http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9368



While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks.1 In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of ‘Meet the Press,’ that's the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.”2

Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was---it was a remarkable moment in my career.”3

It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.

In praising Russert’s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.”4

Given Cheney’s appraisal of his interview with Russert as a “remarkable moment” in both American history and Cheney’s own career, we should apply Russert’s method to this interview, reminding ourselves of exactly what Cheney said, then comparing it with what was said about Cheney by the 9/11 Commission.
The Camp David Interview

After discussing with Cheney the US response to the 9/11 attacks, Russert turned to September 11 itself, asking Cheney where he was when he learned of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Replying that he was in his White House office, Cheney said that, after seeing the second attack on television, he convened a meeting in his office with Condoleezza Rice and others, then talked by telephone to President Bush (who was in Florida), discussing the public statement the latter might make. (This call would have needed to take place shortly after Bush left the classroom, which was reportedly at about 9:12,5 if it was to help him prepare his address to the nation, which was to be given at 9:30. The New York Times wrote: “[A]t 9:12, [Bush] abruptly retreated [from the classroom], speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.”6) Cheney then said:

“While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say ‘sir’ or ask politely. They came in and said, ‘Sir, we have to leave immediately, and grabbed me and. . .”7

Russert asked: “Literally grabbed you and moved you?” Cheney replied:

“Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.”

After confirming Russert’s supposition that this was Flight 77, Cheney continued:

“And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement. . . . [O]nce I got down into the shelter, the first thing I did--there's a secure phone there. First thing I did was pick up the telephone and call the president again, who was still down in Florida, at that point, and strongly urged him to delay his return.”

After discussing that advice in terms of the need to secure “presidential succession,” Cheney continued the narrative about his own movements that day, saying:

“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 called PEOC,8 the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta . . . . 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.”

After giving still more details, Cheney said: “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.” Cheney made clear, in other words, that he had everyone and everything he needed in the PEOC to take charge.

He then added: “But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.”

Summary of Cheney’s Account to Russert

According to what Vice President Dick Cheney told Tim Russert, only five days after 9/11, the sequence of events went like this:

1. The Secret Service came into Cheney’s office to take him downstairs after they “received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.” Although the plane “turned away and . . . flew a circle and came back in and then hit the Pentagon,” it was “when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House,” Cheney said, that “they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement.”

2. The Secret Service agents hustled Cheney down to the underground corridor (which he also called the “immediate shelter,” evidently meaning the part of the bomb shelter that one reaches first).

3. While in this corridor, he used the secure phone to talk to the president again, this time urging him to delay his return to Washington.

4. He went from this corridor to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC (which is also called the “shelter conference room”).

5. After he arrived in the PEOC, he learned that the Pentagon had been hit. Cheney’s statement here---“[W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit”---is ambiguous. Did he mean that he arrived there within a short order? Or that, within a short order after arriving there, he learned that the Pentagon had been hit? The latter seems more likely. The main point, in any case, is clear: Cheney learned about the Pentagon attack---which reportedly occurred at about 9:38---only after arriving in the PEOC.

This is significant because it contradicts what the 9/11 Commission would state three years later.

The 9/11 Commission’s Account

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, the sequence of events was as follows.

1. At 9:33, the Secret Service learned that an unidentified aircraft was coming toward the White House, but “[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time,” because the Secret Service learned at 9:34, just before sounding the alarm, “that the aircraft was turning south.”

2. Just before 9:36, the Secret Service, having learned that the plane had started circling back, “ordered the immediate evacuation of the Vice President.”

3. After being hustled downstairs, “The Vice President entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37. Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television.”

4. While there, “[t]he Vice President [telephoned Florida] and asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected.”

5. “He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the building.”

6. Mrs. Cheney, having arrived at the White House at 9:52, “joined her husband in the tunnel.”

7. “[A]t 9:55, the Vice President was still on the phone with the President, advising that three planes were missing and one had hit the Pentagon.” (The Commissioners “believe this is the same call in which the Vice President urged the President not to return to Washington.”)

8. “After the call ended, Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room. . . . [T]he Vice president arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.”9

As a comparison of these two timelines shows, the 9/11 Commission’s account differs significantly from the account that Cheney gave to Russert.

