Mineta's Testimony CONFIRMED
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html
When faced with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony -- about Cheney's stand-down order as the plane approached the Pentagon -- Defenders of the official story have tried to discredit Mineta by saying that he got his times mixed up.
Specifically, Mineta claims:
"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC."
***
I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said 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?"
Defenders of the official myth say that the White House was not being evacuated at the time Mineta said, and that this proves Mineta got his story wrong, and that in fact Cheney wasn't in the PEOC until later -- after the Pentagon was hit.
CNN Backs Mineta
However, a CNN news report from 9:52 Eastern Time on 9/11 states:
"The White House Has Been Evacuated
Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ETTHIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
We also have a report now that it was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and we have a large fire at the Pentagon. The Pentagon is being evacuated as we speak now. The White House had been evacuated as well.AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's John King joins us on the phone. John?
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESP.: Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park, directly across the White House, perhaps about 200 yards away from the White House residence itself. The Secret Service has pushed most people all the way back to the other side of the park. I'm trying to avoid having that done to me at the moment.
Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.
About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.
It is out of sight now, best we can tell. They've evacuated the entire White House staff and the old executive office, as well as some townhouses that are government offices. Many of our viewers might know Blair House, where other international leaders say when they are in Washington. That block of townhouses has been evacuated as well. They are pushing us now back towards 8th Street, which is the next main street to the north from Pennsylvania Avenue, across from the White House.
BROWN: John, hang on one second. We are getting reports that the Capitol, the Treasury building also being evacuated.
John, is this evacuation from the White House, was it orderly? Did it seem panicky? How would you characterize it?
KING: It started off as orderly, much like we get when there are ocassional bomb scares near the White House. But then, again in the last 10 minutes or so, the people who came out -- the last several hundred I saw leaving the grounds, were told and ordered by the Secret Service to run. They were running through the gates. These were of course professionals in business suits.
I'm also told that prior to that, and we don't know the current situation that the vice president and other administration officials on the scene very meeting in the White House situation room, which is in the basement of the White House. Whether they have stayed on the complex or not is unknown to us at this moment.
I spoke to an administration official shortly after the president delivered his statement. He said obviously the operating assumption here is terrorism. The initial assumption, this official said, was that this had something to do, or at least they were looking into any possible connection with Osama Bin Laden. The administration recently released a warning that they thought Osama Bin Laden might strike out against U.S. targets.
BROWN: Just to add at bit, John, to what you've been saying. We're getting a report from the Associated Press now that the White House was evacuated after the Secret Service received what the AP is describing as a credible threat of a terrorist attack against the White House itself. I expect you'll be checking that out. We'll try and confirm that. But that is what AP is reporting right now."
The Pentagon was attacked at approximately 9:37 a.m. Eastern Time, which was 15 minutes before the CNN report. However, the CNN report states that the White House evacuation began about 30 minutes prior to the report.
Therefore, if Mineta arrived at the White House around 9:22 or 9:20 a.m. Eastern Time, the White House evacuation could have commenced. Mineta could then have gone down to the PEOC, and overheard the conversation between Cheney and the young officer. In other words, there are approximately 15 minutes of time in which this could have occurred -- more than enough for the events Mineta described to have taken place.
Indeed, 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer corroborated this basic timeline with Mineta:
"MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"
MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.
MR. ROEMER: 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.'"
Additional Eyewitness Testimony: Clarke and Bohrer
Admittedly, counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke said that his recommendations to evacuate the White House were not carried out until 9:45. However, that might very well refer to a full evacuation ordered by the Secret Service itself. It appears that a partial or informal evacuation had already commenced much earlier, ordered by someone other than the secret service.
Indeed, Richard Clarke corroborates Mineta's testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC prior to the Pentagon strike. As the Complete 911 Timeline states:
"(9:10 a.m.): Rice and Cheney Apparently Go to White House Bunker; Other Accounts Have Cheney Moving Locations Later
According to counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke and others, Vice President Cheney goes from his White House office to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a bunker in the East Wing of the White House, at about this time. National Security Adviser Rice, after initiating a video conference with Richard Clarke in the West Wing, goes to the PEOC to be with Cheney. There is no video link between response centers in the East and West Wings, but a secure telephone line is used instead. [New York Times, 9/16/2001; Daily Telegraph, 12/16/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2002; Clarke, 2004, pp. 3-4] One eyewitness account, David Bohrer, a White House photographer, says Cheney leaves for the PEOC just after 9:00 a.m. [ABC News, 9/14/2002] However, there is a second account claiming that Cheney doesn’t leave until sometime after 9:30 a.m. In this account, Secret Service agents burst into Cheney’s White House office. They carry him under his arms—nearly lifting him off the ground—and propel him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Newsweek, 12/31/2001; Washington Post, 1/27/2002; BBC, 9/1/2002; MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] At about the same time, National Security Adviser Rice is told to go to the bunker as well. [ABC News, 9/11/2002] In addition to the eyewitness accounts of Clarke and Bohrer, ABC News claims that Cheney is in the bunker when he is told Flight 77 is 50 miles away from Washington at 9:27 a.m., suggesting that accounts of Cheney entering the bunker after 9:27 a.m. are likely incorrect." (see original for links)
Indeed, you can listen to Clarke tell what he saw in his own words and in his own voice by listening to the following 4 audio clips: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4 (Clarke narrating the books-on-tape version of chapter 1 of his book Against All Enemies).
Since the Pentagon strike occurred at approximately 9:37, and since Clarke, Bohre, ABC News, Mineta and others placed Cheney in the PEOC prior to the strike, and since Mineta and CNN stated that the White House was being evacuated prior to the strike, it makes more sense that Clarke simply did not know about the earlier White House evacuation efforts, or that he didn't consider them to be the full-scale, speedy, secret service-coordinated type of evacuation which he envisioned.
What Does Dick Cheney Say?
Mr. Cheney has recently testified that he did not enter the PEOC until around 20 minutes after the Pentagon strike. However, his initial testimony, 5 days after the attack, was:
"[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."
Changing testimony tends to discredit a witness's credibility, especially if he, himself, is a suspect.
Additional Confirmation
Well over a year before Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward corroborated much of Mineta's testimony (and destroyed any claim that the government could not track the basic position of the hijacked plane because it had turned off its radar transponder):
"Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon."
(Remember also that the FAA set up a telephone bridge with the military long before 9:37, so whatever Mineta was telling the FAA would have immediately been passed on to the military).
