Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

Fox News Sunday 9/04/11: Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

Brief description:

Chris Wallace: You were the one who gave the direct order to shoot down a plane that you were told, as it turns out incorrectly, was heading for Washington.
Cheney : Right. That’s correct.
…..
Cheney:….we had already seen 3 go into, the Pentagon and World Trade Centers in NewYork.

Clip from the interview:




Full Interview:




First off, let me say that I agree with Cheneys decision (wow, that felt strange to type) to shoot down Flight 93. It was a hijacked plane that was being used as a “weapon.” It had to be done

However, lying about it for 10 years and saying that the passengers revolted, “Let’s roll etc.” and the passengers brought the plane down is now questionable. Rumsfeld slipped a few years back and also said that flight 93 was shot down as well.

Just like the Pat Tillman “hero” story changed, it sounds like the story will change for flight 93.

reply to post by dreb13


I thought this was already publicly admitted. Dick Cheney gave the order to shoot down the planes, but claims they never actually shot down any of the planes.

There is a difference between giving an order to do something, and that something actually happening. I never doubted that those planes would have been ordered to be taken down if they got the chance, all 4 or them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a84b0ee4ac84.jpg[/atsimg]

This is not the site of an airplane crash. Shame on all the people who have continued to perpetrate this lie for the bankster-government.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by dreb13

 

I thought this was already publicly admitted. Dick Cheney gave the order to shoot down the planes, but claims they never actually shot down any of the planes.

That was the story that I had heard as well. They had planes in the area, but the plane came down on its own before they could intercept it.

wait so this pretty much proves every conspiracy theorist right about flight 93 all this time everyone saying it wasn't a plane CRASH etc and now they ADMIT it was BLOWN out of the sky?

so the Sheeple will just go "Meh" and continue on there merry way no doubt?

reply to post by OleMB


Even if the plane was shot down, that would still be an airplane crash site.

Also, I've never seen what a crash straight down into earth looks like. I've only seen runways, which get pretty explosive and torn up anyway.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by dreb13

 

I thought this was already publicly admitted. Dick Cheney gave the order to shoot down the planes, but claims they never actually shot down any of the planes.

That was the story that I had heard as well. They had planes in the area, but the plane came down on its own before they could intercept it.

I would really apreciate it if you could show me where and when this story took place.

Thx in Adv.

Originally posted by -PLB-
There is a difference between giving an order to do something, and that something actually happening. I never doubted that those planes would have been ordered to be taken down if they got the chance, all 4 or them.

Is that like Clinton's "admission" that he "smoked, but didn't inhale?"

Come on, the can intercept any plane in the US airspace in minutes. It happens regularly. You can rest assured that there was a highly trained pilot resting comfortably inside a $100M jet, with his finger firmly on the trigger of $1M missile, and it was microseconds from Cheney's order to the explosion.

Seriously, they scramble jets hundreds of times per year to intercept small little single engine planes that have randomly veered into restricted areas, there is no way these giant airliners were off-course for more than a few minutes without having fighter jet escorts.

This is why I always felt they called those lost on that plane HEROS for dying for their country... RIP to those sent.

reply to post by Varemia


Here are some examples of high speed plane impacts: 911research.wtc7.net...

Aircraft weapons log for military aircraft for that entire week shows that no weapons were used all serial number show that all weapons were returned to the arsenals and are accounted for. I thought about that about a month after the attacks. As did many lawyer for those poor passengers.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Then why was only one plane shot down, and not all 4?

reply to post by curious_soul

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.

"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."
--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001

www.flight93crash.com...

reply to post by -PLB-


Read the whole 9/11 forum for your answers on that. I could give you a myriad of possibilities. Perhaps the Towers needed to come down for the government's agenda? Perhaps the 1st plane was a total surprise, and nobody had the stomach to give the order before the second plane, and everybody knows it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon anyway, so only Flight 93 was left to be shot down?

Honestly, nothing on that morning makes any sense, and everything was filled with lies, so I don't have any credible answers for you. I know for a fact that Bush was sitting on the Tarmac at Hurlburt Field in Florida when he claimed to be in Louisianna, I watched his jet and escorts land there. I know for a fact that planes are routinely intercepted almost daily, and there are jets standing ready to intercept at all times. Here is the procedure for intercepting. And we all know that the mostly highly guarded airspace in the world is above Washington D.C., and there is no way a jet flew into there after the two previous crashes.

It is easy to know what Didn't happen, but I doubt we will ever know what really did happen.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I am with you on that my friend!
The chances of us finding out what happened that day in detail are about as good as a snowball in a bakers oven.
Perhaps in the next seventy-five years it will slowly leak out, but well never hear it.

Originally posted by rayuki
wait so this pretty much proves every conspiracy theorist right about flight 93 all this time everyone saying it wasn't a plane CRASH etc and now they ADMIT it was BLOWN out of the sky?

so the Sheeple will just go "Meh" and continue on there merry way no doubt?

Um, no. It makes it more likely that the "OS" is broadly true. Because why would the perpetrators blow up their own hijacked plane?

And you're wrong anyway. He says he gave the order, not that it was carried out.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think the answer is not that hard to be honest. They system failed at the moment it mattered, being the reason the planes were not stopped in time. The lies you read are the ones of people covering their asses. You can of course read much more into it, but as you pointed out already there isn't any evidence for that.

So he gave the order to shoot the plane down, but what? They didn't get there fast enough Come on people, if it takes him 10 years to admit he gave the order, then it'll take another 10 years for them to admit it was shot down, will you really trust them for that long?

Originally posted by filosophia
So he gave the order to shoot the plane down, but what? They didn't get there fast enough

Come on people, if it takes him 10 years to admit he gave the order, then it'll take another 10 years for them to admit it was shot down, will you really trust them for that long?

As you may note in the post from 'expostfacto', above, the source and date was "NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001" This has been known for a long time and is hardly breaking news.
In 2001, the US did not have planes airborne prepared to fire on commercial airliners. NORAD looks outward; not at CONUS air traffic.
If it was shot down, then the crash site must not have been faked. Where do you stand on this? Real crash site or faked crash site?