Did Cheney Allow Or Order 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon?

Did Cheney Allow Or Order 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon?



Did Cheney Allow Or Order 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon?

Sherwood Ross
Friday, March 2, 2007

Although the official 9/11 Commission Report(CR) said Vice President Richard Cheney did not arrive at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center(PEOC) under the White House until "shortly before 10 a.m." that tragic day, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified when he arrived in the room at 9:20 a.m. Cheney was already there. (CR published no testimony from Mineta.)

The timeline is important because if Cheney arrived at 10 a.m. it would have been about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was allegedly struck by a hijacked airplane at 9:38 a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. Some 125 Pentagon employees perished in the attack.

Mineta testified "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Since the airplane was not intercepted and destroyed, even though the vice president knew of it, "the orders" may have been to allow the plane to hit the Pentagon. All of this, and more, is contained in the March/April issue of "Tikkun" magazine, "a bimonthly Jewish critique of Politics, Culture & Society." The piece was authored by Dr. David Ray Griffin, a principal debunker of the accepted 9/11 dogma, and published by Rabbi Michael Lerner on grounds, "if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president..."

In Griffin's view, "the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government." If he's right, 9/11 was, indeed, the crime of the century, and what has been called a false flag operation involving the fabrication of evidence to make it appear the Taliban government of Afghanistan was complicit, paving the road for invasion.

To begin with, there's even a question of whether American Airlines Flight 77 under control of Al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour struck the Pentagon. It would require, Griffin charges, not only outfoxing military radar for over an hour but the quite miraculous performance of descending 7,000 feet in two minutes while executing a 270-degree banked turn and bashing into the Pentagon without touching or damaging the lawn, a feat of aeronautical magic.

Griffin, a professor of philosophy and theology at Claremont Graduate University, Calif., says the impact of the strike, unlike those of the two planes that struck the Twin Towers, did not create a dectactable seismic signal. "Also, according to photographs and eywitnesses, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not evident in the aftermath of the strike on the Pentagon."

Karen Kwiatkowski, then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of "a strange lack of visibile debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact." Another witness was CNN's Jamie McIntyre, who reported live from the Pentagon that day: "The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand." (How does that square with any photos you've ever seen of crashed airliners?)

Griffin also quotes retired pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence, who said, "There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757... There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel... The expected 'crash' damage doesn't exist...Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged!" So it may have been more than just a slip of the tongue when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blurted about the "missile" that hit the Pentagon.

The CR report alleged there was no warning of an unidentified aircraft heading to Washington until 9:36 a.m., only "one or two minutes" before the Pentagon was struck, yet Mineta said Cheney knew of it at least 10 minutes earlier, time to order an evacuation.
"By omitting Mineta's testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10 a.m., the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon," Griffin writes.

The author goes on to say, CR's conclusion "contradicts Cheney's own account, which can still be read on the White House Website. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" shortly after 9/11 Cheney said: '(A)fter I talked to the president...I went down into...the Presidential Emergency Operations Center...(W)hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.' So he got there, as Mineta said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 minutes afterwards."

Griffin asserts the public has been fed three different yarns about why Flight 77 was not intercepted before hitting the Pentagon. Initially, military officials said no fighter jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit; next, they said fighters were scrambled but did not arrive in time because of late FAA notification; finally, the CR found the FAA did not notify NORAD until after the planes crashed.

Particularly curious is that the FBI "immediately confiscated videos from security cameras on nearby buildings," and destroyed crash evidence, Griffin said. "After the strike, officials picked up debris in front of the impact site and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up."

Griffin's views are akin to those published on Internet site "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which has joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents and physical evidence related to 9/11. The group's cofounder, James Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, calls Mineta's testimony "devastating."

"It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit," Fetzer said. "In fact, there are multiple witnesses who contradict the Vice President's account, including Richard Clarke, Condoleeza Rice, and several others. It had to have been a 'stand down' order, but the mere fact that he knew the plane was coming in and did not warn the Pentagon is proof this was an inside job," Fetzer said.

Philip J. Berg, former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and member of Scholars, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against (Zacarias) Moussaoui(for willfully concealing advanced knowledge of the forthcoming 9/11 attack). No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"

Fetzer said the government's case against the hijackers is counterfeit. "A growing body of evidence supports the inference that these 19 men were patsies for forces within the United States government."

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist, reporter, and publicist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com.



DHS note:

This is an issue we should be addressing moreso than the "Church of Controlled Demolition"

Get the "young man" under oath to testify what the orders were that he was referring to, etc...

We need a Unified Message if this movement is to go ANYWHERE... otherwise it's just a mass of confusion and infighting based on prominent theories....

To quote Tom Petty:

We've got to Get Together sooner or later
Because the Revolution's here
And you know that it's right.
And you know that it's right.

We have got to get it together.
We have got to get it together NOW!

Norman Mineta visited American University 9/11/06

Norman Mineta visited American University 9/11/06 and my fledgling 9/11 Truth campus group was there to ask questions. Unfortunately our phone video footage is a little less acceptable quality, and we couldn't access the School'ss footage b/c the Video club did not archive the video (which is very strange). We still have the cell-phone video and I can contact the fellow member that has it. Mineta clarified a little more of what he had said at the Commission testimony, but it seemed like there was a definite shoot-down order for Flight 93 (though it happened after the fact he claimed) and the "order" he's referring to in the Commission testimony is something he didn't confirm or deny (whether or not it was a shoot-down order). This leads me to believe it was a stand-down order for obvious reasons. I want to apologize for not having the equipment to video tape this event to present you evidence that is not second hand.

In his testimony he mentions

In his testimony he mentions that he found out that there was an order to shoot down aircraft, but he NEVER goes into detail about the Cheney/Young Man "do the orders still stand" dialog. Furthermore, his testimony and the information from others (Clarke, etc) put Cheney in the bunker at a different time than the Commission.

What he told your group (kudos to pushing the subject) was just a reiteration of his statements to the 9/11 Commission. Even Ray McGovern asked him about the conversation and Mineta declined any more insight.

Here is McGovern at Camp Casey:


Camp Casey interview with Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern. He talks about running into ex-Secretary of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta and confronting him regarding his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that Cheney was well aware of the location and destination of Flight 77 (or whatever it was) and forced NORAD to stand-down and allowed it to hit the Pentagon.

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

the mineta paper!

CNN corroberates Mineta Timeline

Mineta said: Quote:
When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated.

