Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mineta: Cheneys were in PEOC bunker BEFORE 911 attack

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:19 PM
Original message
Mineta: Cheneys were in PEOC bunker BEFORE 911 attack
Edited on Sun Jul-01-07 01:20 PM by Texas Explorer

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

-snip-


I apologize if this has already been posted. I searched but didn't find it. Video of Mineta at link.

Edit: Sp.
Refresh | +18 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. nothing suprises me anymore
they are all EVIL bastards
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld lied to the commission, and the members
of the commission were well aware that they were being lied to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. Lions At the Gate: Our Leaders on 9/11 American Everyman
The actions of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld that day -- and everyday since then -- speaks volumes:

Lions At the Gate: Our Leaders on 9/11 American Everyman
Where was Rumsfeld?

Rumsfeld went missing in action while the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor was happening. Read more about this incredible story here.

Where was Cheney?

The Vice President was in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center listening to Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon and telling an aide that "the orders still stand" before the plane hit. What does this mean? And why does the 9/11 Commission Report deny Cheney was even there until 20 minutes after Flight 77 hit, in contradiction of the testimony of the Transportation Secretary and even Cheney himself? And most importantly, why isn't the controlled corporate media asking questions about these important issues?

Where was Bush?

Who were the Middle Eastern men who came to visit Bush in the early morning hours of 9/11 claiming they had a poolside interview?

Why did Bush's secret service detail not physically remove the President from his publicly disclosed, unsecure location in the first crucial minutes of an all-out attack on America?

Why did Bush fly to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska? And was it mere coincidence that Warren Buffett was hosting many of the Presidents and CEOs of businesses whose headquarters were in the World Trade Center at Offutt AFB that day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. So, this means that the "official record" is a lie. Gosh. That's not inspiring, is it? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wiccan Warrior Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Just like where were the Air Marshals on the planes that hit n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
44. there are not
air marshalls on every flight. That is impossible considering the amount of air marshalls there are (or were on 911) and the amount of flights each day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. And the evidence is starting to come forth.....This administration
knew 9/11 was coming and they did nothing to warn New York, in fact they had or military doing drills hundreds of miles of way and stalled getting them into action...

This is Treason....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Gee, what POSSIBLE reason would Cheney have to LIE about such a thing, hmmmm? Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. And we're letting this treasonous bastard get away with it all.
Thanks for the link!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Any explanation from Cheney
or has he decided he's above answering to the American people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. you gotta find him first!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
142. "So?"
That about proves it, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
196. war criminal chainy would not answer coz he can't recall... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. mis-spoke? we'll never know depths of cheneys' evil.....
he has made sure of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Addendum:
Edited on Sun Jul-01-07 01:38 PM by Texas Explorer
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. Off to the ghetto for this thread, I fear
Edited on Sun Jul-01-07 01:56 PM by RufusTFirefly
I understand how scary it is for people to confront such things head on (and how tempting it is for others, I might add, to manufacture outlandish claims that either intentionally or unintentionally undercut the veracity of the core disturbing facts), but few things if any seem more vital to the future of the country than getting to the bottom of this.

Of course, even I have been a little skeptical of this Web site, but there is no disputing the video and what it says. It doesn't matter where it gets posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I agree...
I am not familiar with the Jones Report. As such, I don't know if it is a reliable source or not. I decided to post the link and let the mods make the call. The video was the reason I took the chance.

Also, as a backup source I added and Addendum (Post #10) from Google News which is citing additional sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Annnnddd...here we are. So, this is what the dungeon looks like? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. sit down, take your shoes off, stay awhile and be careful of the
snarks!!



Just the place for a Snark! the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ryan_cats Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
198. Is that Karl Rove? NT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Bit a K&R will increase it's fleeting visibility.
Some day we will learn the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. Meanwhile, Dub was still hanging out at an elementary school. Curious, huh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-01-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. You searched but didn't find it?
You obviously didn't look in the September 11th forum, where this stuff belongs.

Mineta is mistaken. Even his story accords in details with the 911CR. He says Lynne Cheney was in the PEOC when he got there. Lynne Cheney didn't get there until just before 10:00. She met Dick in the corridor outside the PEOC at 9:52, and a few minutes later, both she and Dick went to the PEOC. If Mineta is correct about seeing Lynne Cheney there, then he could not have been dealing with Flight 77 in the PEOC at 9:20.

Too much evidence against Mineta's mistaken account.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
48. yes bolo knows more than anyone who was there on the scene...
Just ask him if you don't believe it. His reliance on other's opinions is solid as a crock!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Actually, that's quite silly.
You rely on Mineta alone. I'm relying on everyone else on the scene.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. everyone else?
I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. You think wrong.
It's not up to you thinking. It's about the facts here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
69. Whose facts supplied to whom? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #52
197. there are no facts!
only interpretations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
68. Where is this "evidence"? Who supplied this "evidence" to whom? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-02-07 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks for posting this
and, ignore the "nay-sayers".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
21. Mineta is a thorn in Cheney's official story
The normal response is to smear him as old, poor memory, and not really with it. But I think it points to the need for a new investigation where matters like this are resolved so that the truth is plain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Or he's merely mistaken...
which happens all the time in large scale catastrophic events. I happen to know Norm Mineta. Don't you think if there was some huge discrepancy that equals a smoking gun re: Cheney that Mineta would come forward? Why is it only 9/11 CT's make something of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. It needs clearing up, that's for sure.
Don't you agree? Or are you happy with ambiguity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. But it HAS been cleared up...
it's only a mystery to "truthers". As I said before, do you honestly think if it was as significant as you claim, Norm Mineta wouldn't be raising a HUGE fuss about it? Do you acknowledge that it is poossible that Mineta is merely mistaken as to actual times and that it is possible to get at the actual time by examining multiple accounts and drawing inferences from the times we can establish that other things happened? Seriously, my advice here is to research more before drawing conclusions. You're advancing things that have been repeatedly debunked. Also, you are evaluating things based upon your personal expectation of what would happen without understanding it technically. Your question about the Pentagon security cameras is a perfect example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Has Mineta said he was mistaken?
If he hasn't then this hasn't been cleared up as you claim. Am I right in thinking you don't want this issue investigating? There is a discrepancy here, surely it needs nailing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I'm saying that not everything needs investigating...
Tell me something.....Why doesn't Mineta state he thinks it was a standdown order. Given the circumstances, doesn't that lead one more in the direction of a shootdown order?


