Norman Mineta Confirms Dick Cheney Was in PEOC Before Pentagon Attack Contradicting 9/11 Report

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Local Mirror: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=229

Full article : http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

Thanks to WeAreChange.org and Alex Jones for article (listen to near end of todays show 26-Jun-2007) for more details.

WOW!

It's one thing to suspect all along that the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report have been lying about his issue -- but to actually come to the REALIZATION that it's true, it's mind-boggling!

If I were a betting man, I'd say this is just the beginning of witnesses and whistle blowers coming out in favor of 9/11 truth. Consider this: Why would Mineta have been so wishy-washing with his answers to these very same questions when asked of them by Ray McGovern almost a year ago? Clearly, he has changed his stance on addressing these issues -- and much of it likely has to do with a confidence in him that has developed over speaking out in favor of 9/11 truth. He knows the tide is turning and that the world is waking up.

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=dbbe325cb5e8a69110da4140b0b58f66.1...

The ORDERS

Minnetta's testimony about Cheney was not referencing the Shanksville plane which appears to have been shot down. The ORDERS in question were in reference to shoot down protocol and specifically about the plane which apparently crashed into the Pentagon. In June of 2001 Rumsfeld had changed the protocol for issuing shoot down orders. Prior to June 2001 Fighter Squadron Commanders or Ground Air Defense Commanders were permitted to issue shoot down orders. After June 2001 the orders had to come from the top, Rumsfeld himself had to give the orders. On the morning of 9/11 while the plane was approaching the Pentagon Rumsfeld went missing for nearly 20 minutes. As the plane approached the Pentagon no one could change the order, which explains Minnetta hearing the young man asking Cheney,. "do the orders still stand?" They had to sit there and let the plane crash into the Pentagon (or appear to fly into the Pentagon as it might have pulled up at the last minute and provided cover for a missile strike at the Pentagon along with making it appear to wittinesses that a Commercial Jet crashed into the Pentagon). This scenario basically removes all responsibility from everyone involved and provides Rumsfeld with the perfect excuse that in all the confusion the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They layed out there cover story way before 9/11.

If anyone ever has the opportunity to ask Rumsfeld anything, they should ask directly where he was when no one could find him for 20 minutes and if in fact did he give orders to shoot down the plane in Shanksville. He's already stated that they shot down the Shanksville plane - though many have heard him say it and believe it was a slip of the tongue.

Hit a Nerve at DIGG

I've posted what I believe the real scenario is regarding the Shoot Down Orders and DIGG keeps removing it. I've posted it 4 times now and it keeps being removed. Could somebody else try posting it to see if the results are the same?

Thank you VERY MUCH to 9/11

Thank you VERY MUCH to 9/11 Truth Seattle who managed to ask Norman Mineta about his testimony. As I had suspected, Mineta was unaware of the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report contradicted his testimony. I thought he would have figured it out when he was fired after Fetzer went on Fox News and repeated his testimony, but Mineta seemed truely surprised when he was made aware of the contradictions.

When the Seattle 9/11 Truther informs Mineta that the commission stated that Cheney entered the PEOC at 9:58, Mineta seemed surprised by this, and was like "no, no, no.. I don't know how that comes across"

Mineta also clearly says that Cheney was in the PEOC "before American Airlines went into the Pentagon".

I will be updating my paper within the next few weeks to include this explosive interview, as well as some more detailed updates on Mineta's, Clarke's and Cheney's timeline. I got a chance to spend some time with Peter Dale Scott this weekend at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth conference, and i got a chance to see parts of his new book that is in publication which goes into detail about Mineta's testimony. So I think he has a few new sources that also should be included in my paper.

here's my paper in it's present form... give me a few weeks to add in all the updates.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ClarkePaper.pdf

-adam
truth911.net

Link Trouble

Link trouble I'll look it up at the site.

A Must Read

Great paper here folks. This is the most comprehensive and most logical deduction of what occurred with the plane that hit the Pentagon. Mineta's testimony substantiates a Pentagon STAND DOWN scenario rather than a Shanksville SHOOT DOWN scenario. The difference is major and important. I commend the Mr. Letalick

I don't think Mineta has substantiated a Pentagon "stand-down"

scenario, and I sure don't think that AA-77 is what slammed the Pentagon either.

Adam Letalik's main conclusion no longer supported?

Letalik relies on Mineta's testimony that he arrived in the PEOC at 9:20 and that 5-6 minutes later, heard the officer ask Cheney if the order still stood. Letalik says this proves that by 9:27, rather than 9:34, the military knew about the Pentagon plane. Mineta says in this video he may be mistaken about 9:25, meaning he may have arrived in the PEOC after 9:25. This makes more sense given the statements in Richard Clark's book about Mineta calling Clark after 9:05, coming to Clark's office, then going to the PEOC. And now that Mineta is expressing uncertainty about the time he arrived, his testimony would be easier to counter.

i competely disagree.

i competely disagree. Clarke's book has Mineta arriving at right around 9:20. In this new interview, Mineta was simply trying to make sense of this new information. when he is told that Cheney's offical arrival time is so late.. mineta is very confused by this... and is basically saying, well, maybe i arrived a little bit later, but certainly not that much later. he later confirms that himself as well as Dick Cheney, his wife, and others were all in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit. The only question is, was Cheney in the PEOC before the pentagon was hit... and Mineta confirmed again that he was. my conclusion is certainly supported by this new interview. and clarke's account also support's mineta

-adam
truth911.net

Absolutely Correct

Ultimately it puts Minetta in the bunker before the plane hit the Pentagon which in turn puts his testimony about over hearing the young man question "do the orders still stand?" at the heart of the matter. At this point one need only look at the fact that something managed to strike the Pentagon - headquarters for our trillion dollar Defense Department. If the overheard question was in reference to Shanksville that would mean that Rumsfeld had given shoot down orders first. For the young man to question if those orders still stand would mean he would be considering dropping air defense and opening a pathway for a target - likely something in DC. Why would anyone want to know if the defense orders were going to be turned off after they were turned on? Whereas understanding that the young man's question was referring to the plane approaching the Pentagon demonstrates logical concern over a plane getting closer and closer and closer to its target with apparently no shoot down orders in place; orders which stated that the only person allowed to give shoot down orders was Rumsfeld; i.e. Do the orders (Rumsfeld is the only one allowed to order a plane to be shot down) still stand? Given that Rumsfeld had changed the shoot down protocol in June of 2001 making him the sole shoot down commander and that he conveniently went missing for 20 minutes during the bunker time frame only drills home the point.

No, no, no

"At this point one need only look at the fact that something managed to strike the Pentagon -"

You cannot assume that he meant let the Pentagon be hit based on the fact that something hit the Pentagon. You have no idea what else was going on -- Shanksville is not the only alternative.

Any lawyer going in with this kind of assumption will have his ass handed to him.

Ningen - what?

You've pulled my words out of context. One can look at anything they damn well please, I am not a dictator. In my explanation of the events I was trying to keep the reader up with my chain of reasoning. The point you pulled apart was a marker in a logical explanation. Sorry you are confused. Actually, not that sorry because by reading your comments and checking you out a bit you seem to be intentionally confusing things - why? The Pentagon was clearly struck by something and the point I was trying to make is that attempting to mix up Shanksville Shoot Down Orders with Rumsfeld's June 2001 change of shoot down protocol is not justified. Agree with me or not, I could care less. But please don't just be an annoyance. Try to make your argument more clear. If you make valid points which lead to truth I will be the first one to agree with you. But so far all I've heard from you are disruptions. Please don't feel the need to respond, I will not be offended.

Hey, greenback

If you want to have a discussion, fine. I whipped off that comment and will look again when I have time to see if I misrepresented your idea. I read what you said, but Shanksville is not the only alternative, as I have stated before. I have serious doubts about the significance of the Mineta testimony, yes, you're damn right. I have every right to express those doubts, and will do so if I think that a line of argument is misleading, unfruitful, and/or possibly disinformation.

"Seem to be intentionally" is an attack on my integrity. I will say to you as I have said to everyone else here that has accused me of intentional disinformation. My name is Dwight Van Winkle. I am a self-employed attorney in Seattle, Washington. I am speaking for myself and nobody else. If you want to make false accusations against me, at least have the integrity to identify yourself. If you can't do that, for reasons of employment or otherwise, that is your prerogative, but you should then refrain from anonymous attacks.

You will notice that I have not questioned your motivations, just your arguments. Questioning people's motivations is useless and disruptive.

Further reply

"For the young man to question if those orders still stand would mean he would be considering dropping air defense and opening a pathway for a target - likely something in DC. "

OK, you say "likely something in DC," which is better, as it recognizes there could be other locations.