Mineta said:Quote:
I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.

Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET

CNN appears to corroberate Mr. Mineta's timeline:


Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago.

If the rush transcript was published and broadcast at 9:52 am 9/11/2001, and the White house began evacuation 30 minutes before that--then the time that some form of evacuation began would be at approximately 9:22 am. or a little before (allowing a couple of minutes for broadcast preparation of the rush transcript).

Moreover, Mineta testified to the 911 Commission that as he was entering the White House PEOC it was being evacuated. He tesified that his time of arrival was 9:20 am.

Therefore, the rush transcript from CNN corroberates Mineta's version of events. Mineta did enter PEOC at or about 9:20 am on September 11, 2001. He did hear the exchange between Cheney and the aid about five minutes later.:

MR. ROEMER said:
So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands."

This is quite compelling evidence that Mineta's testimony before the 911 Commission was accurate and truthful

Mineta Testimony confirmed: Plane was 50 miles out

Let me just point out that the minenta testimony is not worth much if you think no plane hit the Pentagon. How can you argue that there was no plane and that Mineta was right at the same time?  These arguments are self-defeating.

For the record I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

(9:26 a.m.): Cheney Given Updates on Unidentified Flight 77 Heading toward Washington; Says ‘Orders Still Stand

"[Norman Mineta:] During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...


the plane is 30 miles out.... and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"


9:29 a.m.: Autopilot on Flight 77 Disengaged

“The plane is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon.” [Note: this corresponds with the Mineta testimony]


However, I think the controlled demolition evidence proves an inside job more strongly than this. The evidence is overwhelming.


This corresponds with the fact that the plane crashed into the Pentagon about 20 minutes later.


Norman Mineta Testimony under oath speaking to the 9/11 Commission http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860


[9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 9] “Information from the plane’s recovered flight data recorder (see September 13-14, 2001) later will indicate the pilot had entered autopilot instructions for a course to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (which is nearby the Pentagon).” [9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004]

Arabesque -

Let me respectfully disagree.

1) Mineta's testimony stands quite well on its own. Cheney did not act to stop the plane as he was clearly being informed of its approach.

2) There is mounting evidence that the Boeing 757 flew OVER the Pentagon and that explosives were used to create the damage to the building.

The arguments are not self-defeating.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Well I agree that the NSTB report shows this

But there is no one who actually saw this. Read the eye-witness testimony: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

There are many who watched the plane go into the building and described it in similar details to what happened at the WTC. I mean they said they were surprised that the plane didn't bounce off of the Pentagon--it went straight in.

The NSTB report really confuses me for a lot of reasons... I'm not saying it's impossible that a plane flew over the Pentagon, but it seems very unlikely given the fact that there were 757 parts inside the Pentagon and the eyewitness testimony and the light poles among other evidence.

But in particular what is very revealing is that there is a highway right next to the Pentagon. And on 9/11 it was filled with a traffic jam... so if it missed the Pentagon, someone would have reported it.

It is dangerous to say we can prove a 757 did not hit the pentagon because there is contradictory evidence. We can't prove that all of this evidence was faked. Speculation is not enough.

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

I don't want to get into an extended debate

over the Pentagon because we simply don't have enough information at this time to arrive at a definitive conclusion. This is one of the many reasons why we need new investigations. I prefer to put my energies into working to get the new investigations. As more information becomes available I incorporate it into my hypothesis of the events of 9/11/01.

The bottom line is NOTHING should've hit or happened at the Pentagon that morning.

That said, I have read all the eyewitness accounts (that I'm aware of) and there are very few that actually claim to have seen a plane HIT the Pentagon and the few that do are suspect, in my mind. I think that the working theory advanced by the makers of Pentacon, that a huge fireball masked and/or distracted people from seeing the plane fly over the building, is quite plausible.

You state that 757 parts were found inside the Pentagon, where is this information and is the chain of custody verifiable? To my knowledge no parts from any of the planes have been documented to have come from any of the four Boeing jets alleged to have been hijacked on 9/11/01.

Just as the near free fall speed of the WTC buildings destruction is a clear indication that a gravitational collapse is physically impossible, the aerodynamic ground effect is sufficient to dismiss the possibility that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon at ground level (unless the approach was at a steep angle which no one observed).

I have a fairly well-defined theory about what took place at the Pentagon that accounts for all of the information that I'm aware of to date. However, it is highly speculative and I see no point in putting more energy into what is the most contentious single issue within the 9/11 Truth movement. Perhaps we can meet at a future conference and debate the merits of various theories over a drink or dinner, I'm sure it would be very enjoyable.

I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the government myth is false and I already have enough information to convince others that we need new investigations. That is all I need to do the education and public outreach that is needed at this time.

Excessive speculation is highly detrimental to the process of convincing the public that the government myth is bogus and that we need new, complete and open investigations.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Smoking Guns = A new investigation

"we simply don't have enough information at this time to arrive at a definitive conclusion."

I agree.

In my opinion we should follow Steven Jones model for arriving at "justice". That means using the most compelling evidence to get an investigation. We can use the investigation to get answers to un-answerable questions.

How can we prove what happened on 9/11? The scientific method. If we can't "test" our speculation we can't prove it. This should be our model for 9/11 truth.

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

Mineta testimony

"The plane is 50 miles out" could well have actually meant "The radar blip is 50 miles out". Simulated flights, false radar injects, hello? I don't care how many "eyewitnesses" claim to have seen anything at this point. Open a real investigation, put them under oath, then see what they say.

Release all surveillance videos showing what happened at the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on those who say flight 77 crashed there. they have not met it. Until then, Occam's razor advises us to assume that like everything else that day, the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false and should not be taken at face value.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


"False in one, false in

"False in one, false in all." Still, this isn't a trial (yet), and we need to make choices about where to dig for the next clue, so there is reason to evaluate the likelihood of the various Pentagon possibilities. When we get to the trial stage, then I agree with your view 100%.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

It is what it is

Let me just point out that the minenta testimony is not worth much if you think no plane hit the Pentagon. How can you argue that there was no plane and that Mineta was right at the same time? These arguments are self-defeating.

