Declassified 9/11 U.S. Secret Service FOIA Records Describing Activity of President Bush & VP Cheney
Aidan Monaghan Thu, 04/29/2010 - 5:57am
The following are declassified United States Secret Service records obtained on April 23, 2010 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, describing the activities of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, families of the president and vice-president, threats against Air Force One and activity within the Presidential Emergency Operations Center on September 11, 2001.
Download the PDF file via the following link:
- Aidan Monaghan's blog
- Login to post comments
Statements of Interest
Page 5:
"SAIC (Special Agent In Charge) Truscott said that he left his office in the EEOB to respond to the White House shelter area ... Upon arrival at the shelter, the Vice President, Mrs. Cheney, and SAIC Zotto, Vice Presidential Protective Division, were present. VP Cheney was talking on the telephone. SAIC Truscott said that he advised the group to move to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC)."
"SAIC Truscott stated that the report of the Pentagon being hit by the suspicious aircraft was announced to the VP and NSA Rice after they arrived at the PEOC"
Page 6:
0925 - SAlC Truscott suggested that we relocate to the shelter.
0933 - The group entered the PEOC at which time information flow to the Vice President and staff began.
0941 - CNN reported that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Page 18:
0951 - VP relocated from West Wing office to bunker at White House.
Interesting stuff Aidan. Thank you.
Page 9
S~,b~ted that when h~ had finished briefing all of the posted shift SAs, he re~ near VP Cheney s office door. He said that he heard the broadcast alert from the JOC on' b ~.., € radio frequency: "unidentified aircraft coming toward the White House." S~.b~said he-went into VP . Cheney's office and told the Vice President that he had to move to a safe lo~o~SAs\_ b
It sounds as though some of this Secret Service Report has been rewritten to closely correlate with the 9/11 Commission Report Timeline. Ignoring the claims of the White House photographer, NY Times reporter, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke and even Cheney's own admission that Cheney was inside the PEOC and "in command" long before the Pentagon was struck.
Rewrite a report?!
Rewrite a report?! They wouldn't do that, would they?:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20108.htm
Another confusing aspect...
Another confusing aspect is that possibly some of the eyewitnesses (NY Times reporter, Whitehouse reporter and others???) refer to the "shelter". So do they mean the PEOC or the corridors below the WH. As Cheney and the above report mentioned there was a corridor leading below the WH to the PEOC.
I know one thing, a NEW investigation could answer this and all the other questions.!
The Mineta problem
I have always argued that Mineta's timeline can't be correct and that we therefore have to withstand the temptation to take Mineta's account as proof for a LIHOP-Version of the Pentagon attack, i.e. that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because Cheney sabotaged the air defense. For this point of view, I've been constantly attacked, especially on this site and by people who stick to LIHOP and regard a MIHOP/Operation Northwoods version as disinformation.
Thanks a lot for digging out this document, Aidan. It confirms that Mineta has enmeshed himself in contradictions. He claims that, when he arrived at the White House, it was evacuated, and the Executive Office Building (EEOB), too.
Mineta: "I grabbed some manuals and some papers, went down to the car, and we went over to the White House. As we went in West Executive Drive, people pouring out of the Executive Office building, people running out of the White House, and I said to my driver and security guy, 'Is there something wrong with this picture? We are driving in, and everybody else is running away.' "
According to CNN, the Executive Office Building was evacuated at about 9:40-9:45, as well as the White House. If Mineta arrived there at this late time, he can't have been in the PEOC at 9:20, i.e., he contradicts himself. Q.E.D.
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/03/contradictory-statements-of-norm...
Thanks to this document, we have finally someone who was in the Execuive Office Building and reports what was going on inside. His name is Carl Truscott:
"SAIC Truscott said he was in his office, Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) and observed the CNN broadcast of the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, New York City. SAIC Truscott said he telephoned and paged Deputy Special Agent in Charge (DSAIC) Assistant to the Speci;al Agent in Charge (ATSAICI b~. b1c-rPPD, and ASSistant Division Chief (ADC) TechnicalSecurity Division(TSD), to his office for a meeting. The meeting was called to discuss security enhancements at the White House and began approximately 9:18 a.m. SAIC Truscott said that issues addressed during the meeting included the following: placing countersniper (CS) support on the White House; providing counter assault team (CAT) support to the First Lady detail (FLO) at the U.S. Capital; opening the Emergency Operations Center (EOC); increasing the number of Emergency Response Teams (ERn; placing counter surveillance units (CSU) near the White House; providing protection for National . Security Advisor (NSA) Condaleezza Rice; increasing TSD support., placing one additional team at .the White House and alerting the Army Corps of EngineersiStructurarColiapse Team.