And Mineta's general outline of the timing of the Pentagon strike is corroborated by the fact that Flight 77 was 38 miles from the Pentagon at approximately 9:29 a.m. (the plane did a bunch of loop-de-loops on its way down, and did not fly a direct route in its final descent). At the very least, this puts the plane in the same basic region it should be in according to Mineta's timeline.
Could Mineta have Confused Flight 77 with Flight 93?
Some defenders of the official story claim that Mineta just got confused about which airplane Cheney was referring to. Specifically, they claim that Cheney was actually referring to Flight 93.
However, the flight path of Flight 93 shows that its closest proximity to the Pentagon and the White House was probably when it crashed (or if it got closer prior to crash, it never got much closer).
The 9/11 Commission stated that Flight 93 crashed 125 miles from Washington, D.C. Washington is about 5 miles from the Pentagon. So Flight 93 could not have crashed much closer than 120 miles from the Pentagon.
Therefore, Mineta could not have been referring to Flight 93.
Moreover, in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Mineta made it abundantly clear that he was not referring to Flight 93. Immediately after Mineta's testimony about Cheney's exchange with the young officer, the following exchange between Mineta and Hamilton takes place:
"MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.
MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
***
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?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.***
MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?
MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.
MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.
MR. MINETA: I did not."
Mineta was thus confident that Cheney's tracking of and communications regarding the plane were with regard to the Pentagon, and not Flight 93.
Yet another attempt to defend the official story has been debunked.
Robert Moore found the CNN transcript, and all credit goes to Robert for the catch and for pointing out the significance in relation to Mineta's testimony. Personally, I think Robert is one of the best 9/11 researchers anywhere. Stay tuned for more stunning catches from Robert. Thanks also to Adam Letalik, who has done a tremendous amount of research on the Mineta testimony.
- Login to post comments
the last piece of the puzzle
I've looked into the mineta testimony quite a bit to say the least. i've pretty much finished my paper, but i still need to fix a few errors and definately add this CNN thing.
here's my paper:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/mineta.html
i've been argueing with people over on the screw loose change forums for a long time. every arguement they suggest can be debunked. the final arguement that they settle on is "mineta's timeline was off by around 30min and he overheard a conversation about united 93". the only evidence that they use to prove this is that mineta said that when he arrived, the white house was being evacuated. i always countered by saying that the major evacuation didn't start until around 9:40, but Clarke's order to evacuate was in effect and people were evacuating before 9:40. All i had to prove this was clarke's book, but now with this CNN find, (thanks to someone who posted this in a comment the other day), this is proof enough to debunk that claim.
as far as the timeline arguement goes... we know mineta's timeline is correct because it agrees with Clarke's book (since they both recount meeting briefly with one another)... mineta's timeline fits perfectly with the timeline of the plane approaching the pentagon... and there is no available evidence to prove the 9/11 commission's report timeline.
they now don't have a leg to stand on with respect to mineta and clarke's testimony.
if anyone feels like helping me out, i'm still looking for more evidence to prove that the plane could not have been united 93. assume that mineta's timeline is off, and then try and prove the plane still couldn't have been united 93... that's the part of my paper that needs to be fixed up... but i think we have the timeline arguement pretty sealed up, so we don't even really to prove it, but it'd be nice to come up with some more evidence that the plane couldn't have been ua93.
All that is neccessary
to completely corroborate it, is to look at the precise timing of the approach of the plane toward the Pentagon. Does that "jive" with Mineta's testimony? That's the question that needs to be answered, if it hasn't already.
Regards,
RR
Yes the plane really was "50 miles out"
from the Pentagon according to other sources
Paul Thompson's timeline confirms this: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ti...
(9:20 a.m.): Mineta Reaches Bunker, Meets Cheney
(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]
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Very good! Thank you.
Very good! Thank you.
And so, if Cheney did not warn them at the Pentagon, then he is by extension complicit in conspiracy to commit murder, and most certainly no less culpable than Moussoui.
How could Cheney & the young man know that the plane was
headed for the Pentagon??? What about the White House, Capital Building or some other target???
Why did Cheney rely on the young man to rely facts to him??? Wouldn't Cheney have went to the radar screen to see what was happening himself, or was this all a big act for Minetta to "witness"?
Are we also supposed to believe that Hani Hanjour was piloting the airliner? You know, the guy who couldn't fly a Cessna properly???
Answers
Mineta was speaking after the fact about the plane "coming into the Pentagon". When you speak about an event in the past tense you know what happens.
Your second question is too speculative for a definitive answer.
No one seriously believes that a terrorist was flying that plane. You don't fly 757's without any training. In fact, not one single pilot hit the "HIJACK" button that takes only a second to press in the cockpit. All four planes. The only conclusion that is credible is that these four planes were flown by remote control.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
No, I meant how did Cheney & the young man know the "plane"
was 50, 30, 10 miles out from the Pentagon. Why didn't the young man report the 50 miles out, heading due east for example? 50, 30, 10 miles out from what? How did they know it was from the Pentagon at that time?
Regarding the remote control of the planes, IMO a more plausible explanation is that those flights either fictitious or were swapped for drones in the "fog of the numerous wargames" taking place. (See Operation Northwoods of 45 years ago which proposed phony flights, drones, fake passengers, etc.)
Out from the Pentagon
They knew that the plane was heading in a straight line for the most part in the general direction of the Pentagon.
It doesn't mean they knew it would hit the Pentagon, it just means they knew it was heading in their direction.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Now, is it possible
To completely RULE OUT the possibility that the reference could have been to flight 93, based on the timeline?
And if radar was tracking this plane coming at Washington D.C. then how can it be explained that there was ZERO interception, when the plane would have been easily tracked on on military radar the whole way, long after the second tower was hit?
Furthermore, isn't the Pentagon a protected facility? Are there not SAM batteries near by? Thus the plane must have been emitting a friendly signal, right?
And finally why oh why were the People in the Pentagon not ordered to evacuate?
At the very least, there is a case against Cheney for gross criminal negligence causing death, if not conspiracy to commit mass murder.
honestly
why won't someone close this account??!
"Amanda" is user #469, which means you've been tolerating this crap for a long time. Everyone seems to agree this account is a "bot" of some kind that posts automatically, randomly, with no relation to the topic at hand. Isn't that enough of a transgression to shut it down?
yeah, amanda should be long
yeah, amanda should be long gone by now. "She" never responds to anything and just posts this crap about SS death indexes.
Even if it were true, this is by far the most compelling piece of evidence we have...so why push this down our throats in every other thread?
Don't automatically discount everything that A-man-duh writes
here. There seems to be some info mixed in with the disinfo at times.
David Ray Griffin writes at
David Ray Griffin writes at http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911
as follows:
"The full brazenness of the Commission’s lie is illustrated by the fact that it contradicts Cheney’s own account, which can still be read on the White House website. Speaking on NBC’s 'Meet the Press' five days 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.'[64] So he got there, as Mineta said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 minutes afterwards."
Hmm... To me what Cheney *says* does not support that he got in the PEOC *before* the Pentagon was struck. I don't quite follow Griffin's reasoning here.
Has it been verified that Cheney talked with the president before going into the PEOC? Here we must remember that Bush stayed in the classroom for about 10 minutes after the second plane had hit.
Anyway, here's what Jon writes elsewhere about "the orders":
"The problem with that theory is that the young man questioned the orders at 10 miles out. Would they have been able to stop the plane with an intercept with such short notice? [...] what if the 'young man' was questioning an order to guide [using remote control] Flight 77 into the Pentagon?"
http://911blogger.com/node/2785#comment-121974
I think that is worth considering.
depends where you put the comma
'[W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.'
As it is written now, it seems to suggest Cheney arrived at the PEOC "within a short order"; that is, he arrived soon after the events of the preceding sentence.
If it said, "When I arrived there, within a short order we had word the Pentagon's been hit," then it would mean "shortly after he arrived in the PEOC" the Pentagon was hit.
Mineta's testimony is clear, however, that Cheney was already in the bunker as AA77 approached the Pentagon. Mineta could not confuse the fact that the plane was "50 miles out... 30 miles out..." etc.
That Cheney did not warn the people
in that section of the Pentagon proves inside job, and conspiracy to commit murder.
So where's the action?
Legal action, I mean.
Here's what I don't get about Mineta's testimony.
I would venture to guess that most around here agree that it wasn't a 757 or 767 that hit the Pentagon. So what "plane" is Mineta referring to?
Could a global hawk have made the holes through several rings of the building? Could it have hit without the wings leaving a mark on the building's fascade or plopping off and landing on the grass?
And if it instead was a missile that hit the building, why would the young man Mineta describes call it a plane?
I am in no way trying to debunk alternative theories or steer anyone away from the path of truth ... I'm just trying to sort things out in my own mind as to what the heck really went on that day.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help shed some light on my questions.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson
well... in my opinion, there
well... in my opinion, there was a plane that was approaching the pentagon. it is unclear if that plane actually struck the pentagon, or if it did a flyover, or i suppose it is still possible that it was a fake radar blip approaching the pentagon.
but that's all besides the point. the idea with the mineta testimony is to prove the offical account incorrect. so you can even assume that it was in fact AA 77 that hit the pentagon and all you are debunking is the NORAD response. the mineta testimony proves that the 9/11 commission report is false and is covering up the fact that NORAD should have been able to prevent any plane from striking the pentagon.
Fake Blip approaching the Pentagon? Unlikely
The reason is that the military has the capability to tell the difference between fake blips and real ones. It is unlikely that Cheney would be warned unless it was a real threat.
However, I have heard that they did NOT turn off these fake blips until after the Pentagon strike.
Here's another problem with the fake blip theory. it would mean that they would make NORAD look intentionally guilty by taking so long to hit the Pentagon. So these two points make the "fake blip" theory extremely unlikely.
Flight 77 took off 10 minutes late. So if you subscribe to the "real plane" theory, this could have been partly responsible for why it took so long to hit the Pentagon.
Flight 93 also took off late.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
The other problem with the fake blip
is the same as the other "no boeing" hypotheses: it's ridiculously complex!
The "no boeing" crowd believes: some criminal faction at the Pentagon, operating below the organizational radar, managed to fake the approach of a 757, planted a bomb in the west wing of the Pentagon, flew a missile or global hawk into the Pentagon in broad daylight, planted dozens of fake witnesses with closely coordinated stories (and, apparently, debris), knocked down light poles on the highway in front of the Pentagon (again, in broad daylight), and managed to secure the 85 videos showing the missile/global hawk before anyone could leak them to the media. They then doctored the DNA results to show plane crash victims where there were none.
Oh, and they also chose to ignore the evidence we have seen, which, other than the missing video of AA77, shows a plane crashed into the Pentagon.
I'm not 100% certain that AA77 hit the Pentagon. But let's at least work with probabilities.
simulac, you're trying way to hard to convey the idea that AA-77
struck the Pentagon. I believe most truthers, including myself, are convinced by overwhelming evidence that AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon.
There is no "overwhelming evidence"
Your conclusion is based on partial readings of photographic evidence, and presumptions about the pilot of AA77. I don't care if "most" truthers believe this. I will point you to Jim Hoffman's study as a better analysis than most truthers.
Is there ambiguity here? Yes, there certainly is. But people must stop repeating falsehoods about the Pentagon, such as the claim that there was no plane debris. There was. Hoffman shows multiple photographs of the debris.
As I have already explained, the no-boeing hypothesis is insanely complex. It makes no sense why perps would go to such lengths, in addition to facilitating multiple hijackings and blowing up the WTC.
Also, as I have explained elsewhere, I believe there are significant advantages for truthers to trust eyewitness accounts. These accounts are particularly helpful for making a case for controlled demolition at the WTC. If you dismiss the dozens of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon, you indirectly dismiss all the firefighters who saw, heard and felt massive explosions at the WTC.
The Pentagon is a honey pot. Until they release a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon, no good can come from speculations of the kind you are advancing.
good already has come. why ignore or belittle it?
simuvac-"The Pentagon is a honey pot. Until they release a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon, no good can come from speculations of the kind you are advancing."
except for waking up scores of people and causing many to become 9/11 activists themselves, which evidence proves it has indeed done just that(speaking for myself, it was the Pentagon Flash video that started me on researching 9/11). but this is a question of activism and we could argue all day about that. i agree with most of what you say but like most "elder statesmen truthers" for lack of a better term, i disagree wtih you on the Pentagon. not just on your conclusions about what did or didnt hit it but more importantly on the effectiveness of using the Pentagons open questions for activism or as another way to show people the problems with the official story. "honey pot" or not it has already caused many many people to join our ranks and look closer at 9/11 as a whole. the government could come out with video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon tomorrow and the 9/11 truth movement would still be here. i think some people overestimate the damage that would come from that while underestimating the good that questioning the Pentagon has done for the movement. pretty convenient for some but unfair in my eyes. as far as eyewitness accounts go, its one thing to trust huge numbers of civilians at the WTC site. its another to trust small numbers of what were for the most part(though not all) military personnel and members of USA Today and other MSM outlets. again, this is not fair to compare the 2 and try and say that because i dismiss suspect witnesses at the Pentagon i dismiss the witnesses at the WTC site. there is a huge difference there.
It's okay to be drawn to 9/11 Truth by the Pentagon mystery
but once you are there, and spend some time looking at the facts, you shouldn't necessarily remain stuck on your initial impression.
I went through the same stages as most: saw Loose Change, saw In Plane Site, saw Painful Questions, saw The Great Conspiracy, read Mike Ruppert, etc. Then I spent some time examining specific claims. I no longer think the pod theory is worth anything. I no longer think the no-Boeing at the Pentagon theory is a slam dunk. I no longer think making claims about "who did it" are as effective as simply saying the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud, and let us go from there.
My fear is that some people are drawn to the more sensational claims of Loose Change, the stuff that is too easy to discredit (whether or not there is 100% proof of one version or the other). Is it possible that the planes were switched for drones? Sure. I don't think there's enough evidence to prove it right now, but it's possible. (Again, this is something that ultimately depends on whistleblowers.)
Is it possible a missile hit the Pentagon? Maybe, but there is so much evidence one must dismiss to make that work (eyewitnesses, plane debris, light poles, Mineta's testimony, what happened to the passengers?, the absurd complexity of it all, etc.).
I'm not saying stop researching the Pentagon. I'm saying at the moment it doesn't make for a compelling argument, even if many people find it alluring.
And again, I'll repeat: I do find the entry hole and punch out hole to be very, very odd. I just haven't seen a convincing refutation of the other anomalies. If you can produce one and blog it, I would love to read it.
Jim Hoffman sounds very much like a gatekeeper of the lie
that AA-77 struck the Pentagon.
Why do you and he persist in trying to convince us of the "official version" that AA-77 struck the Pentagon is true? The initial impact hole at the Pentagon was about 16' feet wide! A Boeing with a 125' wingspan can NOT fit though a 16' hole!!!
Here are some pictures of the hole
Notice the damage on the first floor (not just second):
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/hole11.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/metcalf3.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/pentagonhole_photos_notated.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html
There is clearly significant damage on the bottom floor. And it approaches 100 feet or more in width.
Even Jim Hoffman used to think that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon until he did more research.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/
Here's a more recent analysis:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
Jim Hoffman also argues that there was an explosive device used.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
simuvac, thanks for your reply
With all due respect, let me make a few points.
1) If this is not the right place to speculate, where is?
2) I am not going on TV saying this or presenting these ideas to college students. I can see why people say that Fetzer has gone too far, but this forum is not so public and I am not famous.
3) I agree with Chris--speculation about the P has hooked many of us. It was one of the first things that interested me.
4) You are speculating yourself when you say this kind of speculation damages the movement.
5) I am fully on-board with 9/11 Truth and have done a lot to convince many people.
6) The bottom line about the P is there are so many questions a new investigation must be opened immediately.
7) Speculation about what happened there has long been "cordoned off" as speculation, as it should be, so I do not believe that if a P video of the plane is suddenly released, the movement will be seriously damaged.
Some other points about the P:
1) Besides the photographic paucity of debris, there are the unburned book and other things just inside the building, the small hole, and the eye-witness accounts of there being little plane debris.
2) Even more telling is the straight line of damage through the three P walls. In the first place it is hard to see how a commercial plane could make such holes. And in the second place, the holes show that the aircraft was flying level with the earth just a few feet off the ground. Many people have said that it is not possible for a commercial jet to do that without stalling and crashing. I think both of these point are quite strong.
A few more points about the crash:
1) Most agree that the plane had to have been remotely controlled. That means someone had to set that up and make it happen.
2) The aircraft was not shot down--neither by fighters nor by anti-aircraft guns at the P. That means someone had to have fiddled with both of those systems.
3) I agree, many eye-witnesses saw a commercial jet.
Some speculation:
1) A smaller aircraft projecting a hologram of a commercial jet is a very neat explanation that accounts for virtually all of this evidence.
2) It accounts for the neat holes, that the holes are just a few feet off the ground, the "surgical" nature of the P damage, the engine that we actually do see in photos, the intact book, and the eye-witness accounts.
3) FURTHERMORE, it explains why the P has not released its videos AND why the FBI was so quick to confiscate the gas station and hotel videos. A hologram projected around a smaller aircraft might very well be good enough to fool people on the scene, but not be good enough to withstand scrutiny if captured on video. The hologram need not be that complex. Relative to the aircraft it surrounds, it would simply be a stationary illusion.
4) A smaller aircraft projecting a hologram is not "an insanely complex" hypothesis. In fact it is simpler and neater in every way. It explains all of the evidence, erases all of the anomalies, and requires no more manipulation by insiders than remote-controlled planes. The only difference is it asks us to believe that the military is capable of doing that. I believe they probably are. Not long ago there was talk in military circles of projecting a hologram of Muhammad above Baghdad to quell the population. If they can do that, why not this?
1 SECOND
That's about how long it would have taken for that plane flying over the Pentagon to look like a plane taking off from Reagan International Airport.
Everyone at the scene would have been looking at the huge fireball and the plume of smoke.
Whatever hit the Pentagon was a direct penetrator. The plane in order to hit where it did would have had to tip it's nose down thus completely altering its kinetic energy dramaticly.
You can see in the released footage that whatever hit the Pentagon was skimming the ground. That was no 767.
That was some sort of missile... probably carrying a DU penetrator charge.
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
One of MY theories,0000000ooooooopps
Is that there were actual planes involved. There were rockets and such but the jets were needed to give plausible cover and
authentication to the Plot. It's very likely that the military jet overflew the Pentacon and landed. I have a pic of this runway right next door on my site.
They didn't care whether anyone questioned any of this because, as you know, they already have what they were after, War, and the big bucks that go with it.
AND everyone has already forgotten about the missing
$167 BILLION in gold that was in the basement at WTC !
9/11=PNAC Plot
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html
Even worse, everyone has conveniently forgotten about the
missing $2.3 TRILLION in funds that Rummy had announced was missing on 9/10/01!!! (I'm sure the timing of this announcement, one day before 9/11, was just a coincidence, lol!)
yep,
Got me there !
I just re-heard that too and STILL I forgot
9/11=PNAC PLot
and the section of the
and the section of the pentagon that was struck was the accounting section... hummm.... wonder if they'll be able to find out where the $2.3 trillion went
$2.3 trillion
Can anyone confirm that the room(s) hit at the Pentagon were the offices of the accountants investigating the missing $2.3 trillion?
That would make for some very strong evidence, and it would all but 100% nail the idea that a missile or small plane hit the Pentagon.
Why? Because it shows clear intent and an overwhelming reason not to miss.
For me, this is the next piece of the P puzzle.
The plane Mineta described
is in keeping with the plane identified by many eyewitnesses.
Perhaps
but eyewitness testimony doesn't prove anything. It can be manipulated by news reports or things heard after the fact. Some said small plane, some said jetliner, some said missile.
Assessing damage and using photographic evidence is much more reliable than hearsay evidence.
Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com
I would recommend
as a general strategy that we emphasize the value of eyewitness testimony, not devalue it, because the case for controlled demolition at the WTC is very much assisted by eyewitness testimony.
I agree completely with simuvac
This is a very important point.
In my opinion the eye-witness testimony is extremely compelling for a simple reason. It does NOT support the alternative theories. If people came out to support these theories I would be more inclined to believe them.
No one reported the alternative Pentagon theories. Therefore, to dismiss this evidence, not only must you say they are all fabricated, you are assuming that no one would come forward with "what really happened."
Remember all of the other 9/11 anomalies and how many people reported them? That's why the Pentagon testimony is reliable.
I can't stress this point enough! No one has reported these alternate theories. Go through the testimony yourself and decide if it looks “faked”. Yes a handful of people reported missile "sounds" but no one saw a missile. 4 people saw a small plane and they were all from a farther distance from the Pentagon.
Obviously the physical evidence IS controversial. But Jim Hoffman's research shows clearly that there is physical evidence to support a 757. Not all plane crashes leave alot of debris. In fact the eye-witness testimony confirms that the plane went completely into the building--just as the WTC.
I have been studying the testimony carefully and plan to post an analysis of it showing what people saw and how many people saw it (and what no one saw). The results are very revealing.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Questions
It also matters who was asking the questions. When gathering testimony the simple manipulation of a question could easily alter the answer.
We need to speak to all the witnesses.... we need to understand where they were located when they saw what they saw.
We need a new investigation.
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
The eyewitness testimony of the agents, oops I mean the people
around the Pentagon are supporting the official story that AA-77 struck the Pentagon--something that most truthers have good reason not to believe.
are you referring to something like this?
My favorite part is the robot reading the document about the witnesses...
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Pentagon Straw-man: Plane crashes always leave alot of debris
Not all plane crashes leave alot of debris. What happened at the WTC? The planes went straight in the buildings. Eye-witnesses reported the same thing at the Pentagon.
Even if the plane crashed outside the building (it didn't) it doesn't guarantee that there will be a lot of debris. See here for real life examples:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#debris
And there are plane parts corresponding to a 757 inside of the Pentagon. Take a look at pentagonresearch.com and of course Hoffman.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Sandia video shows lots of debris
it's been updated, and shows more of the aftermath - debris flying up and over the wall and out to the side.
The planes did not go straight into the buildings, Arabesque, because that is physically impossible.
Which is it? Reduction to small debris or complete penetration?
Yes, great little video. Thanks!
!
Eyewitness testimony is also essential
to place Cheney in the bunker prior to the Pentagon strike, as per Mineta. That's more demonstrable than the no-boeing at the Pentagon thesis.
That is, I think there are more advantages offered by placing emphasis on eyewitness testimony than on ambiguous photographic evidence.
We can, as the debunkers can, cast doubt on both eyewitnesses and physical evidence; however, it works to our advantage to trust eyewitness testimony, especially since much of the physical evidence is handled (manipulated?) by the government. Eyewitnesses can always come forward. Physical evidence is controlled by them, not us.
We want whistleblowers to continue to come forward. We don't want to scare them away by pronouncing their testimony unreliable.
Airliners with 125' wingspans can NOT disappear through 16'
initial impact holes--nothing ambiguous about that.
How do you figure?
When did Mineta describe the plane? All he described was what he witnessed going on in the PEOC. Also, the video they did release seems to preclude it having been a big boeing, since whatever it is is too small, and shows what looks to be a white vapor trail. No part of the official story should be assigned any credibility until it is proven beyond a doubt.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
No way was it AA77 that struck the Pentagon. None of the
evidence (other than some planted/fabricated "eyewitnesses") support this idea.
Boeing 757s have to huge steel/titanium engines, 250 seats, luggage, etc., none of which was present at the "crash" site. (Why do you think they won't release any any clear video of what happened there, even 5.5 years later?)
It could well be that Cheney & the young man were playing charades in front of Minetta, or simply that Minetta is on it too.
I really don't think Cheney & the "young man" were tracking anything, & either a missile or small drone slammed the Pentagon.
THIS is FANtastic !!
Everytime we can get some confirmation for the KEY front row people, the more witnesses will feel safe to step forward.
Cheney was there, NOW what he said is confirmed. Hook that to the lie he told when he stated that the decision to strike was NOT his, and we have a score !!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vice Pres. Cheney: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."
--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1) Alternate link: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11=PNAC PLot
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html
Right! And and what did Cheney mean by "if the plane would not
divert"? Divert from what? How did he know where it was heading?
why do they keep removing
why do they keep removing the mineta testimony from youtube ??? people always put new ones back up anyways. is this not a public source video?
Because it is a threat
and like the BBC video poses a problem when defending the official narrative.
However the schmucks who are covering for the bastards who hit us on 9-11 haven't realized that they don't control the information any more. Sucks to be them.
Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com
ya.. .i'm sure a bunch of
ya.. .i'm sure a bunch of these old guys with white hair were like... oh crap... they have the internet on computers now eh?
Good article George
The question i would like answered .Is why did'nt Hamiltion press for more information to this aligation?
After all this was a question that deserved clairifacation.......What plane where you refering to DICK?
Lee Hamilton
has a history of covering up scandals, not exposing them. He protected Reagan & Bush Sr. from Iran Contra fallout. Why would he press for more information? He already had more than he wanted from Mineta.
Could the orders that the
Could the orders that the aide was referring to actually be evacuation orders (to not call for a wide D.C. area evacuation of possible strike targets)?
It is now 10 miles out... do the orders still stand?
They could not be evacuation orders since the pretext for the angry retort Cheney gave was that an object was approaching the target, not receding from it.
I still question that white plane
that's the color of planes used by the CIA. Some of the news footage has this plane on video; It's a 4-engine prop driven, possibly a C-130 transport which is certainly capable enough to carry a Global Hawk armed with a missle. It could then release the Hawk (painted with AA color schemes). Then the Hawk flies into the Pentagon, releasing the missle prior to impact. That would explain the two different planes testimony from witnesses. But this is speculation on My part, although it's plausible.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
Thanks to everyone
for the additional leads. I have incorporated many of them in the post.
