9/11 Testimony of Norman Mineta

[Q24 434]

As we know, there are points of doubt in every area of the official version of 9/11. These have been expressed by scholars, scientists, politicians and other experts too numerous to mention around the world, as well as the public masses on forums such as this.

Typically, there is the official line refute to any such point. It may look like thermite… but it’s actually a melting battery room. There were military aircraft reported by eyewitnesses and Air Traffic Control in the vicinity of Flight 93… but, well… the official report says there wasn’t. There was some level of motive for a false flag attack… but the people in power just wouldn’t act on it. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

There are though two points of doubt for which I have never seen anything approaching a reasonable rebuttal – one of which this thread is dedicated to. It’s a basic subject, though requires careful reading which I will try to summarise along the way, but may take more than one inspection to fully grasp. For anyone wanting an issue that cannot be refuted, revealing cover-up and deceit from the highest level, this is it…

On 23rd May 2003, Norman Mineta, then US Secretary of Transportation, gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission. None of this firsthand witness evidence made it into the final official report. The following excerpt is taken from the Commission hearing transcript: -

• MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

  MR. MINETA: No, I was not. 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?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

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

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

  MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

In the above text we clearly see that there was an order in place by then Vice President Dick Cheney during the time Flight 77 was incoming. Below we see that this was around 9:25am: -

• MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.

  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.

One issue to clarify is that the Commission members presuppose this is a shoot down order and Mineta assumes this could be correct though he will not commit to it – “I don’t know about the order to shoot down”. We later discover this in fact cannot have been a shoot down order as NORAD Major General Larry Arnold testifies: -

• GEN. ARNOLD: That is correct. In fact, the American Airlines 77, if we were to have arrived overhead at that particular point, I don't think that we would have shot that aircraft down.

  MR. HAMILTON: Because?

  GEN. ARNOLD: Well, we had not been given authority

And later on: -

• MR. HAMILTON: Now, one of the things that's curious to me, General Arnold, you said that you did not learn of the presidential order until after United 93 had already crashed. That was about a little after 10 o'clock in the morning. The first notice of difficulty here was at 8:20 in the morning when a transponder goes off on the American Flight 11. I don't know how significant that is, but 20 minutes later you had notification of the possible hijack. So there's a long lapse of time here between the time you are initially alerted and you receive the order that you can shoot that aircraft down. Am I right about that?

  GEN. ARNOLD: That's correct.

To summarise so far: Norman Mineta has confirmed we have himself and Dick Cheney in attendance at the Presedential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC), plus we know there was an order in place (not for a shoot down) specifically regarding the incoming aircraft, all prior to the known 9:37am impact of Flight 77.

The first question to ask is - what was the order? It only gets worse after that when we view this important line from the Commission’s final report: -

• “We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.”

The Commission don’t sound sure though do they – the “perhaps” he arrived at this time is almost laughable. So “perhaps” the “available evidence” they talk about is the US Secret Service log referenced in the final report Note 209 which is “no longer retrievable”. Or “perhaps” they “concluded” their time from the closed door testimony of Dick Cheney for which the public are not privy. It seems that “perhaps” the Commission don’t have any evidence to backup their claim whatsoever.

So therefore either way, according to the official story, none of Norman Mineta’s account as he told it ever even occurred as Vice President Dick Cheney supposedly did not arrive until well after the Pentagon impact!

All of this leads us to the conclusion that either Norman Mineta or the 9/11 Commission are being untruthful about the events of the morning, specifically regarding the actions of the Vice President. I cannot comprehend a reason why Mineta would lie, though I can imagine a certain scenario that would cause the Commission to do so.

The official refutations for all of this that I have come across before include the idea that Norman Mineta was simply “mistaken” in his version of events. Despite Mineta’s clear testimony, official story followers attempt to claim he witnessed an order at a much later time in reference to a predicted Flight 93 trajectory, whilst throwing all sorts of other issues up about why his account supposedly cannot be accurate.

As I said at the beginning of this post, none of these refutations approach anywhere near reasonable when faced with the detail contained within Mineta’s accounts and indeed when I have followed this through previously, the lack of response is astounding.