(U) During this meeting, Assistant Director (AD) Danny Spriggs, Protective Operations (PO), telephoned SAIC Truscott from the Director's crisis center (at 9:43 a.m.). AD Spriggs told SAIC Truscott that the Intelligence Division (10) duty desk was reporting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information that a suspicious aircraft that was coming toward Washington, DC, and that the White House was being evacuated. At the same time, ATSAlCl ws providing similar FAA information via telephone to DSAIC who was still in SAIC Truscott's office. SAIC Truscott advised AD Spriggs that he was unaware of the approaching aircraft and would initiate the White House and EEOB evacuation."
The White House and the EEOB have not been evacuated at 9:15 or so, but at about 9:43. This is proof that Mineta contradicts himself.
Concerning the witnesses: the White House photographer (his name is David Bohrer) has in fact never reported the same timeline as Mineta; Clarke's book is unreliable and demonstrably false in several details; Cheney's account has been misinterpreted.
There is not one single person who confirms Mineta's timeline. Mineta contradicts himself. It is obsolete and misleading to regard Mineta's testimony as the big smoking gun for a LIHOP operation. There are better alternatives.
White House evacuation began well before 9:43
The earliest time given for the start of the WH evacuation on the 9/11 Timeline is 9:22.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a922slowevacuation#a922sl...
The evacuation was a process, not an instantaneous event like a fire drill. Nor does the 9:22 time rule out others having started an exodus even earlier. It's certainly possible, under the circumstances, that others were leaving without having been ordered.
It was at 9:45 that those leaving are ordered to run, but that doesn't mean that everyone leaving earlier was just strolling along like a walk in the park. Had I believed a hijacked airliner might be converging I would probably have run no matter what time I left—which would be as early as possible.
(Prof. Griffin wrote about this, but I can't just now find the specific reference.)
Reports concerning Cheney's movements conflict somewhat, with one (NYT) indicating that the Secret Service had whisked him away by about 9:10.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a903cheneysoffice#a903che...
I don't consider your statement that "This is proof that Mineta contradicts himself" to be justified by the totality of evidence. It's appropriate to note apparent discrepancies, but that's as far as your evidence can take us.
Mineta's crucial account—the one spiked by the Zelikow Commission—is a very specific recollection of specific events that could only correlate with Flight 77 (or whatever hit the Pentagon), as it was the only aircraft of interest that came within "10 miles out."
It is true that the first people left the WH before 9:43
in an "orderly" manner. I presume they simply took their stuff and left work. Even the 9/11 Commission confirms that. But that's not what Mineta is talking about. He emphasizes that "everyone" was running out of the White House (Mineta: [i]We are driving in, and everybody else is running away[[/i]), and this is exactly what CNN reports for the time of 9:40/9:45. Both CNN and Mineta don't describe a single person running away. They describe a mass panic, and such an occurrence didn't take place before 9:40.
Furthermore - and this is an important point you didn't address - Mineta also reports people "pouring out" of the Executive Office Building. According to Carl Truscott, the evacuation of the EEOB occured after 9:43 as a sudden reaction to an unidentified approaching aircraft. This aircraft was not Flight 77 (or the plane believed to be Flight 77), but the E 4-B, the "white plane", which is reported by many people as flying over the White House. There is also footage of this plane. If people were "pouring out" of the EEOB way before 9:43, Truscott certainly would have noticed and reported it.
Fact is that Mineta has linked himself to the evacuation of the EEOB. The more evidence appears that such an evacuation didn't happen before 9:40, the more Mineta's version lacks credibility.
statements as "proof" ...
at this stage, I don't think we can afford to take anyone's statements as "proof" of anything ... there are simply too many contradictions and inconsistencies in the "official" story, let alone all the non-official evidence, for anyone to know for certain, where lies the truth.
The Cheney timeline
I've long been hesitant to take at face value the 'orders still stand' dialogue reported by Mineta, and to see in it (as many tend to) a kind of 'smoking gun' re 'what really happened' where the Pentagon is concerned.
However, Mineta's testimony remains critical regarding the question of when Cheney arrived at the PEOC, and the related question of why the official account is so determined to place that arrival as occuring later in the timeline than Mineta claims. Even if Mineta was off by a few minutes in his recollections, and Cheney's arrival was closer to, say, 9:30 rather than 9:20, Mineta has no doubt that Cheney was there prior to the strike on the Pentagon at approximately 9:38. The official version that was eventually formulated went to great lengths to posit Cheney's arrival in the PEOC as occurring several minutes after the reported strike on the Pentagon. Why does it matter so much to propagators of the official account that Cheney not be situated in the PEOC until after the Pentagon was struck?
I'm not sure how much light the 'orders still stand' exchanges reported by Mineta shed on the question of what really happened at the Pentagon. But I expect that the 9/11 truth movement would agree that they do NOT pertain to the question of what really happend at Shanksville, which is what promoters of the official story--by placing that dialogue later in the timeline--would have us believe.
The main significance of "the orders still stand."
I agree that Mineta's testimony provides evidence concerning the time of Cheney's presence in the bunker.
There are two points that are also very important, particularly in view of the major change in the OCT made by the Zelikow Commission.
1. The fact that Cheney was aware of the incoming craft from the time it was more than "50 miles out." Considering the time it would have taken for the plane to arrive in DC (assuming of course we're talking about AA77), and adding the three minutes necessary to perform the remarkable downward spiral, we're talking about 7-9 minutes (or more!—depending on when the conversation with the "young man" began) during which Cheney was clearly aware of this plane coming into D.C. AND YET THE MILITARY WAS NOT!
The third and current version of the OCT is that the military didn't know the last three planes had even been hijacked until after each had crashed, because the FAA just couldn't get around to informing them. And yet Cheney knew about it!?
2. The second point is best framed as a question. Mineta of course assumed that "the orders" were to shoot down an incoming airliner. But given that the military didn't know about the plane (other than it was lost) before the Pentagon was hit, then the obvious question would be: To whom were those shoot-down orders given?
So Does "Bunker" = PEOC?
I'm not up on all the terminologies.
Correct
"Bunker" is typically used as shorthand for the PEOC—Presidential Emergency Operations Center—under the White House.
1038 Plane crashed near Camp David ?
What is the significance of this line?
"1038 Plane crashed near Camp David."
HWS
In the beginning, every top
In the beginning, every top official, from Ari Fleischer to Colin Powell, believed that an unidentified plane that was heading toward Washington (after 10 o'clock) had crashed at Camp David. The story changed quickly to the version that the plane (allegedly Flight 93) crashed in Pennsylvania and was only "aimed" at Camp David.
For more background, please look here:
Mineta and the elusive plane crash at Camp David:
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineta-and-elusive-plane-crash-a...
LIkely just a reference to fight 93
Camp David is less than 100 miles away from Shanksville.
Hmmmmm.... CIA records?
Why is everyone so easily convinced that these records represent an accurate and un-adulterated version of the actual events? Who is to say that they are not duplicitous
I'm a loooong way from trusting any information coming from these sources and it's going to take a lot more than this to convince me to toss Norman Minetta's testimony, which, I believe, was under oath.
Norman Mineta's testimony was
Norman Mineta's testimony was included in the complaint of April Gallop:
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20WWV=20Aff=20Part=201.pdf
WILLIAM W. VEALE: Quote: « I spoke with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in person on May 22, 2009, in an effort to learn about his memory of the events of 9/11, and his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He said he preferred to let the legal process run its course rather than be interviewed further then and there, but he did ask questions about this lawsuit, and we had a short colloquy about the purpose of my visit. Before the end, I asked if there was anything in what he was reported to have said about the events that he now thought he had gotten wrong, or was mistaken about; and he said “no.”
But the judge dismissed the complaint of April Gallop, without any further investigation on the testimony of Norman Mineta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
you said a mouthful! NYC Guy.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mineta was describing real events in fairly estimated timeframes. The 911 commission did no follow up on his testimony, left it out of the report, which begs the question Why? If for some reason the testimony was not credible why not follow it up? If it was credible then the lack of attention and follow-up fits right in with everything else associated with this cover-up. If anything after all this time is likely to be an " un-adulterated " version of events it's most likely Mineta's original testimony.
How many witnesses originally described shots comming from the grassy knoll? Somehow they didn't seem to find their way into the final report or official history for that matter. We saw the President's head take a shot from the front and when the media masters say your're mistaken how many people were taken? Yeah we all saw those planes knock down those Towers didn't we? The truth is being covered up as we speak and has been for almost a decade. Stories are constantly changing, people are afraid, and have a right to be. RIP Barry Jennings.
No shoot down orders even after both towers hit
From the 9-11 Commission....
"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.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, "in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing." The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. 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."219
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
"He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President."
"Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf
As you can see the 9-11 commission has a different timeline than Mineta. The person advising the VP that the plane is "80 miles out" is described as a military aide to the VP. The references to this paragraph are provided in footnote 219. So let's take a look at footnote 219, because Mineta has a different account but does agree a military aide was coming in saying "plane is 80 miles out etc...."
Footnote 219....
"219. For Libby's characterization, see White House transcript, Scooter Libby interview with Newsweek, Nov. 2001. For the Vice President's statement, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the second authorization, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001; White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001"
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm
So a person who has already been convicted in a court of law as a liar for Cheney is the reference for this, along with Cheney and his wife. What about the military aide? They must have talked with him. They would have to in order to help clear up the discrepancy.
I believe they did talk to him. It seems to me they talked to him on April 16, 2004. Because earlier in their report the 9-11 commission said this.....
"The Vice President's military aide told us he believed the Vice President spoke to the President just after entering the conference room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him, remembered hearing him inform the President, "Sir, the CAPs are up. Sir, they're going to want to know what to do." Then she recalled hearing him say, "Yes sir." She believed this conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered the conference room."215
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
"Told us"....means they talked with this military aide. So let's check the footnote on this to see the refrerence....
Footnote 215.....
215. Douglas Cochrane meeting (Apr. 16, 2004); Condeleeza Rice meeting (Feb. 7, 2004). For Rice entering after the Vice President, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2; Carl Truscott interview (Apr. 15, 2004).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm
The Military Aide to the VP, the person they claim was coming in saying "the plane is 80 miles out..etc" is named Douglas Cochrane, and he's an officer in the Navy.
To my knowledge this interview has not been released, it's been restricted....
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
RG: 148
Box: 00001 Folder: 0003 Document: 18
Series: Dana Hyde Files
Copies: 1 Pages: 18
ACCESS RESTRICTED
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
Subject: draft timeline of shoot down order and calls betwe
en the VP and POTUS and reports of inbound aircraft
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274489/DH-B3-White-House-Timelines-Fdr-Entir...
There are reasons for me to believe Mineta's account, including his timeline. There are reasons for me to not believe his timeline. However there is no reason
to believe that shootdown orders from proper authorities were given during the 9-11 attacks.
The 9-11 commission knows that the proper authorities never gave shoot down orders until the attacks were over.
The 9-11 Commission admits:
"Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial
aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a
phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense)."
page 35/585
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
10:03 Flight 93 crashes in field in Shanksville, PA
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Still no shoot down orders...
"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief
call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot."
Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
10:15 UA headquarters aware that Flight 93 has crashed in PA; Washington Center advises
NEADS that Flight 93 has crashed in PA
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
OK, now shoot down orders are given. This was a stand down.
"The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute
conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary
was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had
authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
"Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority." <<<<<<<<<<<<< This historic event would be documented. And it was.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf
How sure are you that no shoot down orders were given
before Fleisher's 10:20 note? Who would have shot down Flight 93? If in fact the 10:03 timeframe is accurate. Or do you believe 93 crashed and vaporized similar to the pentagon event? Those rare instances when plane crashes result in shattered debris fields etc. Also if we assume that 911 may have been an inside job with extensive planning etc, how credible is any official timeline anyway? Mineta was almost certainly not part of any conspiracy. The order still stands may very well have been a stand down. Let's assume a need to know and compartmentalized operation may have been in place. In the end I value physical evidence, unbiased testimonies, and percentages of likelihoods.