Mineta’s Testimony to the 9/11 Commission Confirmed by Secret Service Log

by Scott Creighton

It would appear that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission has been verified by documents released back in 2009.  For those of you who don’t remember, Norman testified to the commission that while he was in the bunker at the White House on Sept. 11th, 2001, he heard an individual giving Dick Cheney status reports on the target that was approaching DC. His testimony was left out of the final 9/11 Commission Report and many debunker types, including some fake “truthers” in the movement, have tried to claim that he was mistaken or that it was a “ghost” signal image of Flight 93 (which never got that close to DC, BTW) (watch the video of Mineta’s testimony below)

There was no alarm sounded at the Pentagon prior to the attack. It is clear that they knew of the target’s approach at least 10 minutes prior even perhaps more.  April Gallop recently attempted to sue Rumsfeld and Cheney for not giving the people at the Pentagon any advanced warning of the approaching target. “A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.” Pilots for 9/11 Truth April Gallop walked through the damaged area of the Pentagon after the strike and does not believe a 757-200 struck the Pentagon. 125 people died in the Pentagon on Sept. 11th 2001, many of them working in the office tasked with finding the missing 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had announced as missing on Sept. 10th 2001.

“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 order still stands. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” at the time I didn’t know what any of that meant.” “It was the flight that came into the Pentagon” Norman Mineta, 9/11 Commission testimony

As a poster at JREF notes, these times are also confirmed by the radar records of the incoming target’s position

Timeline for AAL77 based on radar to correlate with Mineta’s testimony.

9:26 – AAL77 was 50 nautical miles out from DC
9:30 – 30 nautical miles out
9:33 – 10 nautical miles out

Apparently the documents are from  9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, who was given access to the Secret Service logs and allowed to write his own notes based on what those logs claimed. So Kara knew that there was official independent confirmation of Mineta’s testimony, yet he still did not include the testimony or the SS log notes he took in the final commission report.

The Secret Service was inside the bunker in the White House with the vice president. These logs show that they were aware of the approaching target and confirms Mineta’s testimony.

Below is an interview with photographer Bob Pugh. Notice that he says there the “largest piece of wreckege” seen that days was “2 feet by 3 feet” and crumpled. That is the now famous piece that everyone identifies as proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But as I have claimed many times, that logo is clearly too small to have been a letter from the logo of Flight 77.

This is the crumpled piece of debris that eyewitness Bob Pugh describes as being about 2 feet by 3 feet… if you look at the grass in the shot, you can see that Pugh’s assesment of the size of this piece of wreckage is pretty accurate.

If you look at a picture of Flight 77, the American Airlines logo is clearly larger that the letter dipicted above. The letter above looks to be about 12″ across give or take a few. Now look at Flight 77. Also notice the image I inserted of a mechanic working on one of the same types of engines that are on Flight 77.

As you can see, the letter on the crumpled piece of debris seems much smaller than those which make up the logo on Flight 77.

Recently there has been more new information which calls the official story into question even more. Departure gate position conflicts with the official story.  A summary of evidence from Pilots for 9/11 truth.

Advertisements

8 Responses

  1. am i missing something? if the documents were released back in 2009, why are they news now? was their significance not noted till now?

    re: ” So Kara knew that there was official independent confirmation of Mineta’s testimony, yet he still did not include the testimony or the SS log notes he took in the final commission report.”
    i wouldn’t jump to blaming kara. even if he tried to do the right thing (maybe he did, maybe he didn’t), zelikow would not have allowed it.

    what is your opinion of pilots for 9/11 truth? they get a bad rap over at 9/11blogger, which would seem to indicate that they are for real.

  2. Can she re-open her case now?
    So much points to Cheney….

  3. Eric Larson supposedly put them up in 2009 but “missed” their significance. Someone else found them and didn’t miss their significance. Of course, Larson is also the guy who tried to write that hit-piece on DRG recently, so, draw your own conclusions.

  4. The “crumpled piece of debris” seems to be very thin; it looks more like a foil than the skin of a 757 fuselage. No frame nor stringer attached?

  5. Yeah Erik, that is weird isn’t it? No structural support in that piece at all. You know, the Global Hawk actually has an aluminum fuselage just like a 757, just smaller. I believe that is a piece of that. But there is no way to tell unless you could access that piece and examine it in detail.

  6. Without structual support it is just a sheet of metal and could not take any load at all – it would buckle immediately.

    It could be just a kind of a cowling – but why is the painting on it? Where the plane had this kind of painting, there was no cowling, there had to be real structure taking all the tremendous shear forces.

    I like your Global Hawk Theory, that would make sense. Perhaps it was something else or combined with something else, but obviously it was not a 757!

  7. the only place on the exterior of Flight 77 that had that logo painted on it was the large logo on the side of the plane. no logo like this on the wings or tail section.

    one thing to keep in mind, Global Hawk or some other drone or a 757-200, the skin of the fuselage may have been ripped, peeled, from the body of the rest of that section as it scraped into the damaged wall. Then the explosion could have blown it away from the building. the missing frame is understandable in that regard. However, the size of the logo and the apparent construction of that piece (rivit hole closely together) seems to suggest it is not from a large 757-200 in spite of what Gregg Roberts and Jim Hoffman would have us believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: