The Smoking Whistle

You heard right... 'whistle'. As in whistle-blower!

This is the MOST powerful video on YouTube, although curiously not the most watched. Take note this video was uploaded to YouTube on July 6, 2006. Norman Mineta submitted his resignation effective July 7, 2006.

This video is also being touted as one of the most powerful pieces of video evidence to be featured in the forthcoming release of Loose Change: Final Cut.

If WTC7 is the smoking gun, Norman Mineta is the smoking whistle.

To be honest....

I have never seen this whole video before, only heard it paraphrased. But from the context here it seems the whole "of course the order still stands" seems to be referring to an order to shoot the plane down, not to standdown and let the plane fly.

Go back and watch it again...

The key question is... "do the orders still stand?"

Mr. Mineta admits he does not know exactly what those orders were. We can deduce that either an order was given to shoot the plane down, or an order was given to standdown. We don't know. Why? Because the 9/11 commission did not fufill it's obligation to find out exactly what Mr. Mineta was privy to.

Instead, Mr. Mineta abruptly resigned his position and has not been heard from again on this issue. Why?

Viewed in context, we have a soldier briefing the Vice President on the status of an inbound "plane". This object is coming closer and closer on a direct collision course with the Pentagon. We know SOMETHING hit the Pentagon.

From the testimony, it appears apparent that the order to shoot down commercial planes was given prior to the Pentagon being hit. What happened?

This testimony is so important because of the questions that were not answered. We don't know if the Vice President was questioned about this point in his closed "off the record" meeting with the 9/11 Commission. I would argue that we need to know. I would argue that the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve to know.


AMEN!........Among lots of other questions left to speculation without clarification.
Are AMERICANS satisfied with these lame BS
half answers?
Since the debunkers claim to have all the answers.
My questions is .....What was the aids name,and where is he?

When exposing 911 Truth to newbies, first play...

....the classic WTC7 'collapse" clip, then play this one....

Since we all know "the plane" hit the Pentagon, the orders couldn't have been to shoot it down....if those orders (to shoot it down) stood, it wouldn't have hit it.....

WTC7 (clip) + Mineta Tesimony (clip) = Instant Paradigm Shift

Now...."Watch 9/11 Mysteries and call me in the morning...."

Thanks Altruist...

Clearly, I could not have said it better... although I tried.

You did...

"the smoking gun/smoking whistle" thing is really good, nicely done....excellent usual....

Just adding my 2 cents...for reinforcement...

Not the smoking gun you are looking for

I submit, that the idea of "orders to shootdown" as even confirmed by Hamilton when Minetta had offered not a single shred of evidence that "orders to shoot down" flight 93 could possibly have been implied, is all another distraction that may unfold later as a 9/11 truth "screw up". If the individual entering the bunker counting down an approaching aircraft to the Pentagon was told "orders stand" then it can only be referring to the Pentagon hit and stand down orders. This all took place after 9:30 am, the Pentagon was hit by 9:50, and Shanksville is 150 miles from DC. I think the switch in mental association of Shanksville for DC is only because of supporting evidence that Flight 93 may have actually been shot down (another possible ploy to misdirect us since not enough surviving airplane parts or bodies really supports that theory either, to my knowledge), and it easily serves as a way to purposely misdirect Minetta's testimony. Just letting Minetta hear a suggestion of "shootdown" over PA, then just suggesting for him to confirm that "there were definitely orders to shoot down", it would be easy to manipulate Minetta into agreeing that clearly Cheney and the young man were talking about PA. Minetta also mentions Norfolk, which has nothing to do with any of the scrambled aircraft. Either he just slipped up, doesn't have all his facts straight, or was mislead by other info to introduce Norfolk, it could again be a setup to shred Mineta's testimony later. So, while Mineta's testiminoy is important because it reveals that Cheney and the countdown briefings took place, we must leave it at that and not imply that it is evidence that suggests any orders for shooting down were in place. Maybe there were, but Mineta's testimony clearly refers to the plane allowed to hit the pentagon. What we need is the person who kept updating Cheney. Has his name ever been revealed? He would be your smoking gun for the simple reason that it is more of a crime for allowing the death of passengers on Flight 77, and the deaths of Pentagon employees by stand down, than the pressures of leadership for having to make the grim decision of protecting America by shooting down the poor heroes of Flight 93. From the LIHOP perspective (forgetting MIHOP for a moment), we are all complaining that they did nothing to stop the attack, well, what would we have had them do, shoot down the other 3 planes as well, right? Even if you prove Cheney gave the orders then, all you've proven is that he lied to the 9/11 Commission to save America any more trauma regarding 9/11, and did only what we would have had them do to the other 3 planes if they had had time to. This could just make a hero out of Cheney in the long run if proving he downed 93. I would caution against toting this as the "Smoking Gun" because it incorrectly implies the PA shootdown. Larry