Contradictions between the Two Accounts

According to Cheney, he arrived in the PEOC, or shelter conference room, before he learned about the attack on the Pentagon. According to the 9/11 Commission, by contrast, he entered the PEOC after

2n part

he learned about this attack (and, in fact, about 20 minutes after its occurrence at 9:38 AM).

This contrast leads to another: According to Cheney, the telephone call in which he urged the president to stay away from Washington occurred before he learned about the Pentagon strike. According to the Commission’s account, however, this call occurred after he had learned about the strike, so he was able to talk to Bush about it.

The two accounts appear, moreover, to contradict each other with regard to the time at which Cheney was taken downstairs to the underground corridor. According to what Cheney told Russert, this occurred as soon as the Secret Service agents heard that a plane was approaching the White House---they did not wait until the plane came that direction a second time---and this seems to have been shortly after Cheney called the president about the latter’s public statement---a call that, according to the New York Times, occurred at 9:12. If Cheney was taken down about five minutes later, his account would not conflict, at least not strongly, with the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who told the 9/11 Commission during an open hearing in 2003 that Cheney was already there when he got to the PEOC at 9:20.10

If Cheney meant something close to this, his account would, however, strongly contradict The 9/11 Commission Report, according to which he did not even head downstairs until 9:36 and did not enter the corridor until 9:37.

However, even if Cheney did not mean to imply that he had entered the PEOC before 9:20, the natural interpretation of his statement---“when I arrived there [in the PEOC] within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit”---would seem to be that the Pentagon attack occurred after he had entered the PEOC.

One can point out, to be sure, that Cheney did not actually say this. He said only that he learned about the Pentagon attack after he entered the PEOC. One who wanted to support the 9/11 Commission’s timeline might argue that, although the Pentagon was attacked at 9:38, Cheney did not hear about this attack until 20-some minutes later, after he, as the Commission says, entered the PEOC at 9:58. On that basis, one might argue, Cheney’s account and that of the Commission could be reconciled.

However, besides being extremely implausible (by suggesting that Vice President Cheney, who was formerly the secretary of defense and on 9/11 was the person in charge at the White House, would not have been notified about such an attack for over 20 minutes), this attempted reconciliation would also be ruled out by the Commission’s timeline, which says that Cheney learned about the Pentagon attack while he was still in the corridor, before he entered the PEOC. He told Russert that he learned about it after he entered the PEOC.

It is impossible, therefore, to reconcile the two accounts. If the story that Cheney told Russert at Camp David, just five days after 9/11, was true, then the story told by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004, almost three years later, was false.

The Unique Source for the 9/11 Commission’s Timeline

On what did the 9/11 Commission base its timeline? It claimed that the 9:37 time for Cheney’s entry into the corridor, from which the 9:58 estimate for his entry into the PEOC followed, was based on a timeline in a Secret Service report. By the Commission’s own admission, however, the Secret Service said that “the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable.”11 The claim that Cheney entered the corridor at 9:37, in other words, is based on no official documentation.

Could the Commission cite journalistic accounts to support its timeline? It appears that there was one journalistic account, and only one, that supported this timeline. This was an MSNBC-Newsweek article by Evan Thomas, which was dated December 31, 2001, at MSNBC and appeared in the January 7, 2002, issue of Newsweek. This article said: “Shortly before 10 a.m., the Cheneys were led into the PEOC conference room. . . . [T]hey looked up at the TV screens. It was 9:58 a.m.”12

In saying this, Thomas disagreed not only with what Norman Mineta would later tell the 9/11 Commission, but also with what Richard Clarke would say in Against All Enemies, which became a best-selling book while the 9/11 Commission was still holding hearings.

According to Clarke, shortly after the meeting that Cheney had with Condoleezza Rice after the second attack on World Trade Center, which occurred at 9:03, the Secret Service wanted Rice as well as Cheney to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference. This conference, Clarke’s statements suggest, began at about 9:10.13 After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” Clarke replied: “What I need is an open line to Cheney and you.”14 Some minutes later, evidently at about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke, after receiving him in the Situation Room, “suggested he join the Vice President.”15 Clarke thereby seemed to imply that Cheney was in the PEOC prior to 9:15.

In an ABC News program narrated by Peter Jennings on the first anniversary of 9/11, Condoleezza Rice is portrayed as supporting the early descent time. After describing Cheney’s trip down to the PEOC with the Secret Service agents, ABC’s Charles Gibson said: “Up above, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is trying to find the rest of the President's team,” after which Rice is shown saying: "As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, 'You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” Gibson then added: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.”16 ABC agreed in advance, therefore, with Mineta’s account, according to which Cheney was down there before he arrived.

