Child
Always second best
Love Child
(Different from) Different from the rest
(Hold on hold on just a little bit longer) Mmmmm baby
(Hold on hold on just a little bit longer) Mmmmm baby
I started school
And a worn, torn dress that somebody threw out
(Somebody threw out)
I knew the way it felt to always live in doubt
To be without the simple things
So afraid my friends would see the guilt in me
Don't think that I don't need ya
Don't think I don't want to please ya
But no child of mine will be bearing
The name of shame I've been wearing
Love Child
Love Child
Never quite as good
Afraid, ashamed
Misunderstood
But I'll always love you
Always love you
I'll always love you
Always love you
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 22:03:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
foolproof:
"You can't debate conspiracy with the theorists. They are unreasonable and use heresay as fact."
--------
I never said what Mineta testified to in his sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission was necessarily "fact". I said it was entirely inconsistent with what Cheney said and that should warrant a further inquiry into the matter. And the fact that Mineta's testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report, in what we can only assume was a move designed to either give expediency to the report or to stick to the official narrative of events, casts serious doubts about the impartiality and unbiased nature of the Commission itself.
You say you are in "law enforcement", right? If a judge started selectively throwing out sworn testimony in a criminal trial without giving a reason, wouldn't you ask questions? Wouldn't you want to know if he was possibly hiding something? What if you were a juror in a murder trial and the judge kept instructing you, the jurors, to ignore the testimony of credible witnesses? Would you suspect that something weird or perhaps illegal might be going on?
You need to learn to read and stop superimposing your own preconceived ideas about me and anyone who questions 9/11 on the matter at hand.
You accuse me of having preconceived ideas and allowing those to cloud my judgment and reason, yet you, in true ubersite fashion, turn around and do the exact same thing.
The fact of the matter is, you lack the ability to read and dissect an argument in an intelligible manner. This is evident in the fact that you are agreeing with me without even knowing it, arguing a point that is actually in MY favor. But I have neither faith in your ability to figure that out, nor the general uber user's ability to figure that out because you have displayed time and time again your unwillingness to get to the heart of any matter at hand in favor of a rabid need to attack myself and any perceived "conspiracy theorist".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
---------------------
I don't necessarily. How do you know Dick Cheney was telling the truth?
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*hearsay
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Rebuttal?
Okay.
How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth? Because like-minded individuals said he was?
You can't debate conspiracy with the theorists. They are unreasonable and use heresay as fact.
You are utterly ridiculous. You can't use anything found on the internet, media, or most other mediums as fact. Everybody has their own versions of fact.
But you don't want to hear that. So, you will again chalelnge my point without having ONE DECENT SHRED of evidence on your own.
Now, I sayd again: How do you know Norman Mineta was telling the truth?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:35:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:23:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea....who SHOULD we believe?
Norman Mineta....
or Darth vad...I mean...Dick Cheney?
This isn't about me. Leave ETS out of this. I am not airing my opinions here, I'm merely asking for a REAL investigation, one which does not OMIT testimony from credible witnesses because it might be embarrassing or inconsistent to the VP's. That's all.
Is that so hard for you to understand?
----
It IS about you. YOU will never , EVER accept anything other than what YOU call the "truth". No matter who investigates what. No matter what comes to pass. If it isn't what YOU want to see at the end, YOU will never, EVER let it go.
YOU made up your mind about what happened.
YOU believe what you want.
YOU decided what the truth was.
YOU will never let it go until the administration comes out and says "We did it all! We killed Americans to (insert whatever you want here)!"
That is YOUR truth. Until then, YOU won't shut up about it.
Any reasonable thrid party can understand this. Unfortunately, YOU are far from reasonable.
This is old and you are a joke.
-------------------------------------
You don't have any kind of clue what I'd accept or not accept. I'm asking for a real investigation, one that does not OMIT testimony like the 9/11 Commission Report did, and that's that.
I don't know any simpler way to put it.
Again, you are entirely incapable of addressing the evidence I present. You are only capable of lobbing lame-ass insults my way and conjectures about what I may or may not be willing to accept...and you don't even KNOW me!
What does this say about you? You want to appear reasonable, read the article and attempt some kind of rebuttal. Otherwise, join Caul and Rob and a number of the rest of us in admitting that these matters should be investigated further.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:23:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:53:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Let's try that for a change...talking about the information itself rather than me or the source that broke it."
============================================
Well we sure as hell can't talk about who broke it, he's too busy collecting cans under the brooklyn bridge or whatever the fuck you're insane sources are for this shit.
-------------------------
Insane sources? You mean C-SPAN?!?
I know they can be a little "loosey goosey", a little "wild-n-crazy" over at C-SPAN from time to time, but is that any reason to accuse them of being so down and out as to resort to collecting cans under bridges?
ORIGINAL C-SPAN FOOTAGE OF NORMAN MINETA'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE 9/11 COMMISSION: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqbOgFiPDI
Any more smartass remarks you'd like to make? I'm all ears.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:23:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea....who SHOULD we believe?
Norman Mineta....
or Darth vad...I mean...Dick Cheney?
This isn't about me. Leave ETS out of this. I am not airing my opinions here, I'm merely asking for a REAL investigation, one which does not OMIT testimony from credible witnesses because it might be embarrassing or inconsistent to the VP's. That's all.
Is that so hard for you to understand?
----
It IS about you. YOU will never , EVER accept anything other than what YOU call the "truth". No matter who investigates what. No matter what comes to pass. If it isn't what YOU want to see at the end, YOU will never, EVER let it go.
YOU made up your mind about what happened.
YOU believe what you want.
YOU decided what the truth was.
YOU will never let it go until the administration comes out and says "We did it all! We killed Americans to (insert whatever you want here)!"
That is YOUR truth. Until then, YOU won't shut up about it.
Any reasonable thrid party can understand this. Unfortunately, YOU are far from reasonable.
This is old and you are a joke.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:57:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's what I see, and being in law enforcement, I see it quite often.
Subject 1 says "This, that, and the other." On a sworn statement, no less.
Subject 2 says "This, that, and the other." Again, on a sworn statement.
Now, here lies the problem:
Who do I believe? Do I believe Subject 1 or Subject 2 is telling me the truth?
--------------------
Yea....who SHOULD we believe?
Norman Mineta....
or Darth vad...I mean...Dick Cheney?
This isn't about me. Leave ETS out of this. I am not airing my opinions here, I'm merely asking for a REAL investigation, one which does not OMIT testimony from credible witnesses because it might be embarrassing or inconsistent to the VP's. That's all.
Is that so hard for you to understand?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 21:14:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:52:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
inconsistencies do deserve a second look and perhaps further investigations.
---------------
That's really all you had to say Caul. We didn't really need you to inject your OPINIONS into the matter.
You want a more reasonable ETS, here he is. Let's back up and approach this without opinions of any kind and just look at the facts.
There is a glaring contradiction between the Frm. Secretary of Transportation's testimony to the 9/11 Commission - a testimony he has just reiterated and was suspiciously OMITTED from the final 9/11 Commission Report- and Dick Cheney's testimony.
You agreed this inconsistency merits further investigation. That's all you had to say.
But I might also add that in light of Dick Cheney's many other instances of inconsistencies and blackballing of investigators - most recently manifested in his attempt to circumvent his "executive branch" status and not disclose any secret information to the office of the National Archives for posterity, something that he is, by presidential directive, required to do - casts a very serious level of suspicion in his direction and tends to undermine his credibility in this 9/11 Commission matter, at least moreso than Norman Mineta, Frm. Sec. of Trans. Wouldn't you agree?
I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times Cheney's been caught in a blatant lie, but who the hell is Norman Mineta? And what could he POSSIBLY be trying to salvage politically by lying, either to the 9/11 Commission or to journalists?
You can sit there any try to superimpose your own completely uninformed INTERPRETATION on this, or you could shut the fuck up and do some investigating.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him leave his fucking opinions out of it and look at facts, I suppose.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-26 20:09:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'd rather talk about poop.
Although, the more I think about it, that's exactly what this post is.
SO, YOU GOT ME THERE, BENEDICT ARNOLD.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:57:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's what I see, and being in law enforcement, I see it quite often.
Subject 1 says "This, that, and the other." On a sworn statement, no less.
Subject 2 says "This, that, and the other." Again, on a sworn statement.
Now, here lies the problem:
Who do I believe? Do I believe Subject 1 or Subject 2 is telling me the truth? Most likely, the truth is parts of both statements, but also most of it has been omitted. So, you take your "knowns" (ie: speed, weapons used, drug or alcohol involvement) and factor those against both statements. Yet, there are the "unknowns" (ie: what started the incident, who had what hand in what) and factor those in. Trying to be as impartial and pesronally distanced as you can be, you draw your conclusion, write your report, and send it to court. Honestly, neither side will ever tell you the truth as it really is, and you will never find out what exactly happened.
The problem with somebody in your situation, ETS, is that you already know the truth. At least, you know what you want the truth to be. You have already factored in the "knowns" and "unknowns" that you want to see, and came up with the conclusion you want to have. You won't, and can't, distance yourself from the issue personally because you so desperately need the truth you created to be the truth in reality.
Like it or not, this is the way it is. YOU decided what happened already. Anything less than the answers YOU want are lies.
This will never change, no matter the evidence given to you.
That's why we don't care what you say any more. We know your "truth".
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:53:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Let's try that for a change...talking about the information itself rather than me or the source that broke it."
============================================
Well we sure as hell can't talk about who broke it, he's too busy collecting cans under the brooklyn bridge or whatever the fuck you're insane sources are for this shit. Dont you understand that even if its all true, every word of it, NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN. How many stories have been released like this, how many "commitees" and "groups" have investigated them, and nothing ever comes of it. You are wasting your breath. The shit end of the stick is that I (and I think many Americans) feel the way that you do, we feel cheated, and lied too, and altogether held hostage by this "regime" that controls our lives. Unfortunately these days words aren't enough. Every fucking looney toon on Earth can have a blog. That in turn makes your voice atypical and non-unique in its message. In some small way I can sympathize with the modern terrorist because they have the determination and the drive to "hit the world with a sledge hammer" rather than tap it on the shoulder and hope for the best. But aside from taking aggressive action these days, you're voice is common and in most cases will result in annoying people rather than educating them.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:52:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:27:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have no argument against this besides the source of the post? How pathetic.
Why don't you try a real argument once in a while? You know, one that involves addressing the issue at hand.
===
we tried that many many many times with you and it's worthless so we just point and laugh.
me thinks that this is an insignificant anomaly that doesn't prove anything. inconsistencies do deserve a second look and perhaps further investigations. however, since you don't exactly live in a normal country, this little confusion, which is probably just that for the simple reason that details in reports aren't likely to mask a world wide conspiracy though who knows, will get lost in the vast sea of bickering and stupidity that is the american political scene because you guys are so easily swayed in whatever direction.
that's usually what happens to poorly educated populations with bad wealth redistribution.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:33:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, a post of mine attracts the usual suspects with absolutely zero intelligent responses.
Would you like to talk about why the 9/11 Commission Report omitted Fmr. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's sworn testimony?
Let's try that for a change...talking about the information itself rather than me or the source that broke it.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:29:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Somehow, this just isn't as good as Apollo's post from today.
However, it IS as good as that retard who tried to attach pictures to his post and instead, ended up with 3 consecutive blank posts.
So, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:28:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't link to Digg to "mask" anything, by the way. I did it in the hopes that some of you might actually Digg it up like needs to be done.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:27:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You have no argument against this besides the source of the post? How pathetic.
Why don't you try a real argument once in a while? You know, one that involves addressing the issue at hand.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:16:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
did you link digg to mask the fact that this comes from jonesreport.com?
do you read anything else than alex jones crap?
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-06-26 19:16:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There are perfectly good answers to those questions, but they'll have
to wait for another night.
-- Homer Simpson
Homers Barbershop Quartet