Mineta does not have to be "right." Since we don't know what Mineta, Cheney, and the officer each was seeing and knew or thought he knew, it is hard to assess what Mineta's testimony means. Since I am not convinced a plane hit, I will make an argument that has no plane but still implicates Cheney, since that is what you see as necessary: Cheney knew the blip was fake and that no plane was coming in, or that the plane was not going to hit the Pentagon. The officer did not know it was fake, so he was wondering why Cheney would not rescind the order not to shoot down the blip. Mineta saw and testified about the officer's distress and Cheney's statements.

hey man... thank you so so

hey man... thank you so so much for that CNN thing!

the only arguement the "debunkers" use these days is that mineta's timeline was off by 30min... based on that lone evacuation statement. i always claimed that some sort of evacuation was taking place shortly after 9:00 (eg. people moving to the PECO) , but that the main evacuation didn't begin until 9:45, the generally accepted time.

My guess is the order was to...

NOT shoot down the plane (yes there was a plane) !!!

If you look at the Pilotsfor911truth FDR and pentacon eyewitness research, it could well have meant...

"Don't shoot the plane down, cos he knew it would be flying over the Pentagon".

Then the Generator (that accounted for most of the initial smoke, that they never seemed to want to put the fire out) fired something at an angle identical to the "official" flight / hit trajectory causing the damage to the wall.

There were storage containers there also which could have had, explosives and simulated crash debris stored in them, which randomly distributed them in unison with the "feigned impact".

There were many incendary devices placed throughout that renovated wing (accounting for the sporadic and isolated fires), which seem impossible to have started from a central point...

Anyway, No I don't have any proof... ;-)



The official story flight path

and the downed light polls remains a mystery, but that Pentacon video, it shows rather conclusively, that the plane flew north of the Citgo Station and could not have been the cause of the downed lightpolls, or that generator and fence damage. What we need are the release of the security tapes from cameras which exist all along the outer wall, along with the Sheraton Hotel video which was confiscated, as well as the DOT highway tapes. Then we would know. Release the tapes DOD and FBI. We are not afraid to see what's on them. Truth is truth, however the chips may fall.

Amen Brother...

Release the tapes DOD and FBI. We are not afraid to see what's on them. Truth is truth, however the chips may fall.

You know what I like 911veritas?

What you've gone and done to place 911blogger on the radar screen. I noticed a few weird shill-like creatures appearing here and there after the BBC story which eminated from here, and you know we're being read now by certain people who are in a position to make a difference. They know damn well they cannot contain this thing any more, and I'm betting that there are more good guys, true patriots, than bad asshole tyrants, and they hold it within their power to overturn this dark shadow government and evil executive branch in one fell swoop. All they would have to do would be to open the floodgates of truth regarding 9/11, and they would surely do so by using the Internet and the blogosphere. If you are reading whoever you are, I say drop the bomshell, and allow the USA to be transformed, no matter how painful the recovery process may be. It would not be the end, but only the beginning of the end of one beginning and the beginning of a new one, a new realm of possibility, where the spirit of Liberty shall fill the very air we breath.

Surely they are out there, and surely they are watching ever more closely the movement of our movement, and what it is doing to the now outmoded and useless, and hurtful, myth of 9/11. Surely they must see the writing on the wall. It is in the realm of conceivable that 9/11 revealed, is so explosive and so transformative, that it could very well represent the reconstitution of the Republic, and serve as the very keystone in the royal arch under and through which we may begin to pass collectively into a whole new realm of freedom and of limitless possibility, because it is the very power of individual Civil Liberty unleashed which caused the United States to rise to power, and to become a shining city of light on a hilltop, in the first place.

So yes, release the tapes and everything, and let Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Abrams, Meyers, and whoever else may have been involved, Mueller, Tenet, etc. - let them pay the price, because for everything a price must be paid, in order for Truth and Justice to be served.

Let the whole damn thing spill out all over the place, like a chain reaction and domino effect.

It would serve as a roto rooter for the heart and soul of America, and could even stave off a future heart attack. Let's get it over with, and the sooner the better.

911Blogger Rocks !!!

and deserves every bit of attention it gets :-)

There's no place I would rather hang and it was a pleasure doing a little bit towards helping our common goal.

Just goes to show, research is far from dead...

There's gold in dem hills :) --- and I'm not on about the famous Jon type either ;-)

Best wishes RR

this place does rock

I usually only monitor the rss feed, which is the front page stuff, but what comes through is always high quality. Just thought I'd chime in with a hat tip and a thanks to the site, the mods and the users in general.

National Geographic flight path animation

This clip evidently shows a National Geographic animation of the flight path:


The animated path roughly corresponds with that described by the CITGO eyewitnesses -- or does it? Please have a look at it.

The clip also seemed to confirm that none of the large Boeing motors (2.7 feet in diameter) were found on the site.

Don't you mean that Boeing engines are 2.7 meters in diameter?

Big difference between 2.7 feet & 2.7 meters.

Yes, of course

I meant meters.

What about the animation?

Show "Why is this logical ?" by haverman

I'm more concerned with the errors in the timeline...

and why Cheney supposedly got there are 10am, or was it 9:20am, etc.........

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

They're giving you better

They're giving you better scripts I see--that was almost convincing. ;-P

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Haverman, why do we need to answer you?

Aren't the answers supposed to come from Cheney? Mineta? The young man who has never been identified?

Screw your questions. You set up a road block when you ask us, the citizens, to answer for the officials who know.

Why aren't you spending your time trying to get the answer instead of hypothesizing excuses for Dick Cheney? You pulled the same crap trying to make excuses for BBC.

You want Cheney impeached? Bull shit. That would leave you out of a job.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

Show "Thanks for taking the" by haverman

Ooh! Listen to the emotional manipulation!

"Why is that so upsetting to you ?"

Upsetting? Please. Get over yourself--you're not upsetting, you're TRANSPARENT. We who posted through the November Troll Wars have read it all before. Want to know what gives you away? Besides the lame attempt at emotional manipulation, it's things like this:

"because all you caught them doing is being inept, not much else."

Being inept at what? Saying a WTC 7 collapsed when you could see it just fine behind the reporter? She was just reading from the auto-cue--so the auto-cue's feed was wrong?


And how would that happen? Even incompetence follows logic. There is nothing to explain away the fact the Beeb reported a building had collapsed when it hadn't--unless you're suggesting they LIED about being LIVE? In which case, who was SACKED for this phenomenal cock-up?

So, love, answer that--who was sacked. Also, since you're supposed to be one of us, why don't you share why YOU think 911was an Inside Job.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "My ' devil's advocate '" by haverman

the haverman zone

"Yes, you're right, I don't believe 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives or whatever, the video evidence just does not support that conclusion at all , but that's another discussion."

Perhaps what you mean to say is that they do not appear to be conventional controlled demolitions. Otherwise, if you are not capable of SEEING the explosive force that was the result of some kind of additional energy, there is really no reason to take any of your observations seriously.

Show "The Haverman Zone....hhmm, sounds like a Ludlum novel" by haverman

"trusses snapping off their

"trusses snapping off their links to the core and the perimeter"

"sections of perimeter columns, some were hundreds of feet high, fell away"

"700 feet of central core standing upright after the rest of the building was fully down , just to name some readily visible points."

I don't recall readily seeing any of those things on any video. Can you link me to them?

To address your why... we have to start by discovery of all relevant facts and elimination of the impossible. Determination of motive comes after -- or perhaps to some extent iteratively during -- that. It is procedurally erroneous to start with a speculation about motive and then decide what evidence may be relevant based on the conclusion of your speculation. Ultimately, "They did whatever They did" and inability to imagine a motive prior to a full investigation is not grounds for ruling out what They may possibly have done.

That notwithstanding, your question is still a reasonable one to consider. I would point out, first, that it is difficult for me to imagine a plausible scenario being offered to explain how foreign terrorists would be able to wire up 2 (or 3) giant buildings in downtown NYC for a controlled demo without being caught. In addition, if they are so reckless as to murder thousands in these buildings and destroy the buildings, what would their motive be to undertake that kind of controlled demo? It would seem far more sensible to expect them to engage in a sloppier job, like the 1993 basement bombing, designed to severely damage and perhaps topple or otherwise destroy the towers, without attempting to perform extensive (presumably extremely risky and time-consuming) work inside the towers for the sole purpose of limiting the damage to the surrounding area. To suggest after a controlled demo that Islamofascists painstakingly wired the whole building would raise more questions than it would answer. A van sneaking into the basement once is credible; terrorist CD experts sneaking in for weeks on end wiring up the building, not so much. Thus, I don't think They could have sold that story to the American sheeple, and I expect They are at least as capable as I am of anticipating that difficulty. So I believe we can rule out that idea. At least, it is not without serious difficulty.

What about planes-only, then? That is a good question. Certainly you are right that the plane crashes alone would have had a jarring impact on the psyche of the country. If that were the only motivation involved, then I would be inclined to favor your train of thought. However, that analysis excludes a lot of the financial and other informational aspects of 9/11. I'm not very well-versed in it, but there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting certain players had a motive for CDing the twins, and also that the sudden removal of WTC 7 -- and, more importantly, the contents therein -- may have provided a "get out of jail free" card to certain other(?) players. "Planes-only" would be essentially a missed opportunity, from that vantage point.

That leaves the current favored view among 9/11 truthers: planes-plus-CD. This too has its difficulty, as you rightly note. Whether it is an insurmountable one is debatable. It's hard to imagine that you are unfamiliar with the debate on this, and I'll leave it to others to engage in it here if they want to.

I don't personally take a dogmatic position on this matter, putting me in a minority around here in that regard. But I do support everyone's right to come to their own view and attempt to support it with logic and evidence. That's IMO the best and only way to ensure that the truth ultimately wins out.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

No one owns the truth

The things I describe , Prospector Sam, can be seen in many videos. Note that the trusses cannot be actually seen snapping off :  the result of their having snapped off can be seen :  the tall remnants of central core have none attached, and neither do the large chunks of outer perimeter columns : remember the trusses connected and separated the inner from the outer tube. Once they were driven down and snapped off by the huge force of the falling floors above them, the outer columns had nothing holding them upright anymore, and fell ( mostly ) outward, sometimes becoming lodged in other buildings.  Rick Siegel's ' 911 Eyewitness ' is up on Google / Youtube I think. Around the 43 minute mark ( I believe ) , there is a complete shot of WTC 1 collapsing that's easy to time. Look for the first sign of the top falling as the helicopter comes into frame at the right, and start timing there. At ten seconds, nearly half of the tower is still standing. A good video resource, but Siegel's theories and arguments are , in my opinion, useless. There's a video out now called ' 911 Mysteries ' which attempts to make the case for CD of towers 1 and 2.  Watch that and then watch ' Screw 911 Mysteries ', which demolishes the demolition theory. ( both on Google video ) Please note : I don't like the tone of either production. Too polarised.

I agree you should start with the evidence. Trouble is, it's hard to eliminate the impossible when reports and testimony conflict like they do.  You invariably end up with estimated degrees of probability.

I should point out to you that the CD of 1 and 2 is mostly seen by 911 thruthers as proof of involvement of parties OTHER than Jihad terrorists, because the latter would have had no access.

You agree the planes alone would have been enough shock and awe, but point to further possible motivations for destroying the towers completely. That implies a conspiracy of some very unusual bedfellows !  A rogue intelligence faction serving the extreme wing of the PNAC neocons, Jihad warriors, shady Wall Street types who needed damning evidence to disappear, developers who wanted to scam the insurance, owners / leaseholders who were unwilling to pay for asbestos removal...the list goes on.  I wouldn't want to completely dismiss such links, though, because there are at least two : someone made Atta and his group aware of the military exercises on 911, ( or his handlers were aware of them ) and someone knew to make a fortune on the chance certain airline stock would plummet in expected future value. There are more links, I'm sure. 

I agree with your assessment that evidence and logic are the way to learn. I am also discovering however, that for many 911 truthers, the object is more to force a new investigation, rather than try to work out all the problems amongst themselves. I have come to understand that motive better, and so I'm resigned to finding other ways to express my views or play devil's advocate.  When George Bush said ' You're either with us or you're with the terrorists ', I was truly offended, as I knew and know I am with neither. That's what disappoints me about the whole truth debate : it's the same ' with us or against us ' thing, with no middle ground, just tons of suspicion and distrust, which ultimately favours the status quo :  no accountability, no justice.



Hey you

why don't you go and address Gordon Ross' mindboggingly detailed analysis of the TT's demolition? He's been waiting for critique for months now...and yet, no takers.

hey you

didn't know it, will definitely check it out

it's not a simple matter

I tend to share your overall PoV regarding the tone and tenor of debate. There are "enforcers" here who act way too much like the OCT shills do. I'd rather that wasn't the case. Still, the site's design allows unpopular views to be heard if the inquirer wants to hear them, so it could be worse. I do think it gets out of hand sometimes, like when a comment of yours get voted down to -3 without anything bad even being in it. I guess that's the vagaries of rigorous democracy, eh?