My point is, if we investigated every goofy claim of the "truth movement", it'll be the longest investigation ever conducted. Why is that necessary when so many of the "truth movement's" claims can be easily rebutted with the existing evidence. Just because the "truth movement" believes that amy anomaly, missing piece of information or conflict proves a conspiracy, doesn't mean we have to waste time and money follwing them down the rabbithols.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
72. Exactly. If contradictions exists, don't investigate them!
Simply interpret them in the manner that best serves the most current version of the ever changing official conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Another stupid either-or argument from you, mhatrw....
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:09 PM by SDuderstadt
at least half of the "contradictions" arise from the limited critical thinking skills of the "truthers", so it doesn't need to be investigated, it just needs to be thought through using critical thinking and Logic. For example, "truthers" often present "arguments" in the following form:

If A, then B
B
Therefore, A.

This is a fallacy of presumption known as affirming the consequent, which makes the mistake of assuming that there is no other causes for B other than A.

Putting it slightly differently:

If a being is a cat, then it is a mammal
A dog is a mammal
therefore, it's a cat.

If I've piqued your interest (which I rather doubt), you can also study the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".

Half of these stupid arguments could be avoided before they ever begin if "truthers" would embrace Logic and science. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. Please demonstrate what your Logic 000.5 course has to do with
my characterization of your position on further investigation of the events of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Because you discount Logic as a means of adopting a position...
the reason I don't agree with the vast majority of your goofy claims is the utter lack of evidence and the fact that they are, more often than not, riddled with logical fallacies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. I don't discount logic. I discount your contention that your infantile
understanding of logic has any bearing on the argument I am logically advancing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. "infantile understanding of Logic"
Why does Logic threaten you so much, mhatrw? And it's clear to anyone who is trained in Logic that your argument isn't being "logically advanced". When I point out the huge logical holes in your arguments, you can't take it.


You keep implying you know a lot about Logic. Let's see. Here's a simple question I've asked you before. Can an argument be valid yet still be untrue? That's easy to answer. Can you? Yes or no and explain why it's yes or no, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. I truly envy your bliss.
The relationship between validity and truth depends upon one's definitions for each. An argument can of course be formally valid -- in that its premises, if true, logically lead to its conclusion -- yet not true if the argument is based on at least one premise that is not true.

Now you answer one for me. Why is the inverse of a material implication logically equivalent to its converse? Since you obviously have difficulty logically analyzing the events of 9/11, perhaps it will make you feel more intellectually adequate if we change the subject to a theoretical discussion of Logic 101. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
102. "The relationship between validity and truth depends upon one's definitions for each"
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 06:06 PM by SDuderstadt
Wtf? We're talking about Logic, mhatrw. Your initial answer is made even more puzzling by your second sentence which, I suspect, you've cut and pasted from some Logic website and is essentially correct. Validity in Logic refers to structure and truthfulness is referred to as soundness. So, an argument, much as you describe, can be valid, in that it follows proper for, yet still not be sound (or true) because one or more of the premises are flawed. For example (and I am going to use a purposefully imflammatory example on purpose):

All "truthers" are stupid.
So-and-so is a "truther".
Therefore, So-and-so is stupid.

Valid, but not sound. Valid in that it follows the form:

All A is B
C is A
Therefore, C is B.

The argument is unsound (untrue) because the first premise is not true. All "truthers" are not stupid...it just seems that way.


Are far as your "question", it's because its antecedent is the negated consequent of its converse. Duh. I wouldn't waste a lot of time "testing" me on contraposition, mhatrw. I'm pretty sure I know far more about logic than you do, especially since I had to ask you my question numerous times over a long period of time before you could answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Everything in my post was 100% true. Surely you must realize that
there is not one universal definition for "truth" nor one universal definition for "validity" among all schools of logic. But I suppose that having the capacity to comprehend such nuances is too much to expect of a devotee of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. In your estimation, there is but one official "truth" for everything: the one you were informed of by your betters.

Your illogical conclusion that my refusal to participate in your infantile Logic 001 quiz necessarily demonstrates some sort of difficulty with the question on my part is both invalid and untrue. I never answered your idiotic question before because its only purpose has been deflection from the issues at hand. I answered it here only because my ignoring the question had the undesired effect of encouraging you to repost it on thread after thread after thread.

If you wish to have logical knowledge dick-size competition, please create an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum for this indulgence. Notwithstanding your repeated and blatant deflections, this thread instead concerns Mineta's testimony about the events of 9/11.

Now, please produce the testimony of the witnesses who you believe contradict Mineta's testimony of the events of 9/11 or admit that you have nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Another stupid strawman argument from you, mhatrw
Please prove that I am a "devotee of the official conspiracy theory" or that, "In (my) estimation, there is but one official "truth" for everything: the one you were informed of by (my) betters. You're better off when you stick to arguments I actually make.

I'd also be interested to know in what "school" of Logic, validity does not refer to the form of the argument.


I'll be glad to produce the testimony of my "witnesses" when you admit that Mineta has already publicly admitted that he might be wrong as to the time. You keep sidestepping that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #111
120. Yes, Mineta said he could have possibly been wrong about the time.
Now, where is the testimony that has led you to conclude that Mineta's testimony was erroneos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. Quit playing dumb, mhatrw...
I sent you an extensive link....there's testimony from the WH photographer, among others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #121
126. You sent me what? Where?
Why not just link it here as well if that is the case? What exactly is your problem with productive discussion? Produce the evidence. I would love to examine it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
71. What the hell has been debunked? Mineta just confirmed the discrepancy again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
70. Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11?
It seems to me that large scale catastrophic events are inherently far more rather than far less memorable than normal events. Wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. They're also more confusing and often happen at a rapid pace...
I doubt if you're interested in this, but our minds often play tricks on us. Since we are evolutionarily built to look for patterns as a survival mechanism, we unfortunately sometimes see patterns that simply aren't there. I would suggest a great book by Thomas Gilovich entitled, "How We Know What Isn't So" as a starting place to understand this better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #77
89. You didn't answer the question. Are we or are we not more apt to
correctly remember what you were doing during a large scale catastrophic event or what happened on a regular day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. I would think more people can remember details of their wedding day than
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:42 PM by SDuderstadt
what exactly they were doing during 9/11, especially if they were dodging chunks of buildings, etc.. This is another one of your "well, it's like this for me" claims. Until you can cite some sort of authoritative reference for your contention, it's just your speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. We all remember what we were doing on 9/11 -- just like almost every US citizen old enough
remembers what he or she was doing the day JFK was assassinated.

You can cop out by saying this is just speculation, but everyone reading this knows you know better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #99
105. Bullshit, mhatrw....
Why do you think trials or even investigations arising from large scale catastrophic events struggle so much with conflicting accounts and testimony? Have you ever studied the RFK or JFK assassinations? Look at the conflicting accounts from 9/11 itself. Everyone reading this knows you know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #105
109. Do you remember what YOU were doing on 9/11? Do you?
Be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #109
113. Funny you should mention that...
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 07:14 PM by SDuderstadt
I do and, in relating it to other people, they've actually pointed out where my memory was flawed. For example, I was at a hotel in Orange County and I was so stunned by the events that I "forgot" to show up at my client's office, until someone called me. If you were to ask me what time I finally showed up there, I don't have the foggiest notion. I don't even remember if it was AM or PM. The only way I could figure it out, if necessary, would be to interpolate/extrapolate from other things that are known and can be established.

