New document supports Norman Mineta’s testimony about VP Dick Cheney

John Farmer just posted a document from the 9/11 Commission files that strongly supports Norman Mineta’s public testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Here is the link:

The document is a Secret Service log from 9/11, and confirms that the Secret Service was tracking American Airlines flight 77 as it approached Washington on September 11, 2001.

Farmer, who pursued the FOIA request for the 9/11 RADES radar data (released in October 2007) explains in his post that the radar data from 9/11 agrees perfectly with the Secret Service timeline. Farmer has the 9/11 radar data in his computer and has made it available to other 9/11 researchers.

The document was first made made public in January 2009 by NARA, along with many other 9/11 Commission files. Erik Larson posted it to Scrib in April 2009, where it may be downloaded:…

However, at the time, Erik overlooked the document’s importance. Amazingly, it escaped notice for many months.

It may also be downloaded here (this is an easier download):…

I have just received confirmation that the handwriting is actually that of 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, who was granted access to the original Secret Service documents during the commission’s official investigation. Kara was not allowed to remove the SS document, however, so he copied it long-hand.

Notice, this means that the 9/11 Commission had this information but chose to bury it, Why? Maybe to cover up for VP Dick Cheney? If someone has a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.

I should mention, based in emails, that Miles Kara believes that Mineta arrived at the White House much later, and mistook United Airlines Flight 93 in coast track mode for AA 77. Kara also thinks that the Secret Service did not move Cheney to the White House basement until around 9:35. I do not agree with Kara’s timeline. In 2002, Karl Rove told MSNBC that immediately after GW Bush left the Florida classroom (i.e, at 9:16 AM) he attempted to reach Cheney by telephone, but could not because Cheney was at that moment being hustled to safety. Mineta probably joined Cheney in the bunker sometime between 9:20 – 9:25 AM.

It is ironic that Farmer elected to post the document on the RANDI site – of all places – in the Lion’s Den. From what I have heard, there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth over there, since it went up. In my view, it’s about time that the RANDI cynics were made to eat their own ridicule. May they chow down and be transformed.



One thought on “New document supports Norman Mineta’s testimony about VP Dick Cheney

  1. Excellent work! Thanks for continuing to do the digging and research. The vast majority are holding signs, keeping websites running and hosting events, so it’s critical that some are doing the important research.

    >>Notice, this means that the 9/11 Commission had this information but chose to bury it, Why?

    It would be great if someone did an essay on this very subject to bring it to the front all over again, the Omission Commission, and what their agenda was.

    Also relevant:

    How They Get Away With It
    by Michael Green
    June 18, 2006
    The question posed by this chapter title is a good one, but it has a simple answer. Mineta was not an operative in 911, he did not understand the significance of his testimony, and so he did not simply answer Lee Hamilton’s question, but elaborated on the general theme of orders to shoot down planes on 911. Had the 911 Commission been interested in the truth rather than in covering up the truth, Hamilton & Co. would have pursued Mineta’s revelation with great diligence, extracting every relevant detail and putting it into context. Instead, Mineta’s embarrassing elaboration prompted both Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by Hamilton and Roemer is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to cover-up.

    They’ve buried a lot, too much, which can be a problem because it overwhelms people to try to keep track of all the facts that are missing or distorted. That’s why essays engaging a specific cover-up in great detail are helpful because they help the reader to deeply understand a key point, while avoiding the blizzard of other points which are also left out or distorted which would overload someone’s brain.

    The many omissions and distortions which were once located here, are now removed, of course, in favor of broad statements of opinion that leave one with a general feeling, but gloss past the Report details itself.

    The original page, Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, is now replaced by Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Did you catch the difference? If not, look again at the first word.

    That level of absurdity is what wikipedia engages in to hide facts that are missing or distorted in the 9/11 report. I happened to have saved the url of part of the discussion on the original version, which is the only way to know about it now. Today, even if you try to find the original version by typing in it’s title, you are redirected to the new version, even though the old version is still on wikipedia.

    What all of this amounts to is that these missing and distorted facts matter. Get them organized into a readable format, in digestible chunks, in essays or talks or outreach material, and spread them.

Comments are closed.