Re: CD, as an extremely deliberative person, this is one of the toughest aspects of 9/11 for me (along with the Pentagon strike). For many, the choice of "what really happened?" is crystal-clear; for me, not so much -- and I get very uncomfortable when I feel forced to make a choice prematurely. Hence, I keep trying to learn more, and absorb more analyses of the destruction sequences, and in the meantime stick to the things which are not disputable, like the Mineta testimony.

I do find Kevin Ryan's perspective on this very compelling. He seems like a solid, systematic thinker.

I'll check out Screw 911 Mysteries. Thanks for the tip.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

D e l u s i o n a l

Dude, this is the Party line on 1 and 2 (and by Party, I mean the professional liars guild.) "Falling down" (aka gravity) does not result in what was observed (pulverization, speed of destruction, molten metal) -- additional energy was required.

So, given the fact that you parrot the Official Fairy Tale on 1 and 2, why should we take anything you say seriously?

Why indeed should I be taken seriously ?

You're way over the line that should separate ideology from objective scientific debate. The problem with ' the 911 debate ' is there is no debate.  It's the trenches all over again. You have a Pavlov reaction of distrust as soon as anyone dares to agree with a part of the ' official ' theory : they must be parrots, on Cheney's payroll !!  disinformation agents !!  manipulators...!!  You make it impossible for a person to agree with some of what you're saying, yet disagree with other parts. In your view , the official version of events must be 100 % wrong !  As soon as anyone agrees with any part of it, they're working for Bush ! From where I'm sitting, that's called dogmatism. By the way, you're much easier to deal with for whomever is trying to keep the truth from coming out if you're dogmatic about your views, did you know that ?  What they fear, and have real cause to fear, is dispassionate, objective scientific debate. You guys are not the ones that can pull that off. That much is clear from your style of ' debating ' . Can Fetzer and Jones pull it off ? I doubt it. They have now started fighting each other, just think how much the other side are loving that !   Maybe Loose Change Final Cut ?  We'll see.  

Bush's disgusting statement ' you're either with us or you're with the terrorists ' angered me, as it must have done you, I suspect. Yet I get the same sinking feeling when you call me  d e l u s i o n a l  for daring to say I believe no explosives were used in the collapse of 1 and 2.  And I'm not even your enemy !  For you, ' official version ' equals ' pack of fascist lies ' . But the world just isn't that simple. 

" Just because I'm not out to get you, it doesn't mean you're not paranoid "   

 ....are you laughing ?  No ?  A smile maybe ?      



Needed both

Haverman said:

The planes alone , without collapse, would have done the trick if the object was a new kind of shock and awe perpetrated by hijackers or government or whatever combination of the two. Equally, blowing up the buildings alone, without planes, would have been traumatic enough to serve that purpose. 1 and 2 came down from the damage plus fire weakening what was a tube within a tube structure, which reacts to that kind of damage unlike any other steel highrise in the world.

The planes alone without collapse would have left the white elephant buildings standing - expensive to reopen, not profitable once reopened, and tremendously expensive to demolish lawfully.

Blowing up the buildings without the planes would have been too hard to blame on Arab terrorists.

The core was not a tube - it was a building.

I agree with your views on not being dogmatic and welcoming criticism. About Mineta's testimony, you are doing people a favor by showing yet another way it can be explained away.


Sorry, can't see your response--it's been hidden from view.

Oh well.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

read the eye-witness testimony here:

No one saw a plane fly over the pentagon.
No one saw a missile.
No one saw plane debris planting.
No one saw anything other than a plane hitting the light poles.
No one saw anything other than a large plane hitting the Pentagon. Those who did (4 out of 200 statements) saw the plane from far away.

read it here:

The most important questions all 9/11 researchers should ask when they promote a theory are

Can I prove it? Am I just speculating? Do I have credible evidence? Is there contradictory evidence?

The no plane at the pentagon theories suffer from the following problems:

No one can prove HOW the light pole damage was "faked"
No one can prove that plane parts (corresponding to a 757) were planted.
No one can prove that hundreds of witness statements are lies
No one can prove that all of the statements confirming the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon were faked (including the Mineta Testimony which makes NORAD look guilty)
No one can prove that the hole is too small. Look at Jim Hoffman's research--the hole is not too small.
No one can explain how a massive traffic jam filled with cars RIGHT next to the Pentagon would fail to provide witnesses to report “what actually happened.” (assuming you think something different happened from what they reported)

More importantly why would you fake all of this to make NORAD look guilty? What is the motive for that?

Let's stick to what we can prove. We'll get an investigation to answer the rest.

The Pentagon Attack:
What the Physical Evidence Shows
Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, March 28, 2006

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

There were 90% media types.

now while that is suspicious in itself, let's review their claims with that in mind once again:

"No one saw a plane fly over the pentagon.
No one saw a missile.
No one saw plane debris planting.
No one saw anything other than a plane hitting the light poles.
No one saw anything other than a large plane hitting the Pentagon. Those who did (4 out of 200 statements) saw the plane from far away."

...5 years on, out of the media, no one saw a controlled demolition, no one saw molten steel, no one saw an exit hole, no one noticed freefall, etc. it seems. Stop trusting a bunch of questionable eyewitnesses as if they weren't the Harley Guy for sure, OK? It makes you look incredibly naive.

Here's my point:

Even if you assume that these accounts were all untrue, you are assuming that no one would come forward with the "truth".

When something strange happens people report it. Think about the WTC explosions. Think about other 9/11 anomalies like the explosions from WTC 7. People report unusual events.

There was a huge traffic jam by the Pentagon. There are two massive parking lots beside the Pentagon (where over 25, 000 people work). They can't control everyone. The people who died at the Pentagon certainly weren’t in on it.

We are conditioned to remember the unusual. If we see something strange, we notice it. If we see a plane fly into a building we're going to remember. If we see a missile... and so on.

So my point is, no one has come forward to support these "alternative" Pentagon theories. That's why the eye-witness testimony is compelling.

No one is contradicting it. A few disagree on small details, but more or less there is general agreement. I have done a statistical analysis and I will post my research eventually. More importantly, the eye-witness testimony is supported by other evidence.

Faking over 200 statements is not an easy task. And it is not naive to believe that it is strong evidence.

