rumsfeld says 911 plane shot down in penn

While we can say it may have been a slip..to mutter the words " shot down " and a US Commercial aircraft in the US are ingredients for another investigation.
Can someone tell me of a craft in the US that was recently shot down?

And even if Mr Rumsfeld was wrong, his lack of attention to detail is apparent.
The man must stand down.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
To the best of my knowledge, the flight recorder was never made available to the public, even the families of those killed. So again, you are going by what the Government tells you happened. There have been several conflicting stories on eyewitness reports in both PA and DC. This isssue is so out of control, even if the government came out and said it was shot down, people would still not believe it. The only way for the "Pentagon" issue to go away would be to release the videotapes from the Gas Stations, Hotels, and DMV cameras, but alas it has been to long and could be "Doctored". The Parking garage camera is still missing a frame, which could possibly show exactly what hit. We will never know the "Truth".

Well, I am definately interested in the point of covering this whole 911 issues.

By the way: aren't those two jetliners hitting the World trade centers are some cargo planes with no windows at all? Seems to be interesting now, that we don't even know the origin of all four airplanes, on the other hand four planes with passengers on board are just missing. My point is that physically four airplanes were involved in the attacks, but yet it is not proven that THOSe are the crafts damaged, which are actually missing.

This could be the only reason to hide those videos, and keep damn silence about 911, as if nothing happened at that time. Very interesting!

I don't want to turn this into a rehash of 911 threads, but has anyone ever heard of getting a cell phone signal in a plane just above the trees travelling at over 500 miles per hour? As far as I understand, it's not possible.

This is entirely possible... I've done it, on two different occassions, as I used to fly numerous times a month in a previous job, and would often forget about turning off my cell.

Old rummy is getting too old 4 the job, hes dementing rapidly...

They will want to get him out before accidentilly leaking more ''truth''

Rummies days are numbered.....

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Honestly I think he was blathering a bit. He's getting facts
mixed up. Time for him to go!!

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You get the story of the passengers rushing the cockpit because then they all appear to be heros and not collateral damage to prevent even more deaths. Most of the surving family members picture their loved one helping out to fight the terrorist.

And then the government just mucks it all up in some radio interview by saying that they actually shot it down? I don't think that that's reasonable.

slayerfan
I dont know what to belive but a box cutter is not that scary,

I doubt a planeful of people is going to not be concerned with several knife weilding fanatical muslim hijackers. They thought that they were just going to be hijacked, not used as suicide bombs. The people on the penn flight revolted when they learned what was going on.

from the link flyers fan noted

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face 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, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten � indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

He is saying that jihadi terrorists did it, not that the administation sensibly sent a jet to shoot it down and was successful.

This seems, rather than a careless exposure of a massive governemental conspiracy. more like some bizzare f-up on rumsfeld's part.

Is anyone aware of his explanation of this statement?

So Rummy is getting his facts all mixed up, yea I guess, it is hard to keep your lies straight, I mean facts straight, I feel sorry for the old man. But don�t take what he says as fact cause he mixes them up just like his boss.

So a missile didn't hit the Pentagon and the air force didn't shoot down any plane it was a slip of the tongue, go back to sleep America.

Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine
Friday, Oct 12 2001
Quote
�Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.unquote�
more

Flight 93 Shot Down by the Happy Hooligans

Major Rick Gibney did as he was ordered and did nothing criminal. He was merely following orders,
They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After confirmation orders were received, A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;
Link

Rick Gibney, as identified on www.f16viper.org...

[edit on 27/12/2004 by Sauron]

If Flight 93 was REALLY shot, that couldn't be kept secret, and even not that guy would spit the "truth" by accident. It is clear that the plane was ordered to be shot down, but it actually never happened. And why the heck would the government cover this whole thing? Nothing wrong about shooting down a hijacked plane right in the middle of a massive terrorist attack...

In fact, among the very first news we would hear the truth, but then we didn't exactly hear whether it was shot, or deliberately crashed. Both theories were heard, and still most likely that it was crashed.

I have seen the scene of the Pennsylvania crash, such damage to the trees would never occur doe to debris. It came down in one piece, and the wings were in their place. It's another thing, if it was on fire ir not. Still, launching two missiles to it, would definately destroy it in midair, and some parts would fall to the ground in one piece.

At the actual scene every piece of the plane was few cm large. Knowing that the plane was crashing at stressed speed, this is not a surprise.

Lets approach the combination of the words a different way.

Lets say GW was talking and said the following regharding the Kursk:
Accidents happen, even when we torpedoe Russian subs that are carrying Granite cruise missiles.

While maybe not a great comparison, its the concept or torpediong that we never do and therefore the words should never be uttered. Shot down?
Who shot down. What shot down. Where shot down. Was there something shot down that we dont know about Mr Rumsfeld? Your brain said shot down and none of the topics you were touching have to do with shot down.

No what is it. I personally think the cat named Pandora peeked ouf of the box and let me tell you ....this is one black cat.

Originally posted by 77
Look at the original seen if you can find it.
The plane was shot down, no doubt, several
Military and law enforcement know it. I am
in agreement it is better kept hush. What
good can come of it?
Let's let it pass.

this is the kind of thinking that leads to totalitarian regimes.
what good can come of it is TRUTH=GOOD. people decide what to do each day based on their observations of their enviroment. a government that is consistently proven to be LYING is NOT 'government for the people, by the people'.
let's NOT 'let it pass'. let's realise that america is ruled by lying imperialistic corporate fascists.

Originally posted by Sauron
so a missile didn't hit the Pentagon and the air force didn't shoot down any plane it was a slip of the tongue, go back to sleep America.