Central Mass 911 Truth Alliance

Good food for thought...

that perhaps brings us back to this:


We always talk about the communications from flight 93.... but were there any from flight 77?

The plane had been hijacked for over an hour..... then if we are to believe that cell phones were to work at altitude..... they would have been more likely to work flying over a major metropolatin area at 7,000 feet prior to the corckscrew manouver.

there were two phone calls... one from a flight attendant named Renee May and the other from Barbara Olsen.

Two calls in an hours time?

Was there any radio communication reported from this flight?.... all reported radio communication was from the first two flights.??

Flight 77 had virtually no communication?... over an hour

Me, Ronald Wieck and Arabesque on Mineta's testimony

I've collected the relevant discussion (from the blog "Ghosts of Firemen") below so that it is easy to follow the arguments and try to come to the best conclusions. (I've left out some comments that are not relevant to the topic.)

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
What is the purpose of pretending that the 9/11 Commission "ignored" Norman Mineta's testimony? The Commission was trying to establish a timeline. By comparing Mineta's version of events and the times he gave with many other accounts, they concluded that Mineta was off by more than twenty minutes. I spoke to a senior staffer of the Commission who acknowledged that they should have stated explicitly why they decided not to include Mineta's testimony in the book.

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *

Mineta clearly testified that he saw and heard Cheney talking about what to do with the plane when it was *approaching* the Pentagon ("The plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?").

How could Cheney have talked about how to handle the plane approaching the Pentagon *after* the Pentagon had already been hit a good while ago?

The Commission also ignored the FAA memo stating that Flight 77 was being tracked while it was approaching its target -- as you also very well know.

The relevant parts of Mineta's testimony, by the way, are the only excerpts that have been cut from the Commission's video archive, as I have verified myself. Why do you think they would do that?

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
None of Mineta's testimony has been "cut." It is available in full on the net.

Mineta's account of Cheney's conversation with the military aide squares with several other accounts, except in one respect: Mineta has it taking place a half-hour earlier than everyone else. The plane under discussion is not Flight 77--that is purely a fantasist myth--but Flight 93. What neither Cheney nor the aide realize is that the plane has already crashed. You ask a perfectly reasonable question, but you seem oblivious to the implications. Of course, they were not talking about the plane that hit the Pentagon. Nobody thinks they were. The conspiracy liars PRETEND otherwise because they are, well, liars. It is, in other words, a deliberate distortion by a movement that specializes in distorted quotes. The reason ONLY conspiracy liars make a big deal of Cheney's statement that the orders still stand is that EVERYBODY ELSE gets the idea that he is referring to the SHOOT-DOWN orders communicated to him by Bush. Fascinating, isn't it, that in the surreal world of the fantasists, Cheney announces to everyone within earshot that A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER WILL BE PERMITTED TO CRASH INTO A GOVERNMENT BUILDING and NOBODY notices anything out of the ordinary. Nah, that would be business as usual, right?
The inability to reject any nonsense, no matter how utterly preposterous, is a defining characteristic of tinfoil-hatters.

As part of my preparations for the debate with the Loose Change team, I spoke with Chris Kojm, a former senior staffer of the 9/11 Commission. He points out that one of the Commission's purposes was to establish an accurate timeline. When it became apparent that Mineta was describing the same events and conversations described by others, but his timeline was off by almost thirty minutes, his testimony was judged not worthy of inclusion in the book. Kojm agrees that much unnecessary confusion could have avoided if the Commission had stated this explicitly. Note that not ALL confusion could have been avoided. The fantasists would have tried to sow fabricated confusion in any case.

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
"None of Mineta's testimony has been 'cut.' It is available in full on the net."

That is incorrect, Ronald. I just re-checked this. The part that we have been writing about is *not* available in the Commission's archive.

Mineta's video testimony in the Commission's archive can be found here:

On that page select:
Day Two: Friday 23, 2003
Panel 1

Mineta's interview begins where he says: "Well, I do get a daily briefing, intelligence briefing." That, in turn, is *after* the part where Mineta describes Cheney's interaction with his aide, as you can check by following this link:

As I said, the relevant part (a few minutes) of Mineta's testimony has been cut from the Commission's video archive.

You then wrote: "Mineta's account of Cheney's conversation with the military aide squares with several other accounts, except in one respect: Mineta has it taking place a half-hour earlier than everyone else. The plane under discussion is not Flight 77--that is purely a fantasist myth--but Flight 93."

Let us examine this on the basis of Mineta's written testimony, which can be found here:

Mineta describes the crash of American 77 into the Pentagon:
"Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon."

After this, he continues his chronology of events by writing "at approximately 9:45 AM, less than one hour after I had fist been notified of an airplane crash in New York, I gave the FAA the final order for all civil aircradt to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible". So, this is clearly after the Pentagon crash.

He then goes on to describe the shutdown of civil aviation and goes on to write: "Unfortunately, during this time we also learned that United flight 93 crashed in Stoney Creek Township, Pennsylvania."

Furthermore, in the Commission's hearing Mineta clearly states that he (and Cheney) was talking about Flight 77, not Flight 93:

"MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah. "

Mineta *then* refers to Flight 93: "And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, 'Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?' "

So, in several statements Mineta makes a clear chronological distinction between Flight 77 and Flight 93.

You won't convince anyone by saying that a discussant is "uninterested in the [sic] learning the answers" and then showing a lack of interest in checking things and making even basic connections yourself.

By the way, even a Washington Post bureau chief wrote to me as follows:

"All this said? You're absolutely right, someone should have found Minetta and tried to figure out how he sees and hears Cheney and why the 9/11 Commission ignored him."

I don't think anyone who seriously wishes to find out what happened on 9/11 would object to that.

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
The Post bureau chief needs to do his homework. Mineta MISTAKENLY thought that Cheney and the aide were talking about Flight 77. That, it turns out, was impossible. Testimony by other witnesses established that the plane they imagined was heading toward Washington, D.C. was, in fact, Flight 93, which HAD ALREADY CRASHED. In other words, ALL of their information was confused and wrong.

The Commission did not ignore Mineta. It ESTABLISHED that his timeline was off by almost a half-hour.

For Mineta's full testimony, why not listen to it on C-SPAN? I haven't done so for a few months, but I assume it's still available.

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
"the plane they imagined was heading toward Washington, D.C. was, in fact, Flight 93, which HAD ALREADY CRASHED"

So, when the young aide tells Cheney that "the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... the plane is 10 miles out" and then asks if "the orders still stand", he is talking about a plane that he and Cheney think - obviously based on radar information - is in the air and closing in, but has actually already crashed? What distance information is the aide reporting then?!

Who is the young aide? Why hasn't he been questioned?

I don't have to listen to Mineta's full testimony. I'm just wondering why precisely the few minutes relating to his description of the Cheney--aide interaction are missing from the Commission's archive.

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *

Ronnie is living in fantasy land when he thinks that Mineta was talking about flight 93.

Exactly how was it known that:

“the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?”

