"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -forever." --George Orwell
Fight Orwell's vision, or get ready for a boot in your face!
9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?
by David Ray Griffin
With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge—that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.
According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58” (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission’s time is correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20 are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.
Mineta’s Report of Cheney’s Early Arrival
The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”
This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney, according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta’s 9:20 arrival. If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute contradiction between Mineta’s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report. Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?
One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story, however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.
In his usual form, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told a packed crowd at the Oriental Theater in Denver to stop whining about corporate media and become their own intelligence operatives. We the people have the same resources and tools that intelligence networks rely heavily on; it’s called “Google” he said.
In his hilarious analogy, the American people like baby birds wait each night in front of their television sets for the corporate news bird to land in their living room and lovingly puke down our necks with that day’s regurgitated news. Suggesting that as our own intelligence operatives we can’t allow CNN, FOX, NBC, and ABC to edit and cherry pick information, but ask questions and find the answers ourselves.
In that vein TruthAlliance.net Editor Jason Charles had a few questions for Mr. Ritter which he graciously allowed us to film. We explored 3 topics, if the Bush admin got its way in the mid-east what would it look like, how can these dis-separate yet justice driven revolutions in America unite, and his amazing thoughts on a new, fully empowered investigation into the cause of 9-11.
He asked, “Did Bush and Cheney Plan the demise of the building? Was this a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda? Or was it something in between? Well frankly we don’t know.” How important is this to establishing justice? Mr. Ritter seems to think it is an “absolute requirement to know what happened on 9-11”
This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes New York Times best selling author of The Shell Game, Steve Alten.
Steve Alten is a best selling author and gifted story teller and The Shell Game is Steve Alten at his best. Exciting and entertaining, and yet so informative, The Shell Game has the potential to bring 9-11 Truth to a much wider audience. Please consider purchasing your copy today at your local bookstore, online bookstore, or directly through The Shell Game website.
The Shell Game is “…a fictional thriller that deals with very real life and death issues that affect all of us. These include PEAK OIL (are we running out?) and the events of 9/11 that led us into a war in Iraq. The plot of the book extrapolates from both of these issues (and others) in order to show the reader what a dangerous path the world has been placed upon.”
The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead On Arrival By Mark H. Gaffney
A note to the reader: In December 2006 Mark H. Gaffney posted a scathing critique of the US government’s official report about the WTC collapse on 9/11. One year later, the case is stronger than ever. * *
01/04/08 “ICH” — – -In August 2002 the US Congress authorized the National Institute for Safety and Transportation (NIST) to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. The official instruction was not limited to conducting a building performance study, as some have claimed.[1] The primary stated objective of the investigation was to determine the cause of the collapse–––no less.[2]
When NIST released its final report in September 2005, critics charged that the agency had ignored evidence of explosions in the towers. The agency responded by asserting its scientific laurels. NIST insisted that its “200 technical experts” had conducted “an extremely thorough investigation.” NIST boasted that its staff “reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations,” yet, found “no corroborating evidence for a controlled demolition.” NIST also claimed that it had considered “a number of hypotheses for the collapse of the towers.”[3]
No doubt, many Americans were persuaded by this snow-job. Sad to say, few of our countrymen (or women) bother to read official reports, especially when they run to 10,000 pages. The persistent individuals who do, however, know that there are sound reasons to question all of the above; because a close reading of the NIST report shows that the agency assumed from the beginning that the Boeing 767 impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. The report gives no consideration whatsoever to alternative hypotheses, including the possible use of explosives, the leading candidate. Far from exploring other scenarios, NIST simply took it for granted that the impacts set in motion a chain of events leading to a catastrophic structural failure. Working backwards, NIST scientists searched for evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. Everything else was ignored or excluded. If it is not already evident to the reader, this is no way to conduct a scientific investigation. NIST then had the audacity to imply that it arrived at its favored collapse model through an exhaustive process of elimination. Most readers who merely browsed NIST’s 2005 Executive Summary probably were not aware that NIST’s stated conclusion was really an assumption. Consider this passage, for example:
“The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact.”[4]
The above comment about building codes is deceptive–––NIST readily concedes in its report that the towers survived the initial impacts. In fact, John Skilling, the structural engineer who designed the WTC, always claimed that they would. The towers survived, despite serious damage, because they were hugely overbuilt, redundant by design. Although the WTC’s soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the twin towers were extremely rugged buildings, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and even a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. Some have argued that the newer Boeing 767s caused much more damage because of their larger size, but in fact, the two Boeings are comparable. Although slightly smaller, the 707 has a greater cruise speed of 600 mph (as compared with 530 mph for a Boeing 767). Assuming both were to crash at this speed, the 707 would actually have greater kinetic energy.[5]
After the Boeing 767 impacts on 9/11 the severed steel columns simply transferred the weight of the building to other undamaged columns. The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6] Construction-grade steel begins to lose strength at 425°C (~800°F) and is only about half as strong at 650°C (1,202°F). NIST argues in its report that the crashed jetliners damaged or dislodged 100% of the protective insulation within the impact zone, while also spilling many thousands of gallons of jet fuel over multiple floors. The resulting 800-1,000°C (1,440-1,800°F ) blaze–––the report claims–––seriously weakened the now-exposed steel, leading to a global structural failure. In order to understand the official story, however, and why it fails to explain the WTC collapse, it is necessary to know more about the World Trade Center and how it was built.
On the grand chessboard of the power elite in this world, we may only represent insignificant entities insofar as we are concerned as individuals. However, when considered as a group, we have the potential for considerable influence. Our strength in numbers only serves our cause to the detriment when we blindly live our lives as an economic engine for the ruling class – it is our ignorance that works against us. Our strength is the realization of millions of independent thinkers who can influence the cause of freedom by affecting change where we ourselves hold the most power – as in boycotts of key industries and products.
At first I set upon the task of approaching 911 truth and justice by myself, and then by trying to seek out the help of others. I thought that if we could build up our strength through large numbers, we could overcome these evil forces and return the system to some humane state of being. This approach I now believe is entirely erroneous because of several reasons; the main one being the fact that these actions are precisely what the authorities expect from us. We are not going to beat them on their terms so we must alter the rules of engagement by utilizing a very effective solution which can achieve the same objective – while not endangering anyone to the inherent violence and manipulation of the state.
“All network television and radio are driven by advertising dollars. We can get the networks attention by targeting their sponsors, and therefore, have an impact on their advertising revenues. The most effective way of doing this is to boycott the products and services of the advertisers which choose to advertise on these various networks. There is strength in numbers and we need to make ourselves heard by hitting them where it hurts, in the pocket-book. This site is dedicated to beginning that process.”
There is another philosophical aspect to this direction of thought – there is no point in fighting fear and violence with the same methods used by those set against you – in which case you risk becoming that which you oppose. When we are illuminated with the light of truth and understanding, we can then use that power to influence the course of events and effect change. How long could they last if a majority of the people started to boycott key industries and products the corporations are dependent upon for rising profits?
Too often people can feel helpless against the giant machine of corporatism. 911 Blacklist gives us the opportunity and the mechanism with which we can take back control. I urge everyone to get involved with this project – indeed, the only way it can work is if sufficient numbers of people realize the power we have collectively.
With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge—that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.