In summary, the following version of events does absolutely fit the evidence: -

The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was aware of the airliner approaching the Pentagon shortly before Norman Mineta’s arrival at 9:20am. During this time, the military had enquired to the Vice President about shoot down authority to which Cheney denied the request, ie an “order” at that time that no shoot down was to occur. The officer giving Cheney status updates on the incoming airliner and becoming increasingly concerned at its proximity asked, “Do the orders still stand?” Through this prevention of the military to act, Cheney ensured beyond doubt that the airliner reached its target. The 9/11 Commission, wanting to absolve the Vice President of any responsibility, adapted their timeline and deliberately omitted Minetta’s testimony.

Cover-up and deceit at the highest level for which there is no answer.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

If you have access to Norman's testimony, then post the entire thing and/or post your sources. Otherwise don't post at all.

Why? Because what you are using is only bits and pieces of the report that can possibly be taken out of context. That's what a lot of conspiracy theorists do. Not saying you are one, but you sure as heck are acting like one.

Edited February 6, 2009 by MrRandomGuy

[Q24 434]

If you have access to Norman's testimony, then post the entire thing and/or post your sources. Otherwise don't post at all.

Right you are, Random. I’m usually quite good at linking sources but in this case there’s just so much information I thought it best for people to check the facts themselves.

• The testimony from Norman Mineta and Major General Arnold is here: -

  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive..._2003-05-23.htm

• There is a video excerpt of Mineta giving the above testimony here: -

  (later to be edited out of the Commission video archive)

• The 9/11 Commission Report containing the discrepancy with Norman Mineta’s account is here: -

  http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

  (beware large file)

• There is a web page detailing refutations to the discrepancy here: -

  http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

  (none of these actually preclude Mineta’s testimony as I detailed in my post here)

• There have been accounts from former US government employees indirectly supporting Mineta’s testimony here: -

  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8788

• There is a follow-up interview with Norman Mineta in which it is seen he cannot understand the Commission’s ‘conclusion’ here: -

• There is a paper, written by a US Attorney in Law, going over the points I have raised and which outlines why the “order” Cheney has in place cannot be a shoot down in regard to Flight 77 and therefore by logic must be the opposite, here: -

  http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ntagonOn911.pdf

I hope that helps give the full picture.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

Right you are, Random. I’m usually quite good at linking sources but in this case there’s just so much information I thought it best for people to check the facts themselves.

I hope that helps give the full picture.

Thank you

It will take some time to read through all of that, but I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can and as soon as I can.

[frenat 872]

Why are we supposed to assume that the order had to do with refusing to shoot down the plane? How do we know the order wasn't referring to a different aspect? Perhaps they wanted to evacuate him and he refused. That is just one possibility and I'm sure others could think of other possibilities. Just because somebody did not have authority to shoot a plane down does not mean they were specifically denied authority. It just means they haven't received it yet. Assuming there was an order to not shoot down a plane seems like a leap.

[Q24 434]

It will take some time to read through all of that, but I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can and as soon as I can.

Ok, take your time but you will only be banging your head against a wall if you try to make this fit sensibly with the official line – it really won’t.

Oh and I didn’t ask any questions but I’m happy to discuss Some 5 years of research has made the general 9/11 event blatantly clear in my mind. It was a false flag, no two ways about it… by far too many anomalies for it to be anything else.

[frenat 872]

Even if it was an order refusing to shoot down the plane, it does not necessarily mean involvement, just a coverup. Perhaps in his cowardice he didn't want to be remembered as the guy that ordered multiple civilians to their deaths.

[Q24 434]

Why are we supposed to assume that the order had to do with refusing to shoot down the plane? How do we know the order wasn't referring to a different aspect?

We can ask - what was the order? We know it was in relation to the incoming flight, we also know what it wasn’t but can only theorise about what it reasonably was. The 9/11 Commission Report should have addressed this in full. If you read the original post in full though, you will understand this is far from the main issue - look at the timeline discrepancies.

But it’s ok frenat, I know you don’t care.

Even if it was an order refusing to shoot down the plane, it does not necessarily mean involvement, just a coverup. Perhaps in his cowardice he didn't want to be remembered as the guy that ordered multiple civilians to their deaths.

Just a cover-up by the Commission is indeed all I am wishing to demonstrate.

[frenat 872]

We can ask - what was the order? We know it was in relation to the incoming flight, we also know what it wasn’t but can only theorise about what it reasonably was. The 9/11 Commission Report should have addressed this in full. If you read the original post in full though, you will understand this is far from the main issue - look at the timeline discrepancies.

But it’s ok frenat, I know you don’t care.

And that smart aleck comment right there is a big reason WHY.

Just a cover-up by the Commission is indeed all I am wishing to demonstrate.

So what? I doubt many if any here would argue there wasn't some cover up. Government in general is a big game of CYA. Congratulations for proving the obvious.

Edited February 6, 2009 by frenat

[eqgumby 10]

Last months conspiracy was that the plane WAS shot down and wreckage hit the Pentagon, and before that it was that NO plane, but a missile hit the Pentagon. As I recall, there was "incontrovertible" evidence then too.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

Just a cover-up by the Commission is indeed all I am wishing to demonstrate.

Oh! Is that all you were doing? Forgive me, I was thinking you had some underlying weird theory to go with it.

To you it is a cover up, but there's a possibility other information that was classified had a more accurate time line. No matter the circumstances, it is very difficult to remember an exact time line of events exactly by the hour, especially in an emergency.

Now I don't know for sure, but other trivial information could have not been included in the report. Just because it's not included doesn't mean that it's a cover up. And if it was a cover up, then they did a pretty poor job.

[el midgetron 738]

Just because it's not included doesn't mean that it's a cover up. And if it was a cover up, then they did a pretty poor job.

Don't forget the old stand by's, "the government is to incompetent to cover anything up (or, conspire to do anything)", "the government could never kill 3,000 people" or even "there no such thing as a conspiracy".

[Q24 434]

And that smart aleck comment right there is a big reason WHY.

When I said “I know you don’t care”, it wasn’t intended to be smart aleck, I was only pre-empting the type of response you have given before…

As for your question, I don't care. I'm not involved in this discussion. I don't care. I don't want to be involved. I don't care. I don't like your perceived attitude. Did I mention I don't care? I don't want to be dragged into the endless minutiae of the "discussion". Leave me out.

… so you see, I was just acknowledging your general point of view.

So what? I doubt many if any here would argue there wasn't some cover up. Government in general is a big game of CYA. Congratulations for proving the obvious.

We seem to agree there was a cover-up by the 9/11 Commission involving Dick Cheney, that’s a start and we know then that the official final report cannot be believed. The next issue to address would be – why the cover-up?

You suggested up the page that perhaps the “order” was to evacuate Cheney and he refused. Why would such a scenario lead the Commission to extensively alter their timeline on Cheney’s movements and completely ignore Norman Mineta’s testimony? It doesn’t make sense as most people would actually give great credit to a heroic Vice President standing his ground under attack.

You also suggest perhaps there was an order specifically not to shoot the incoming plane down, but if this was a purely innocent action then why did the Commission go to the lengths of removing him from the scene altogether? In a genuine attack, no one could really blame the decision makers in the confusion of the morning so long as they were transparent about their actions.

Why fabricate a timeline telling a giant lie to the world if you don’t have to? The only reasonable cause for an official investigation to do this would be to cover-up a wrongdoing or crime of such magnitude that it would cause public uproar if it got out.

[Q24 434]

Oh! Is that all you were doing? Forgive me, I was thinking you had some underlying weird theory to go with it.

If we can all first grasp that there was a cover-up by the 9/11 Commission (which we do seem to agree on), then we can address the underlying reasons why.

To you it is a cover up, but there's a possibility other information that was classified had a more accurate time line.

If the Vice President’s movements were classified then the Commission would be far better off saying exactly that. The Commission should not fabricate an alternative version of events for public consumption, especially when that lie absolves Cheney of all responsibility at the PEOC.

Do you agree, Random, or do you think lying is ok?

Now I don't know for sure, but other trivial information could have not been included in the report. Just because it's not included doesn't mean that it's a cover up. And if it was a cover up, then they did a pretty poor job.

This is not a minor quibble about a few trivial minutes or such. The Commission largely altered and omitted information during the important window (9:20am-9:58am) in which Flight 77 was approaching and impacting the Pentagon. There was no point in an investigation if they were not going to get the most vital aspects correct… but then the Bush Admin never wanted an investigation in the first place did they.

[frenat 872]

When I said “I know you don’t care”, it wasn’t intended to be smart aleck, I was only pre-empting the type of response you have given before…

Sure you were.

You know very well my previous comments were related to a different line of questioning. Even still, would I not be allowed to change my mind? Apparently not judging from your attitude. It is exactly that type of attitude which makes me and others often not want to get involved. Congratulations. You and others with similar attitudes are driving people AWAY from your version of the truth.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

If the Vice President’s movements were classified then the Commission would be far better off saying exactly that. The Commission should not fabricate an alternative version of events for public consumption, especially when that lie absolves Cheney of all responsibility at the PEOC.

Do you agree, Random, or do you think lying is ok?

Depends. Sometimes you have to keep some information secret because people are complete morons. As individuals, we can handle the truth, but the public will react with stupidity. So if the information is hidden with the intent to prevent the public from taking it the wrong way, then it's ok. If it's intended to save someone's skin, then it's not ok.

[Q24 434]

Sure you were.

You know very well my previous comments were related to a different line of questioning. Even still, would I not be allowed to change my mind? Apparently not judging from your attitude. It is exactly that type of attitude which makes me and others often not want to get involved. Congratulations. You and others with similar attitudes are driving people AWAY from your version of the truth.

This is typically the type of response seen where the actual facts being discussed cannot be refuted.

So if the information is hidden with the intent to prevent the public from taking it the wrong way, then it's ok. If it's intended to save someone's skin, then it's not ok.

How could the Commission’s fabrication regarding Cheney’s whereabouts/actions, be anything other than saving his skin? Can you suggest any believable reason for this particular cover-up that would make it ok in your opinion?

Nearly 3 days into this thread and all we have had is official 9/11 story followers stating along the lines of: -

“Yes we were lied to… but that’s just fine by me.”

Of course this is without going into all the conflicts of interest that the Commission had. For just one example, Commission member Fred Fielding, “maintained close ties to Mr. Cheney, whom he has known for decades, and had occasionally been an informal adviser to him.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/washingt...agewanted=print

Then there’s the fact the President and Vice President were so terrified of slipping-up that they would only testify under the conditions: -

1. They would be allowed to testify jointly
2. They would not be required to take an oath before testifying
3. The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers
4. These notes would not be made public

Any reasonable person has to wonder what they don’t want us to know.

[frenat 872]

This is typically the type of response seen where the actual facts being discussed cannot be refuted.

Thank you for proving my point. That's exactly the type of response I've come to expect from you.

Edited February 9, 2009 by frenat

[Q24 434]

Thank you for proving my point. That's exactly the type of response I've come to expect from you.

What response do you expect when you avoid discussion of the topic? Thread derailment (which I regard your last two posts as) is a tactic of those who cannot reasonably refute the facts they don’t like. In your post here you dropped all attempt at discussing the topic in favour of a distracting gripe about ‘attitudes’ – a sure case of attacking the messenger. Can you at least include discussion of the topic in your posts or not bother at all please.

[frenat 872]

What response do you expect when you avoid discussion of the topic? Thread derailment (which I regard your last two posts as) is a tactic of those who cannot reasonably refute the facts they don’t like. In your post here you dropped all attempt at discussing the topic in favour of a distracting gripe about ‘attitudes’ – a sure case of attacking the messenger. Can you at least include discussion of the topic in your posts or not bother at all please.

What do you expect when your very first response to me contained the exact attittude I was describing? I DID discuss the topic. I don't see much more to discuss now. YOU were the one that mentioned "I didn't care" which I then discussed by saying my previous comments were related to another line of questioning and asking "would I not be allowed to change my mind?" which you never answered. For the record, I'm not trying to refute the facts. I pretty much agreed that there is some coverup. I have seen no proof as to what exactly the coverup was yet so I see no facts along those lines to refute.

Edited February 9, 2009 by frenat

[Professor Buzzkill 2,587]

Great work spreading the truth Q. Keep it up, Americans have to get mad before anything Consequential will happen.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

How could the Commission’s fabrication regarding Cheney’s whereabouts/actions, be anything other than saving his skin? Can you suggest any believable reason for this particular cover-up that would make it ok in your opinion?

Nearly 3 days into this thread and all we have had is official 9/11 story followers stating along the lines of: -

“Yes we were lied to… but that’s just fine by me.”

Of course this is without going into all the conflicts of interest that the Commission had. For just one example, Commission member Fred Fielding, “maintained close ties to Mr. Cheney, whom he has known for decades, and had occasionally been an informal adviser to him.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/washingt...agewanted=print

Then there’s the fact the President and Vice President were so terrified of slipping-up that they would only testify under the conditions: -

1. They would be allowed to testify jointly
2. They would not be required to take an oath before testifying
3. The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers
4. These notes would not be made public

Any reasonable person has to wonder what they don’t want us to know.

Maybe saving his skin, but maybe there was something super secret he was doing. I don't know! I mean, yeah there's a pretty good cover up. The fact that the thing is on youtube though means that it was public so why cover something up that was possibly broadcasted on TV? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

And GW not taking an oath (since he's now a Christian goody goody) does say something fishy. But we will know where they were and what they did - 30 years from now.

[Q24 434]

The fact that the thing is on youtube though means that it was public so why cover something up that was possibly broadcasted on TV? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

The footage was in the Commission video archive and was edited out after it found its way onto YouTube. It does seem a bad cover-up when this information is in the open… but then look how many people still don't know (or just don't care) about the discrepancy.

I pretty much agreed that there is some coverup.

I mean, yeah there's a pretty good cover up.

We can leave it at that then… worrying as it is that some will faithfully claim against all logic that this is a ‘good’ rather than a ‘bad’ cover-up.

[timfix 1]

They made sure that the proof was shipped off to china right away to be recycled .

A homeless man saw them arrive the night of 910 with ninja like clothing caring back packs of the detenation supplies. Im sure all those installers of the explosives were killed shortly after , thats right by the part of the n s a or whoever exactly was behind this.

simple, with the knowelge that the terrorist wanted to crash planes into the towers -----the mastermindes moreless used them as pansies , and imploded the buildings to make the terrorist attack alot much much bigger then it was going to be.

this assured that we'd have a reason to invade Iraq regardless whether Binladen was there or not.

now look at the money wasted and lives on 911 and of our military later

all because certain elitiest wanted more money to flow their way , all because Iraq wanted to trade oil transaction in the euro and not the usd.

we've just been tru the worste period in history ,next to ww2.

yet it might not be over yet , not from what im hearing.... wont know for 5- 10 yrs ... since from what ive heard we are real screwed by the final chapter .... which was the collapse of the economy. Obama and others have poor ideas for the stimulus package ,which to me means wasted mega trillions. im sure some of the money will be used correctly.... any depression here we come , many are saying ,not just me. now do i live in a state of doom n gloom ..... no

the secret is

______________________________________________________.

The footage was in the Commission video archive and was edited out after it found its way onto YouTube. It does seem a bad cover-up when this information is in the open… but then look how many people still don't know (or just don't care) about the discrepancy.

We can leave it at that then… worrying as it is that some will faithfully claim against all logic that this is a ‘good’ rather than a ‘bad’ cover-up.

[MrRandomGuy 0]

The footage was in the Commission video archive and was edited out after it found its way onto YouTube. It does seem a bad cover-up when this information is in the open… but then look how many people still don't know (or just don't care) about the discrepancy.

Yeah I think it's because most people are more tired of the events, proposed events, and alternate events of 9/11 to care.