|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2007 15:47:40 GMT -4
Besides, advocating the overthrow of the government is technically sedition. Doing something about it is treason.
It doesn't matter if I point out to you who I consider innocent people, Turbonium, because you don't. And I don't want to get into an ideological argument about that, because you'll just ignore all evidence that disagrees with your perspective, as you always do. I will, however, note that you don't know much about US politics if you don't get what I meant by the reference to Mary Cheney.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 29, 2007 18:28:55 GMT -4
We can't even be sure Mineta was right about which plane was being discussed.
In fact we can be pretty sure he was wrong. He makes several assumptions based on when he learned things and gets his timing wrong. He describes people running from the White House and nearby buildings on his arrival, and event that didn't happen until 30 mins after he said he arrived. While a slow evacuation was occuring, people only started to pour out of the buildings and run at about 9:45am, after the Pentagon had been hit and another plane was reported coming, Flight 93. What Mineta tells us actually fits perfectly with a later timeline, yet contradicts every other timeline if we accept his timing. Given this, what are the odds that he simply got his times wrong by around half an hour?
Once his timeline is corrected by 30 minutes to match the known mass evacuation of the Whitehouse and surrounding buildings as well as other people who have given different (yet matching) timelines three things appear. First the incident moves to just around 10am rather then 9:30am meaning the plane was likely Flight 93 which was being being tracked using a last known heading a speed system (rather then live radar returns) and that the order that "Still stands" was in fact a shoot down order, the ironic thing being that this conversation would have occured after 93 had actually crashed, something that wasn't known about for some time after the event.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 29, 2007 18:36:59 GMT -4
Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Hmmmm? You think that claiming that OBL (a known enemy of the US) wasn't responsible for 9/11 (despite the fact he has repeatedly said he was involved and even handpicked the people for the mission) but that it was the US Government, could be classed as "adhering to their (The US's) Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 4, 2007 2:18:54 GMT -4
Could anyone explain how exactly he knew the plane was going to hit the Pentagon as opposed to, say, the White House or some other target? 10 miles out it could have been targeted for any building in Washington. It was only obvious what the actual target was when the plane made its final manoeuvre. How could Cheney have known which building to evacuate? Even if he knew, which of course he couldn't have evacuating probably would have been more dangerous because there would not have been enough time to get everyone out of and away from the building in time. A plane flying 500+ MPH would take about 7 minutes to fly 60 miles. We can't even be sure Mineta was right about which plane was being discussed. Could you have possibly made up a more feeble excuse than the examples above? 1. "How could Cheney have known which building to evacuate?"LOL! Right. So in other words.... Other buildings might have been the intended target, so he couldn't have warned all of them? Therefore.... ...warning the people inside just one of those buildings, like the Pentagon, would have been so unfair to the others? Or not worth it, without being sure the Pentagon was the target? So it's best to not warn anybody? Something along those lines? 2. "..evacuating probably would have been more dangerous because there would not have been enough time to get everyone out of and away from the building in time."Of course! It makes perfect sense now. Cheney should actually be applauded, for applying his brilliant sense of logic and foresight that morning! There wasn't a lot of time left for them to completely evacuate. So he decided that it was much smarter to not warn them at all! Why? Well, because - as most of us know - a partial evacuation is much more dangerous! So, if you should ever come under a similar terrorist attack, please remember the First Rule of Building Safety:: Always stay inside the target, if you aren't too sure how far away you can run from it! All sarcasm aside, there is absolutely no excuse for failing to warn others. The Pentagon would be the most obvious place to warn right away. There are many possible targets, fine. And not knowing which one is the true target, fine. But those are utterly ridiculous excuses for not warning anybody at all.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 4, 2007 5:27:23 GMT -4
You were the one who claimed he knew which building the aircraft was heading for. Without this information, evacuating people is as likely to move them into danger as out of it, particularly as the attackers can change their target according to what they see as they approach. For instance, crashing a plane into the entire Pentagon workforce standing in the emergency assembly area outside the building could well kill a lot more people than actually died in the attack.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 5, 2007 22:31:04 GMT -4
It's irrelevant really since Mineta's timeline was out by half an hour, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon, it was a predicted tracking of Flight 93 and the people at the Pentagon were told that it was coming, which caused a lot of panic on the ground because they thought that a second plane was coming in. The fact is that the conversation that Mineta overheard is in a number of testimonies from people in various places as it was being passed down the chain of command, and all of them put it after 10am, except one. Which is more likely, that they are all lying about when it occured, including the people doing resuce operations on the Pentagon who reported messages that are all but identical to what was being told to Chenny, or that Mineta was 30 minutes out with his timing because in the hectic nature of the day he lost track of time.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 7, 2007 17:53:23 GMT -4
I think trying to evacuate every building it "might have hit" would have been chaos at best. I think it's more than possible that people would've been trampled to death in the stampede. And, yes, I do think there would have been a stampede. But maybe that's just me. I do, however, think it would be incredibly irresponsible--think about this. There are literally dozens of high-profile buildings in the DC area that a plane could fly into, even assuming you could tell for sure that it wasn't just heading to the airport.
So. You evacuate the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the White House, the Pentagon, the various monuments, the J. Edgar Hoover building, etc., etc. The plane will only be able to hit one of those, and you don't know which one. You can't, because the terrorists weren't telling the people with phones. You may save lives, if the plane doesn't just crash into the milling herds of people, and if you can evacuate fast enough to get them out of the path of danger if the plane does crash into their building. Meanwhile, you have paralyzed any possible response, because all the important buildings in the area have been evacuated.
Is that a cold way of looking at it? Yeah, it pretty much is. However, it's also realistic. And say you do manage to evacuate all the possible buildings. Now, you've clogged every major artery in the city with people trying to get home, and I understand it's hard to get around DC at the best of times.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 7, 2007 19:37:40 GMT -4
I think trying to evacuate every building it "might have hit" would have been chaos at best.
Yet they did anyway, well the ones they figured were targets. Flight 77 was spotted on Washington radar as a return with no transponder shortly before it hit the Pentagon. No one was tracking it and there was no time to respond. The later "it's 10 miles out" plane was a prediction of Flight 93's path and because of it's approach the White House, Capital and Pentagon area were all evacuated.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on May 10, 2007 23:44:22 GMT -4
I've probably said this before on another thread here, but this thread demands a similar reply; as prone as young impressionable Muslims are to being talked into human suicide bombing an Israeli mall, an Iraqi cafeteria etc. etc., why is the proposition that what happened on 11 Sept 2001 was due to similar passions and wannbe martyrs so hard to grasp? The absurdity of these sorts of arguments makes me question if some of the folks proposing such things are in their right minds, or if they even pay any attention to the world around them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 11, 2007 4:28:48 GMT -4
See, there, you're trying to apply logic to the situation, and that's something the CTs don't bother with.
|
|