According to another ABC News program that same week, Cheney’s own White House photographer, David Bohrer, also supported the early descent time. Showing Bohrer describe the moment when the Secret Service agents told Cheney, “Sir, you have to come with us,’” ABC portrayed this event as happening “just after 9 a.m.,” presumably because that is what Bohrer himself had said.17

Mineta’s account was also supported in advance by a Wall Street Journal article, published about a month after 9/11, which told the story of that morning from the perspective of American and United Airlines. Discussing the actions of Donald J. Carty and Jim Goodwin, top executives of AA and UA, respectively, this article said:

“Mr. Carty and Mr. Goodwin . . . were talking on the phone with Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was in a government command bunker with Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Carty told Mr. Mineta that American was ordering all 162 of its planes out of the sky; United already had ordered its 122 planes down. About five minutes later, the FAA shut down the skies over the U.S. completely to all but military aircraft. At [9:45 a.m.],18 American lost contact with a third flight, . . . But . . . radio contact was restored in 10 minutes. . . . Soon, reports began pouring in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon.”19

Mineta had the FAA give two orders that morning. The first one, which was to prevent any more planes from taking off, was at 9:26. The second, which was for all planes to be brought down, occurred at 9:45, after the Pentagon was struck.20 In describing the FAA order that occurred before the attack on the Pentagon, the Journal erroneously called it an order to bring all planes down (confusion between the two orders was quite common).21 It is clear, in any case, that these two airline officials, as paraphrased by the Journal, reported that Cheney was present in the PEOC prior to the attack on the Pentagon.

The 9/11 Commission’s timeline, according to which Cheney arrived much later, was based on a twofold claim: that Cheney did not entering the corridor until 9:37 and that his phone call to the president then took about 20 minutes.

As we saw above, the alleged Secret Service claim that Cheney did not enter the corridor until 9:37 was, by the Commission’s own admission, undocumented. Surely this undocumented claim cannot trump the combined testimony of Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, David Bohrer (as described by ABC News), American and United Airlines (as described by the Wall Street Journal), and even Dick Cheney himself (as given to Tim Russert five days after 9/11).

However, the claim that Cheney did not enter the corridor until 9:37 was mentioned by one journalistic account: the aforementioned MSNBC-Newsweek article by Evan Thomas. According to Thomas, it was 9:35 when the Secret Service entered Cheney’s office---where the vice president, incidentally, was not in a take-charge mode but was simply “standing by his desk, looking at the TV in the corner.” This article also has the other main elements later articulated in The 9/11 Commission Report: Cheney’s time-consuming phone call to the president (who was “not easy to reach”), Cheney’s being told about the Pentagon attack while he was still in the corridor, Lynne Cheney’s arrival while the vice president was still on the phone, and then the conclusion: “Shortly before 10 a.m., the Cheneys were led into the PEOC conference room. . . . [T]hey looked up at the TV screens. It was 9:58 a.m.”22

If the 9/11 Commission’s timeline was derived from the Thomas article, or else the source(s) for that article, the question becomes: Where did Thomas get the information on which he based his account?

The note provided by the 9/11 Commission for its conclusion that the Cheneys arrived in the PEOC “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58,” mentions three transcripts, all of which are White House transcripts: “Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001”; “Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001”; and “Rice interview with Evan Thomas, Nov. 1, 2001.” Evidently, therefore, the Evan Thomas MSNBC-Newsweek article of December 31, 2001, was based significantly on interviews with Condoleezza Rice and the Cheneys.

It would appear, accordingly, that the account given by Cheney to Newsweek in November differed significantly from what he had told Russert on “Meet the Press” two months earlier. He told Russert that he learned about the Pentagon attack after he was already in the PEOC, thereby suggesting agreement with all the witnesses who would indicate that he was in the PEOC prior to the attack. But according to the story that he (along with his wife and Rice) apparently told Newsweek, which was later accepted by the 9/11 Commission, Cheney did not enter the PEOC, where he took charge of matters, until about 20 minutes after the attack on the Pentagon had already occurred.

Possible Motives for Changing the Timeline

What possible motives would there have been for Cheney to change the timeline? What possible motives might the 9/11 Commission have had for accepting Evan Thomas’s timeline, even though it was apparently the only journalistic account that depicted Cheney as not entering the PEOC until almost 10:00?