Let me ask you a question, mhatrw. This goes to the issue of perspective. Let's say you went to a restaurant and encountered a server you thought was pretty attractive. Let's say you flirted with her. Whom do you think would be more likely to remember more detail? You, who have only to recall that particular person or her, who has to recall the detail out of all the other customers she served that day. Like I have stated before, you're not particularly adept at critical thinking. If you were, you'd know that memory has all kinds of quirks and is not nearly as uniform nor predictable as you might think. Trial lawyers know this when they are examining a witness on the stand. You'll often hear them say, "Let me refresh your memory about...". Why do you think they have to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #113
122. Certainly human memory has quirks and is imperfect.
The issue I had with your argument is that you stated that memory quirks were more likely to occur during catastrophic events. Where is your evidence for this counterintuitive assertion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. Because there's more to remember.....
mhatrw, you frankly need to study the phenomenon of memory, because you're simply making assrtions about how you think it works. Unless you're a neurobiologist, I suspect the experts know more than you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. Please cite the experts who back your counterintuitive claim that people misremember
memorable events in their lives in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #127
143. "memorable" is kind of a broad term...
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 05:55 PM by SDuderstadt
don't you think? There's a big difference between something that's memorable because it's pleasurable and something that's memorable because it's traumatic. Your question assumes that memory under stress performs as well or better than memory that's not under stress. For the life of me, I don't understand why you think my position is "counterintuitive". Of course, this is coming from someone like yourself who swore up and down that the 9/11 Commission issued no subpoenas. If you're really interested in how memory works, I'd suggest you research cognitive neuroscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. Nice complete non-response.
LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #144
150. Yeah, that cognitive neuroscience is sure funny....
of course, uneducated people smirk at things they don't comprehend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #150
156. Where are the experts who back up your moronic contention that memorable events
are misremembered more than regular events? Put up or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #122
162. Most people react adversely to stress,
I don't think it is counterintuitive at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #162
169. Show us the studies that demonstrate that people misremember
memorable events more than regular events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #169
172. Where are your studies?
I have no problem admitting this is simply my opinion based on years of watching people in very stressful situations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #172
180. Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11?
Everyone I know does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-17-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #180
183. FBI FOIA Request
Done
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
114. That isn't a yes or no question.
Unfortunately the mind is a lot more complex than just yes or no.
Strong emotions do tend to entrench memories more vividly. But not necessarily more accurately. Being personally shot, raped, etc. etc. is defiantly something you might classify as a 'catastrophic event' for the individual involved, and they will certainly remember that event far longer than you will remember what you ate for breakfast two days ago.

But wittiness testimony is still one of, if not the, least reliable forms of evidence.

In just about any recreation involving more than one person (never mind hundreds) there will be time-line issues. People will be convinced things happened in one order while others say another order, never mind relying on what time it was on a clock.

So am I more likely to correctly remember what I did on September 11th than on may 3rd? Yes. Is it likely that all the details of my account will be correct? No.

Essentially you are committing the following fallacy.

Under A condition people have a greater chance of correctly recalling the value of X than under B condition
Therefore the value of X recalled under A condition is likely to be correct.

And that's without going into all the ways these kinds of mental errors happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. Exactly...
unfortunately, I fear this is all wasted on mhatrw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Well.
Maybe someone will think about it for a few min. who hadn't before.
Or maybe I will just enjoy formulating my thoughts into a post.
Glad you read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #114
123. Of course it isn't. The issue I had was SD's insistence that catastrophes
are more likely to misremembered that regular events. Do either of you have any evidence to back this counterintuitive claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #123
136. Well... that wasn't my claim but...
actually there are a few things to consider when thinking about this.

In this particular situation there was high stress with many things happening fairly quickly and multiple concerns being managed. That is somewhat inherent to all catastrophic situations but is magnified in this case with this particular person. Obviously this can lead to a greater chance of mistakes in memory of various details.

Secondly we are asking about fairly minute details (exact time). This is less likely to be remembered than gross information like 'did you go to the Whitehouse'. We only care about the details because there was a catastrophe but obviously these details are across the board less likely to be remembered.

I would have to look up the specific research and I do not know to what degree various factors play a role in this case but strong emotional states often do cause memory issues involving 'clear' recollection of information that is not accurate.

In the specific case of this gentleman's time-line it would appear other events that can be more accurately timed fall in his story at a time when they should not. There are a few of these points by which we can gauge that he is most likely mistaken as to the specific time of certain events. As mentioned before this is not in any way uncommon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. Which brings us back to the point. Whose conflicting testimony causes you to conclude that
that Mineta's on the record eyewitness testimony is probably mistaken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Jesus, mhatrw....
did you actually read what I provided? There are various news accounts, for example, of when the WH was evacuated, there are records of when actual events (such as the evacuation) were ordered, etc. You're demonstrating yet once more that you haven't even bothered to look for any evidence that contradicts your theory at all. Your laziness in research and your inability to consider that you could even be remotely wrong is what makes it impossible to reason with you. When Mineta openly admits publicly that he could be wrong, do you interpret that to mean "I am absolutely certain about what time this happened"? Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #139
145. Yes. Which eyewitnesses provided this testimony to the news media?
Edited on Thu Jun-12-08 03:27 AM by mhatrw
Your "evidence" blows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #145
152. Again, your case seems to rely only on the eyewitness testimony of...
ONE person, who has publicly admitted he could be wrong about the time and, to you, that trumps all the contradictory evidence, including timelines and logs which are confirmed by multiple sources. Bye, mhatrw. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're not a serious debater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. Produce the primary evidence that trumps Mineta's on the record
eyewitness testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #157
164. Mineta's own testemony?
The man has admitted he might be wrong about the timeline and events in his story clearly line up with independently timed events with a time shift. It's fairly strait forward when you take all of the events put together into account.

The previously provided link had a lengthy discussion on Mineta's timeline and I think it is clear that he was mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. Based on whose testimony was Mineta mistaken?
Whose testimony contradicts Mineta's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #157
165. Lets give a little example
Mineta says there was a "ground hold on planes going into New York" that happened at "maybe about 8:30 or 8:40 in the morning". This was before the first tower was even hit, though: the actual decision wasn't made until much later:

Source http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta


Now you have been given that link several times.

