Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
acidhead

Luke Rudkowski confronts Dick Cheney

194 posts in this topic

February 14, 2011

Luke Rudkowski and James Lane of We Are Change confront Dick Cheney in Wahsington D.C. at CPAC 2/10/2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This belongs in the Conspiracy section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Acidhead, come on, you know that this goes in the conspiracy section. Don't play stupid.**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Acidhead, come on, you know that this goes in the conspiracy section. Don't play stupid.**

?

Its news to me. Some may disagree and that's okay... this is their opinion.

Dick Cheney was confronted with alarming questions:

“Hey Mr. Cheney, what did you do in the underground bunker on 9/11? Dick Cheney we know what you did on 9/11 with the standdown order. Norman Mineta testified against you on the 9/11 Commission report. What happened on 9/11?”

Yes.. this is news to me. While some choose to ignore these unanswered questions I don't.

This man represented an American Federal government that just witnessed Egyptians remove their dictator.... a dictator who was given billions of dollars from the american federal government..... a federal government which Mr. Cheney has benefited from in both public and private business.

Yes.. when I watch a young american citizen use his 1st amendment to ask questions to the former VP I tend to listen.

I listen because Im interested in the answers the former VP of America has to say.

In this video clip Cheney refused to provide any answers to the american citizen... nothing. In fact Cheney refuses to answer to any media regarding these questions. I'd expect this kind of action from a Mubarak or the Saudi King.... not a former VP of the 'supposed' beacon of personal liberty, the U.S.A.

This was news to me.

Am I 'stupid' because I feel this is news?

I don't think Im stupid..... no.

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Acid, this is not news to you. Nor is it a surprise to you. I would not call you stupid for feeling this is news, but your attempts at naivete are far from intelligent. Don't play coy. You know the difference between a conspiracy topic and a news topic. You have been told enough times, and I am tired of moving your topics. Don't do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cue dramatic music...

"The Pentagon...the most heavily defended building in the world..."

What a crock. I wish folks would actually do some homework instaed of just spouting inane statements. These folks watch too many SciFi channel movies, and think that's how the real world works.

That confronataion had the same credibility as Bart vs Buzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to counter the video's claims I found this:

My link

So this is basically just more of the same strategy of repeat ad infinitum no matter how long it takes to declare victory.

Edit:

Here's what Mineta told the 9/11 Commission about the events of 9/11. The testimony is lengthy, so we've snipped to include timeline-related issues only: by all means follow the link at the end to read the rest, or watch the full video here.

On Tuesday morning, September 11th, 2001, I was meeting with the Belgian transport minister in my conference room adjacent to my office, discussing aviation issues. Because of the agenda, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey was also in attendance.

A little after 8:45 a.m., my chief of staff, John Flaherty, interrupted the meeting. He asked Administrator Garvey and me to step into my office, where he told me that news agencies were reporting that some type of aircraft had flown into one of the towers of New York's World Trade Center. Information was preliminary, so we did not know what kind of aircraft nor whether or not it was intentional. Jane Garvey immediately went to a telephone and contacted the FAA operations center. I asked to be kept informed of any developments and returned to the conference room to explain to the Belgian prime minister that our meeting might have to be postponed.

In an incident involving a major crash of any type, the Office of the Secretary goes into a major information-gathering response. It contacts the mode of administration overseeing whatever mode of transportation is involved in the incident. It monitors press reports, contacts additional personnel to accommodate the surge in operations, and centralizes the information for me through the chief of staff. In major incidents, it will follow a protocol of notification that includes the White House and other agencies involved in the incident. These activities, albeit in the nascent stage of information-gathering, took place in these initial minutes.

A few minutes after my return to the conference room, my chief of staff again asked me to step back into my office. He then told me that the aircraft was a commercial aircraft and that the FAA had received an unconfirmed report that a hijacking of an American Airlines flight had occurred.

While Mr. Flaherty was briefing me, I watched as a large commercial jet flew into the second tower of the World Trade Center. At this point things began to happen quickly. I once more returned to the conference room and informed the minister of what had happened and ended the meeting. I received a telephone call from the CEO of United Airlines, Jack Goodman, telling me that one of United's flights was missing. I then called Don Carty, the CEO of American Airlines, and asked him to see if American Airlines could account for all of its aircraft. Mr. Flaherty reported to me that Jane Garvey had phoned to report that the CEO of Delta Airlines had called the FAA and said it could not yet account for all of its aircraft.