I mentioned above the fact that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 that, when he arrived in the PEOC at about 9:20, Cheney was already there. Mineta then gave the following account of a conversation he witnessed:

third page

During the time that the airplane was coming in to 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?’23

When asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after his arrival at 9:20, Mineta said, “Probably about five or six minutes.” That, as Roemer pointed out, would have been “about 9:25 or 9:26.”24

During an informal interview in 2007, incidentally, Mineta reaffirmed that Cheney was already there when he arrived in the PEOC, saying “absolutely.” When he was told that the Commission had said that Cheney did not arrive until 9:58, Mineta expressed surprise and said: “Oh no, no, no; I don’t know how that came about.” Although Mineta said he “might have been mistaken on the 9:25,” he said that Cheney was definitely there before the Pentagon was struck, and “so was Mrs. Cheney.”25

Mineta’s 2003 testimony at the 9/11 Commission hearing created two problems for the official story of the day’s events. For one thing, it implied that Cheney---who, as he told Russert, was in contact with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld---knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before the Pentagon was struck. This implication directly contradicted the official claim, according to which Pentagon officials did not know that an aircraft was approaching their building. This claim was essential for explaining why because the Pentagon had not been evacuated, with the result that 125 Pentagon employees were killed. For example, one Pentagon spokesperson, having been asked why this evacuation did not occur, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.”26

A second problem created by Mineta’s story involved the nature of “the orders.” Although Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the aircraft shot down, no aircraft approaching Washington was shot down. Mineta’s interpretation also made the young man’s question unintelligible. Given the threefold fact that the airspace over the Pentagon is categorized as “forbidden,” meaning that commercial aircraft are never permitted in it, that two hijacked planes had already crashed into the Twin Towers, and that still other planes had been reported hijacked, the expected orders, if an unidentified plane were approaching that airspace, would have been to shoot it down. Had Cheney given those orders, there would have been no reason for the young man to ask if the orders still stood. His question made sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected---not to shoot it down. The most natural interpretation of Mineta’s story, accordingly, was that he had inadvertently reported that he had heard Cheney confirm stand-down orders.

That Mineta’s testimony was perceived as a dangerous threat to the official account is suggested by several steps taken by the 9/11 Commission. The first step was the one on which we have focused: the claim, based on the White House-supplied Newsweek story, that Cheney did not enter the PEOC---at which time he first went into his take-charge mode (prior to that he was simply talking with the president and watching television)---until 20 minutes after the Pentagon had been struck.

A second step was to make no mention of this portion of Mineta’s testimony in The 9/11 Commission Report.

A third step is suggested by the fact that this portion of Mineta’s testimony is missing from the 9/11 Commission video archive.27

A fourth step was the creation of an alternative version of the story about an incoming aircraft. The 9/11 Commission Report wrote:

“At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes.”28

Although this story has some elements in common with Mineta’s story, it differs in two major respects. It makes clear that Cheney issued a shoot-down, not a stand-down, order. And it came far too late to have had any relevance to the Pentagon attack.

In fact, by coming so late, it also---and this provides a second possible motive for the revised timeline---could have had no relevance to another controversial issue: Whether the US military had shot down United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania (which, according to the 9/11 Commission, crashed at 10:03).

There were reports that this indeed had occurred. For example, Major Daniel Nash, one of the F-15 pilots sent to fly over New York City that morning, reported that when he returned to base, he was told that a military F-16 had shot down an airliner in Pennsylvania.29 This rumor became sufficiently widespread that it came up during General Richard Myers’s confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 13. Chairman Carl Levin, saying that “there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down,” added: “Those stories continue to exist.”30 Myers denied that it had occurred, but several other military officers would later state that their fighters were in position to do it.31 Richard Clarke would later state, moreover, that Cheney had given the authorization at approximately 9:50,32 which would have been early enough for the military to have shot it down at 10:03.

According to the Commission, the incoming flight, which elicited Cheney’s shoot-down authorization at some time after 10:10, was indeed United 93. Unbeknownst to Cheney and the military, however, this flight had already crashed at 10:03.33 Insofar as this story was accepted, therefore, the military could not have, under Cheney’s orders, shot down United 93.
Conclusion

As we have seen, it would appear that the 9/11 Commission’s timeline, which rules out the possibility that Cheney could have been responsible for the attack on the Pentagon or the downing of United 93, came from Cheney himself, via the account that he himself---along with Lynne Cheney and Condoleezza Rice---gave to Newsweek.