So you or do you not agree that in the above case (ignoring the bunker for now) Mineta got the timeline wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. Based on whose conflicting testimony was Mineta mistaken about Cheney being
in the bunker before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Answer the question please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #167
170. Sorry but you dodged mine.
Can we at least start in agreement that SOME of the times Mineta gave are incorrect?

I can say that while excepting that others might be dead on. Can you accept that some are clearly off?

Then maybe after you read the link we can talk about specifics of the Flight 77 hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. Yes, I admit that the ground hold in New York almost certainly didn't happen until
Edited on Sat Jun-14-08 05:02 PM by mhatrw
after the first tower was hit.

However: http://www.observer.com/node/49415

The families heard a tape that has just now surfaced. Recorded by American Airlines at its headquarters in Fort Worth, Tex., even as the first hijacked airliner, Flight 11, was being taken over, the tape shows the airline's top management was made aware beginning at about 8:21 a.m.-25 minutes before the impact of the first plane into the World Trade Center's north tower-that a group of men described as Middle Eastern had stabbed two flight attendants, clouded the forward cabin with pepper spray or Mace, menaced crew and passengers with what looked like a bomb, and stormed the cockpit in a violent takeover of the gigantic bird.

Now whose testimony contradicts Mineta's testimony about Cheney deing in the bunker before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #171
173. Have you read the link? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #173
181. Yes, I read the link. And I don't see anyone's direct on the record testimony
Edited on Mon Jun-16-08 01:34 PM by mhatrw
contradicting Mineta's concerning Cheney's whereabouts when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #181
186. I see problems with his timeline. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. Exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. Your headline is misleading (at best)
If Cheney arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m the 9/11 attacks were well underway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Mineta has also confirmed that what he heard was a shootdown order...
not a standdown order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. No, he confirmed what he thought it was.
There is a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. And what did he base that on?
Are you seriously suggesting it was a standdown order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I'm seriously suggesting there is a difference in stories
that needs to be resolved by a proper investigation. But maybe we should drop it, after all it's 7 years old now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Or you could simply read how the other available evidence shows...
Mineta is simply mistaken about the times (like SS records, etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Since you know him, can you ask him if he was mistaken?
I can't imagine that he would have his life threatened by Cheney et al. SS records are certainly readily available as shown by our ease of obtaining them the past 7 years. Everyone else is sticking to their story and the majority must be right. What is the matter with Mineta? Must be mistaken, senile, confused, etc. Take back that medal of freedom, since he won't freely speak about his mistakeness...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Now you're claiming Cheney threatened his life?
Are you? Have you even bothered to do the research into how Mineta could be mistaken about the times? Have you looked at how consistent the other accounts and evidence is? Are you claiming the SS is in on it? The thing I find interesting about CT's is they seem to believe even the slightest anomaly or discrepancy can only be construed to prove their theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
51. No, I don't think Cheney would play hardball politics
Who are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. He didn't say that.
It's amazing to see what you hear or understand when his words are right there for anyone to read.

The disconnect is profound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Profound disconnect?
Mineta's story doesn't fit with the constructed timeline, therefore, in your judgment, he is mistaken.

SDude says: As I said before, do you honestly think if it was as significant as you claim, Norm Mineta wouldn't be raising a HUGE fuss about it?

Two possibilities: he is right or he is wrong. The thrust of this thread is that this piece doesn't fit. It bothers me, but it doesn't bother you. If he is wrong (ie mistaken), then this line of inquiry is a deadend, and that would be fine with me if we would see Mineta raise a HUGE fuss about how he misspoke, or if we could get him to clarify the inconsistency.

If he is right, then we have a problem. Why isn't he making a HUGE fuss about that? I merely suggested that one possibility is that he is being coerced into being quiet. SDude then tried to pin down this possibility as my belief, a typically disingenuous move, and my sarcastic response was due to my incredulity that he would not be open to that possibility.

I believe the disconnect merits further investigation (you don't), and thought that since SDude personally knows Mineta, I thought we could expedite matters by having him speak to Mineta personally.

My opinion is that this a game for you, and I don't particularly care for the spirit of your play.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. The timeline is "constructed" from the evidence. Mineta's timing doesn't match the evidence.
He's mistaken.

Your opinion about this being a game for me? It's wrong. Sometimes I "whistle while I work," but know that the deaths of 3,000 citizens is deathly serious to me, and people spreading bullshit about those deaths on a political website I admire is equally as serious in my estimation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. who is spreading bullshit? which posts?
It's bullshit when you rag on people you don't agree with for ignoring evidence selectively, but when you do it, you pull out this righteous attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Here's a post spreading bullshit.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Point to evidence we're...
ignoring selectively. BTW, you guys wouldn't be such a laughingstock if you wouldn't breathlessly embrace every goofy theory that comes down the pike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. ummm, Mineta?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. I'm not ignoring Mineta.
I'm noticing that his timing doesn't match anyone else's. Allowing for a mistake in his timing, his story matches everything else.

Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. No, Mineta's story doesn't match everything else but the timing.
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 10:49 AM by eomer
Mineta's story includes details about the location of the plane being in the DC area coming down the Potomac River with the 50 miles out, 30 miles out, and so on being distances roughly from the central DC area. The official version is that the plane of that story was flight 93, which of course was never in that vicinity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Oh, you're right, his call out numbers are different
Simply a detail.

In the overall scheme of things, taking his basic chronology of events, he matches with the actual chronology of everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. No, it's not just the call out numbers.
His story includes references to specific geo positions that he says were being told to him by Monte Belger who was watching on a radar sweep. The official version changes not just the call numbers but also, obviously, the geo positions would be impossible if you substitute "93" in place of "77". Flight 93 cannot feasibly have been approximately over the USA Today building about 50 miles upstream from the Pentagon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Monte wasn't giving him the numbers. I don't know where you got that.
The numbers are coming from the "young man."

Do you have any confirmation from Monte Belger about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I got that from Mineta.
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 04:16 PM by eomer
MINETA: And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."

And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

So I said, "Monte, is there something -- can you identify it as being at the Pentagon?" He said, "No, we can't really pinpoint it like that."

Then about that time someone broke into our phone conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we've had a call from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane go into the Pentagon."

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.as ...


ETA: I gave you this same exact info just over a month ago; you must have forgotten about it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Who is "everyone else"? Where is their testimony about the "actual" chronology? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. Your post suggests you haven't even bothered to figure this out for yourself....
before you embraced Mineta's account as dispositive. Did you mean to do that? If so, why haven't you bothered to look at both sides?