During this time, my office activated the Department of Transportation's crisis management center, which was located on the 8th floor at that time of the Department of Transportation headquarters, and provides for senior DOT personnel to conduct surge operations in a coordinated manner.

By this time, my office had contacted the White House. A brief moment later, the White House called my chief of staff and asked if I could come to the White House and operate from that location. I decided that, given the nature of the attack and the request, that I should be at the White House directly providing the president and the vice president with information.

You can read the rest of it at the link.

Edited by Agent X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory often claim that Mineta was referring to United 93 and not to unidentified plane coming towards Washington D.C. before the explosion at the Pentagon.

Now listen carefully to this interview..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another non-news related video:

If Mineta's testimony is to be taken into account, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be, questions about the timing of events the morning of 9/11 come into focus. Most obvious is, if the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it? Perhaps it was the danger of this question, and the danger that Cheney would have had to commit perjury to uphold the timeline reported in the mainstream press, that caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability

....and NOT under oath :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

February 14, 2011

Luke Rudkowski and James Lane of We Are Change confront Dick Cheney in Wahsington D.C. at CPAC 2/10/2011.

It’s to be expected that Cheney had nothing to say for himself.

What is disappointing is that the 9/11 Commission never adequately investigated this area of the U.S. response to the attacks.

Did Cheney have an order in place that would ensure the hijacked aircraft reached their targets?

The possibility exists and, if Mineta’s testimony is accurate, then it's a certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's missing here is that the 911 commission report puts cheney's arrival in the peoc at 10am. this is why minettas testimony is important, as it places cheney in the peoc half an hour earlier during the pentagon strike. it is therefore no surprise that minetta's testimony was taken down from the website. the 10am is clearly a lie, the purpose of a lie is to hide the truth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's missing here is that the 911 commission report puts cheney's arrival in the peoc at 10am. this is why minettas testimony is important, as it places cheney in the peoc half an hour earlier during the pentagon strike. it is therefore no surprise that minetta's testimony was taken down from the website. the 10am is clearly a lie, the purpose of a lie is to hide the truth.

Absolutely – if Mineta’s testimony is accurate then the 9/11 Commission, intentionally or not, have assisted in a cover-up by claiming that Cheney did not arrive in the PEOC until after the Pentagon impact.

The Commission to their credit did accept there is some ambiguity in Cheney’s time of arrival: -

“We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.”

Perhaps?

They really aren’t sure.

I don’t entirely blame the 9/11 Commission here as they were just reporting information supplied to them by Secret Service personnel. Those Secret Service personnel claimed that the timeline they gave “was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable.”

How convenient.

So the Commission aren’t sure at what time Cheney arrived, the records are no longer available, investigation into the area was not pursued, Cheney obviously isn’t talking and we must accept the word of an unnamed Secret Service agent.

And we have public testimony supporting a completely different story which is being ignored by the official story.

All the conditions required for foul-play to exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely – if Mineta’s testimony is accurate then the 9/11 Commission, intentionally or not, have assisted in a cover-up by claiming that Cheney did not arrive in the PEOC until after the Pentagon impact.

However, Mineta's testimony seems to be in conflict with everybody else who was in PEOC, who relate the events of the aide, his distance countdown and Cheney's orders to Flight 93, not Flight 77. Minetta is also inconsistent about his times and movements, suggesting he could not have reached PEOC until a later time than he claimed. This is by no means an open and shut case of Mineta telling the truth and Cheney lying. Here's a link that gives the detail:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, Mineta's testimony seems to be in conflict with everybody else who was in PEOC, who relate the events of the aide, his distance countdown and Cheney's orders to Flight 93, not Flight 77. Minetta is also inconsistent about his times and movements, suggesting he could not have reached PEOC until a later time than he claimed. This is by no means an open and shut case of Mineta telling the truth and Cheney lying. Here's a link that gives the detail:

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

There are no accounts that necessarily contradict Mineta, except for the unsupported timeline provided to the 9/11 Commission by the U.S. Secret Service.

The link that you provided is an exercise in obfuscation – a lot of mud slinging in the hope that some will stick. Just look at the grounds for questioning Mineta. The first, for example, which you allude to above: Packed timetable…

The article attempts to cast doubt on Mineta’s timeline but then is forced to concede that their own supposition is “not proof of anything” and “we certainly can't say it's impossible for Mineta to have followed that kind of timetable”.

Every so-called point of questioning follows a similar pattern of non-evidence… so what is the point?

That anyone can sling mud.

There is support for Mineta’s timeline found in comments from David Bohrer, Richard Clarke, Condoleezza Rice and even Dick Cheney himself along with news reports: -

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788

There are a myriad of details in Mineta’s testimony which prove the account can only be referring to Flight 77 incoming to the Pentagon.

When Mineta is later confronted with the 9/11 Commission timeline of Cheney’s arrival his surprise is apparent: -

“9:58? Oh no no no, I don’t know how that comes about.”

A paper has even been authored by a U.S. attorney who concluded the subject: -

“The conspirators know, and knew, that military chain-of-command is cumbersome and slow when the top moves slowly. The war games did most of the slowing down naturally, the principals hesitated just a bit, slowing it further, but the "orders which still stand" were the insurance policy, and Dick Cheney was the underwriter.”

So, to believe an ambiguous Secret Service source backed, not so surprisingly, by an official story apologist website…

… or to accept public testimony from a witness involved in events along with the analysis of a U.S. attorney.

It’s an obvious choice if you are honest.

The frustrating part is that the 9/11 Commission could have cleared-up the whole issue if only they had asked the right questions. But not for the first time they failed in the task, took the easy way out and chose to delete Mineta’s testimony from their report altogether.

This is not how a real investigation works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A paper has even been authored by a U.S. attorney who concluded the subject: -

“The conspirators know, and knew, that military chain-of-command is cumbersome and slow when the top moves slowly. The war games did most of the slowing down naturally, the principals hesitated just a bit, slowing it further, but the "orders which still stand" were the insurance policy, and Dick Cheney was the underwriter.”

Let me guess...an attorney with zero NORAD experience. He has no idea how quickly, or slowly, NORAD responds to real world events during an exercise.

I've also see much made of a former fighter pilot's remarks about how poorly NORAD performed that day...not surprising considering he was a NORASD pilot when they had 50 alert sites...

NORAD was not postured for the attack, the procedures for an in-CONUS event response by NORAD/FAA were far from adequate for that morning's events. It's just that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess...an attorney with zero NORAD experience. He has no idea how quickly, or slowly, NORAD responds to real world events during an exercise.

I've also see much made of a former fighter pilot's remarks about how poorly NORAD performed that day...not surprising considering he was a NORASD pilot when they had 50 alert sites...

NORAD was not postured for the attack, the procedures for an in-CONUS event response by NORAD/FAA were far from adequate for that morning's events. It's just that simple.

That may be so but it does not preclude Cheney apparently having an “insurance policy” for the attack. And as the paper does not criticise the NORAD response in any case, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no accounts that necessarily contradict Mineta, except for the unsupported timeline provided to the 9/11 Commission by the U.S. Secret Service.

The link that you provided is an exercise in obfuscation – a lot of mud slinging in the hope that some will stick. Just look at the grounds for questioning Mineta. The first, for example, which you allude to above: Packed timetable…

The article attempts to cast doubt on Mineta’s timeline but then is forced to concede that their own supposition is “not proof of anything” and “we certainly can't say it's impossible for Mineta to have followed that kind of timetable”.

But on the facts given, one can say that it's extremely unlikely.

There is support for Mineta’s timeline found in comments from David Bohrer, Richard Clarke, Condoleezza Rice and even Dick Cheney himself along with news reports: -

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788

And those same witnesses are quoted in my link confirming a different timeline.

So, to believe an ambiguous Secret Service source backed, not so surprisingly, by an official story apologist website…

… or to accept public testimony from a witness involved in events along with the analysis of a U.S. attorney.

It’s an obvious choice if you are honest.

To me, the most likely explanation is that Mineta, the one person out of step, lost track of the time. To claim that this interpretation is dishonest is all too typical of your resort to insult when you know your argument is weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But on the facts given, one can say that it's extremely unlikely.

One can say anything they like but…

  • Mineta has provided testimony and confirmed his timeline.
  • The 911myths article concludes that the timeline is quite possible.

Your “extremely unlikely” opinion is therefore based on nothing but a preference of belief.

That’s your choice, for what it’s worth.

And those same witnesses are quoted in my link confirming a different timeline.

Yes, those witnesses present events at a different or separate time – they are talking about later events in reference to Flight 93 and a shootdown order. They do not contradict the earlier events to which Mineta testified.

To me, the most likely explanation is that Mineta, the one person out of step, lost track of the time. To claim that this interpretation is dishonest is all too typical of your resort to insult when you know your argument is weak.

To claim that Mineta “lost track of time”, i.e. lost a whole hour somewhere (abducted by aliens perhaps, I don’t know), does not explain away the consistent detail of his account : -

“Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed.” I said, “Well, where is it?” He said, “It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now.” Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, “Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?” On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, “Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target.” I said, “Well, where is it?” He said, “Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport,” and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, “Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon.”

Any attempt to attribute the above description to Flight 93 at a later time around 10:15am (rather than Flight 77 coming into the Pentagon prior to 9:37am) is like trying to wedge a square peg into a round hole: -

  • Knowledge that the transponder was turned off.
  • The aircraft coming to within 20 miles of Washington (10 miles in another account).
  • The target being lost from radar.
  • The confirmation within short order that the Pentagon had been impacted.

These only fit with Flight 77.

So are you calling Mineta a liar?

You know, I’m going to go with the U.S. attorney that I linked above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your “extremely unlikely” opinion is therefore based on nothing but a preference of belief.

On the contrary, it's based on the list of things that Mineta claimed to have done and the limited time he claimed to have done them in. Also, by his account, he arrived at the Whitehouse at 9:17 and it was being evacuated, but the Whitehouse evacuation order was not given until 9:45.

Yes, those witnesses present events at a different or separate time – they are talking about later events in reference to Flight 93 and a shootdown order. They do not contradict the earlier events to which Mineta testified.

Their testimony of the events surrounding Flight 93 is uncannily close to Mineta's account which he claims for Flight 77. Either he is wrong about the time, or it was Groundhog Day all over again.

So are you calling Mineta a liar?

I'm saying he likely confused the time, but when this was pointed out he dug in his heels and refused to admit it, confabulating detail to back up his original story. He doubtless believes what he says, but that doesn't make it true. It's his word against everyone else who was there.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Long time since I've been on here but I noticed this thread and this was what got me looking into the possibility of a conspiracy.

If you want evidence that Dick Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58am, perhaps 10:00, then all you have to do is look at his interview with Tim Russert he gave on the 16th Sept 2001.

He claims he is in the PEOC with Mineta and Rice when he hears of the Pentagon attack. i.e. before 9:58 unless we are to believe that the VP didn't know about the attack on the Pentagon until 20 minutes after the attack and almost 10 minutes after it was confirmed on the news.

This ALSO contradicts the claims of the commission which says Cheney was in the corridor leading to the PEOC when he heard of the attack.

Every interview he gave after the one on the 16th Sept 2001, he changes his story.

I will go into more detail when I have more time and provide plenty of others statements who you may not be aware of who confirm that Dick Cheney was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack and probably as early as Mineta claims.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it's based on the list of things that Mineta claimed to have done and the limited time he claimed to have done them in. Also, by his account, he arrived at the Whitehouse at 9:17 and it was being evacuated, but the Whitehouse evacuation order was not given until 9:45.

There was an evacuation before the official one according to news reporters at the White House.

(9:22 a.m.) September 11, 2001: White House Begins Slowly Evacuating

Edit event

In a 9:52 a.m. report, CNN White House correspondent John King will state that, “about 30 minutes ago,” the White House had begun slowly evacuating. This evacuation proceeds in an orderly fashion. But later on, around 9:45 a.m., those evacuating will be ordered to run (see (9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001]

Their testimony of the events surrounding Flight 93 is uncannily close to Mineta's account which he claims for Flight 77. Either he is wrong about the time, or it was Groundhog Day all over again.
But Mineta clearly states he doesn't know anything about UA 93 until after it had crashed.

And he was talking to Belger who was obviously talking about a plane near the White House and Pentagon which UA93 was never anywhere near.

I'm saying he likely confused the time, but when this was pointed out he dug in his heels and refused to admit it, confabulating detail to back up his original story. He doubtless believes what he says, but that doesn't make it true. It's his word against everyone else who was there.

But Dick Cheney in his interview on 16th Sept with Tim Russert says that Mineta was not confused because according to him, Mineta was in the PEOC, they heard of the Pentagon attack, he told Mineta to get a report.

Mineta also claim that he gave the order to ground all planes at 9:45, just after they would have heard about AA77 which made Mineta shut down American airspace. So this has obviously doesn't mean that Mineta is wrong.

