Mineta's testimony or no plane theory?

What can anyone tell me about how the testimony of Norman Mineta to the 911 commission fits in with the no planes at the Pentagon theory. I believe no plane hit the Pentagon yet Mineta's tesimony would seem to contradict this.


It fits like this . . .

I would agree that no commercial 757 hit the Pentagon, yet it was clearly impacted by an airborne object travelling at great speed. The two prevailing hypotheses are a Global Hawk un-manned drone with a cruise missle, or a remotely piloted A-3 Skywarrior, also with a cruise missle fired just before impact. Either could have had AA livery paint schemes, and both would have appeared on the Pentagon radar as an approaching aircraft, though the A-3 would have a much larger radar signature.

A more remote possibility, but one incorporating an actual 757, would be a low level fly over of said aircraft, with a subsequent cruise missle impact, likely fired from the Military Helicopter known in the public record to be at the Pentagon at the time of impact.

How's that work for you?

i know you like

i know you like no-planes/alternate plane but introducing it complicates the matter. it is easier to refer to other more easily provable theories

What are the more easily provable theories?

What are the more easily provable theories?

Or it could have been a false radar inject.

We don't know who this aide was, or where he/she was getting the information on the approaching plane. All we know is an aide was relaying information that may or may not have been accurate, and that Cheney confirmed that "the orders stood". This does not prove there was an actual plane 50 miles out, just that the aide believed there was. If a missile was fired into the Pentagon after people were told that a plane was approaching, the assumption would be that that plane hit the Pentagon. ut it could all have happened involving a missile and a false radar blip. Or a phone call to the aide from someone claiming to be tracking a plane. We can't assume anything when misdirection has proven to be the rule here and not the exception.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

That is quite good, Craniac...Certainly not enough debris...

Yes, and there sure weren't enough, nor the correct types of debris for it to have been a Boeing 757 there.

Also why would that young man act as a go-between for Cheney & whoever was monitoring & going to shootdown the supposed airliner? Why wouldn't Cheney observe things for himself firsthand & give his orders directly in his own voice? It seems to me like Cheney & the young man were acting out a dramatic show for Minetta, to make it seem that AA-77 was heading at them when it was a drone, missile, and/or explosives that blew-up the Pentagon!

no plane is BS here is my take on Mineta

his testimony could have referred to:

- Pentagon flight and stand down (CT)

- Shanksville and a shoot down (official story?)

- False alarm and stand down

- The orders were Cheney's request for tea :)

Ok, so assume you're referring to Shanksville and a shoot down order. As the flight nears it's target, it would be more imperative to shoot down, so you would be less likely to question the order. After all, it's now or never (to shoot down), so by questioning the order, you could possibly lose your chance. The aide was obviously concerned about an impending accident and hence his persistance in notifying the number of miles out. would he question the shoot down if he were worried about an accident? he would want a shoot down ...

assume for a moment that there was a shoot down order and this was shanksville they were referring to (official story?) why were no fighters reported close to this flight before it crashed. why would the aide be concerned about 'the orders' if there were no fighters to perform a shoot down?

now of course, you could say 'the orders' were something else. but what else could Cheney have ordered in Washington?

now assume it's the pentagon flight and a stand down

- firstly this matches mineta's timeline
- secondly the pentagon flight was 50 miles out at this time
- thirdly it explains his repeated returns and concerns about an impending accident and action that needs to be taken.
- it explains a stand down

Last option

- It was a suspected flight that turned out to not be hijacked. Cheney ordered a stand down (rightly so) but the aide wasn't so sure

another simplified take on

another simplified take on Mineta

option 1 - "the orders" referred to a shoot down or a stand down

option 2 - "the orders" referred to something else

If option 1 is true, fighters had to be nearby. These were never reported in the offiical story, so it "must be" option 2.

What order can you think of that Cheney would give that required confirmation by an aide and caused exasperation in Cheney? (this implies it was something important)