Dropping air defense is hard to believe after the fact, and even at the time given that the WTC had already supposedly been hit by planes. However, in the shoot down order scenario, they would be talking about an order to shoot down a civilian airliner, which is not an easy decision. Wanting to confirm that is not surprising, and would not necessarily indicate that he was against the order or surprised by it.

Other alternatives -- the miles are out from a line beyond which the plane would be shot down. Say the line was a hundred miles away, and the miles are to that line. Or the mies are how far away an interceptor is from the bogie. We don't know.

Don't think I'm covering for Cheney or giving him ideas, as that is a joke. Anything I can come up with pales in comparison with the way this could be explained away by a team of military experts and Justice Department or big firm lawyers. We already know the government is lying, yet expect to be able to prove something like this? Good luck. And Mineta's not even sure about the time.

So this is the smoking gun?

Clark says Mineta called in on his cell phone after 9:05, then going to Clark's office, saying his sons might be at risk, then going to the PEOC. It's a very tight timeline to get him that at 9:20, and Mineta is now saying he may be mistaken about 9:25, which is even later than 9:20. Are you saying he may have gotten there earlier? That seems very unlikely.

The whole idea of Cheney ordering a stand down in real time strikes me as a cartoon version of 9/11, but if you want to make that case, and it's based on the exact timing as you state in your paper, then there is a weakness that must be acknowledged. As you say, Mineta is confused about the time.

Your paper states more than "was Cheney in the PEOC before the Pentagon hit." Mineta says that he was, and I think you've made that case. But Mineta has no idea what Cheney was talking about. Has Cheney explained what he meant? Has he denied the conversation about the order?

Mineta says 9:27 in another interview

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp?0cb=-31a105678&...

This matches if you assume the series of comments began immediately with "50 miles out," and ended 5-6 minutes after he entered with the "does the order still stand" comment.

If you read Roemer's question to Mineta, Mineta was not asked how long after he entered did he hear the "50 miles out," but rather was asked how long after entering did he hear the "does the order still stand?" So if he heard the "50 miles out" right away, that matches.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_20...

I apologize, but the problem is that Letalik misstated Mineta's testimony on page 12 of his paper:

Mineta testified that he arrived at 9:20 and he recalled that the "young man" told Cheney the plane was "50 miles out" about 5 or 6 minutes after he entered the PEOC. Mineta's memory that the plane was "50 miles out" at 9:26 proved to be very close to the actual time that the plane was 50 miles out, which would have been around 9:27.

So yes, 9:27 matches "50 miles out," assuming Letalik is correct about the time/distance, and Mineta would have been there to hear it, according to his testimony. That supports an inference that they knew about a plane at 9:27, assuming that's what they were talking about.

I stand by my comments about this being a cartoon version of 9/11, and designed to support the story that there was a plane. Military commanders had the authority to shoot down, and the idea that Cheney stood in the bunker and issued an order not to shoot down, as a key part of the operation, strikes me as ludicrous. My speculation is that planes might have been scrambled and found no target matching the rada blip, or were delayed to keep them from witnessing the absence of a plane.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I totally disagree with the above quote, "before American

Airlines went into the Pentagon."

Overwhelming evidence indicates that AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon.

Rumsfeld's approval was NOT required in emergency

You may have gotten this mistaken view of DOD regulations from Jim Hoffmann's website.

http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

Better to read Jared Israel:

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm#1

Better yet to read the primary sources:

The June 2001 directive is here:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

page 1, paragraph 4a, requests for DOD assistance forwarded to SecDef for approval, "with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d." DOD assistance to FAA in accordance with reference d.

Reference d. is DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities."

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/302515.htm

Immediate responses are discussed on page 4 of 16, section 4.7.1, referencing DOD Directive 3025.1, "Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA), January 15, 1993, and authorizing immediate response in emergencies by DOD Components or military commanders in accordance with DOD Directive 3025.1.

DOD Directive 3025.1

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/302501.htm

page 7 of 23, section 4.5.1, authorizes immediate responses by local military commanders to requests of civl authorities where imminently serious conditions exist and time does not allow prior approval from of higher headquarters.

The Directive as a whole provides for planning for responses, so it is likely there was subsidiary guidance to commanders for dealing with immediate responses.

The June 2001 change made no exception for "potentially lethal assistance," as claimed by Hoffmann.

Gerard Holmgren, who I think is the best 9/11 researcher, has written about this, in a cached article. The third page is most relevant., and describes how Hoffmann distorts the DOD regulations. Holmgren's work has been pulled from the Internet, which is a real shame.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZISXkthTRk8J:members.iinet.net.au/~h...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rPt4c7AN018J:members.iinet.net.au/~h...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:brDmfMzow34J:members.iinet.net.au/~h...

I could not find a cache of page 4.

Addendum: DOD Directive 3025.15, page 3, paragraph 4.4 discusses approval of lethal force by higher authorities, but specifically says that the Directive does not prohibit commanders from exercising immediate emergency response authority pursuant to DOD Directive 3025.1.

DODD 3025.15 does discuss the need for SecDef approval of requests from law enforcement agencies for potentially lethal force. That is completely different.

DODD 3025.1 does not contain the word "lethal," and "immediate response" to attacks is not limited to non-lethal actions.

David Ray Griffin accurately describes these regulations

See pages 49-50 of Debunking 9/11 Debunkers, where Griffin cites the above regulations on immediate response and shows that NEADS as a "DOD Component" had the authority to immediately respond without approval of higher authority.

I disagree with Griffin's dismissal on pages 46-47 of claims by NEADS that they could not locate Flight 11 on their radard even after being given coordinates by Boston FAA. He is correct on page 48 that this is not an excuse for them not scrambling immediately, as they could have gotten airborne even if they could not find Flight 11 on their radar, as they did five minutes later. However, this information should not dismissed, particularly in light of the war games that were occurring that day and the confusion evident in the Vanity Fair article as to whether the radar blips were real planes or "damn inputs." One possibility is that the perpetrators did not want military pilots not in on the operation to arrive near the World Trade Centers in time to learn that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were not real.

This might also explain why the Otis fighters that took off at 8:53, in ample time to reach Manhattan before 9:03, were order into an offshore holding pattern. Why were they ordered away, after the North Tower had already been hit, and initial reports, subsequently changed, were that NORAD knew about Flight 175 at 8:52?

As Griffin discusses, many of the NEADS and FAA tapes have not been produced, and there is reason to believe that FAA informed the military of an emergency as early as 8:20 pursuant to standard procedure. We don't know what happened that day, and this potential evidence that both the FAA and NEADS were deceived by the 9/11 war games and the operation itself should not be lightly dismissed.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Greenback, you just wasted my time

cleaning up your misinformation. If you are going to post on this or any subject, do the research and cite the sources. This is very serious business, and time is important.

Dream On

Minnetta is more than likely going to be trying to confuse matters - a smoke screen to enable the inevitable Fog of War explanation for all the things that went wrong on 9/11.

You are aware of the fact

You are aware of the fact that Mineta is a Democrat ?
and that he doesn't seem to be a member of PNAC or AEI ?
and that his testimony can, to a large extent, be verified ..
unlike Tricky Dickys changing accounts of his whereabouts ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Say what?

I thought you were holding up Mineta as a witness, and now you're saying he is trying to confuse matters?

Excellent work! But please

Excellent work! But please leave off the music. To me it trivializes the importance of Mineta's statements. Better to present this kind of material in a "news-style" format--lead in quickly with who, what, when, where, (why), then cut to his testimony. The ending was fine except for the music. But you might add a very short piece about why his confirmation of that testimony is so important. This will make the video more understandable to a wider audience. Also, the credits are too long. Just scroll through them quickly to avoid appearing like self-promoters. That having been said, good work! And Mineta is a real gentleman. Compare to the Ghoul and his type.

Who, what, when, where, why--who you are and who he is; what is going on during the taping; when is it happening (date, time), where you are during the taping, why you are asking him these questions. This should be stated in a professional manner as it will add a great deal to your presentation--in information for the audience and, subliminally, for your having followed the normal news format. The who, what, when, where part often comes first, while the why part may come at the end. Also, since he was so gracious and since his testimony is so important, be sure not to be offensive toward him in any way when you do your "why" part.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Also, the next time you, or

Also, the next time you, or anyone, gets to ask Mineta questions like this, be SURE to ask him who was that "young man?" If he does not know the name, ask what he looked like, did he wear a uniform, how tall was he, what room was he coming out of, etc. (Save this for a second or third question in most cases, though it is now probably the most important one that has not yet been answered.)
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Yes!

Who is the young man?!

ALARM DATA

This is pretty good, Cheney's timeline is one of the biggest lies in the 9/11 Commission report.

Next time, they should ask him what 'alarm data which is no longer retrievable' means?