Arguably the strongest evidence against this timeline is the account that Cheney gave to Tim Russert on the September 16, 2001, edition of “Meet the Press.” The 9/11 Commission’s timeline is, of course, also strongly contradicted by Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta, and others. Ignoring those accounts has, however, proved easy. It will be much more difficult to continue to ignore the given to Russert on “Meet the Press.” Besides the fact that this account was given by Cheney himself, it was also given just five days after 9/11, when the events of that day were still fresh in his mind.

Also, Russert’s interview with Cheney is very well known. Matt Lauer, for example, said: “I remember that interview vividly. . . . I was glued to that.”34 Cheney’s 2008 description of that interview as a “remarkable moment in American history,” moreover, has probably encouraged many people, including many journalists to review it.

In describing Russert’s typical method on “Meet the Press,” Cheney rightly praised him, saying: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.” But Cheney has thus far gotten away with the contradiction between what he told Russert and what he apparently told Newsweek, which became the position of The 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps that will not continue to be the case, especially now that Cheney has drawn the world’s attention to his Camp David interview with Tim Russert.

The contradiction between the 9/11 Commission’s report and Cheney’s own words exists only because of the response elicited from him by Tim Russert. What better tribute could journalists around the world pay to Russert’s life and work than to follow up on this contradiction, demanding answers to why it exists?

David Ray Griffin has published 33 books, the most recent of which are Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007) and 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008). He thanks Tod Fletcher and Elizabeth Woodworth for help with this essay.

1 “The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” MSNBC, 16 September 2001 (www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html).

2 “Interview of the Vice President by Matt Lauer of NBC News,” 14 June 2008 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080614-3.html).

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 William Langley, “Revealed: What Really Went On During Bush’s ‘Missing Hours,’” Telegraph, 16 December 2001 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1365455/Revealed-what-really-went-on-during-Bush%27s-%27missing-hours%27.html), says that Bush left at 9:12. However, Bill Sammon suggests that Bush lingered longer (Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism: From Inside the Bush White House [Washington: Regnery, 2002], 89-90).

6 David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After the Attacks: the Events; In Four Days, a National Crisis Changes Bush’s Presidency,” New York Times, 16 September 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE5D7163BF935A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print).

7 “The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” MSNBC, 16 September 2001 ( www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html ).

8 The transcript has “call a PEOC,” but this was surely a mistranscription for “called PEOC.”

9 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf), 39-40.

10 9/11 Commission Hearing, 23 May 2003 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm). Mineta gave this account under questioning from 9/11 Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton and Commissioner Timothy Roemer. Mineta’s interchange with Hamilton can be viewed at http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871, his interchange with Roemer at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860.

11 The 9/11 Commission Report, 464 n. 209.

12 Evan Thomas, “The Story of September 11,” MSNBC, 31 December 2001. Although this article can no longer be accessed through the MSNBC URL, it is available as “The Day That Changed America,” Jersey Shore Today which states that it appeared in the January 7 issue of Newsweek.
(http://jerseyshoretoday.com/archive/day_that_changed_america.htm),



13 Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 1-4.

14 Ibid., 2-4. Clarke a few pages later reported that he used this line to make requests shortly after 9:30 and was “amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney” (8).

15 Ibid., 5.

16 “9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, 11 September 2002
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews091102.html).

17 “Sept. 11’s Moments of Crisis: Part 2: Scramble,” ABC News, 14 September 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20021003222152/http:/abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_2.html).

18 The text has “8:45 a.m. CDT.” I converted this to Eastern Daylight Time to correspond with all the other times mentioned.

19 Scott McCartney and Susan Carey, “American, United Watched and Worked In Horror as Sept. 11 Hijackings Unfolded,” Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wallstreetjournal101501.html).

20 Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, said to the House Subcommittee on Aviation on 21 September 2001: “As soon as Secretary Mineta was aware of the nature and scale of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington . . . the Secretary ordered the air traffic system shut down for all civil operations. . . . . At 9:26 a.m., before either American Airlines Flight 77 or United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed, a national ground stop was issued that prevented any aircraft from taking off. At 9:45 a.m. all airborne aircraft were told to land at the nearest airport” (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/garvey_001.htm).

