It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Norman Mineta’s Flight Path Statements - The Overlooked 9/11 Smoking Gun

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Norman Mineta’s Flight Path Statements
The Overlooked 9/11 Smoking Gun





Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has been a strong focus of the 9/11 truth movement due to statements he made to the 9/11 Commission indicating an alleged stand down order from Vice President Dick Cheney regarding intercepting the Pentagon attack jet. The implication that the attack was let happen on purpose or “LIHOP’ed” as it is often referred to by people in the movement, is hard to ignore. But other statements made by Norman Mineta in an interview with Robert Hager with NBC News regarding the flight path have even more serious implications yet have been virtually unnoticed.

The candid interview is from 2002 long before the NTSB released the data from the alleged black box in 2006 or 84 RADES released the alleged radar data in 2007.

Mineta reveals very general yet significant details about the flight path that would end up being completely contradicted years later with the release of all the official data.

Mineta explicitly suggests that then deputy director of the FAA, Monte Belger, told him that the plane was making what was described as the “down river approach” or the “DRA”.


"So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out.' So I said, 'Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?' He said, 'Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach.'."




"And so then the person came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out,' and so I said, 'Monte, where is it?' and he said, 'Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport.'."



This would have to mean the plane actually looped around from the east side of the Pentagon which fatally contradicts all of the official data.

This is underscored when Mineta says:


“And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House.”


According to the NTSB and 84 RADES flight path the plane never "over-passed" the Pentagon.

But while Mineta suggests that it was never as far as east of the White House, the notion that the plane was east of the river and flew over DC skies is supported by a variety of other sources including air traffic controllers Colin Scoggins and/or Kevin Nasypany on the NORAD tapes, an early statement from white house spokesman Ari Fleischer, the C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, a report from ABC News, and numerous eyewitness reports including Steve Chaconas, a new previously unknown witness account independently obtained by Citizen Investigation Team.



The overwhelming evidence showing how the flight path was east of the Pentagon at all is a smoking gun proving the officially released data fraudulent.

All of the east side evidence is examined in detail in our new full feature presentation:

The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Does anyone realize how this proves 9/11 was an inside job?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


CHIRP







Why do we listen to Norm? He is the government....doesn't that make him "suspect?" Remember, Norm has a hard time remembering what time of day it is.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Why do we listen to Norm? He is the government....doesn't that make him "suspect?" Remember, Norm has a hard time remembering what time of day it is.


Why do we listen to people who still believe the official story who believe what they see on TV and what the media tells them?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 
Hey there CO,
You making fun of this post means, that you believe the governments theory about 9/11, but to me it also means that you think, if the government was complicit, then everyone, whom works for the government knew about 9/11 right? Norman Mineta, probably wasn't in on the plan with good ole Richard Cheney, I believe Cheney is the bad guy in all this. Well, him and a select few of his friends.

Have a great day.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by saturnsrings]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Frankly I don't trust Mineta so yes he most certainly is a suspect.

In an operation of this magnitude it's reasonable to suggest that not all of those involved are aware of every aspect of the plot at all times.

Ari Fleischer ALSO let details of the real flight path slip.

Mineta's claims are somewhat vague too....he is simply relaying from memory what he was told by Monte Belger on that day.....but as I said in the OP.....there are MANY independent sources corroborating the notion that the plane flew east of the Pentagon and over DC skies.

This fact is fatal to the official story and now with the new independent testimony of Steve Chaconas filmed on location in addition to all of the additional evidence outlined, it has been proven.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Cool thread so far. I liked the crickets.

And I guess I should say something. My best guess is Mineta was confusing one plane with another in the 'chaos.' He's a conference room guy, not a radar screen guy.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Uh-huh.

Anything that contradicts the official story is a mistake or disinfo right Adam?

Why are you so dedicated to dismissing and explaining away fatal anomalies?

Why is defending the government story such a driving force and passion in your life?

I guess you forgot about the "radar screen guys" Scoggins and Nasypany.

And of course ABC News, Ari Fleischer, the C-130 pilot, Steve Chaconas, and scores of other witnesses.

Nothing to see here but a bunch of mistakes or disinfo folks.

Independent evidence doesn't matter. The government already told us what happened so we should all have unyielding FAITH like CL.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
So...

Captain Obvious.....

Is this really your only response to hard evidence proving a military deception on 9/11?




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Uh-huh.

Anything that contradicts the official story is a mistake or disinfo right Adam?

Why are you so dedicated to dismissing and explaining away fatal anomalies?


I was offering my opinion in a discussion forum, Craig. But since we're taking it to the level of suspicious mindsets that can be said to invalidate one's opinions and FAITHs...

Why do you insist on rejecting anything that supports the 'official story,' like 99% of the evidence, while embracing everything that, seen a certain way, seems to contradict it? And use these as building blocks for your increasingly elaborate fantasy scenario?


Why is defending the government story such a driving force and passion in your life?


I dunno, didn't start that way. I suppose I'm drawn to maligned and unpopular truths, which in this case seems to coincide with the government story. I came in the back way, following the actual evidence.

Now, why are you so dedicated to making **** up based on your demonstratably skewed method of accepting evidence?


I guess you forgot about the "radar screen guys" Scoggins and Nasypany.


Must've miissed Nasypany's relevance, but no I did not forget Scoggins, who reports a plane SE of the White House, double-checks, and corrects himself "soutwest."


And of course ABC News, Ari Fleischer, the C-130 pilot, Steve Chaconas, and scores of other witnesses.


Why must you pretend when someone says they had a view of the Mall they must be as close to right over it as you can place them? A plane is headed towards the White House = right over it? A plane 'circling the White House" can't POSSIBLY be a confused report? That any plane crossing the river MUST be your plane? That witnesses describing a White Plane over DC can't POSSIBLY mean the E4-B? Is it because these selective reading create apparent contradictions that you can use to part the Red Sea of truth and fly your nonsense story right down the middle?


Nothing to see here but a bunch of mistakes or disinfo folks.

Independent evidence doesn't matter. The government already told us what happened so we should all have unyielding FAITH like CL.


Yes, I have faith that things that happen follow certain rules of physics and logic and that faith is what guides me. You too are guided by faith in your (stated) belief that the scant 'evidence' that supports your hypothesis is valid and ANYTHING that contradicts, no matter the source, is to be discounted and ignored at all costs (negative faith is also faith, an argument from incredulity).

Now you say these are exactly MY crimes, and around we can spin again.




top topics



 
4

log in

join