"The number of people that can reason well is much smaller than those that can reason badly.

If reasoning were like hauling rocks, then several reasoners might be better than one.

But reasoning isn't like hauling rocks, it's like, it's like racing,

Nice

That was nice of him to speak with you. It can be intimidating to have a camera on you and someone asking questions that you weren't prepared for. He was very nice to take you seriously. I have hopes for him when the truth hits everyone.
Thanks for being so curtious while talking to him as well. That is very professional and helps people to feel at ease. Good style.

I'm not sure your blog title is accurate

Mineta confirms what he already told the 9/11 Commission, yes.

But he doesn't say that Cheney ordered a "stand down". He says he believes there was an order to shoot down the incoming plane. In Mineta's interpretation, that means "the order" was not a stand down but a shoot down.

Of course many of us interpret the order as a stand down, because given the result it doesn't make any sense that the order was a shoot down. But that's not what Mineta is "confirming" here.

...

good point. i was watching it twice thinking i missed something first...

The ORDERS

Minnetta's testimony about Cheney was not referencing the Shanksville plane which appears to have been shot down. The ORDERS in question were in reference to shoot down protocol and specifically about the plane which apparently crashed into the Pentagon. In June of 2001 Rumsfeld had changed the protocol for issuing shoot down orders. Prior to June 2001 Fighter Squadron Commanders or Ground Air Defense Commanders were permitted to issue shoot down orders. After June 2001 the orders had to come from the top, Rumsfeld himself had to give the orders. On the morning of 9/11 while the plane was approaching the Pentagon Rumsfeld went missing for nearly 20 minutes. As the plane approached the Pentagon no one could change the order, which explains Minnetta hearing the young Officer asking Cheney,. "do the orders still stand?" They had to sit there and let the plane crash into the Pentagon (or appear to fly into the Pentagon as it might have pulled up at the last minute and provided cover for a missile strike at the Pentagon along with making it appear to wittinesses that a Commercial Jet crashed into the Pentagon). This scenario basically removes all responsibility from everyone involved and provides Rumsfeld with the perfect excuse that in all the confusion the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They layed out there cover story way before 9/11.

If anyone ever has the opportunity to ask Rumsfeld anything, they should ask directly where he was when no one could find him for 20 minutes and if in fact did he give orders to shoot down the plane in Shanksville. He's already stated that they shot down the Shanksville plane - though many have heard him say it and believe it was a slip of the tongue.

As explained above,

you are misstating the facts about the June 2001 change to DOD regulations.

Cover-up of Mineta's Testimony Should be Pushed

It's easier to push the cover-up than to speculate on what the orders meant. Check out what I put together here: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4831 and why the mainstream media may never touch it: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html

Not so fast

This is good citizen reporting going on here. Hats off to Seattle 911 Truth. However, all it does is confirm when Cheney was in the bunker. It does not confirm that Dick Cheney ordered a stand down. That is still speculation at this point. People are playing rather fast and loose with these headlines. If you read Mineta's testimony carefully, you'll see that he was discussing a possible shoot-down order. Now, it MAY have been a stand-down order, but this video does not confirm that, as the headline implies. Let's not give the other side the pleasure of finding us being slipshod.

I think the Truth Movement could stand to be a lot more careful with our claims. For instance, showing pictures of the steel beams cut at an angle and swearing that it proves demolition—when there exists a picture of a worker cutting beams at an angle during the cleanup. (Just go to the debunker sites, you'll find it.) Again, that famous beam MAY have been cut by an explosive charge, but the mere existence of the photo doesn't prove it. Another thing that irks me is one video of one of the towers collapsing I've seen played over and over again—one where the camera operator turns and runs. Well, this video has been presented with two different soundtracks, one of which doesn't match because the people say "Oh my God" at the wrong time. Of course, this wrong soundtrack is the one where you can here the "best" explosions, so that's presumably why they use it. Come on, people. We have to do better than this.

OK, there. My tirade is over. Let's keep doing these courageous interviews till we get to the full truth.

>>all it does is confirm

>>all it does is confirm when Cheney was in the bunker. It does not confirm that Dick Cheney ordered a stand down.

Indeed, and real investigations have move piece by piece and get each data point rock solid. That's the best way to build towards the case for a stand down. Once the contextual information is rock solid, someone might talk, more evidence may be found, etc.