I will go into more details when I have more time.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims he is in the PEOC with Mineta and Rice when he hears of the Pentagon attack. i.e. before 9:58 unless we are to believe that the VP didn't know about the attack on the Pentagon until 20 minutes after the attack and almost 10 minutes after it was confirmed on the news.

Yes, if Cheney didn’t enter the PEOC until “perhaps at 9:58” and Mineta’s account were transposed to a later time than he actually states to fit with a Flight 93 phantom-trajectory (as the official story requires), this indicates from both parties that word of the Pentagon event was not received until some time after 10:00am.

Now considering MSNBC reported the Pentagon event at 9:39am and had live pictures on national television screens by 9:41am, it does not seem likely that the Emergency Operations Centre would be kept in the dark for 20 minutes or more!

No, the PEOC would be aware when everyone else was – right after it happened.

From Mineta’s account: -

I said, “Well, where is it?” He said,
“Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport,”
and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said,
“Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon.”

This cannot reasonably have occurred after 10:00am.

It can only fit at the time of the Flight 77 impact.

And Cheney was already on the scene with an order in place as Mineta testified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an evacuation before the official one according to news reporters at the White House.

(9:22 a.m.) September 11, 2001: White House Begins Slowly Evacuating

Edit event

In a 9:52 a.m. report, CNN White House correspondent John King will state that, “about 30 minutes ago,” the White House had begun slowly evacuating. This evacuation proceeds in an orderly fashion. But later on, around 9:45 a.m., those evacuating will be ordered to run (see (9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001]

Whatever, it's still after Mineta says he arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, it's still after Mineta says he arrived.

Walt a minute, your whole argument for dismissing Mineta's account relies on this evacuation.

And about 30 minutes ago from 9:52, is about 9:22am....I do not see how this disputes what Mineta claims considering about 30 minutes ago is nothing more than an estimation.

Also Cheney confirms in his interview on the 16th Sept that they evacuated people before the Pentagon attack.

MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any role in Speaker Hastert...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: ...speaker of the House being taken away?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We evacuated Speaker Hastert to a secure facility, and later, the rest of the congressional leadership. I also ordered the evacuation of Cabinet members. And so we sent Tommy Thompson, Ann Veneman, Gale Norton also up to a secure facility. And in the days since, we've always maintained to say - I've spent a good deal of my time up at Camp David since the president returned to the White House just so we weren't both together in the same place so we could ensure the survival of the government.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html

And here is a transcript from ABC on the morning of 9/11 from 8:53am.

JENNINGS: Thanks very much.

Let's go to the White House. Claire Shipman is on the phone.

Claire, what's that we're looking at?

CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting:

Well, that's what we're trying to figure out right now. All we know is it's this gigantic plume of smoke coming from behind the old Executive Office Building. And we're told that the White House itself, the West Wing at the very least, is being evacuated. The personnel from there are being asked to leave. We've sent people running over there to try to find out what it is. But we don't know yet.

JENNINGS: Now the old Executive Office Building is to the--slightly to the west and a fraction to the south. So we are looking southwest from a camera just across Lafayette Park which is north of the White House. The White House is to the left side, out of your picture. Maybe even the cameraman could give us some appreciation.

But you have no idea. Was that an explosion? Did you hear anything?

SHIPMAN: We did--we did not hear it. In fact, we were trying to figure out from the White House what security precautions they were taking around the White House in the wake of the apparent attacks on the World Trade Center. And we suddenly just saw this smoke rising from behind the old Executive Office Building. We have people on their way there now but it's like nothing I've ever seen. We've never seen that kind of smoke coming from--from anything that would ordinarily occur here.

JENNINGS: I must also tell you, Claire, I think if you think about what's behind the--the EOB there, you're really down in pretty open area. It doesn't look like a place where a building would be on fire.

SHIPMAN: No, that's right, although there are a number of building just behind the old Executive Office Building on G Street that could potentially be on fire. But nothing you would necessarily think of as--as a target. Apparently, we're also...

JENNINGS: Claire, let me interrupt you for a second. We now have that fire confirmed at the Pentagon. I have John McWethy at the Pentagon.

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm

So the question should be...How is Mineta wrong when Dick Cheney confirms that Mineta is with him in the PEOC when they hear of the Pentagon attack? :blink:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter, 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...

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...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. We had word the State Department had been bombed, that a car bomb had gone off at the State Department. Turned out not to be true, but we didn't know that at the time. We had a report that Norm had provided that there were six airplanes that might have been hijacked, and that's what we started working off of, was that list of six.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.