How the heck did they know how far away it was?

You mean they knew the exact crash location in Pennsylvania?

Question: How did they know that? Are you saying 9/11 was an inside job Ronnie? I can't believe my ears! Welcome to the 9/11 truth movement!!

I never expected such “canard” coming from you.

Regarding the availability of the testimony


“Mineta's PEOC testimony was also edited out of the 9/11 Commission video archive.

When questioned about this, representatives at the National Archive stated that the video may have been lost because of a 'snafu'. Following is a brief summary of the scrubbed video along with links to recently obtained C-SPAN video.”

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
I agree that much confusion is the result of a frustrating reluctance on the part of 9/11 Commission members to address misconceptions. I have been pestering every member of the Commission I can track down to issue a clear, definitive explanation of why Norman Mineta's testimony was omitted from the final report. I understand the reason--Mineta's timeline was off by almost a half-hour. But why not spell it out? If I manage to prod them into issuing a statement, I'll relay it to you.

Devil's advocate time!

Let's see. A commercial plane chock full of innocent Americans is flying in the direction of the Pentagon. Says Cheney: OK young man, keep an eye on that plane. We've already had two collisions, and it seems to be approaching. f it gets within 5 miles of us, shoot it down.

So the young man is like... whoa dude, I'm gonna have to kill a bunch of my fellow citizens if that plane doesn't deviate from its course. But hey, that's my job as an Army of One--I knew what I was signing up for when I responded to that ad in my video game magazine...

He comes into the situation room--It's ten miles out, Dick! Orders still stand? I mean, do we really shoot it down if it gets closer?

Of course, you jackass--have you heard anything to the contrary? Like, LET it hit our military HQ?

No sir, of course not. Turns to Mineta--what are YOU looking at, civvie?!

So to recap, there are other explanations for this scenario of Norm's.

The real questions:

1) was there REALLY a plane headed for the Pentagon, and was that AA77?

2) regardless of what happened at the Pentagon, how did ANYTHING happen? If it was a plane, why wasn't it shot down? If it was a bomb, how did it get there? If it was a missile--from where was it fired and by whom?

3) Who knew what was really going on?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I don't know the facts very well

and have only heard Mineta's testimony once, but if your scenario can be made to fit the facts, you can be sure it will be.

If the timing is right, it might also be possible to say "10 miles out" meant 10 miles out from a line which had been set for the shootdown of Flight 93. Does that fit the timing and testimony?

Arabesque says above:

Exactly how was it known that:

“the plane is 30 miles out... the plane is 20 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?”

How the heck did they know how far away it was?

You mean they knew the exact crash location in Pennsylvania?

They could have known a predetermined line beyond which Flight 93 was not going to be allowed to cross.

And I'm not sure the public knows where Flight 93 was at this time --- the "crash" location is a hole in the ground. The plane could have been closer to DC.

This is uninformed devil's advocacy, but it seems like Larry Central Mass and Real Truther have valid points about the need to consider how this thing could be spun. And who knows -- maybe Cheney didn't know exactly what was going on, even if only for plausible deniability.


Mineta makes it clear that the discussion took place *before* the Pentagon was hit.


"They could have known a predetermined line beyond which Flight 93 was not going to be allowed to cross."

Perhaps. I agree it's possible. But it's hard to speculate on such matters. But Ronald never mentioned that in his argument, and I have to admit I didn't think of that. However it should be noted that "the orders still stood".

Were the orders to let the plane get to a certain location and then shoot it down? This seems unlikely given the repeated questioning of the orders. It seems to suggest that the orders were not expected or typical.

Of course I don't think that the testimony is referring to flight 93. So any speculation about that is not what I had in mind. In other words I don't think the above speculation is warranted based on the actual testimony of Mineta.

It aligns perfectly with what happened at the pentagon, and Mineta clearly stated in his testimony that he was not referring to 93. I am aware that later on he spoke to someone and said he was referring to 93, but that seems very unlikely given the full content of the testimony he gave (under oath!).

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