The Stand-Down Evidence is Compelling

The Stand-Down does NOT live or die with the Mineta Testimony. I'd like to see more 9/11 researchers focusing on non-NORAD response on 9/11. David Ray Griffin in particular, has tackled the stand-down evidence very well. The War Games go hand in hand with the NORAD stand down, and we need someone to fully put these two strands together.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

inconclusive, not compelling

Sure, it makes sense as a possibility. I've yet to see the compelling evidence that it actually occurred, though. Take, for example the order which Mineta overheard the young man asking about. It could have been an order for the Secret Service to shoot down the incoming plane with a SAM if it got close enough to the White House. We just don't know. What we do know is that we need an investigation which will raise and answer these questions by asking knowledgeable parties under oath and not letting them slip off the hook. That's been well established. Most of the rest is hypothesis, IMO.

The young man couldn't have

The young man couldn't have been referring to a shoot down order because there were no wings in the air to shoot it down.

If it had been a shoot down order, the distances stated would have been between the tasked wings and "77," not between the errant inbound plane and the Pentagon.

'Do the orders still stand?'

Furthermore, how much sense does it make that repeated confirmation would be sought on a shoot-down order with reference to the increasing proximity of the aircraft? To have someone coming back again and again and saying, 'it's this close...now it's this close...now it's this close...Do the orders still stand?' would make much more sense in the context of a stand-down order than a shoot-down order.

For the record, though, I think the June 2001 change of protocol is what's most at issue here. Strictly speaking, because of that change, neither Cheney nor anyone else was obliged to issue a 'stand down order' to ensure that aircraft were not intercepted. Rather it would appear that, in Rumsfeld's (and Bush's) absence, Cheney's authority was sought to act counter to the new protocol, and he refused to issue such an authorization--in effect giving an 'order' to adhere to the protocol of not sending in fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft without the go-ahead from the Secretary of Defense.

Double misinformation

"the protocol of not sending in fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft without the go-ahead from the Secretary of Defense."

As explained above, the June 2001 change in protocol did not apply to emergency responses, lethal or not.

Moreover, you are confusing interception and shoot-down. Interception was standard procedure, and there are non-lethal measures that an interceptor can take.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

The 'Boston Globe' reported that:

"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)

How can there still be such confusion on this issue after all these years?

Sorry to be harsh, but this is serious business. If the supposed standdown is your argument, then do it right.

Good

Good point.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Stand-down inconclusive?

Maybe you haven't read the evidence, but it is more than compelling. The fact that they changed the timeline THREE times is just the tip of the iceberg as to how conclusive the stand-down is.

I suggest you look at Dr. David Ray Griffin's book debunking 9/11 debunking, and then crossing the Rubicon to see just some of the evidence.

No wonder I said in my last post that researchers should focus more on this evidence... some people just don't seem to be aware of the facts.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I think one of the reasons

I think one of the reasons people have a hard time with the stand down issue is that the obvious lack of air defense is such a huge smoking gun, therefore how could it have been planned in such a blatant and careless way -- with witnesses (i..e. Minetta) and everything?

But we need to keep in mind that evidence suggests that this was a broken operation in a number of ways. Leaving NORAD's pants down was most likely was not planned, but rather a result of a by-the-seat-of-the-pants improvisation.

The real key is the ground delays. Flight 93 took off approximately 40 minutes late and was presumed to have been heading for D.C. Doesn't it make sense that the D.C. targets were to have been struck first (or at the very least simultaneous to NY)? Had both the Pentagon and the White House been hit first, there would have been plenty of story cover to go round and no lack of air defense to explain. (You know, fog of war, both executive and military command centers compromised, yadda, yadda.) So why was 77 sent so far away from its original destination when the target was 20 miles from takeoff? Because the flight into D.C. had to be delayed until BOTH planes could fly into the scary airspace within a brief window. But those delays may have been too much, or something else went off, so the original plans for both flights were scotched. Remember, it took the feds 2 days to come up with a cohesive story for 93, and there was a lot of hemming and hawing about the 77 hit on 9/11 as well.

Similarly, had Flight 175 taken off on time, both towers would have hit much closer together. Tower II would not have raised eyebrows and defied logic by imploding first.

And Bush wouldn't have been left with his Commander-in-Chief training pants down in Sarasota, displaying an absurd catatonia while he was made to wait for something to happen that was expected to happen much earlier.

For those interested in the Stand-Down Evidence

I highly recommend the work of David Ray Griffin. In particular, his books "ommissions and distortions" and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". His extensive research, and quotations of air traffic controllers who he personally interviewed are important 9/11 research. One of these air-traffic controllers recently spoke at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth conference.

I recommend this article for starters if you don't have access to his books:

The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales
Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR200...

This evidence needs to be taken more seriously, and disseminated by the 9/11 truth movement.

The evidence for a stand-down is overwhelming. The fact that Mineta just "happens" to confirm a stand-down from the vice president himself is no mere accident. As others have documented, his statement is credible not MERELY because he has said, it--it is corroborated by the context, and corroborating evidence to support this statement.

A statement on its own is one thing. A statement corroborated by several streams of evidence makes it very credible. Corroborating evidence is the key to figuring out anything when it comes to 9/11.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Does Richard Clark's book contradict this?

If I can recall, Clark claims in his book that Mineta called in and then appeared briefly in Clark's office, mentioning that his sons were pilots, and that Clark then sent him to the PEOC. That seems like a tight timeline to get to the PEOC at 9:25. Clark could be wrong and this might not be an inconsistency in the broad sense, but is worth noting.

i think the general

i think the general statement that mineta says he was there when cheney got orders before the pentagon was hit proves the point though.. the claims are that he wasnt there until after the pentagon was hit, mineta says he was there when the pentagon was hit.. what the exact time was would require a handful of collaboration to pin down, but the commission didnt provide how they pinned down their time at all, they just rewrote cheney's timeline - even the timeline as he stated himself on tv..

As long as the timing matches

Mineta himself says in this video he may have gotten there later than 9:25. I thought there were some other timing issues involved in the theory, but forget what they were. If things match up with him getting there at 9:30, and better yet 9:35, that may not be a weakness.

This is fantastic...

Thanks a lot!

Justin A. Martell
www.sst911.org

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

this is currently on the

this is currently on the front page of the news section of world & business on digg, please go participate:
http://digg.com/world_news/Norman_Mineta_Confirms_That_Dick_Cheney_Order...

OMG Cheney Lied

Add it to the list of all the lies and deception this man has been behind. All the lies that Congress (dem or repub) have allowed to slip under the radar....

The man is obviously above the law. I mean lets look at this record so far...

1. Super Sekrit Energy Task Force / ENRON
2. 9/11 Cover-up - Actually threatened more attacks on American's if we 'over investigated' 9/11.
3. Lied on national TV about Iraq, Nukes, Iraq & 9/11 etc. etc.
4. Shot a man in the face, was allowed to leave the scene, change, shower, shit, shave, and sit down for din din before talking to cops
5. Retaliated against an under-cover CIA operative because her husband voiced distrust about Iraq situation
6. Now claims his department and himself are beyond the law of any known governmental branch

The man is obviously above the law and Congress is obviously playing it's role in allowing all this to take place

I'm too the point where I think it's going to take much more then 911 Truth, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Sibel Edmonds, TruthAction, and Alex Jones to fix my corrupted and un-accountable government.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

"4. Shot a man in the face,

"4. Shot a man in the face, was allowed to leave the scene, change, shower, shit, shave, and sit down for din din before talking to cops"

Always wondered about that little ditty. did you see the victim during his press conference after he got out of the hospital? Looked...how can I put this...scared shitless. He actually apologized to Cheney for his having shot him in the face. Imagine that. Someone shoots you in the face -- and you apologize to him. My assumption at the time was that Cheney was sloshed and either shot him accidentally or in a fit of rage. Guess we'll never know.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Yea I remember that little ditty..

His face was all facked up but the make-up job was pretty decent considering the circumstances.

Imagine the events that would follow if I accidentally or purposely shot you in the face with my 12 gauge.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

If I survived and could

If I survived and could still walk, that would be a very strange set of events to follow indeed. But I can only HOPE that you would apologize to me after such an atrocity, and not vice versa :)

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

yea no doubt

I would apologize if I accidentally shot you. I was more leaning towards the heavy hand of justice slapping both of us around before we even left the scene...or the hospital in your case.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Pretty sure he states the

Pretty sure he states the shooting happened the day
before we were all told it happened on too.

maybe...

Maybe it was a Cheney test run. He wanted to test whether or not he can do whatever the hell he wants without being held accountable. Shit, if you can shoot a man in the face and leave the scene before police can ascertain just what happened...you are golden....lets invade!

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

The guy might have been trying to counsel Cheney

On matters of the law.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

That judge was involved in an eminent domain case...

