Mineta Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies

Mineta Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies

Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke Contradict the 9/11 Commission Report
By: Adam Letalik of http://www.truth911.net

Direct link to paper:


Mineta testomony is a smoking gun

FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft. Mueller admitted on CNN on September 20 and 27 that the FBI had no proof of the identities of the men actually on board the airplanes.

In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, “left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly, "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that: Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.

Now think about that for a moment. What Mueller admitted is that despite all the immediate pronouncements of these Arab names and assertions that they all worked for Osama bin Laden, the FBI with all its investigatory powers did not find one single piece of evidence that actually connected these Arab men to the events of 9-11. All the FBI had were fake IDs found in suitcases left conspicuously where they could be found.


Just an FYI...

From an article entitled, "Unraveling 9/11 Was In The Bags", former FBI agent Warren Flagg said, "How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks?" Flagg asked. "They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that's how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings." He also said, "These guys left behind a paper trail."

They refer to that bag of luggage as the "Rosetta Stone Of 9/11." It was found on the day of 9/11.

The interesting thing is that you would think on April 19th, 2002 when Mueller said, "The hijackers also left no paper trail", he would have heard of the "Rosetta Stone" by then, which he obviously did not.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

How did they "know so fast" that the "papers in the luggage"

were genuine & not some set-up or ruse to frame al-Quada or make them scapegoats?

Those "Korans left in vans" & "papers in left luggage" are phony evidence planted by the real perpetrators, elements in our own government!

It's certainly possible...

But I wouldn't go so far as to state it as fact.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

You're not the only one who thinks that

In a New Yorker piece that came out shortly after 9/11, Seymour Hersh quoted a source in U.S. intelligence who also considered the 'evidence' found in the car at Logan airport to have been planted. 'They left us a trail to chase,' the source said of the actual perps. (As is typical of Hersh's inside sources, however, his name is not given).

For more commentary on this matter, you may find the article at the following link to be of interest:


I remember that...

Here's everything I collected in regards to the hijackers being identified...

Jerry's article is there, as is Mueller's full speech, and the BBC's recent "retraction" of their hijacker alive piece.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Thanks for

all of the hard work, Adam.

Here's the antithesis


Mineta didn't tell the truth. His testimony does not only contradict all White House logs, but also

- his interview from from June 2006 where he reports people running out of the WH and the Eisenhower Building, an incident that happened around 9:40, not before.

- Richard Clarke's account that Mineta called him from his car on the way to the White House during Clarke's videoconference which began 9:15~9:25

Even without these clear proofs that he arrived much later in the PEOC than at 9:20, it is inconceivable that he was able to perform all his actions inside the DoT(beginning with the South Tower crash), the 1,7 miles car ride to the WH, the meeting with Clarke, and the walk to th PEOC, within 17 minutes.

This time span is simply to narrow.

Cheney's account contradicts

Cheney's account contradicts Mineta's, Clarke's, Rice's the photographer that was with Cheney before the secret service took him away, and even Cheney himself 5 days after the attack. Also contradicts the timeline done on the 1 year anniversary broadcast on ABC News.

I'm convinced that Cheney is

I'm convinced that Cheney is the only one who is telling the truth of his account and the rest are in cahoots, lying together.

That wasn't sarcasm.

Okay yes it was.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

mineta's timeline is

mineta's timeline is correct. he arrived at around 9:20.


when he called in from his car, he was only 2 miles away, so it totally fits with Clarke's account and both accounts say that Mineta arrived at 9:20, and there is no available evidence to suggest that these times are wrong

also... 17min is plenty of time. all he had to do, was make a few phone calls, drive for 2 miles, stop by to say hi to Clarke, then go to the PEOC. how long is that supposed to take? Mineta's timeline fits perfectly.

Mineta said he arrived at

Mineta said he arrived at the PEOC (!) at 9:20. Before that, he already spent AT LEAST seven minutes in the White House - talking with Clarke and walking to the PEOC, according to his own account.

This means that the evacuation of the White House must have started BEFORE 9:13, and this time is not even covered by the CNN comment.

Mineta's call came in some minutes into Clarke's video conference. The video conference probably started between 9:15 and 9:25, but even if it started as early as 9:10 and the call came in at say 9:13, this leaves 7 minutes for the remaining car ride, a walk to the Situation Room, his meeting with Clarke (it was 4-5 minutes, according to Mineta, not just "say hi"), and the 200 meter walk to the PEOC. I say: NOT POSSIBLE.

For his actions in the DoT I would assess AT LEAST 10 minutes. 5 minutes are not enough to make several phone calls, get an understanding of the situation, organize a response of the department, and instruct his employees what to do when he was in the WH.

And finally, Mineta HIMSELF has seen people running out of the White House and the Eisenhower Building. This incident is reported for 9:40, not for 9:13.

excellent work

but you may want to remove the unnecessary excerpt from 1984.

It interrupts the otherwise sober, rational tone of the rest of the article.

But excellent research.

The FBI knew who the hijackers were

with so many warnings before 9/11, the FBI field agents had their calls for further investigations thwarted by higher-ups.
Between 2000 and 2001, the CIA had made the FBI aware of the names of about 100 suspected members of bin Laden’s terrorist network thought to be headed to, or already in, the United States. A 23rd August 2001 cable specifically referred to Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, who were allegedly aboard the hijacked airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.
According to Richard A. Clarke, U.S. National Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the White House, about ten weeks before 11th September, the U.S. intelligence community was convinced that a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda on U.S. soil was imminent. Seven to eight weeks prior to the 11th September attacks, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of an impending Al-Qaeda attack against the Untied States that would likely occur in several weeks time.
Former Federal Air Safety Inspector Rodney Stich, who has 50 years of experience in aviation and air safety, had warned the FAA about the danger of skyjacking, specifically highlighting the fact that cockpit doors weren’t secure, and further that pilots should be allowed to carry basic weapons. The FAA refused to implement his suggestions, and when it became apparent the threat was real, they blocked efforts to arm pilots, or to place air marshals on planes, among other security measures.
The U.S. government actively prevented a further investigation from being conducted. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis had immediately viewed Zacarias as a terrorist suspect and sought authorisation for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant in order to search the hard drive of his home computer. The government’s Justice Department plus top FBI officials blocked an FBI request for a national security warrant to search Zacarias’ computer, claiming that FBI agents lacked sufficient information to meet the legal requirements to justify the warrant. The block remained in place even after the notification from French intelligence that Zacarias was linked to bin Laden.
To me, it seems that when the FBI made the claim that Bin Laden was not connected to the 9/11 attacks, they are the ones covering their asses. It looks as if the FBI has some dirty laundry that needs investigated. And eventually connect with Sibel Edmonds.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.


I will take the time to read your paper.

As I have said many times, evidence is credible the more times it is corroborated. When other sources confirm that something has happened it becomes more believable.

It's like this: if one witness were to claim a missile hit the towers, and no one else saw it, and there is no physical evidence, we can determine with great certainty that this witness is not credible. When his statement is backed up by one hundred witnesses and physical evidence, his statement then becomes credible.

Mineta said the plane was 50 miles out. According to radar at the time he said this, it was in fact approximately 50 miles out.

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