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.

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 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 I'll look it up at the site.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Airlines went into the Pentagon."

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

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.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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.

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 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

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