Arriving before the attack or aftwards seems awfully nit-picky given the events of the day and totally without any true difference on the out come on the days events...
Doesn't prove much different than the original statements.
Not sure what the point of this article was ???

SSC wrote:Arriving before the attack or aftwards seems awfully nit-picky given the events of the day and totally without any true difference on the out come on the days events...
Doesn't prove much different than the original statements.
Not sure what the point of this article was ???

i agree, i dont see much to this. we still have conspiracy stories from the grassy knoll.

I guess you didn't read it all~

I read the whole thing and still don't see the point in picking apart a few minutes.....but some people thrive on mystery making a mountain out of a mole hill..

Rosco the point of my article was, cheney told three different stories , to three different sources~ to me that raises a red flag~ I said, I would not talk of this again but just wanted to point that out~ I don't know if any of the stories about this is true, but somethings just didn't jive and still don't~I don't think they had anything to do with 9/11 ,I hope not..

I am responding to u with this because of my pledge not to speak to a certain party~I know it is funny

A message from that certain party...........you just contradicted yourself in the biggest way...now you say you don't think they (Bush/Cheney) had anything to do with 9/11........for 2 days you have harped on Bush and Cheney being at the bottom of the terrorist attacks.....which is it ???? guilty or not ??? and you wonder why I can't be civil towards you, you change your mind like I change socks....I don't think you know jack-shit about this but had to spend your day searching the net in hopes of finding anything against Cheney..aka a google video my grandbaby could have made...you yourself posted you don't watch the news or read newspapers so how could you possibly have a clue on political events or any comprehension of them. Maybe you need to start a needle craft thread , might be more your speed..

I seem to keep you hopping and reading my posts~ so i must know something~~yes I did research, but i never said they were definitely involved, did I? but something is very fishy about the complete scenario I don't want to believe it, let me state that~~
i also like to see you all frantically hopping on my post~~ I know that is mean~~ thought you weren't going to respond to me or my posts, i wasn't worth it,, I know i said the same thing. oh yes i know jack shit he is kin to you~ :) never asked you to like me

what was that word! ummm Stupid,ignorant?? umm , oh well`now back to silence?? nah!!never was good at being silent,or meek..I need to work on those faults~~ :

also i never said they were guilty, but very suspicious..
also correction, u said civil not like~sorry bout that,I have never known you to be civil for long, when you were a bit civil it seemed to be false..as i said i don't know if they are guilty but there is a lot that believe they are.. it will come out if they are..

Gypsy Quote........I wouldn't put it past Cheney to produce/engage a terrorist attack~~ ummm

A pretty blatant accusation on your part..why back away from your statement now...Or is it like everything else about you..fiction ?????

I once again repeat, I have no reason to be civil towards you, I have never seen you demonstrate a reason why I should be ...I give respect where respect is due, and you are not in that category. I would think more of you if you stood by your statements but you always back off your conviction...If you believe in something nothing should sway you, for some reason you crawfish (back-up)or change the subject and that discredits you totally.
I will say one thing I have never laughed so much as I do at your attempts to be well versed....I love the Weak Minded post..that had to come from your heart..it is typical of you.....

I still didn't accuse,I said i ouldn't put it past him,he is a shady character, and you ask for the articles the name of the book,and a video you got it~ I thought Google was a reliable source.as I said i can't low if they are guilty i can only be suspicious~ whish there are many red flags,
I don't care if your civil to me or notI definitely stand behind my beliefs, ,and who are you? some saint that goes around judging people?
I am amazed/amused you find me so uncivil and unlikable , but you respond to me, and my posts~ Strange isn't it? call me names if i don't agree~with you. and tell me i don't know politics, but every thing i have debated on,I have proven, except this, but i put the odd behavior of two men who were in control of our country at the time of this horrific episode. and the suspicion will hang onto them for the rest of their lives.

I do laugh at the way hang onto my every word/post, that to me disputes your thoughts~ now as i said i can get along with anyone
you find me so bad/distasteful I suggest you don't read my posts~

I don't find you very honorable ,or likable ~ but I always give the benefit of the doubt..

as for respect i don't respect you either, you sure haven't earned mine..

no back up on subject,Wrong!! I said i wouldn't put it past cheney ,but i still don't know if he is guilty and i guess the special authorities don't either

as for as my attempts to be well versed,I am,if it is your way of putting me down ,it doesn't work. your cruelty bounces rightoff me. just shows what a dispiciable person you are.
the kind of person you exude here ,are to me a bully and very insecure, if you have to pick on someone personally, and mention what you think is weak your making fun, and that does not earn respect.
for you to do that makes you sound envious. you respond to me,so i feel ur words are moot, I have handled tough times, so your puny attempts to discredit me is like water off a ducks back.

My Heart,is as big as the oceans, all over the world, my writings are definitely from the heart and sincere.
I put here debatable subjects and as you show you debate them, I also have proven and won quite a few~ for someone to degrade another is to me very questionable about the one doing the degrading,to think oneself smarter than the other is laughable you do that everytime you attack me or my beliefs. to make fun shows the type of character you are.
now with my long winded reply that i meant to do in one post, but forgot to respond to your last sentence,if part of that was an attempt at being civil or compliment, i thank you,
I will continue you to be pleasant towards you and to debate if i want~

Oh lord big violin or little violin..either plays ..My heart bleds for you...I will agree you faced some tough times a few years back when you were exposed, several have told me you ask for forgivness.....you don't have a clue that is not my issue with you. I can tell you more about the WTC bombing than you want to hear, don't think you could handle the graphic end of it...Once again you backed down from a statement as I have repeated, that is your right to do so, but you must feel intimidated by my closeness to your posts as you keep reassuring your position on the forum. Ass kissing is becoming to you. Now you just have a spiffy day full of rainbows and roses...hope you are considering the needle craft thread..It would occupy your wondering mind...and give you a true purpose.
Your assessment of me is so very wrong, unlike you I have no reason to be untruthful, hide my past or kiss ass. I am me , very well educated, employed in a government controled project , have family close and many many out side interests. This is entertainment to me ...Tyler has a fine place here, but my life doesn't revolve around a forum....

well ssc, your not a well person, your obsession with me shows it~ seek help. your posts here show a very angry,person.. I will have no farther dealings with you, your a hopeless case.

I will not bog down this forum with responding to you, on what you think of me, i don't care, and others here don't care, your actions> anger,obsession with me shows you an unstable, maybe sick person.. I wish you the best, and hold no ill will towards you.
have a wonderful life,
I will continue to post, here, but will avoid you in every way i can, your not healthy to be around~or to carry on a conversation with.. I know you will have the last word.
ps
I never back down just study and revaluate.

one more thing, my life doesn't revolve around this forum,either. we are here enough it looks that way, you included. I do agree with you on this being a fine forum and Tyler runs it excellently~

you know ssc let me give you a tip. try harder` your reasons don't pan,, like i said your obsessed, and you don't even know me~~ now i am through with this subject! Toodles~

gypsy wrote:well ssc, your not a well person, your obsession with me shows it~ seek help. your posts here show a very angry,person.. I will have no farther dealings with you, your a hopeless case.

I will not bog down this forum with responding to you, on what you think of me, i don't care, and others here don't care, your actions> anger,obsession with me shows you an unstable, maybe sick person.. I wish you the best, and hold no ill will towards you.
have a wonderful life,
I will continue to post, here, but will avoid you in every way i can, your not healthy to be around~or to carry on a conversation with.. I know you will have the last word.
ps
I never back down just study and revaluate.

You are making my day..always good for a laugh...since you have appointed yourself site psycoanalist, maybe a little soul searching on your own behalf is in order. Think back to when this total contempt on my part of you started ? Remember ??? Remember what triggered it all ?? Not anyones words against you, but your very own words to me which became obvious lies...What glory could you have possibly gotten from lying about your participation in such a disaster ? Glory seeking ??? I never could understand why you did and said all you claimed.. I lived that storm, I saw the bodies in trucks , piles of debris, laying in the water bloated..But for someone to blatantly lie as you did was just unforgivable... Please do avoid me , it is the best for both sides...I guess you don't hold any ill towards me I never lied to you, nor tried to drag you thru the muck of the IYT boards when you ran out of friends, you walked me into a lions den there. I certainly am not obsessed with you, I personally give a shit if you exist or not, I prefer to consider you as a nuisance and a parasite that should be avoided . Now you have yourself a cheery little day .

runawayhorses wrote:What?? Your lives don't revolve around this forum?? Now my feelings are hurt..

Thanks for the complement on the site thou, and the way I run it, I appreciate it.

haha well maybe a part does revolve ..Thank you Tyler..

ha this is funny,//nor tried to drag you thru the muck of the IYT boards when you ran out of friends, you walked me into a lions den there.// wow looks like you were there everyday creating the muck,, how did i drag you ssc LOL i take your hand,twist your arm?? oh wow, that really shows you are a sick individual~ now i am through just noticed this tidbit Byee

It took a sick twisted person to invent the lies you did on the boards, I was there a week and was flooded with Pm's and copies of your statements , but even that wasn't the final straw..It was OUR conversation , about WHERE you played your Florence Nightingale roll that broke it off. YOU LIED STRAIGHT TO ME ON THE BOARD...Now maybe since you told so many falsehoods you couldn't keep up with all of them, but you got busted out by me , and I called you on it , then came the tyraid from you and your little friends...I still play many from the old boards and your reputation is still as tarnished as it was then.
The way I see it , don't post to me and I won't post to you, keep MY name out of your twisted little remarks here. I chose not to be associated with someone of your questionable caliber, or reputation.
I hope this is clear enough to you that I don't find anymore of your last word grade school remarks, I have had enough of you..........

Bull S!! and blah blah~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>






http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30950164



*

FBI tape: Burris pleads for Senate appointment
Conversation was with former Gov. Blagojevich's brother
Image: Sen. Roland Burris
M. Spencer Green / AP

The Senate Ethics Committee will be allowed to listen to a federal wiretap of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother having a phone conversation with Sen. Roland Burris.
View related photos



NBC News
updated 2 hours, 22 minutes ago

CHICAGO - Sen. Roland Burris promised to "personally do something" for Rod Blagojevich's campaign fund while pressing for the then-Illinois governor to appoint him to President Barack Obama's former Senate seat, according to a wiretap transcript released Tuesday.

"Tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya?" Burris tells Robert Blagojevich, who headed his brother's campaign fund, in a Nov. 13 phone conversation secretly taped by the FBI.

The remark came after Robert Blagojevich urged Burris to "keep me in mind and you know if you guys can just write checks that'd be fine, if we can't find a way for you to tie in."

"Okay, okay, well we, we, I, I will personally do something, okay," Burris says.

Earlier in the conversation, Burris and Robert Blagojevich explored the possibility that Burris might raise campaign money on a larger scale.

"I know I could give him a check," Burris said. "Myself."

Burris attorney Timothy Wright said Tuesday that Burris never wrote any checks to the Blagojevich campaign following the conversation. Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, had donated to Blagojevich's campaigns previously.

"These transcripts verify the accuracy of my previous public statements on this matter and demonstrate once and for all there was no 'pay to play' involved in my appointment to the United States Senate or perjury in my recounting of that process," Burris said in a statement.

Burris repeatedly said he wanted to help but added that major fundraising would have "so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment from the governor."

The transcript was released Tuesday as part of a motion by the U.S. attorney's office. The U.S. Senate ethics committee is investigating how Burris got his seat.

Burris has been under intense scrutiny since he was appointed by the now-ousted governor at the end of December, and for changing his story multiple times about whether he promised anything in exchange for it. The ethics committee began a preliminary investigation into how Burris got his job, and the Sangamon County State's Attorney was asked to determine whether perjury charges were warranted.

‘Gonna make me king’
Burris opens the wiretapped conversation by telling Robert Blagojevich: "I know you're calling telling me that you're gonna make me king of the world.

"And therefore I can go off to, you know, wherever and do all these great things," Burris adds. He says that he has "been trying to figure out what the heck, you know, I can do."

"We've had a number of conversations about, you know, anything you might be able to do," Robert Blagojevich says a moment later.

Burris says he is concerned about how fundraising on his part would be viewed if he got the Senate seat.

"And I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this and still be in the consideration for the appointment," he says.

"I hear ya," says Robert Blagojevich. "No, I hear ya."

The then-governor was arrested Dec. 9 on charges of scheming to sell or trade the Senate seat Obama was vacating and using the political muscle of the governor's office to squeeze people involved in state business for campaign contributions.

Blagojevich, ousted by lawmakers in January, and his brother have both pleaded not guilty in response to charges in the case as have four other members of the former governor's inner circle

This would be a great thread is the kindergarden crap was eliminated....

like your kindergarten crap` well guess this will continue

aha that is not necessarily true, I would still argue,I have voted republican two times