The no-plane at the WTC theorists use similar logic. I mean: they assume that everyone must be lying. I say: prove it. If we don't hold strong standards of proof for ourselves, do you think a skeptic will do the same?

I believe that some of the testimony WAS altered. I know this because I know of at least one witness who complained about it!  But that doesn't mean all of it was.

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

You say eyewitness testimony is compelling.

You then go on to say "I believe that some of the testimony WAS altered. I know this because I know of at least one witness who complained about it! But that doesn't mean all of it was."

Why was anything altered AT ALL? What does/did this specific witness say? You also say "Faking over 200 statements is not an easy task. And it is not naive to believe that it is strong evidence." I would like to respond with "Santa Claus brings the presents."

Now, it's true - we might expect there should be people surfacing testifying about missiles. Some did outright, didn't they? Anyway, as far as evidence goes, physical trumps verbal, and I believe there is a strong case here to be made against a 757 without any eyewitnesses whatsoever.

Not true

"I mean: they assume that everyone must be lying."

First of all, show me how you came up with 200 witnesses.

Second, did they all see a plane impact the Pentagon?

Third, not all those remaining are necessarily liars. People are influenced by the media. Not only the interviewed, but the interviewers themselves are influenced by the media.

Fourth, that some are overt liars should not be surprising - you are saying the military is lying about why they could not stop Flight 77.

no offense Arabesque, but

no offense Arabesque, but you do know that the majority of the "witnesses" who claim to have definitively seen a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon worked for either the military or the MSM(primarily USA Today, it was amazing how many of their reporters qoutes were used as pentagon witnesses.) right?

Could someone explain

why WOULDN'T they simply use a plane on the pentagon? Why overcomplicate 'the plan' with anything else, when a plane would work just fine?

Also, why do so many people pin so much to this one issue, when it doesn't even matter... really, even if the entire extremely unlikely official horseshit story were true, Al-Qaeda would still be an asset of the CIA anyway...which means that it is STILL an inside job.

Call me a disinfo agent all you want, but I think it's high time we started cleaning up our own house for credibility reasons.

and rely on "Red Baron" Hani hitting the renovated section...

a couple of feet above the ground, following a 330 degree 5 minute descent joy ride over the Pentagon...

OK then, I'm convinced...

I'm sorry but I can't stand the "why wouldn't they?" questions

You can ask them, but they are meaningless really, since you have to go by what's there, by the hard evidence, the physical reality and then ask - why DID they do THAT? That secondary official story flightpath with the downed lightpolls, it's an absurd mystery, but when you watch the PentaCon movie, you will be convinced that flight 77 or a large silver Boeing was in fact at the scene, but that it did not fly on the official story flight path and was not in a position to have knocked down those lightpolls. Furthermore, analysis of the crash scene reveals that a Boeing piloted by Hanjour did not impact the first floor of the Pentagon, so there's two mysteries, one, how a Boeing could have overflown the wall in sychronous timing with the explosion, and two, what's with this other flight path and the downed light polls? I am convinced that some sort of high tech slight of hand occured there, but what, precisely, we have no idea really. As far as the Pentagon scene goes, they can slice and dice us with Occam's razor, unless those tapes were released, and then we'd know. It's a mystery, and most certainly not the best place to argue anything from.

Your question makes sense, from a common sense perspective, but it does NOT square with the physical reality, at all. The lawn was prestine, all the way up to the wall, and there was ZERO impact damage from the rear tail section, or the large engines, which, since they did not create a ditch of any kind, or even a mark on the grass, right up to the wall, which they did not, then they MUST have blown through the wall, which there is no evidence of. The engines, at only one foot off the ground were as tall or slightly taller than the fire engine parked right near the wall, so where's the holes where the plane engines would have blown through, and there's no wing damage either. Hoffman's images do NOT show wing damage. Just a darkened line on the wall. If you've seen the video of that figher craft impacting a cement wall, you'll understand what I'm talking about. You have to go by the reality, not what you THINK they SHOULD or SHOULDN'T have done. Those questions are useless and meaningless, in the face of the physical evidence and the reality.

If the plane engine did not touch the grass leading up to the wall, then that fire engine would have to be able to drive under the ledge seen through the smoke/mist, since the height of that fire engine would about equal the height of the plane engine one foot off the ground.

And where oh where, pray tell, is the impact damage from the tail section or what's called the rear verticle stabalizer wing?!!! As David Ray Griffin points out, who's also studied this very closely, it must have "ducked"!

Re: Hani Hanjour (The Red Baron)

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training 21 Feb 2006,
Nila Sagadevan http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html Tue., November 22, 2005
Nila Sagadevan Aeronautics Engineer and trained "heavy" Pilot, Discussing the inplausibility of the official story regarding flying capabilities of hijackers, in particular, Hani Hanjour
(MUST Listen)
Audio Interview http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u (jump to 8:08)

Two words:

Exit hole

Really, there goes the plane theory. This is like molten steel, or freefall - impossible to explain. As to why, we can only speculate. I believe a plane couldn't have penetrated much of the Pentagon, which for one would have left more debris for public scrutiny. Then there's the amazing aerobatics. And a missile is certainly cheaper than an airliner. What about the accountants, where were they? Could the damage expected from an airliner plausibly explain their deaths? I don't know, but I do know that this exit hole was not caused by any part of a 757 after penetrating several feet of reinforced concrete. No way.

"Red Baron" Hani - lmao!

Exit Hole

Would a plane work just fine?

The nose of a jumbo jet is relatively fragile. It couldn't penetrate the solid brick facade of the Pentagon without some help.

A smaller, reinforced, aircraft is much more likely. Remember "plane" or "aircraft" does not just mean "jumbo jet".

All that said, I believe the strongest position re: the Pentagon is NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon.

And I'll only call you a dis-info wanker on this subject if you suggest my suspicions about the Pentagon( started the same week as 9/11) are the result of me being a "victim of dis-info". ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

because they HAD TO use

because they HAD TO use something else. think about it, the Pentagon was hit well after the towers were and when the airspace should have been completely sealed off. the only thing that would have had a chance at hitting the Pentagon would be a "friendly" plane or a military plane(i should note that many of the air traffic controllers were qouted as saying-"its moving like a military plane"). it matters because its a weak link in the official story that the average layman can grasp. they needed the Pentagon to be hit for the symbolic/rallying purposes and a jumbo jet wouldnt have done the trick in my opinion.