If you'd bother to look at both sides, you'd find the "everyone else" refers to others surrounding Cheney and Mineta that day. One of the most convincing pieces of evidence is SS logc showing what time Cheney was evacuated from his office. Oh, wait...I forgot. The SS is "in on it" too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission is on public record. Now he has confirmed this testimony.
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:14 PM by mhatrw
Produce the public record of the testimony that leads you to conclude that Mineta is mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. It's the same report you're already looking at....
duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. Produce the actual firsthand testimony that contradicts Mineta's account then.
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:21 PM by mhatrw
As I said before, you have nothing but the word of Philip Zelikow that some unknown people contradicted Mineta's testimony in some unreleased documents produced by unknown members of the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Read the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission Report, mhatrw...
Do you know how to find them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. That is my very point.
My evidence is Mineta's publicly released testimony to the 9/11 Commission and his recent confirmation of that testimony.

In comparison, you have some Philip Zelikow produced footnotes indicating that some unknown people may have contradicted Mineta's testimony in some unreleased documents produced by unknown members of the Bush Administration (proven liars). Whose evidence is more convincing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. I don't think the SS is "unknown", mhatrw....
and I notice that you keep sidestepping the fact that Mineta has even publicly stated he might be wrong about the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. Please produce the SS's public testimony about the events of 9/11
or admit that your conviction that the SS's unreleased accounts contradict Mineta's public testimony is based on nothing but blind faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #108
115. Do you realize why the SS might not release every detail....
about the specifics of how they protect the President or the Vice-President? Let's say that Gore had been President that day. Would you really be demanding they disclose precisely every step they took that day? How long it took them to get him from here to there? Would you? Do you realize why they sometimes only disclose summary information and classify more specific information? Do you? This is getting stupid. Is the SS in on it too? How high up does it go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #115
124. For someone who stresses logic, you surely love the dodge.
Yes, I understand why the Secret Service might wish to keep its reports private. I also understand that many of these same pressures might induce the Secret Service to lie to those outside the direct command structure of the federal executive about sensitive information.

What does this have to do with the relative merits of the evidence? Mineta's public testimony is still on public record. You are still questioning his testimony based on your blind faith in unreleased "evidence" produced by someone unknown that you assume is based on unknown testimony that you can't examine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #124
128. You don't know what the fuck I'm basing it on...
so stop your silly strawman arguments. I have linked you to an extensive source, which I doubt you've read. Your own source has admitted he could be mistaken. His account is contradicted by countless other sources of information including, as I said before, the WH photographer, the testimony and recollections of government officers, as well as logs and other materials. I am not going to play rope-a-dope with you and your silly liitle MIHOP theories. If you're not going to bother to look at the other side, there is ZERO point in trying to reason with you. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. You are correct. I have no idea what evidence you are basing your opinions on.
Neither does anyone else. Why don't you clear this mystery up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. This is the last time I'm fricking posting this, mhatrw....
Learn how to follow a thread. It was in post # 119.


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #132
134. I hope to God it is the last time ANYONE posts such ludicrous propaganda.
Now, I have a little task for you if you think your logical mind can handle it. Go through the fucking propaganda link you just posted and extract the direct on the record eyewitness testimony that has led you to conclude that Mineta's direct on the record eyewitness testimony to the 9/11 Commission is mistaken. Or is that too hard for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #134
140. For the record....
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 10:17 AM by SDuderstadt
I am not doing ANYTHING until you stop referring to it as a "propaganda link". You seem to think that anyone who doesn't buy your bullshit is a propagandist. If it's a "propaganda link", kindly point to any factual error it commits. It's a well-reasoned analysis that incorporates testimony, notes, public records, news accounts and, beyond that, it does one important thing I am certain your "sources" (not referring to Mineta) DON'T do. It points out where it could possibly be wrong and strongly urges the reader to research the issue themselves and merely take the analysis at face value. Does that sound like propaganda to you? How many pieces of evidence do you need above and beyond what is provided? How many times does Mineta have to say that he could be wrong about the times before you quit flogging this?

In a different light, let's say that Mineta IS right about the time. What do you think that proves or demonstrates? Lay it out for us, mhatrw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #140
146. It's telling that you are afraid to advance your own argument.
Instead, you hide behind a propaganda site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #61
148. His story does match everything else, just not how the commission report lays it down
Edited on Thu Jun-12-08 07:26 AM by elias7
I submit that Mineta was mistaken on time insofar as he arrived minutes before AA77 hit the Pentagon. Mineta arrives at PEOC according to the USSS alarm log presented the the Commission at 0937. Six minutes later at 0943 AA77 crashes into the Pentagon.

The attempt to square his words with 9/11 commission report makes no sense, as it is dubious that this conversation took place at 1010-1015 and referred to UA93. First, Mineta was quite specific about there being a plane on radar and the Pentagon being hit (see text of Mineta's testimony in eomer's post 67). This does not sound like a projected flight path (that has been suggested re: UA93). Second, there was no crash (that he refers to in his testimony), since UA93 had already crashed at the time of the conversation noted in the 9/11 report.

The text of the 1010/1015 conversation the 9/11 commission used was from Scooter Libby's testimony (and some from Lynne Cheney's) and bears a vague resemblance to Mineta's testimony, and is in my belief being used to obfuscate or explain away Mineta's testimony.

Secret Service agents Nelson Garabito and Terry van Steenburgen testified to the Commission that the VP had not yet evacuated at 0933, but if Mineta didn't show up until 0937, there is not necessarily an inconsistency. It would be nice to have access to Delmonico's testimony or Mary Matalin's notes, upon which pieces of the timeline seems to be based.

The point is, it is not the timing that is the issue for me, but Mineta's certainty that this conversation refers to a real (not already crashed) plane, and moments later the Pentagon was hit. How could he be mistaken about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. We're hardly "ignoring" Mineta...
there are conflicting accounts in just about anything, let alone a large scale catastrophic event. What I find interesting is you're accusing us of "ignoring" Mineta while you are plainly ignoring everything that contradicts Mineta. When you look at the big picture, it's far more likely that Mineta is the one who's getting it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #64
149. see post 148
Mineta cannot possibly be getting wrong the fact that the conversation happened before the Pentagon was hit, and that there was a real plane on the radar. Read his text.

His testimony should not be discounted because he may have been off by 15-20 minutes (probable arrival at PEOC at 0937 instead of 0920).

The 1010 conversation provided by Libby is somewhat similar (e.g. "plane is x miles out...") but cannot be the same conversation Mineta heard. I would postulate this was damage control and though I haven't checked, I would bet that Libby's testimony came after Mineta's.

Don't discount the whole of Mineta's testimony because he got his arrival time off. The arrival of Cheney is confusing to me in that the testimony from SS agents, Cheney(s) and Matalin are not accessible, and I find that problematic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #149
153. We're not discounting his testimony at all...
Edited on Thu Jun-12-08 10:36 AM by SDuderstadt
we are discounting theories that claim his testimony means Cheney was in the PEOC before the attacks even began. See the subject line of the OP. It's utter bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. Not sure what you mean by that.
Obviously Mineta wasn't in the PEOC before the 911 attacks began. What reason did he have for being there on what would have been just a normal day like any other? No one thinks that or is saying that, even though an utterly literal reading (devoid of any common sense or thought process) of the OP subject line might be that. Clearly the OP is talking about the question of whether Mineta was in the PEOC before the 911 attack on the Pentagon began.

And if you discount that (that he was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack began) then you do pretty much discount all of his testimony about that period of time, whether you realize it or not. His testimony contains intertwined relationships between the time, the presence of Mineta and Cheney in the PEOC, the flight path and timing of flight 77 approaching the Pentagon, his contemporaneous conversation with Monte Belger about the same, the Cheney order to the officer in the PEOC, and the crash at the Pentagon. If he is wrong about the time and was not in fact in the PEOC at least a few minutes before the crash at the Pentagon then he must be wrong about pretty much all of it and all its internal relationships. In other words, he would have to be delusional on this whole account in order to be wrong about the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. I have little else to add to eomer's response to you (post 148)
Either the man is utterly delusional or he was there just prior to a plane hitting the Pentagon. I have read his testimony, the 9/11 report/footnotes, etc. over and over and I don't see how his testimony can mean anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #55
73. Where is this "evidence"? What does it consist of? Who provided it to whom? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #73
79. See my earlier reply...
you're confirming that you haven't bothered to fully research the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. As usual, you have nothing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. No, as usual, YOU have nothing n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. My evidence is Mineta's publicly released testimony to the 9/11 Commission and
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:28 PM by mhatrw
his recent confirmation of that testimony.

In comparison, you have some Philip Zelikow produced footnotes indicating that some unknown people may have contradicted Mineta's testimony in some unreleased documents produced by unknown members of the Bush Administration (proven liars). Whose evidence is more convincing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Jesus, Dude....
Even Mineta admits he could have been mistaken about the time. Did you know that? Doesn't exactly sound like he is making the case that he couldn't have gotten it wrong, does it.....


Here are Mineta's own words when he was "interviewed" by some truther group.


Interviewer: I don't want to ask a rhetorical question, but was Vice President Dick Cheney already at 9:20 there...

Mineta: I might have been mistaken on the 9:25, but he was already there.


In case you accuse me of fabricating this, here's the link to the video of the "interview". It's about 30 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o


Sounds like your star witness isn't anywhere near as certain about the time as you claim.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. I have a witness who produced public testimony.
Where is the public testimony of the other witnesses who supposedly contradicted Mineta? Either produce this testimony or admit that you have nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. Your witness has publicly admitted he could be wrong N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. You have no witnesses. You have no contradictory testimony.
Your conviction that Mineta's testimony is mistaken is based on nothing but blind faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. Bullshit, mhatrw.....
Even your own witness is expressing doubt as to the time and you're still drawing a conclusion based on something your own witness has impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #118
129. I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm simply saying that Mineta's public testimony
is the best on the public record testimony we have of what Cheney was doing on 9/11. If you know of better testimony on public record that contradicts Mineta's testimony, why don't you share it with us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Mineta confirmed that it was flight 77
Mineta confirmed this. Here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o ( 6 min )

Also note the times :

"...since we know that at 9:34, the plane was 5 miles out, the plane would have traveled 45 miles in about 8 minutes according to Minetas timeline. Assuming the plane traveled at 400mph, it would have taken almost 7 minutes for the plane to travel 45 miles. From this calculation, Minetas timeline is accurate to within a couple of minutes. Mineta arrived at around 9:20 and he recalled that the young man told Cheney the plane was 50 miles out about 5 or 6 minutes after he entered the PEOC. Minetas memory that the plane was 50 miles out at 9:26 proved to be very close to the actual time that the plane was in fact 50 miles out, which would have been around 9:27, only 1 minute off. So when Mineta said the conversation occurred probably about five or six minutes after he arrived, it would have been more like six or seven minutes, or maybe he arrived closer to 9:21, or some combination thereof. But the bottom line is that Minetas timeline proved to be as accurate as could be expected and nearly exactly fits with his assumption that the conversation concerned the plane approaching the Pentagon."

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/250906_norman_minet...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Mineta is mistaken. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Yes, because some silly internet poster knows more than the man who was there, right?
:eyes:

Seriously, do any of you apologists/deniers *ever* stop and think about how stupid you sound? Do you NOT realize how arrogant you sound when you state so authoritively that "Mineta is mistaken"? Who was there, you.. or Mineta?

That's what I thought...

"Debunkers"... :rofl: what a riot!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Notice also
According to the commission report, the episode with the young man telling Cheney that the plane is 50 miles out etc, happened later on, when Flight 93 was approaching, only it wasnt Flight 93 approaching, it was the computers giving estimates of how the plane would have approached ( but it had allready crashed ).

But this doesnt fit with what Mineta tells us, about the target going off the screen, and about getting word about an explosion at the Pentagon :

"04:05:39 NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY :

He said, uh-oh, we just lost the bogey, meaning the target went off the screen. So I said, well, where is it? And he said, well, we're not really sure."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/abcne...

------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOFgekbanc ( 2 min )

Mineta says ( at the very end ) that someone came in and told them that there had just been an explosion at the Pentagon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
34. Dick Cheney was not evacuated from his office until 9:35 a.m.
At 9:33, the tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport picked up a hotline to the Secret Service and told the Service's operations center that "an aircraft (is) coming at you and not talking with us." This was the first specific report to the Secret Service of a direct threat to the White House. No move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time. As the officer who took the call explained, "(I was) about to push the alert button when the tower advised that the aircraft was turning south and approaching Reagan National Airport." 208

American 77 began turning south, away from the White House, at 9:34. It continued heading south for roughly a minute, before turning west and beginning to circle back.This news prompted the Secret Service to order the immediate evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. Agents propelled him out of his chair and told him he had to get to the bunker. The Vice President entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37. 209 (pp. 39-40 (pdf 56-57), 9/11 Commission Report).

208. USSS memo, interview of Gregory LaDow, Oct. 1, 2001, p. 1. Shortly after the second attack in New York, a senior Secret Service agent charged with coordinating the President's movements established an open line with his counterpart at the FAA, who soon told him that there were more planes unaccounted for-possibly hijacked- in addition to the two that had already crashed.Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time. See Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004); USSS memo, interview of Nelson Garabito, Oct. 1, 2001; see also Terry Van Steenbergen interview (Mar. 30, 2004).

209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004). (p. 464 (pdf 481), 9/11 Commission Report).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
59. We know from Jane garvey's written statement to the Nine Eleven Commission
Penned AFTER she testified to the Commission, that there was an open line between the FAA and NORAD starting at about 8:38. So NORAD had the info about planes approaching Washington DC, and I imiagine that since Cheney was always on top of things such that the earlier any one reports him being in a bunker, the more truthful the report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
75. Exactly as I thought. Your "evidence" is Zelikow's interpretation of
several Bush Administration created documents not available in the public domain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. It's pretty silly to think all the commission members....
just fell in line behind Zelikow. Somehow I think Ben-Veniste, Gorelick, Roemer, Kerrey and Hamilton would take issue with your characterization. I'm pretty sure you have limited insight into how the commission went about its work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #80
87. So the people picked specifically BECAUSE they would fall in line
with the official story would not?

Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission is on public record. Now he has confirmed this testimony.

Produce the public record of the testimony that leads you to conclude that Mineta is mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
97. You're claiming Gorelick was picked because she would fall in line?
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 05:52 PM by SDuderstadt
You're claiming Ben-Veniste was picked because he would fall in line? Do you even know who Ben-Veniste is? Do you know how members of the commission were even selected? Are you claiming that Bush selected them all? I am anxious to see your answer here.

I'm also trying to tally up all the logical fallacies you committed in one post.

"So the people picked specifically BECAUSE they would fall in line with the official story would not?".

1) "Begging the question" in about 3 different ways - as to who would have been picked and why these people specifically were picked, as well as what the "official story" is.

2) As mentioned in one of my previous posts, this is another example of "affirming the consequent", even assuming we get past the problem with "begging the question". Your argument goes something like this.


Only people who would fall in line with the official story were picked for the 9/11 Commission.
Gorelick, Roemer, Kerrey, Ben-Veniste and Hamilton were chosen for the 9/11 Commission.
Therefore, they would automatically fall in line with the "official story". Honestly, mhatrw, you're making my head hurt with your inability to think critically.

BTW, how are you doing with that simple Logic question I asked you in another post? Making any progress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. It's amazing how you manage to find time to discuss anything except the point..
Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission is on public record. Now he has confirmed this testimony.

Produce the public record of the testimony that leads you to conclude that Mineta is mistaken or admit that you have nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. For the last fricking time, mhatrw....
Mineta says he could be wrong about the time. Hardly sounds like certainty to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. So you admit you have nothing. I'm glad that is finally settled. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-10-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. It's hardly settled, except in your mind...
Edited on Tue Jun-10-08 07:17 PM by SDuderstadt
You won't even address the doubts your own witness expressed regarding the timing, maybe the link below will help you, but I doubt it. It's too bad YOU weren't tapped for the 9/11 Commission. I'm sure all of this would be resolved.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #119
131. What bullshit. So you post a propaganda link to make your "point."
Read that link yourself and then use logic to explain whose direct on the record eyewitness testimony conflicts with Mineta's testimony. Of course, if that is too difficult for you, we will have to assume that you have nothing as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #131
133. Propaganda link????
Wtf? Did you read all the way through it? You couldn't possibly have. Can you point to any factual misrepresentation? Here's a hint, mhatrw: you can't dismiss things that contradict your goofy theories simply by claiming it's propaganda. It's extensively source and does exactly what I claimed it does, which is draw together facts and information from many different sources to sort through it logically. You seem to only want to look at things that allege MIHOP. Your confirmation bias is so obvious to anyone who listens to you prattle on and on. I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #133
135. It's your fucking "evidence", not mine.
Now go through the link you posted and extract the direct on the record eyewitness testimony that has led you to conclude that Mineta's direct on the record eyewitness testimony to the 9/11 Commission is mistaken. Or is that too hard for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #135
141. Do you think things are only proved by eyewitness testimony???
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 10:26 AM by SDuderstadt
If so, why do criminal trials not rely only on eyewitness testimony? Eyewitnesses are confronted routinely in trials with physical evidence that contradicts their recollections and subsequently have to recant their previous testimony. You seem to think it is impossible for Mineta to be wrong even though he has publicly stated he cound be wrong about the time. Like a typical CT, you igonre all the contradicting evidence and keep flogging the bits and pieces that supported your ad hoc hypothesis. It gets tiring.

I have said all I am going to say at this point and I am content to let other readers here follow the link I gave you and evaluate the evidence for themselves. As I have said previously, it incorporates not only eyewitness testimony, it also relies on publicly available records, published news accounts, etc. I have no idea where you think you're going with this or what you think Mineta's recollection, if true, proves. If you think it's evidence of MIHOP based on a faulty premise that Cheney was in the PEOC BEFORE the attacks even began, then present your case. I would also suggest you write the Secret Service and accuse them of lying about the timelines and see if you can find someone to prosecute them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #141
147. Where is the better evidence than Mineta's on the record eyewitness testimony?
Please share this superior evidence with us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #147
151. I have repeatedly....
you just don't like facts which contradict your goofy theories. Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #151
158. You have repeatly refused to produce any testimony that contradicts
Mineta's on the record testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
39. I'm sure we all agree
That a new investigation without the Whitehouse obstruction of the last one is needed.
No one could dispute that the last one was obstructed. Could they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Would that make you happy?
Or, if the same information is brought out, would you call foul?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. So you're happy with the White House obstructed version?
Why am I not surprised?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Actually, I am surprised
I did not think that anyone who posts in this forum was really satisfied with the "official" 9/11 investigation/911 Commission Report.

Color me naive, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. If the same information came out
it would mean that the same unanswered questions were still unanswered and I would not be happy.
A new inquiry where the Whitehouse was as obstructive as the last one would not be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
46. Omigod! I have irrefutable evidence of a ...
smoking gun! It's obvious that Mineta is only APPEARING to contradict Cheney to throw us off the trail that Mineta was in on it and he and Cheney were working together.


Consider the following:


Mineta....M...I...N...E...T...A


Cheney...C...H...E...N...E...Y


Do you notice anything unusual? Yup, that's right....both names have exactly SIX letters!! Do you honestly think this could be a mere coincidence? Of course not!

And it gets even more strange. Consider:


Bush...B...U...S...H


Rove...R...O...V...E


Card...C...A...R...D

And, it gets even deeper....W's younger brother's last name ALSO has 4 letters! Don't believe me? I'll prove it.

Bush...B...U...S...H. Shocking, I know.


It's also clear that NYC was in on it too! How do I know, you ask? Simple. Consider:

Rudy....R...U...D...Y. 4 letters!

Now for the real piece de resistance!

I've never believed Bush and Co. could pull 9/11 off on their own. And, they didn't. They had prior inside help from, believe it or not, the CLINTON administration.

Now, you can scoff all you want, but I have absolute proof. Ready?

Bill...B...I...L...L. 4 letters too. Beyond that, think about this:

WTC1...W...T...C...1. 4 letters!

WTC2...W...T...C...2. 4 letters!

Now, I know that some of you "debunkers" will say, "Hey!! Now, wait just a darn minute! Clinton's first name is actually William!". Well, you can try to distract, spam or attack us with nuisance posts all you want. "Truth" is cropping up all over! Whatcha gonna do?


P.S. If you question my theory, it's clear you've not only drunk the Kool-aid, it's also clear you're a shill for Bush!


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. I thought you had some big deposition to get caught up on and couldn't debate
with someone else who proved you wrong. What happened to that? You have time for silliness, stalking & harrassing a woman, and your usual inane blather, but not actual debate?

Why am I not surprised?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
159. Cheney and Mineta are both on record stating they were in PEOC before Pentagon hit
On MTP 9/15/01
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.


Mineta on MSNBC:
MINETA: And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?" He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position." So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?" He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach." And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport." And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later,someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon." So I said, "Monte, is there something -- can you identify it as being at the Pentagon?" He said, "No, we can't really pinpoint it like that." Then about that time someone broke into our phone conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we've had a call from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines airplane go into the Pentagon."


So here is the problem: The Pentagon was hit at 0937 (or some reports as late as 0945). The 9/11 commission report places Cheney at PEOC later, based on testimony that is unavailable from Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Libby and a number of SS agents. Someone is lying, but Mineta has been on record numerous times stating he was in PEOC prior to the Pentagon being hit. Cheney admitted he was there as well. The 9/11 commission is WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. They had the SS logs....
apparently this is only a mystery to hardcore "truthers". I'd suggest you write to Roemer, Ben-Veniste, Gorelick, Kerrey and Hamilton and accuse them of assisting a cover-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Mineta arrived before the crash, according the log
Mineta arrives at PEOC according to the USSS alarm log presented the the Commission at 0937. Six minutes later at 0943 AA77 crashes into the Pentagon.

Please refrain from your snide attacks and answer the simple question:

How does the 9/11 commission report square with the fact that both Cheney and Mineta stated they were in PEOC prior to the Pentagon crash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #161
163. SDude, invoker of logical fallacies, where did you go?
Can you find the logical fallacy in my argument, or are you unable to debunk Mineta as a smoking gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #160
168. What did the SS logs say? Who created them when? Whose testimony were they based on?
According to you, Mineta's on the record eyewitness testimony must have been mistaken but some unknown, unreleased logs supposedly created by some unknown persons based on some unknown testimony must be true. Do you realize how ridiculously illogical you are being?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
174. FOIA
"Is a May 2008 Secret Service Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Secret Service for records related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence of a pattern of obstruction of the public's legal right to government records?

(...)

Within this Secret Service reply, it is indicated that requested Secret Service records documenting the names of all persons admitted entry to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center on September 11, 2001 and the arrival time of vice president Dick Cheney, could not be located."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16145

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #174
175. It's evidence of a poorly worded FOIA request.
The actual titles of these documents are cited in the 9/11 Commission report. USE THEM. Work from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #175
176. The reply indicates
that they know what the documents are but they could not be located. In trying to locate a document you are acknowledging it's existence. They didn't say there is no such document(s).

Amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #176
177. Nope. You're reading into it.
They very likely took that precise wording, put it into a search window, and "Oops, no documents."

They don't say there is no such document(s) because that's not the game they're playing. If you want the actual documents (or at least get further into the process) request the actual documents by name.

That is, unless you guys are playing a "Mean Old Government" game. If you actually want the documents, ask for them by name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #177
178. The reply is no "no documents"
you are reading into it what you want.

The actual reply is "documents could not be located", not "no documents" or "which document?".

Amazing, much like the log book of the submarine that sank the General Belgrano.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #177
182. Yeah, that's the ticket!
They just didn't know which 9/11 Secret Service logs documenting the names of the all persons admitted entry into the PEOC the petitioner was talking about!

I don't know what's funnier: that you expect people to actually believe this or that you expect people to actually believe that you believe this! "It was all the fault of the people wanting to know the answers! It was an honest effort on the part of the people withholding the information!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #175
179. File no. 20080330
Edited on Mon Jun-16-08 12:55 PM by k-robjoe
Maybe Im getting this wrong...
Isnt this the numbers of the files requested?

File no. 20080330

File no. 20080331

These numbers are mentioned in the answer they got.

Here :

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee147/S1kun1t/Secret...

Edit : Maybe they would need the number of the specific document?
But this sounds very strange. If they had a review of the files, and couldnt find the document...
Wouldnt they clarify in their answer that they need the number of the specific document?

"A review of the Secret Services system of records indicated that there are no records or documents pertaining to your requests in Secret Service files."



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #179
184. The file number is of the requests being made, like a case number.
This happened before. The FOIA for the Pentagon videos asked for any video in which the plane is seen hitting the Pentagon. Well, there aren't any videos of that. However, if they'd asked specifically for the Citgo video or the Doubletree video, they would have gotten them a lot sooner. Or any video recorded in the vicinity of the Pentagon during the time of the attack. That would have been broad enough without the specific detail that allowed the responder to disallow the request.

This is life under Bush. No doubt when we get a Democrat in there, the FOIA rules will go back to the way they were under Clinton, when public servants acted a little more like servants. Maybe the requests should wait until 2008. If not, ask for the specific documents by name and send the request around to a number of different agencies that might be expected to have them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #184
185. Appeal
Apparently an appeal was sent, two weeks ago :

05/07/2008 :

"I believe my request was specific enough to indicate information contained within the SS logs.

I already have sent an appeal indicating the 9/11 Commision's reference to these logs."

( "For the Vice Presidents time of arrival in the shelter conference room, see White House record, PEOC Shelter Log, Sept. 11, 2001" )

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15443

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-31-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
187. In 04 Interview, Cheney Denied Role in C.I.A. Leak
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
188. Thank you for keeping this clear and in front of us . . . Cheney = TREASON . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
189. too late.these facts have been placed under a cone of silence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aldo Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
190. Mineta needs to say everything he knows so there's no motive for the High Perps to kill him eom
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #190
191. "Truther Logic"....
Mineta knows something that the "high perps" would kill him for but, so far, they haven't touched him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. It's Like The Lincoln Assassination....

Everyone involved in that conspiracy eventually died.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #192
193. Or in the JFK assassination when someone tangential would die...
18 years later at 76 and buffs would immediately conclude the guy had been capped because "he knew something".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #193
194. It worked for King Tut

Took a while, but everyone involved in discovering his tomb died.

Everyone that built it, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. I think in Logic...
that's a variation of "found significance".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC