Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

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?

edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

I agree that it's entirely possible they shot it down. But that doesn't really make a wide-ranging conspiracy more likely, does it? Unless you think that the conspirators were in the business of, er, foiling their own plan.

On 9/11 the US had practically no air defense capabiity. In the 21st century it was assumed that any attack on the continental US would be by missile. In the 1960s we had squadrons of high speed interceptors on stand by ready to take to the skies in minutes to shoot down russian bombers but in 2001 they had all been disbanded. They actually had to hunt to find armed planes ready to get in the air.

Cheney ordering Flight 93 shot down is not news. I always assumed he did because it really was the necessary thing to do. Flight 93 was not shot down because the passengers forced the issue before it could be.

I'm not going to argue with anyone here so this will be my only input into this thread.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?

edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

I agree that it's entirely possible they shot it down. But that doesn't really make a wide-ranging conspiracy more likely, does it? Unless you think that the conspirators were in the business of, er, foiling their own plan.

It would prove that even when they do something right, like striking a hijacked airplane, they still lie about it for 10 years.

Originally posted by wasco2
On 9/11 the US had practically no air defense capabiity. In the 21st century it was assumed that any attack on the continental US would be by missile. In the 1960s we had squadrons of high speed interceptors on stand by ready to take to the skies in minutes to shoot down russian bombers but in 2001 they had all been disbanded. They actually had to hunt to find armed planes ready to get in the air.

Cheney ordering Flight 93 shot down is not news. I always assumed he did because it really was the necessary thing to do. Flight 93 was not shot down because the passengers forced the issue before it could be.

I'm not going to argue with anyone here so this will be my only input into this thread.

Well I'm convinced, you state your claim and then say "no further questions" and then walk out

You say the order is not news, and then you say you always assumed he did it. So is your assumption what you take as news? Or can you give us a link that says he gave the order to shoot it down but somehow it was not shot down? Oh wait, this is your only input in this thread, so I guess I'll say goodbye.

Leaving the conspiracy aspects aside for a second,IMO if Cheney did lie about the circumstances in which flight 93 was brought down,then (for once) it was an honourable lie;

I know that if any of my loved ones had perished in such a manner,I would have taken more comfort in being told that they had died in a last act of resistance rather than that the aircraft had been downed by an aircraft from my own nations air force.

Originally posted by nake13
Leaving the conspiracy aspects aside for a second,IMO if Cheney did lie about the circumstances in which flight 93 was brought down,then (for once) it was an honourable lie;

I know that if any of my loved ones had perished in such a manner,I would have taken more comfort in being told that they had died in a last act of resistance rather than that the aircraft had been downed by an aircraft from my own nations air force.

Honorable lie? Kind of like an honorable war? Or an honorable crime? Or an honorable conspiracy? Let's face it the "let's roll" myth was the emotional ammunition for 9/11, it was the real 'payback' that sent the troops into a foreign country to slaughter innocents. I'm sure you think the WMD claim was also honorable.

reply to post by filosophia

In no way do I think that the military actions following 9/11 were honourable,I was merely offering my opinion solely about the circumstances surrounding the downing of flight 93.Which I thought that this thread was meant to be about?

Originally posted by filosophia

It would prove that even when they do something right, like striking a hijacked airplane, they still lie about it for 10 years.

Except the revelation is not new. Indeed I think it's been the official position for years. So it doesn't even "prove" your vastly diminished notion - that governments "lie", which is hardly earth shattering - and in fact damages the central premise of a government-backed conspiracy.

I recall reading an interview years ago with a 9/11 pilot on patrol who had the shootdown orders and was really worried he might accidentally bring down an innocent plane. Indeed US pilots had little experience of air to air combat of this kind so it's quite heartening that they managed not to kill the wrong plane-load of people.

anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

The WTC Towers did contain the bonds stored in vaults that were used to buy up the Russian Oil Industry after the Russian economy went belly up.

This takeover was purposefully orchestrated BTW by Bush Senior by crashing the Russian Ruble and their economy as part of the Russian exodus from Afghanistan. As well as gaining access to their OIL Industry at Fire Sale Prices. (Remember this is what Hitler and operation Barbarossa was after as well)

These 10 Year Bonds issued in 1991 were maturing in 2001 meaning the money had to be returned to the investors.

No Bond certificates means no legal obligation/proof to return the investors money.

WTC 7 contained the offices of the SEC, which had documents which could reveal what really happened with Enron as well as who was behind it. As well as records pertaining to the pre 911 PUT options specifically placed upon AA and UAL....and NOT DELTA Airlines.

The Pentagon, and more specifically where it was coincidentally struck, contained the information pertinent to the missing 2.3 Trillion under Israeli/US citizen Dov Zakheim's (Comptroller General) watch.

Flight 93 was most likely a Decoy/Backup in the event one of the other planes failed to strike their assigned target.

And most likely as to why it was for all sense and purposes, scuttled..

Originally posted by yourmaker
anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

This proves nothing of the sort.

And your amusement at the plight of those people is at best distasteful.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by yourmaker
anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

This proves nothing of the sort.

And your amusement at the plight of those people is at best distasteful.

yes yes i just realized that, distasteful sure

reply to post by nh_ee


It's a fun fantasy, but your story bears so little resemblance to how the world works that it's really nothing more than that.

One example. Do you really think that the lender holds the bond certificate and if it's "destroyed" there's no obligation to pay it?

Originally posted by yourmaker
anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

This is why I hate pop culture. That movie was important for our society. We needed "heroes." We needed to feel some sense of empowerment over the situation. The catch phrase "Let's Roll" was used by sporting teams and hipsters for a couple of years after the phone recordings came out.

I like having heroes. In all likelihood, the plane was shot down about the time those guys might have actually done some good, but it doesn't change the spirit of their actions or bravery.

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by filosophia

 

In no way do I think that the military actions following 9/11 were honourable,I was merely offering my opinion solely about the circumstances surrounding the downing of flight 93.Which I thought that this thread was meant to be about?

How is a lie honorable? I'm King of Neptune, there, it's a lie, it gives me comfort, is it honorable? It covers up the fact that I am not King of Neptune, which is why the lie is necessary and good. Is this sort of your logic here in thinking this flight 93 lie is honorable?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by filosophia

It would prove that even when they do something right, like striking a hijacked airplane, they still lie about it for 10 years.

Except the revelation is not new. Indeed I think it's been the official position for years. So it doesn't even "prove" your vastly diminished notion - that governments "lie", which is hardly earth shattering - and in fact damages the central premise of a government-backed conspiracy.

I recall reading an interview years ago with a 9/11 pilot on patrol who had the shootdown orders and was really worried he might accidentally bring down an innocent plane. Indeed US pilots had little experience of air to air combat of this kind so it's quite heartening that they managed not to kill the wrong plane-load of people.

www.foxnews.com...

The orders were apparently never passed on to fighter pilots -- and came too late anyway, since the hijacked planes had already crashed.

So it was necessary to give the order, but it wasn't necessary to pass it on to the fighter pilots

And which is it? Did the orders never pass onto the fighter pilots, or did they come too late?

Why would he make a point to say the order was necessary if it came too late and not even passed onto the pilots? Seems like it was necessary long before the order was actually given.

You people just slay me.

Public knowledge for how many years? Yes the order was given.
Did they ACTUALLY shoot down on? NO!

Learn the difference between giving a nessesary order and actually carrying it out.

reply to post by dreb13


Cheney is the most horrible creature on the planet. Just looking at him makes me want to throw up. There is no way I would even start to watch anything this creature would be on much less believe anything he utters out of his mouth. Now that he is the walking dead he is trying to leave his legacy. He has written his book with twisted tales in attempt to make himself look good. He is heartless, souless and just like everyone one else who believed they were indestructable he to will leave this planet. No one lives for ever not even him. Few deserves Hell like him.

Originally posted by yourmaker
anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

The movie, while fiction (both in being a literal movie while also being based on fiction to begin with and not the true series of events) still gives people the "logic" they need to think in terms of the official narrative. The military was off track (in the movie it was a female officer, visibly shaking, crying a bit, was she to blame sounds pretty sexist to me). And then when they rush through the door at the last minute just as the pilots take a nose dive, all neatly organized with Hollywood magic to make it seem like it is plausible even though it's not based on any facts. (the movie ends at that point, they don't for example show the coroner failing to find bodies or the plane parts scattered six miles away).

reply to post by dreb13

Nothing new here, he's just restating what was known in the 9/11 Commission Report years ago. He talked to Bush, and Bush authorized the shootdown. Then the White House received projections showing United 93 inbound, and Cheney communicated the shootdown order. He called Bush again to confirm the order. There is some ambiguity surrounding the first conversation, and you might reasonably conclude that it didn't take place, but that's not what Cheney is saying here. He's sticking to the official story.

Truth is, they couldn't have shot down United 93 even if they wanted to. Cheney got authorization to shoot things down no earlier than 9:58. The Secret Service learned of United 93 at 10:02. Cheney gave the shootdown order some time between 10:10 and 10:15. But United 93 had already crashed, at 10:03. Any theory claiming that United 93 was shot down must exclude Cheney, and rely on the initiative of an individual ANG pilot somewhere, and a coverup within that organization.