No, they didn't have to use

No, they didn't have to use something else, because the airspace around the Pentagon was not sealed off. The conspirators controlled the NORAD response, and thus could guarantee that no fighters would be scrambled to the hijacked aircraft. They achieved that with all four planes.

As for the controllers saying it looked like a military plane, that means nothing. The controllers were only noting that the plane was executing a maneuver usually only done by military planes. Of course, this was no ordinary situation. The maneuver was extremely unusual and probably unprecedented for a B757 for obvious reasons, but it was well within the capabilities of that aircraft-- especially if the plane was being navigated remotely through its own autopilot function, which it probably was.

A Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan can NOT fit through a

16-foot initial impact hole!

2 huge steel/titanium engines & 250 seats to not just vanish without a recognizable trace in a plane crash.

You can NOT DNA-identify a planeload of people who allegedly slammed through the Pentagon @ 530 mph, which had also allegedly caused the plane itself to be obliterated! The DNA results are a fraud, just like the rest of the "official story."

Here is the hole:

Notice in particular the damage on the first floor and ask yourself these three questions:

Does the damage resemble: 1 a missile? 2 a small plane? 3 a large plane?

here is another composite photo with width/height measurements http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

And here is the exit hole:

Does the damage resemble that being done by 1: A nose cone? 2: A landing gear? 3: A shaped explosives warhead?

help me make dents at

help me make dents at dailykos

Somebody put up a diary supporting George Monbiot's bashing of us as being detrimental to people opposing the powers that be


I wrote about this...

A while back...



"In fact, there are multiple witnesses who contradict the Vice President's account, including Richard Clarke, Condoleeza Rice, and several others. It had to have been a 'stand down' order, but the mere fact that he knew the plane was coming in and did not warn the Pentagon is proof this was an inside job,"

Not Condi. Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta, and David Bohrer.

"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

Norman Minetas testimony

Norman Minetas testimony can be read at the Official Conspiracy Theory's main Web-site :

They used to have a video of it, but that has been "removed" just as Norman Mineta " resigned " shortly after he gave this testimony.
I have known about this for several years and have wondered why people can't see the significance of the testimony :
1: It casts serious doubts ( to say the least )on the official account of Dick Cheneys location .
2: It raises the question : Is Dick Cheney a traitor who alowed the Pentagon-strike to succeed ? .

It also explains why " Loose Change " was allowed to go viral on Google video and YouTube without any interference .
Try to post a video of publicly broadcasted BBC news-coverage and they remove it as fast as people upload it, but claim that there where no planes at Pentagon and it becomes a block-buster ?
All the no-plane theory believers are helping Dick Cheney stay of the hook . If there was no plane then why ask him what it was he ordered ?
And as Jenny Sparks writes : Nothing should have been allowed to hit the Pentagon . As if that place doesn't have
AA-missile defence-systems ? But I guess they also got confused ... or are incompetent, the only semi-credible excuse those traitors seem to have left .

In Dante's inferno...

the innermost circle of Hell is reserved for traitors.

I'm just saying... ;-)

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

My interpretation of the

My interpretation of the Mineta testimony is completely different, and I think most evidence is on my side.

The plane in question was not Flight 77, but the so-called "phantom Flight 93".


Mineta in his testimony

said that the "young man" said, "the plane is 30 minutes out, 20 minutes out, etc..."

Two points about this:

1) Out from where??? The times are specific. How did either the "young man" or Cheney know what it was "out" from? OK, good guess, maybe, "out" from DC.
But Cheney never asked "out from where?" He KNEW. And so did the young man. If they knew where it was going, and were tracking it that accurately, the "order" must have been to stand down the jets.

2) Who is the "young man" and why can't we find out?

Has anyone compared the

Has anyone compared the times the "young man" said the plane was "out" to other known times in DC that day?

Mineta is fairly accurate about when he got down there. Cheney was there then. So how do the times the "young man" speaks of compare with known times from Mineta's testimony on one end and the time the Pentagon was hit on the other?

Not sure what it would mean if they are a perfect match (or near perfect), but it does feel like another nail in the coffin of the official fairy tale.

If there is a perfect match, does it not further confirm that Cheney and the young man knew exactly where it was headed?

Be a good idea to subtract some time from the crash time as the plane did that long turn.

Mineta's claim about the distance of the Plane confirmed

I posted a comment earlier on this thread showing that the Mineta testimony confirms the known distance of the plane away from the Pentagon:


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

You're on the same track I

You're on the same track I am. I've been suspicious of 9/11 since 9/11 and have done tons of research already, but just recently started skulking here and just now ran across these 2 documents:


...which I have not begun reading yet but definitely will! In the meantime, I wanted to let you know you've made 1 mistake: Mineta said "miles", not "minutes". Your logic remains sturdy, though; we just need to calculate the time from the distance. We can use the FDR data to do that by checking the aircraft's speed, location and time. (Of course we have the noted problem of figuring out where the "out" distance was calculated from, but I don't see that as a huge hurdle.)

This is my current #1 issue (as my sig shows). I'm very eager to get this Mineta testimony front and center. It seems to be shill-garlic, if you know what I mean. ;-) The implications of the testimony are numerous and extremely significant. Best of all, we're using a Bush cabinet official's videotaped testimony to the official commission to challenge the OCT. IMO that is roughly 485,336.29 times more potent than using what any of us think is possible vs. the OCT. Think about martial strategy: it's better to use your opponent's strength against him than to oppose him with your own. :-)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Welcome to 911Blogger, ProspectorSam

It's good to have you with us.

I see that you're from the fine state of Oregon. Have you connected up with any other Truthers there?

I agree with you that the best evidence to use in exposing the falsehoods of the government myth comes from "official" sources themselves. These should be our primary tools in the campaign for real investigations.

The Mineta testimony should've resulted in an immediate congressional investigation. Whenever I ask government myth supporters about the Mineta testimony they usually find a reason to terminate the dialogue.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks, it's really good to

Thanks, it's really good to be here. My usual haunt is -- um, can we plug other forums here? LOL -- anyway, it's a good forum if you want all sides present, but it tends to be more heat than light, at least on 9/11. Signal to noise ratio is higher here. (That's not to say there's no light, just you gotta dig thru a lot more bickering and name-calling to find it.)

I've met some other Oregon Truthers; in fact I went to last week's PDX 9/11 Truth meeting, which was actually my first one (I live almost an hour away or I'd be there a lot more). There were probably 40-60 people there. Come to think of it I need to look up the video on the web....

