Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania by Succatash

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Friday, December 31, 2004 05:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1606
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 27, 2004 12:16 PM

Dec. 27, 2004
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

"The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "...if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon...."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane."

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 12:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
..if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon...

Why would Rumsfeld associate his own air force w/ those who we are fighting ? It makes no sense...mosul, bombing in spain, attacked ..NY , attacked the Pentegon. Of the six groups he mentioned, 5 were terrorist.

The dude is 70. He just got back from Iraq. I suspect he simply mispoke.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 1:51 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

It makes sense in a conspiratorial way. The US Air Force would be justified in shooting down an airplane that was going to fly into a major landmark, such as the White House or Pentagon. The fact that they may have lied about doing so, cheapens the situation. It would have been a noble, selfless gesture if those people aboard the plane that went down had been responsible for causing it to strike the ground early, thereby saving more lives. But, if it was the case that the story concerning those people was concocted, it makes me madder than I have been at the Bush Administration in a long time. If it is true, then they made false martyrs out of those people to further their own military agenda. I did hear about AF planes being around the plane in the Washington area. It's a common practice. It was going on before 9/11. It still goes on.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 2:17 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

We've known for 3 years that Cheney gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes at around 10 am that morning. Now there's some question about whether the plane was actually shot down or brought down by passengers but either way the order was given. There's no scandal here. We know that the passengers tried to bring the plane down. We know that F-16s were in the air and ordered to engage if necessary, and there was certainly necessity. The question is which got there first. If the plane was shot down I can certainly understand and respect why the administration chose not to present that information. How the plane was brought down is quite irrelevant. Better that history remember it for the heroism of the Americans on board Flight 93 then the pilots who were forced into the regrettable position of shooting down their own defenseless countrymen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 5:13 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I want to understand. You say, "I can certainly understand and respect why the administration chose not to present that information." Please expound.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 8:34 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
How the plane was brought down is quite irrelevant.

Unless you care about, you know, historical accuracy?

But that's reality-based. Why understand physics when superstition explains everything?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth...?

I vote for slip of the tongue.

But at least it'll keep a few hundred conspiracy theorists gainfully employed for the rest of the year.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:27 AM

HKCAVALIER

Ah, golly, there ain't no theory or conspiracy on this one. I have a friend from Pennsylvania. Folks up there have known about the plane being shot down since the morning of. It's s.o.p., just as it's s.o.p. for our government to be embarrassed by its own s.o.p. and try to keep it out of the press.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:47 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I have a friend from Pennsylvania.

Not anymore. Now its "Pennsylvania Memories Last a Lifetime" thanks to the damn liberals (cost them a half million to figure it out).

Fact: Rumsfeld lied. Proof: Because of something he said.

Seems there is a fundamental flaw in that argument.

How bout we know he's telling the truth because he says so. Thats just as bad.

How bout this? We accept what he says but conduct a massive investigation of our own and if he's lying we find out and if not WE FIND OUT. We could commission a special group of expert investigators to look at every detail of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Then they could publish a surprisingly well written and concise book detailing their findings and retailing for under $20 at Barnes and Noble. Then, years later, when the Secretary of Defense makes a mistatement that seems (but not really since he was refering to the terrorist as being responsible for the downing of the flight with no assistence from the US military despite the fact that the military would have provided such assistance had it been in a position to do so, and using military jargon to make his reference for the benefit of his audience, aka THE MILITARY) to contradict the official story, we could all just flip open our copy of said book, see it didn't happen, pause, waiting for proof to the contrary, and hearing none...save hearsay reports from our "friends in Pennsylvania", we could close the file on this issue secure in the knowledge that certain people really hate Bush, but despite this they lost the election and we get four more years to kick terrorist ass before Hillary comes in to sell us out to the Chinease and French.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:06 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hero, what is the matter with you? I'm not talking about efing Rumsfeld. Go to northern Penn, talk to ANYONE, and they will tell you. They're conservative people up there, so they don't make a big stink about the gov. keeping secrets or leaving things out of reports. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the one example from that wretched, wretched day, of our defense dollars being put to some discernable use.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:27 PM

SERGEANTX

I find myself in the odd position of supporting the current administration. But the way I see it, if they didn't shoot it down, they should have. It would have been a prudent decision if that is what brought the plane down.

And I agree with Finn - I don't have a problem with them lying about it. The situation was one of national emergency and the country didn't need a bunch of hand wringing over the idea the we shot down one of our own airliners. It just fans the flames unnecessarily.

I know that sounds dangerously close to supporting routine censorship and it is. Actually, I would rather they tell the truth. But under the circumstances, it made sense and (if that's what happened) did more good than harm.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:39 AM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
I vote for slip of the tongue.

Really, Geezer? Really?
Because this "slip of the tongue" excuse has been used so frequently, and by so many members of the administration, that to claim they've all been a simple error beggars credulity.
Do you really think that Cheney replacing "Kerry" with "Kennedy" in every one of his election rallies, and then correcting himself as if it were a simple slip of the tongue to draw even more attention to the "gaffe", was just fantastical coincidence? And this is just a single example amongst hundreds, maybe thousands, of instances. But let's set that aside for a moment.

Given the quantity and frequency of such "slips" there are 2 conclusions that spring to mind:
1. They are purposefully planting misinformation.
2. They are just not very bright guys.

Why can't it be both?

As much as I hate to admit it, examining all of the evidence, I can only conclude that W''s administration lies, not only because it is in their interests, but because it is in their natures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 5:59 AM

HARDWARE

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_heroes.html#nov26

None of the evidence adds up neatly one way or the other.

I will say that flaming debris from inside the passenger cabin, including paper, magazines and a seat cushion does not indicate that the plane crashed intact.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE