BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It
15 Apr 2007, 5:10 pm
jimservo. Our Government is like a false religion. You should not believe their lies!. Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics ( 9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." / The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."/ And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." But if there's a glitch
You're an ostrich
You've got your head in the sand 
Last edited by TheResistance on 15 Apr 2007, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
15 Apr 2007, 5:21 pm
zebedee wrote:
Yep
On september 10th 2001 Rumsfeld admitted that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon - of course there was a very serious project to find this money and a certain wing of the pentagon was full of accountants.
On september 10th 2001 Rumsfeld admitted that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon - of course there was a very serious project to find this money and a certain wing of the pentagon was full of accountants.
OF COURSE!! ! You have found the plot! It was about Don Rumsfeld stealing $2.3 trillion dollars! And naturally he would admit it the day before the attack. Just like Hitler said the day before he ordered the invasion of Poland as a diversion, "I no longer have control of dozens of divisions of my Army."
Not surprisingly, this idiotic theory has already been proved absurd.
Here is the full Cheney statement, which typically has been cut up (why do you do that?):
Quote:
The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us
(Source-A publicly available military server)
Isn't it interesting that conspiracy theorists go to a take publicly available, non-classified information, and then quote it completely out of context? Why? Is it because they don't have any real facts on their side?
Here's some more:
Quote:
In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.
(source)
Fiscal 1999, what administration would that be? [sarcasm]Was Bill Clinton in on the plot too? All of his cabinet?[/sarcasm]
zebedee wrote:
A day later a plane makes a 360 degree turn round the pentagon to take a flightpath that crosses the most lamp-posts and presents the most hazardous flight path to hit the building.
and hits the building where?
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
and hits the building where?
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
It's money. It just has to be. People don't actually get sucked into ideologies, and believe them. Do you believe that Nigerians muslims who want to impose Sharia law want to it for cash? Or like many of you have been sucked into these absurd theories? Perhaps people that believe the Bush administration (or Bill Clinton, or Zionists, or Neocons, or Enter Said Group) is capable of evil are more likely to do evil things themselves.
(sigh)
Anyway, this is nonsense. You mean he went around his target before he hit it? Perhaps it's because he wanted to make sure his altitude was right and he had his angle right. Perhaps he didn't actually know one section from the next. For the record, at the start of the pilot was at 8,000 feet while at the end he was at 2,000. Apparently, he was doing something in that time.
15 Apr 2007, 5:26 pm
jimservo wrote:
zebedee wrote:
Yep
On september 10th 2001 Rumsfeld admitted that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon - of course there was a very serious project to find this money and a certain wing of the pentagon was full of accountants.
On september 10th 2001 Rumsfeld admitted that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon - of course there was a very serious project to find this money and a certain wing of the pentagon was full of accountants.
OF COURSE!! ! You have found the plot! It was about Don Rumsfeld stealing $2.3 trillion dollars! And naturally he would admit it the day before the attack. Just like Hitler said the day before he ordered the invasion of Poland as a diversion, "I no longer have control of dozens of divisions of my Army."
Not surprisingly, this idiotic theory has already been proved absurd.
Here is the full Cheney statement, which typically has been cut up (why do you do that?):
Quote:
The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us
(Source-A publicly available military server)
Isn't it interesting that conspiracy theorists go to a take publicly available, non-classified information, and then quote it completely out of context? Why? Is it because they don't have any real facts on their side?
Here's some more:
Quote:
In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.
(source)
Fiscal 1999, what administration would that be? [sarcasm]Was Bill Clinton in on the plot too? All of his cabinet?[/sarcasm]
zebedee wrote:
A day later a plane makes a 360 degree turn round the pentagon to take a flightpath that crosses the most lamp-posts and presents the most hazardous flight path to hit the building.
and hits the building where?
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
and hits the building where?
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
It's money. It just has to be. People don't actually get sucked into ideologies, and believe them. Do you believe that Nigerians muslims who want to impose Sharia law want to it for cash? Or like many of you have been sucked into these absurd theories? Perhaps people that believe the Bush administration (or Bill Clinton, or Zionists, or Neocons, or Enter Said Group) is capable of evil are more likely to do evil things themselves.
(sigh)
Anyway, this is nonsense. You mean he went around his target before he hit it? Perhaps it's because he wanted to make sure his altitude was right and he had his angle right. Perhaps he didn't actually know one section from the next. For the record, at the start of the pilot was at 8,000 feet while at the end he was at 2,000. Apparently, he was doing something in that time.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
_________________
Make mine a super frapalapi with double cream lots of Aspartame choc chip cookies a lump of lard and make it a big one
15 Apr 2007, 5:27 pm
Quote:
No, what fascinates me is the emotional motive of people who, presented with overwhelming evidence that the events that transpired on November 22nd, 1963 or September 11th, 2001 really happened exactly the way it appeared, continue to spin ever more elaborate webs in order to get to a place they need to be emotionally. Who are you going to believe: them or your own lying eyes?