Together, we're smarter than we are alone.
i've pretty much got
i've pretty much got everything in my paper if anyone wants to take the time to read through it... i've pretty much covered everything with respect to mineta... this new CNN thing is going to really really help though... the one thing i needed!
Mineta, Cheney and the Pentagon
You guys drive me nuts! Can't you leave the Pentagon puzzle alone?
No?
OK, let me see if I can help make sense of the pieces we have. I welcome all critiques as this can only advance the cause of truth, justice and peace.
Starting with Mineta and Cheney in the PEOC: Before Mineta arrives in the PEOC Cheney is informed by his NORAD liaison officer that a probable hijacked plane (AA77) is headed in the general direction of Washington D.C. Cheney orders that no action is to be taken and to keep him informed. Mineta arrives in the PEOC. The NORAD officer monitors the plane as it closes in on Washington and he becomes increasingly agitated. The NORAD officer sends a young staffer in to keep Cheney informed. This is what Mineta witnesses. When the plane is 10 miles out the NORAD officer tells the staffer to ask Cheney if the "take no action" order still stands. The staffer asks and gets snapped at by Cheney.
(Pretty straightforward so far, I've left some of the PEOC details out as they are not relevant to Mineta and the Pentagon. See Peter Dale Scott for more on this.)
(Now I'm going to stick my neck out regarding what may have happened at the Pentagon)
The C-130 seen circling Washington is a command and control (C&C) plane directing the D.C. part of the 9/11 operation (CIA or private contractor), quite likely under the guise of the Amalgam Virgo exercise. The C&C plane monitors AA77 (or its replacement Boeing) and directs the ground operatives at the Pentagon. When AA77 gets a certain distance out a Global Hawk is brought into play. AA77 approaches the Pentagon north of the Citgo gas station (the Pentacon filmakers have at least 15 witnesses supporting this claim, two are Pentagon policemen). Explosives and/or a missile are used to kill the Pentagon accountants and damage the building (see April Gallop and Barbara Honegger). As AA77 flies OVER the Pentagon a huge fireball is created to mask the non-impact and allow the plane to quickly disappear unnoticed. At the same time the Global Hawk takes the flight path south of the Citgo, knocks the light poles down and provides some limited plane wreckage. (I have to study the light poles more closely to determine if a second plane is actually required for this, I have serious doubts on this)
Notes: April Gallop, Karen Kwiatkowski and the responding fire chief's initial statements as well as all the photographic evidence I've seen cast serious doubt regarding any Boeing wreckage at the site. Other witnesses smelled Cordite. Dirt and gravel are brought in to cover the nearly pristine Pentagon lawn ASAP.
While many people will say that this scenario is far too complicated, it is actually less involved than the 9/11 preparations that had to take place in NYC.
I've read Conan Doyle's The Complete Sherlock Holmes three times and can speculate with the best, but what is the point? We HAVE to get new investigations to get the real answers and heal our country and our planet. This is what matters, this is where we need to put our energy. As patriots, this is what we are called to do.
While we should all keep studying and openly discussing everything related to 9/11, I hope we can limit the speculation and focus on educating the public and creating the overwhelming demand for new investigations we all are working for.
We are all brothers and sisters on this big, beautiful, blue ball.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
how can a global hawk knock
how can a global hawk knock down the light poles? wing span isn't big enough. i speculate it could have been some version of a predator, since it fits most of the criteria and seems to have a wide wingspan (though maybe not quite wide enough to account for the light pole unfortunately)....
the light poles are acutally a bit of a problem... my intial hypothesis many many months ago were that explosives caused the light poles to collapse and some plane flew loyd the cabdriver's car... (he thought the plane knocked them down, but maybe there were explosives too perhaps??!@!?)....
thing is with the pentagon, no one has it correct. you've obviously arrived at a conclusion that you think is correct, but it can't really account for the light poles which is the biggest thing. also, was it one plane or two planes? you've incorporated the flyover + global hawk ....
you have to realize that you opinion is just a hypothesis. we all have our opinion, but yours isn't any more correct than anyone elses. you just try to account for all the evidence, and arrive at this conclusion. this could be correct, but there is no way to know for sure.
Really, you should look at the pics of the lightpoles.
They were torn right off - I don't see how some flimsy composite wings should accomplish that. Certainly, the wings would not endure the collision and the plane would go into a ballistic spin right into the Pentalawn. Now look:
Light poles...
... near airports etc. are of a type that knock down easily. That is a *requirement*. They have to be built that way. Nothing strange about that.
Interesting.
Have you ever looked into the pictures and story of the cab driver? Your take?
"how can a global hawk knock
"how can a global hawk knock down the light poles? wing span isn't big enough. "
No, its wing span *is* enough. GH has a wide wing span -- enough to cover the distribution of the knocked light poles.
Still, I don't support this kind of speculation. What has been suggested above sounds too complicated. We should concentrate on what we know, such as the Mineta testimony.
My take
I imagine the action described in your middle main paragraph as follows: That C-130 was indeed the key component, it's even possible that it was the plane that was being tracked inside the PEOC for all I know. Upon approaching the Pentagon, it deployed a missile, which would drastically reduce public exposure of it down to the very unusual (at that time of day) traffic jam on I-395 packed with military and media types. There probably was no commercial airliner (really dunno), and the lightpole damage was staged (something I am pretty convinced of, after having checked thoroughly).
That leaves as insiders: One C-130, a bunch of military and media types, the photo-op taxi driver with the light poles and their set up. Hell, the military and media types could then even conveniently "clean up" the lawn right afterwards.
Fetzer speculated
Fetzer speculated extensively about the C-130 in the recent BBC hit piece. That was followed by an interview of the captain of the C-130 in question. I don't remember all the details, but the end result was just further embarrassment for the truth movement.
Ok
but it's not like whatever Fetzer touches is invalid per se.
Sorry if I disagree, but you
Sorry if I disagree, but you don't have to be a defender of the official story or a JREFer if you say that Mineta got the time wrong.
I do the same, but as opposed to the JREFers I don't say it was Flight 93 that approached the Pentagon. It was another plane that is declared as a "phantom" by the 9/11 commission. I don't think it is a phantom.