Why is it beleiveable that there was a 'slip of the tongue' that supports a conspiracy theory, but not a more mundane one that doesn't?

And rumsfeld said that jihadis shot the plane down.

As per the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 was not shot down:
Flight 93 Was Not Shot Down 9/11 Commission Reports

If what you claim and "expose," as truth, Sauron, is indeed the truth, seems to me that the 9/11 Commission would have questioned the people/person (Major Rick Gibney) you so claims this?

If it made perfect "military sense," besides it being a political sanfu, wouldn't the 9/11 Commission have stated thus? Bush nor Cheney had nothing to do with the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission nor would they have had the ability to have such a Commission "suppress" such information. This would indicate that it would have taken some 'unknown' to keep such information "suppressed" from and/or in the 9/11 Commssion?

Does the mere factoid that nothing virtually nothing remained of the aircraft further indicate that Flight 93 was indeed a high speed ground impact? I mean gee, if it was shot down, there would be oddles of wreckage (not small pieces, big pieces)to be recovered and thus examined?
Eyewitness accounts just after the impact:

The apparent point of impact was a dark gash, not more than 30 feet wide, at the base of a gentle slope just before a line of trees.

There were few recognizable remnants of the plane or the passengers and crew. The trees beyond were still faintly smoldering but largely intact.

"If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap," said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. "There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces."

The crash in Somerset: 'It dropped out of the clouds'

Does this picture indicate a "smoke trail" (indicating that Flight 93 had been hit by a missile, etc.) prior to its crashing into the earth?
Photo taken

And as to the "mystery plane" that was seen:

Lee Purbaugh is one of at least half a dozen named individuals who have reported seeing a second plane flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of the United flight crashing. They describe the plane as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings. Purbaugh, who served three years in the US Navy, said he did not believe it was a military plane.

Unanswered questions: The mystery of Flight 93


Again, this issue has been discussed within ATS (to death), repeatedly and in multiples of topic threads. I see we back to discussing it again, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 27-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Quote: "Honestly I think he was blathering a bit. He's getting facts
mixed up. Time for him to go!!"

Yeah like that time that he kept saying "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Osama Bin Laden" (He even meant to say Bin Laden but Hussein came out of his mouth - like THREE TIMES in a Row)! Well I guess thats what happens with a "Throw in the Kitchen Sink" Foreign Policy!

Rumsfeld is an OLD Senile Incompitent - it is time for him to Retire!

I'm in the camp that believes the plane may have been shot down, given that the debris sites were as far away as 6 miles, but Rumsfeld's statements in the interview as quoted below don't seem to yield the admission that everyone thinks. He doesn't explicitly state that the plane was brought down by another aircraft. In fact, it's implied that the terrorists shot down the plane by taking down the plane.

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face 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, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten � indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

www.wnd.com...

What Rummy said:

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face 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, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten � indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Originally posted by Johannmon
Something that has not been noted here concerning this incident is the effect that the story of our heros on the plane has had on the general populace. Whether it happened or not it has made the successful hijacking of an airliner with Americans on board nearly impossible. There is not a redneck out there that has not imagined himself as one of those good ole boys saddling up to mohamed and giving him a bushwhacking he'll never forget. Should AQ or any other terrorists try to take over a plane with anything short of submachine guns and hand grenades they will find that Americans have watched too many rambo and Swartzenneger movies. They will go waterboy on those ragheads and open up a can of whup azzz.

I'm a computer nerd (not a redneck), but have envisioned what I'd to do if I was ever put into a situation where a plane was being taken over almost every time I set foot on a plane. Just like you stated, all bets are off now, terrorists aren't just holding people hostage they're using the planes as weapons, and I don't think people are going to sit around and let it happen anymore. I honestly believe the days of terrorists hijacking American flights is over, unless they have a bomb strapped to their chest. I, for one, am not dying without putting up a fight.

The government had to give a "feel good story" of heroism to the American public, especially those on that ill-fated aircraft. They would NEVER come out and give the American public the truth. I feel this was a major slip of the tongue and the administration will have to use damage control, which just give more fodder to those like, ATS who continue to search for the truth.

Rummy is -- what, 71? And he's probably exhausted from all the running around, etc. My guess is that he just made a slip of the tongue and meant "took down" instead of "shot down".

However, like the announcer on the radio said "This will probably be fodder for the conspiracy theorists...." Let's face it, if you look hard enough, you can find a conspiracy in anything.

Does this picture indicate a "smoke trail" (indicating that Flight 93 had been hit by a missile, etc.) prior to its crashing into the earth?

No, but:

1. That plume seems AWFULLY small for the crash of a major arliner that was supposedly full of fuel. Have you ever seen a major airliner crash and burst into flames? The smoke would be pitch black, there would be MUCH more than there is there, and you'd probably be able to see the flames over the treetops.

2. How would the person who took the picture even know what they were taking a picture of?

3. Can you prove that that picture is a picture of the smoke plume from Flight 93? I mean, at $20 a picture, they may have taken a picture of anything to make $20 off of it.

It was always an interesting question, why there wasn't any smoke or fire near the crash site of Flight 93. Experts say that the crash occurred at such a high speed, that the liquid kerosine had no time to fully explode, therefore the tiny pieces of debris was purely caused by the impact, not explosion.

Major jetliners usually don't fall to the ground at extreme speed, probably this is why most end up in flames. Even if the kerosine is exploding, it does not necassarily burn the entire area if it is in the form of tiny vapour. Most of the vapour spreads the area, but the fire can't reach everywhere, so it fades quickly.