...in Austin, Texas, and he was arguing against a precedent that the Supreme Court had just ruled on. I thought it was Cheney's way of intimidating him to STFU, because eminent domain surely whet the Bushies' appetites after Katrina. Here is the link for a pretty clear article on the matter. http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2005/0....
Eminent.Domain.To.Local.Level-959183.shtml

"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest." - Benjamin Franklin

Prick Cheney

I think what's being exposed is that his allegiance is not to the U.S. government or American people but to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

Who is Slade???

With 1:00 left, someone else asks Mineta: "have you had a chance to ask Slade why your testimony was omited from the 9/11 Commision report?"

Who the hell is Slade???

Slade Gorton

Could be a reference to 9/11 commissioner Slade Gorton.

A guess

Probably not the '80s heavy metal band being referred to here.

Original article title inacurate - OK here.

Kudos to veritas for altering the title of the article here to reflect reality. The orginal title (as carried at the Jones Report), "Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 " is not only inacurate, it is quite rude to Mr. Mineta. If we can't accurately reflect the comments of potential whistlblowers in print, they're not gonna confide in us. (I tried to e-mail the original author but the e-mail address wasn't valid.)

You are the true patriots

Great work!

You guys understand to treat this just like any other crime case. We need evidence and you just got us a very important eye witness testimony.

I, not even being American, consider you to be true American heroes who will never let these crooks scare you into submission. Afterall, they have no power , just illusions and deceptions, because when the police and the army wakes up, it will be like their arms and legs were cutt off. I hope we are close to that point now.

I used to have no respect for Americans, in the way the main stream media in Europe portray you, but thanks to people like you, I have seen that when it is needed you have people who will take up the challenges to do what is right, to do what is fair. You are the true patriots and you are giving your nation respect.

Thank you!

Please keep in mind that Cheney & the young man doing some

play-acting for Norman Mineta is NOT proof that AA-77 is what struck the Pentagon. (I think some shills are trying to spin it as proof.)

Not necessarily acting

Wasn't the young man just 'acting' based on the information that was coming in over radar screens? Are you supposing that the information he was acting on was actually based on fake blips? That wouldn't surprise me if so, but that doesn't mean the 'young man' in question knew they were fake and had to resort to 'acting' before Minetta.

Why wasn't Cheney in there watching the radar srceen himslef?

Why have the awkward set-up of a young man rushing back-and-forth to update Dick, when Dick should have been watching in real time for himself??? Also, why rely on a young man to relay a crucial shoot-down or stand-down order when Cheney should be doing so himself???

When the young man was saying 50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc., how did they know "out from what"??? Also, how did he already know that the Pentagon or DC itself was the target???

The whole thing sounds like a skit performed to make Mineta an unwilling witness to AA-77 slamming the Pentagon, which never happened anyway.

Excellent points from both of you

False blips are what I think they were -- "damn inputs" as the NEADS people said in the Vanity Fair article. (No reason to think they were acting or that their voices were morphed, as DRG has recently started claiming.)

There were multiple hijacking reported that day, and there is no way of knowing that multiple blips were not heading toward the Pentagon, or some other target. There are many possibilities. I definitely could see Cheney being aware that they were faked, and approving of and having approved the operation, but the idea of him standing in the bunker ordering the standdown as a key component of the operation is, as I said above, a cartoon scenario of 9/11.

Over 2250 diggs

and yet, it is not listed in the top 10

check your setting for which

check your setting for which submissions appear on "Your" front page. I believe dz said it was under world news and business...

Yep

I can see it is listed in that category. I was thinking about 'Top 10 in All Topics'. My first thought was censorship, but maybe it is not listed because it was submitted 16 hours ago..

Mineta says Cheney's order referred to Flight 93

There we have it, and I'm inclined to say: I told you so.

Mineta says explicitly in this interview that Cheney's shootdown order referred to Flight 93, NOT to Flight 77, and he says that he and the other people in the PEOC believed that Flight 93 was shot down due to this order.

This is in accordance with the 9/11 Commission report, and in contradiction to Mineta's testimony that the order referred to Flight 77. So this interview shatters his credibility seriously.

Of course, the "official" Flight 93 was down since 10:03, but we have the "phantom flight 93" which was visible on the radar screens after the alleged crash.

More on"phantom flight 93" and the mysterious plane crash at Camp David here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineta-and-elusive-plane-crash-a...

interesting analysis if

interesting analysis if nothing else. ive always said that we shouldnt ignore the cleveland airport mystery.......

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA