The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

There was no stand-down order. As I recall, there are something like 1700 flights taking off and landing at various airports through out the NEADS (Northeast Air Defense) area. Instructing a pilot to take out specific an American Airlines or United Airlines based on nothing other than their being an American or United paint scheme on the fuselage isn’t going to happen.

As for “normal circumstances”…we have not had an actual hijacking in the US since the 70’s.

 

Official Conspiracy Theory.

 

The Mineta testimony strongly suggests there was one although no one knows for sure because no one seems to know what the "order" was that "still stands". However, that a stand down took place is the obvious conclusion based on the fact that there were numerous warnings prior to 9/11, the fact that no significant action was taken by the US government to try to stop the 9/11 attacks during the 2 hours that the alleged hijackings were known and that 3 out of 4 targets were hit with perfection completely unmolested. That 19 hijackers were able to thwart a $multi-trillion intelligence/military/defense system second to none on the planet and penetrate its headquarters successfully without any insider help (according to the OCT) does not make any sense and the story is intellectually insulting. Even if no other part of the 9/11 incident was an inside job, the stand down clearly was in itself.

 

I'll address this here in order not to go off-topic in the other thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=487385&page=5&p=1066927917#post1066927917

That's all been addressed here. Go find where it's been addressed and give your rebuttals to what was said. If you insist I address again what's already been addressed as if it hadn't been addressed, you're just playing games.

 

Thank you. You would not be off topic because almost everything you post questions the OCT. The poster you're responding to however questions YOU (and other posters) and not the OCT. So bottom line any discussion with him is more appropriate in this thread.

 

Why would no one know what the order was? Lee Hamilton asks Mineta to talk about what he heard when the authorisation was given to shoot down hijacked aircraft.

Mineta's testimony does not support a stand down, it supports a shoot down order. We know from multiple sources it was the shoot down order for UAL93, not a stand down for AAL77. Mineta unfortunately has his time line off by over 30 minutes, yet we have more than enough evidence to piece together what he was talking about.

[video=youtube;00N9zikO5Ds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00N9zikO5Ds[/video]

 

I don't believe I've read too many posts from OCT defenders who actually use the pronoun "I" as opposed to "we". They all pretend they speak for everyone. IMO because that's more comfortable for them, I see it as a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome.

Well then YOU're convinced, good for YOU. YOU even brought along a video of a guy who has to comfort YOU with his personal explanation.

Yeah that's gotta be it, Mineta was confused. For every single one of the thousands of OCT anomalies or contradictions, there's always an excuse.

No YOU have more than enough evidence, don't include me in your "we" nonsense. For me, the Mineta testimony was deliberately omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report for good reason. It's called a COVERUP, one of many thousands.

 

lol it's my own video.

It's not an excuse, it is a fact. My video listed 10 reasons why Mineta was remember the right events for the wrong period of time. Try focusing on the facts instead of emotion.

It was omitted because it was chronologically inaccurate. For the 10 reasons listed in my video, Mineta was remember the right events for the wrong period of time.

But thanks for the hand-waving response to my video, in your next response how about you actually respond to the evidence presented within it, instead of emotional opinions?

[video=youtube;00N9zikO5Ds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00N9zikO5Ds[/video]

 

Even better, how about you respond in the appropriate thread? Like this one I created over 3 years ago http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/332863-another-mineta-thread.html

 

Why? You're convinced, I'm not, OBVIOUSLY. And if your objective is to try to convince me you're wasting your time. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you, I don't care. For me what's most important about Mineta's testimony is that it wasn't included in the 9/11 Commission Report deliberately (as with thousands of other glaring issues that were excluded from the better named 9/11 OMISSION REPORT), and the reason is COVERUP, obviously. For you it's about trying to convince others that it wasn't a stand down order that Mineta was talking about. I don't need Mineta's testimony to know there was a stand down on 9/11, the history speaks for itself, 9/11 happened and there was not one significant attempt by the $multi-trillion US intelligence/military apparatus and Bush administration to prevent it from happening. Defend the OCT all you want, for me it's indefensible and treasonous.

 

Re Mineta, I guess the idea is whether or not he was complicit or had prior knowledge??? I've never quite understood the Mineta significance.

 

The significance is the implication that Mineta's testimony was about a stand down order for AA77. IMO the bigger significance is that it was covered up and by covering it up, it tends to lend credibility to the implication. In other words, if they were really confident it was an order not to shoot down UA93, then why didn't the 9/11 Commission just publish his testimony and make that claim? A coverup is always about protecting criminals, there is no other valid reason. So an intelligent person who cares about what happened on 9/11 should be asking why it was covered up, not provide unsupported excuses for the coverup. And this is always the pattern with OCT defenders, they always defend it (or find all sorts of excuses for the thousands of convenient coincidences/anomalies) and never ask any significant questions about it. The point couldn't have been made any clearer in the thread I started asking posters to post their OCT questions. You won't read one single significant question from an OCT defender.

 

It's hard to allow yourself to become convinced when you refused to even view material. Instead you're happy to repost lies. Nice.

No, my objective is not to convince you, it's to let anyone else who ever views this thread know that you are reposting nonsense.

Why would the Commission Report include testimony which is inaccurate?

Correct.

Again, you are reposting lies which you do not allow yourself to learn otherwise. There were plenty of attempts by the military to intercept hijacked aircraft that morning, over the first 40 minutes they scrambled 5 fully armed fight jets in an attempt to hunt down hijacked aircraft. You cannot hunt down what you don't know is there, and the information was not getting to the military fast enough because there was mostly mass confusion about exactly what the hell was going on. You would know this if you ever took the time to listen to the massive quantity of air traffic audio and NEADS audio released from that day.

The fact that an order was passed to shoot down United 93, and this order was overheard by Mineta, is enough to show you are wrong in your assertion that the military was stood down.

 

Sorry not interested in your cognitive dissonance (see above).

 

Cool story bro. My point has been made, the evidence has been presented, and anyone who looks at this thread will see you are wrong. That's all I'm here for.

 

Ah you're here for me. Sorry but I'm here to discuss 9/11 issues, I'm not here to discuss you or me. The Mineta testimony is only one very minor detail that's deliberately missing from the OCT (among thousands of other facts) and it speaks for itself. You can put all sorts of window dressing on it and try to turn it into something else and/or make it all about me but it doesn't change the facts. There are plenty of other much more important issues about 9/11 to discuss. Enough said, now back to me I guess, that's what YOU're here for.

 

You're right, it does speak for itself when you line it up with all the other facts. It shows the military was willing to shoot down hijacked aircraft, and indeed issued an order for it, totally debunking your blind assertions that the US stood down that morning.

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;1RtrcI6AHtk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtrcI6AHtk[/video]

 

There was a stand down on 9/11, that is so obvious, but not for you, and I'm ok with that, you are irrelevant. You can call it whatever you want, call me a liar, call it "debunking [my] blind assertions", invent all the excuses you see fit, if you think all that drivel helps. It's not going to change anything, for me the stand down was etched in the history of 9/11. 3 targets were hit incredibly perfectly without any significant attempt by the US intelligence/military apparatus to prevent or stop it from happening, before and during 9/11. There were also the very convenient and incredibly coincidental multiple war games on 9/11 designed to make sure it all went down as perfectly as it did. All under the Bush administration's orders, deliberate non (or worthless) action and watch. Line it up any whichever way makes you happy, the history and the facts speaks for themselves.

BTW it wasn't the US that stood down, the US government is not the US. There is a huge difference between a country and its government.

 

The assertion you made is that Mineta directly overheard part of this stand down. You have been presented evidence that this assertion is wrong. Regardless of everything else. you should admit you are wrong on this point and not try to fool others in future.

 

I don't need to make any assertions, Mineta's testimony speaks for itself. It's not up to me to interpret it for you. I don't care how you or anyone else wants to interpret it, that's an individual issue. It is what it is, period. The same is true with the fact that his testimony was deliberately omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. Any intelligent person would ask why, not invent excuses and comfort him/herself with those excuses (symptomatic of cognitive dissonance). Regardless, like I said, the stand down is a historical fact, with or without Mineta's testimony. Call it what you will so you can sleep at night, I personally call it a deliberate, calculated, planned STAND DOWN and no internet jockey (or devout OCT groveler) is going to convince me otherwise. Does that help? lol

 

Have you even listened to it?

Lee Hamilton - "I want to focus just a moment on the PEOC, you were there [snip] with the vice president, and we had that order given [snip] that authorised the shooting down of commercial aircraft, were you there when that order was given?"

Norman Mineta - "No I was not, I was made aware of it [snip]"

From the very beginning both Lee Hamilton and Norman Mineta are talking about the shoot down authorisation which was given by Bush that morning.

 

Read this one more time for comprehension:

Get it yet? If not, try an English language dictionary. And like I said before, my primary focus as to Mineta's testimony is why was it deliberately omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. Ok? Done, no longer interested in this repetitive line of discussion.

 

I have already shown no stand down occurred, and have also shown your use of Mineta's testimony is inaccurate. Time for you to give this one up.

 

So you're saying that you believe there was a 757 involved, but it flew over the Pentagon?

 

Yes. Watch this eight-part video.

National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 1/8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk


Pay special attention at the 7:15 time mark of part five.

National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 5/8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YPp4TYs7es