All of this conspiracy nonsense comes after the fact. What we saw on those days was clear and vital and unmistakably obvious. In the case of the Kennedy assassination we are asked to believe – against all physical evidence to the contrary – what a few professional witnesses recall for pay ten or twenty or thirty years after the fact. Some guy who claims to see a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll is now a world-wide celebrity and not just some dude with time on his hands on a November afternoon. (And don't be deterred by the fact that a musket firing black powder was the last firearm that emitted "a puff of smoke;" perhaps Kennedy was murdered by a re-animated Stonewall Jackson. Prove it didn't happen!)
I’ve met a number of these people. I know this is harsh, but I’m sick of watching the damage they are doing to this civilization: these people are, to a man, complete losers. Losers. They are desperate and sad people who need to believe in some dark secret to give meaning to their lives.
In Case Closed Gerald Posner points out one thing that all the Kennedy conspiracy books have in common: a complete disregard for the main actor on that day, namely Lee Harvey Oswald. In all of Lifton’s theories about stolen corpses and secret autopsies, he only devotes a page or two to Oswald. He is a peripheral player. A patsy. Some make him out to be a hero who was framed.
Posner, by contrast, devotes almost half his book to Oswald. This is the heart of it, because once you fully appreciate what a pathetic loser Oswald was, the entire day makes crystalline sense.
Who in the general public knows that Oswald tried to defect to the Soviet Union, was rejected, and slit his wrists in a Soviet hotel when he learned he was to be thrown out of the country? Who knows that the Russians reluctantly granted him asylum, shipped him to the boonies, gave him an obscure factory job making television sets, and that when his fifteen minutes of novelty were up, he desperately lied and cajoled the Soviets into letting him return to the US? Who can read about his disappointment at the lack of press coverage upon his return to America, or his desperate attempts at attention with Fair Play for Cuba, or his self-documented assassination attempt on Texas anti-communist General Edwin Walker, without seeing a pathological narcissistic loser just waiting to show the world how exceptional he really was?
Once you know Lee Harvey Oswald, you realize that he would have pulled the trigger on Cantinflas or Bozo the Clown if either one of them had been parading beneath his window that November day.
It is so obvious, so straightforward, so simple… so inevitable.
But no. Instead we have to have teams of assassins, and the purchased cooperation of dozens, if not hundreds of people, all to commit a ghastly crime and pull one over on an entire nation. Posner posits at the end of his book – and I agree completely – that what drives the conspiracy idea is the intolerable belief that a lone wacko can change history. On one side of the scale, writes Posner, you have the handsome, charismatic, Leader of the Free World, and on the other side a scrawny, pathetic loser. The mind wants to add weight to Oswald’s side, to give the horror some meaning. But it just isn’t so. And the lie you create to meet this emotional need is more damaging to the country than the assassination of a beloved President could ever be.
I’ll tell you something. These conspiracy theorists that ignore that miserable, pathetic, self-aggrandizing egomaniac named Lee Harvey Oswald, or glorify him as a patsy and a hero, do so because deep down inside they realize something unpleasant about Lee Harvey Oswald and themselves.
They are Oswald.
All of this conspiracy nonsense comes after the fact. What we saw on those days was clear and vital and unmistakably obvious. In the case of the Kennedy assassination we are asked to believe – against all physical evidence to the contrary – what a few professional witnesses recall for pay ten or twenty or thirty years after the fact. Some guy who claims to see a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll is now a world-wide celebrity and not just some dude with time on his hands on a November afternoon. (And don't be deterred by the fact that a musket firing black powder was the last firearm that emitted "a puff of smoke;" perhaps Kennedy was murdered by a re-animated Stonewall Jackson. Prove it didn't happen!)
I’ve met a number of these people. I know this is harsh, but I’m sick of watching the damage they are doing to this civilization: these people are, to a man, complete losers. Losers. They are desperate and sad people who need to believe in some dark secret to give meaning to their lives.
In Case Closed Gerald Posner points out one thing that all the Kennedy conspiracy books have in common: a complete disregard for the main actor on that day, namely Lee Harvey Oswald. In all of Lifton’s theories about stolen corpses and secret autopsies, he only devotes a page or two to Oswald. He is a peripheral player. A patsy. Some make him out to be a hero who was framed.
Posner, by contrast, devotes almost half his book to Oswald. This is the heart of it, because once you fully appreciate what a pathetic loser Oswald was, the entire day makes crystalline sense.
Who in the general public knows that Oswald tried to defect to the Soviet Union, was rejected, and slit his wrists in a Soviet hotel when he learned he was to be thrown out of the country? Who knows that the Russians reluctantly granted him asylum, shipped him to the boonies, gave him an obscure factory job making television sets, and that when his fifteen minutes of novelty were up, he desperately lied and cajoled the Soviets into letting him return to the US? Who can read about his disappointment at the lack of press coverage upon his return to America, or his desperate attempts at attention with Fair Play for Cuba, or his self-documented assassination attempt on Texas anti-communist General Edwin Walker, without seeing a pathological narcissistic loser just waiting to show the world how exceptional he really was?
Once you know Lee Harvey Oswald, you realize that he would have pulled the trigger on Cantinflas or Bozo the Clown if either one of them had been parading beneath his window that November day.
It is so obvious, so straightforward, so simple… so inevitable.
But no. Instead we have to have teams of assassins, and the purchased cooperation of dozens, if not hundreds of people, all to commit a ghastly crime and pull one over on an entire nation. Posner posits at the end of his book – and I agree completely – that what drives the conspiracy idea is the intolerable belief that a lone wacko can change history. On one side of the scale, writes Posner, you have the handsome, charismatic, Leader of the Free World, and on the other side a scrawny, pathetic loser. The mind wants to add weight to Oswald’s side, to give the horror some meaning. But it just isn’t so. And the lie you create to meet this emotional need is more damaging to the country than the assassination of a beloved President could ever be.
I’ll tell you something. These conspiracy theorists that ignore that miserable, pathetic, self-aggrandizing egomaniac named Lee Harvey Oswald, or glorify him as a patsy and a hero, do so because deep down inside they realize something unpleasant about Lee Harvey Oswald and themselves.
They are Oswald.
(-Bill Whittle, excerpt from a long essay)
17 Apr 2007, 1:24 pm
jimservo wrote:
Quote:
Former Congressman Lee Hamilton: I wanted to focus just a moment on the presidential emergency operating center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. We had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Were you there when that order was given?
Mineta: No I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who'd 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?
Mineta: No I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who'd 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?
Mineta did not say that Vice President Cheney ordered anti-aircraft weapons (what anti-aircraft weapons is this a reference to before 9/11?) to "stand down" at all. Mineta reference is to the shoot down order, not to an order canceling such an order. Although Mineta's testimony makes reference to his decision being "during the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon" it appears that this is being misinterpretated becuse Mineta (who was doubtless rather many things on his mind at the time) meant after the plane had struck. At Newsweek notes in a rather critical article:
Let’s read this part of Mineta's testimony again:
Quote:
"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?"
The plane discussed here continues on its course and strikes the Pentagon. Clearly the orders discussed in this testimony have been issued before the Pentagon was hit.
The Pentagon was struck at 9:37 AM. According to the Newsweek article cited by jimservo, Dick Cheney gave the shoot-down order between 10:10 and 10:15 AM.
This leaves us with a few questions:
What were the orders being discussed in the White House bunker 45 minutes before Cheney gave the shoot-down order?
If Dick Cheney ordered the Boeing shot down then why wasn’t it even fired on?
Why didn’t the 911 Commission ask these questions?
_________________
There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint unless it is true, because a false viewpoint can easily be combated with facts and logic, while the truth cannot be combated except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation.
18 Apr 2007, 9:17 am
Jacob_Landshire wrote:
This leaves us with a few questions:
What were the orders being discussed in the White House bunker 45 minutes before Cheney gave the shoot-down order?
If Dick Cheney ordered the Boeing shot down then why wasn’t it even fired on?
Why didn’t the 911 Commission ask these questions?
What were the orders being discussed in the White House bunker 45 minutes before Cheney gave the shoot-down order?
If Dick Cheney ordered the Boeing shot down then why wasn’t it even fired on?
Why didn’t the 911 Commission ask these questions?
Well, I suppose you got me there. Clearly the "miles out" quotes makes it clear they are talking about the plane approaching the Pentagon. Now, what does this quote mean? The Pentagon was not surrounded by armed anti-aircraft batteries, so obviously they could not shoot the plane down, and additionally there was no fighter jets in the area to shoot the plane down (there was a C-130 that started to track AA77, but that type of plane could not have shot the AA77 down even if the order was given).
There are some good notes on this in another forum. Suffice it to say, both Secretary Mineta and Vice President Cheney exact timing was somewhat off due to the chaos of the situation (although the 9/11 Commission was able to recreate a more then reasonable estimation of their movements using by combining their testimony with other information).