Your experience is the same as mine with the Mineta testimony; that's what I meant by "shill garlic". :-)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

If you're an hour away from Portland

perhaps you could find some others more local and start another group. Just a thought.

While the twice a month NorCal meetings are no problem for me to get to I am trying to start additional local groups to make it easy for more people to get informed and/or involved.

The more the merrier, after all.

Be well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Listen, folks....

It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators would rely on the direct orders of a high-profile figure like the vice-president to enforce the stand down. It is far more likely that the stand down was orchestrated by a cell of disloyal officers within the NORAD command structure who made sure no fighters would be scrambled to any of the hijacked jets. In this way Cheney, a "fellow traveler" of the conspirators, if not an active conspirator himself, would be protected from having to make any controversial orders to shoot down or not to shoot down.

In this light his order was probably a blanket order to shoot down any aircraft that entered the DC metropolitan area. Cheney could thunder this order, while knowing-- or perhaps understanding in the back of his head-- that his order to shoot down would be moot since no fighters would be tailing the planes, and thus the attacks would be allowed to succeed.

Please don't think I'm trying to exculpate Cheney from any guilt for 9/11. But the people who planned this operation were very smart. It would have been foolish to expose "their boy" Cheney by forcing him into the position of making obviously treasonous decisions while sitting in the PEOC. More likely the stand down was orchestrated down the chain of command by a small cell loyal to the conspirators, so that the "high perps" like Cheney would be safe from impeachment, and thus free to carry out the post-911 agenda which was the real reason for the attacks in the first place.

"It would have been foolish

"It would have been foolish to expose "their boy" Cheney by forcing him into the position of making obviously treasonous decisions while sitting in the PEOC."

I don't know. They seem to not mind having both Bush and Cheney publically state obsurdities like "an investigation(into the attacks) would take resources away from the war on terror".

If "they" were worried about the prats sounding gulity, they should have launched into a fumbled investigation immediately, not PUBLICALY tried to stop it, AND sounding like a guilty person to boot.

My .02

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Good point

More in this vein:

What was Cheney actually doing?
Why did the "young man" keep coming back into the room?
Was there no other way to communicate with the VP than this? Sounds like Napoleon in a tent somewhere...

Also, you make a good point and we all should give it much thought, but I do not think that we should assume that whoever did it was able to plan every last detail. And it is abundantly clear that they did not reckon on the internet. No internet, few of us would have heard the Mineta tape or connected these dots.

Criminals make mistakes. Look at the Towers, WTC 7, Atta's suitcase, no videos from the P, small hole at the P, passport on the street, etc., etc.

Show "Xcellent comment" by haverman

Yes, fellow-truther, what

Yes, fellow-truther, what you said.

*roll eyes*

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Mr Vice President

Dick is the first one behind bars. And that's not just a gut feeling.

Why would the government murder its own citizens?

I completely agree that more could have been done, especially by V.P. Cheney, to stop the events of 9/11. However, that does not mean that the government planned the attacks. Assuming that the government planned the attacks, is assuming that the government was willing to murder thousands of its own citizens. In addition, if the government planned the attacks, then everything published by the 9/11 commission would be false. Therefore, you would also have to assume that the government is not only willing to murder thousand of its own citizens, but also willing to spend millions of taxpayer’s dollars in the process. Most of the events on September 11 were unbelievable, and nearly impossible. Moreover, all because an event is very unlikely does not mean that the government planned and executed it.

either this is a joke or

either this is a joke or provocation, or you sir are unbelievably naive. "also willing to spend millions of taxpayer’s dollars in the process." when has that ever been a problem? and you would admit that the government has killed literally millions of people throughout its history right? or you would at least concede hundreds of thousands right? whats 3000 citizens to a rogue faction of it? 3000 is easy to rationalize if you are a sociopath and you think the ends justify the means. the whole government wasnt involved in 9/11, just key members in key positions. nice try.

i just noticed you've only

i just noticed you've only been here for about an hour. im sorry i responded to you.

So while you may not agree

So while you may not agree with 911activists on many other points, you would, not doubt agree that the administration currently in 1600 Pensylvania Ave. was criminally negligent or at least grossly inpompetent and should, without ceremony, be forced to resign, right? Because leaving incompetents in office to continue their incompentce would be insane, not to mention criminally negligent in it's own right, correct?

I can respect someone who subscribes to the incompetence theory--provided they push for the logical action when dealing with incompetents--REMOVING THEM FROM ALL RELEVANT POSITIONS OF AUTHORITYASAP. Waiting until the next electinon cycle does NOT cut it.

So I expect that's what you would support--removing this administration before their incompetence got someone else killed?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

you are waaaaay too nice

you are waaaaay too nice Jenny.(or am i just too mean?).

You're right, Chris--if I

You're right, Chris--if I didn't have an angle. ;-)

I'd explain but I want to give them a chance to box themselves in so I can give them a proper kicking....

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

you always were more tactful

you always were more tactful than me :)

how realistic is impeachment ?

Is there really a chance that this administration can be forced into accountability and liability ? Seems to me they can always play the ' national security ' card to hide behind when the going gets rough. So much of this 9/11 issue is linked to that. With the Democrats just sitting there, how is the process going to get started ? What can be the tipping point ?

Hi, Mel!

Sorry. Mel's the only other git who ignores most of what I write and chooses to argue with my signature.

Just so you know, "fellow-truther".

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


The reason I'm assuming you're arguing with my signature is I didn't specify "impeachement" in my post.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

lwm4 -

Welcome to 911Blogger.

What brought you to this site?

What is your understanding of the events of 9/11/01?

Why do you say that "most of the events on September 11 were unbelievable, and nearly impossible"?

Have you studied the events of 9/11 much?

Have you seen the video of WTC 7 being demolished?

Have you looked at the Flight 93 "crash site" ?

Are you familiar with the very unusual put options activity leading up to 9/11?

Are you familiar with the many (as many as 14) military and government exercises taking place on 9/11/01?

Have you seen or read Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission?

The more you know the more you realize that the government myth of 9/11 can't be true.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have about 9/11 and we will all try to answer them as best we can.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Hmm. Hasn't said boo....

I suggest anyone who sees lwm4 posting, reply to them with a link to this thread and a cheery prod like, "If you have a chance could you help us out by answering these questions?"

And keep at it until they do.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.