For a detailed analysis, please read
http://www.911woodybox.blogspot.com
I really suggest to everybody to to take a look at the 9/11 Commission report again. The report omits and distorts, but I don't think the following section (notes of Chapter I), which shows plenty of evidence that Cheney and his staff were NOT in the PEOC at 9:25 is completely fabricated:
208. USSS memo, interview of Gregory LaDow, Oct. 1, 2001, p. 1. Shortly after the second attack in New York, a senior Secret Service agent charged with coordinating the President's movements established an open line with his counterpart at the FAA, who soon told him that there were more planes unaccounted for-possibly hijacked- in addition to the two that had already crashed.Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time. See Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004); USSS memo, interview of Nelson Garabito, Oct. 1, 2001; see also Terry Van Steenbergen interview (Mar. 30, 2004).
209. American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data. For the evacuation of the Vice President, see White House transcript, Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 2; USSS memo, interview of Rocco Delmonico, Oct. 1, 2001 (evacuation of the White House); see also White House notes, Mary Matalin notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report,"Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2. Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004).
210.White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4; President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004).
211. On Mrs. Cheney, see USSS report, "Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11-October 3, 2001," Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2 (time of arrival);White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2 (joining the Vice President). For the contemporaneous notes, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the content of the Vice President's call, see White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 5.According to the Vice President, there was "one phone call from the tunnel. And basically I called to let him know that we were a target and I strongly urged him not to return to Washington right away, that he delay his return until we could find out what the hell was going on." For their subsequent movements, see White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 5;White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek,Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2.
212. On communications problems, see, e.g., President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). On lack of an open line, see, e.g., Deborah Loewer meeting (Feb. 6, 2004).
213. On the Vice President's call, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the Vice President's time of arrival in the shelter conference room, see White House record, PEOC Shelter Log, Sept. 11, 2001 (9:58); USSS memo, OVP 9/11 Timeline, Nov. 17, 2001 (9:52; Mrs. Cheney arrived White House and joined him in tunnel);White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes (9:55; he is on phone with President);White House transcript, Lynne Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 9, 2001, p. 2 ("And when I got there, he was on the phone with the President . . . But from that first place where I ran into him, I moved with him into what they call the PEOC"); White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 4
(9:35 or 9:36 arrival; he estimated a 15-minute stay); Carl Truscott interview (Apr. 15, 2004) (arrived with Rice and the Vice President in conference room; called headquarters immediately; call logged at 10:00); President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting,Apr. 29, 2004 (Vice President viewed television footage of Pentagon ablaze in tunnel);White House transcript, Rice interview with Evan Thomas, Nov. 1, 2001, p. 388 (Rice viewed television footage of Pentagon ablaze in Situation Room). For the Vice President's recollection about the combat air patrol, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004); White House transcript, President Bush interview with Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, Dec. 17, 2001, p. 16.
214. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004); see also White House transcript,Vice President Cheney interview with Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 7-8.
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).
216. In reconstructing events that occurred in the PEOC on the morning of 9/11, we relied on (1) phone logs of the White House switchboard; (2) notes of Lewis Libby, Mrs. Cheney, and Ari Fleischer; (3) the tape (and then transcript) of the air threat conference call; and (4) Secret Service and White House Situation Room logs, as well as four separate White House Military Office logs (the PEOC Watch Log, the PEOC Shelter Log, the Communications Log, and the 9/11 Log).
217. DOD transcript, Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001. For one open line between the Secret Service and the FAA, see note 208. At Secret Service headquarters, personnel from the intelligence division were also on a phone conference with FAA headquarters. Chuck Green interview (Mar. 10, 2004). For notification of an inbound aircraft at 10:02, see USSS record, Intelligence Division timeline, Sept. 11, 2001; USSS record, Crisis Center Incident Monitor, Sept. 11, 2001. For the FAA's projection, see Tim Grovack interview (Apr. 8, 2004). For Secret Service updates, see DOD transcript, Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001.
218.White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001;White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001.
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.
220. Joshua Bolten meeting (Mar. 18, 2004); see also White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001 ("10:15-18:Aircraft 60 miles out, confirmed as hijack-engage? VP:Yes. JB [Joshua Bolten]: Get President and confirm engage order").
221. For the Vice President's call, see White House record, Secure Switchboard Log, Sept. 11, 2001;White House record, President's Daily Diary, Sept. 11, 2001; White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001. Fleischer's
10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001;
see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004).
222. DOD transcript, Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001.
223. On reports of another plane, see White House notes, Lynne Cheney notes, Sept. 11, 2001;White House notes, Lewis Libby notes, Sept. 11, 2001. On the Vice President's authorization, see ibid.; DOD transcript,Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001. For Hadley's statement, see DOD transcript, Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001.
224. For the quotation, see White House transcript, Libby interview with Newsweek, Nov. 2001. On the air-craft's identity, see White House record,White House Military Office Log, Sept. 11, 2001.
225. On the NMCC, see DOD transcript,Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001. On the Secret Service's contacts with the FAA, see notes 208, 217. On the Secret Service conveying information to the White House, see DOD transcript, Air Threat Conference Call, Sept. 11, 2001; Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004).
208. USSS memo, interview of
208. USSS memo, interview of Gregory LaDow, Oct. 1, 2001, p. 1. Shortly after the second attack in New York, a senior Secret Service agent charged with coordinating the President's movements established an open line with his counterpart at the FAA, who soon told him that there were more planes unaccounted for-possibly hijacked- in addition to the two that had already crashed.Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time. See Nelson Garabito interview (Mar. 11, 2004); USSS memo, interview of Nelson Garabito, Oct. 1, 2001; see also Terry Van Steenbergen interview (Mar. 30, 2004).
Is that credible? Doesn't that mean the SS failed in the most important aspect of their job on the biggest day of their careers? The day was already known to be about planes being crashed into important buildings, and the VP's SS protection fails to deal with the threat of known hijacked aircraft in a timely fashion? That's hard for me to buy. What were they so busy doing that they couldn't be bothered to deal promptly with known hijacked aircraft?
American 77's route has been determined through Commission analysis of FAA and military radar data.
What about the FDR data and the eyewitnesses interviewed in the "Pentacon" video which all contradict that route and corroborate one another? Doesn't that introduce serious doubt about the route of AA77 (or whatever it was)?
OTOH, you do present a considerable amount of testimony adding up to a plausible hypothesis. I think it deserves careful discussion and further analysis. It's irritating in that it screws up what otherwise looks like a clear-cut case, but we have to deal with the facts as they are, not as we'd like them to be.
Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"
For the record
I am agnostic about what hit the Pentagon. Believe me or not, but the truth is I'm just not sure.
Professor Griffin believes it wasn't a Boeing 767, and I find Griffin to be level-headed. In addition, Col. Karen Kwiatkowski -- who I consider to be credible -- says not enough debris. April Gallop -- http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop... -- also had interesting eyewitness information. Ms. Gallop, imho, is a very good person. However, she is a layperson who was in severe trauma (her infant son was knocked unconscious).
On the other hand, there are many eyewitnesses to a Boeing or big plane. Claims about the size of the hole based upon photographs have largely been debunked (photos showing a very small hole seem with water from firehoses in the foreground are misleading. I can give a full analysis if anyone cares).
I haven't yet watched the Pentacon video with eyewitness interviews.
So basically, I am honestly undecided, and so don't speak out on the Pentagon, except for Cheney's stand down order, the fact that "the most heavily defended building in the world" was successfully attacked, Hani Hanjour couldn't fly at all (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/hanjour-could-not-fly-at-al... ), etc.
If it was a Boeing, was it remote controlled (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/01/wheres-remote-control.html ) ? Maybe, but no definite evidence yet in my opinion.
Again, I'm undecided.
I am agnostic too
but think that these speculative points are well worth considering:
1) A smaller aircraft projecting a hologram of a commercial jet is a very neat explanation that accounts for virtually all of the evidence.
2) It accounts for the neat holes, that the holes are just a few feet off the ground, the "surgical" nature of the P damage, the engine that we actually do see in photos, the intact book, and the eye-witness accounts.
3) FURTHERMORE, it explains why the P has not released its videos AND why the FBI was so quick to confiscate the gas station and hotel videos. A hologram projected around a smaller aircraft might very well be good enough to fool people on the scene, but not be good enough to withstand scrutiny if captured on video. The hologram need not be that complex. Relative to the aircraft it surrounds, it would simply be a stationary illusion.
4) A smaller aircraft projecting a hologram is not "an insanely complex" hypothesis as is sometimes claimed. In fact it is simpler and neater in every way. It explains all of the evidence, erases all of the anomalies, and requires no more manipulation by insiders than remote-controlled planes. The only difference is it asks us to believe that the military is capable of doing that. I believe they probably are. Not long ago there was talk in military circles of projecting a hologram of Muhammad above Baghdad to quell the population. If they can do that, why not this?
One question:
What room or rooms in the P were actually hit? I have read that the accountants investigating the $2.3 trillion in "lost" DoD funds were working in the room that was hit. If this is true and if this can be confirmed, I would conclude that it is almost certain that that room was hit by some sort of missile or very accurately controlled small aircraft, as it was important not to miss.
Hologram link
I am sure there is more info than just this.
"But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air."
--from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
The bottom line
is that NOTHING should've hit or exploded at the Pentagon.
When dealing with the general public I am agnostic about what happened at the Pentagon.
I have absolutely no ego invested in my speculations about what happened at the Pentagon and was merely trying to suggest a possibility that would explain everything that is known about the event at the Pentagon.
I very happily admit that I could be completely wrong.
Maybe hundred ton Boeing jets filled with passengers and baggage really can shred into confetti and/or vaporize when impacting reinforced masonry walls at 500 mph.
Maybe two 7200 lb. titanium alloy engines can simply disappear with nary a trace.
Maybe the ground effect that every pilot I've talked to about is an aerodynamic myth.
Maybe April Gallop was in shock and forgot about walking through a 6,000+ gallon jet fuel fed inferno or she was incredibly lucky.
Maybe the government has a very good reason to not produce even one part that can be verified to have come from AA77 (or any of the other planes, for that matter).
(Please note that any perceived sarcasm is not intended)
Study the evidence, weigh the relative credibility of everything you see, read and hear. Apply logic, but don't exclude any possibility no matter how implausible or "complicated" it may seem.
Once you grow tired of the endless debate on this subject, as I have, realize that the only sensible solution is to put your imagination, energy and time into working to get the real investigations that we need and deserve. That said, I have little doubt that I will be posting on this subject again next month.
SIGH
Let's keep our eyes on the prize, brothers and sisters.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Your evaluation is somber and spot on LeftWright
Staying with what is more provable such as Minetas' testimony is good for now, in My book. But speculating is fine as long as it isn't taken as gospel, if it suddenly creates an idea in someone and causes them to investigate a whole different angle, thats not a bad thing. My investigating turns more toward before 9/11 with things tracing back to Reagan...I gotta tell ya it's extensive, but dots get connected, slowly, but they do. Having the internet has become a huge plus for getting the info, as long as the government hasn't scrubbed them.
Yes, Yes..Eye on the prize.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
Without a doubt the Pentagon controversy is a controversy.
The scientific method is the most efficient way at arriving at the truth.
Credible contradictory evidence = rejected theory.
A theory must explain all of the given evidence.
With 9/11 we are also dealing with “misleading evidence” and “fabricated evidence”. The problem is that there are also misleading arguments thrown into the mix and there can be unintentional misinterpretations of the evidence. Photos can be taken out of context. We don’t have all of the photos—especially inside the Pentagon. We don’t have access to all of the evidence.
How can we tell if something if fake or not? This problem is central to 9/11 truth.
The answer is that certain kinds of evidence are more credible than others. Evidence that is corroborated by other evidence is more credible.
We know that they are hiding the truth about 9/11, and it’s not just the Pentagon. Remember, they are hiding a lot of evidence. They had a fake investigation.
If we stick to what we can prove we can get an investigation to answer the rest.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Mineta was not referring to any particular flight
"Therefore, Mineta could not have been referring to Flight 93."
He was referring to a conversation he overheard.
Woodward is not corroborating Mineta, he is reporting on Mineta.
The fact that Mineta knew nothing about Flight 93 at the time he overheard the exchange between Cheney and the officer does not mean that the latter two were or were not referring to Flight 93 or any other plane.
Does the distance matter? "50 miles out" from where? Can you assume that to mean the Pentagon?
C-130 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Mineta was talking about the first airplane that was getting close to the pentagon supposedlly flight 77, but it was nothing that a war aircraft (C-130) THAT'S THA ONE THAT FIRED the missile to the pentagon
Is this a change in testimony?
>i>What Does Dick Cheney Say?
Mr. Cheney has recently testified that he did not enter the PEOC until around 20 minutes after the Pentagon strike. However, his initial testimony, 5 days after the attack, was:
"[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."
Changing testimony tends to discredit a witness's credibility, especially if he, himself, is a suspect.
This could simply mean that soon after he arrived, he was told that the Pentagon had been hit. You' assuming the event occurred while he was in the PEOC - it could have happened earlier and he was not told until after he arrived at the PEOC.
Also, the CNN transcript is not clear on where the vice president was at 9:52 - in the basement situation room or in the East Wing PEOC.