Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

Originally posted by Submarines


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

I thought orders were orders. So you're saying there are necessary orders as opposed to just regular old orders? So if my commanding officer says it's necessary to fight the Taliban, I have to carry it out. But if he says to clean the latrines, that's probably just an order and not a necessary order?

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


So at what point did he give the stand down order? Was that order also necessary? It seems like he gave a necessary order to shoot down flight 93, but it never reached the pilots or not fast enough (I guess a 757 goes faster than a fighter jet). But, what about the stand down order that is being ignored? Was that also necessary? Did that also fail to reach the fighter jets?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

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.

With respect, you can't have watched the film very closely. The phrase "let's roll" is not featured as call to arms, but as a measured statement of action. It's not emphasised at all and indeed the way it's shot and sound mixed it's easy to miss it entirely.

I absolutely take your point about the nastiness of the use of "Let's roll" as a cultural battlecry, but Paul Greengrass is not guilty of using it as such or bolstering such a reaction. I met him a couple of times a few years ago and he talked about how part of the point of his film was to remove the belligerent propagandist elements surrounding the phrase. He was very disturbed by how the 93 story had been (ab)used and his work was, he hoped, supposed to be something of a corrective.

reply to post by getreadyalready

The catch phrase "Let's Roll" was used by sporting teams and hipsters for a couple of years after the phone recordings came out.

That is where I have an issue with this whole story.

It was impossible to make a cell phone call from any height above 8,000 feet in 2001. The PicoCell technology to make that possible was not available until.....2006. (Not sure on exact dates)

In fact, airplanes are known for acting as a faraday cage of sorts. Those cell phone calls never happened, IMO, and why create such a fraud to stir up patriotism?

Originally posted by filosophia

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.

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

So hang on, it's now your opinion that he should have shot it down? That someone prevented the order getting through? You can't seem to stay consistent - a minute ago you were decrying Cheney's lies and saying the "OS" had been proven false because he ordered a shootdown. Now you are apparently concerned that the order didn't get through!

I'm glad you weren't in charge. Even at ten years distance and with only a metaphorical situation you're finding it very difficult to decide what's right.

Your questions amount to nothing. Why is it odd that he might deliberate over ordering a shootdown? You can't even make your mind up now. Why is it strange that the pilots didn't get the order? Why is it odd that two news sources might report different things? They do make mistakes especially - and I can't believe I'm having to tell you this - Fox news. None of this amounts to anything except an attempt to cast suspicion where none is really warranted.

Originally posted by filosophia
So at what point did he give the stand down order? Was that order also necessary?

Trying to change the subject so soon? The subject of this thread is, "Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93." Let's stick to that.

It seems like he gave a necessary order to shoot down flight 93, but it never reached the pilots or not fast enough (I guess a 757 goes faster than a fighter jet).

The order was given after United 93 crashed. Your fighter jet would have to travel faster than light to shoot down United 93.

Originally posted by filosophia


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).

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

The 40 people's families worked with the filmmakers. The staff at the FAA are in many cases the actual people who were there - most notably Ben Sliney - and some of the military are real as well. Even the ones who are not are in many cases genuine serving personnel. The crew of the airliner are real pilots and air stewardesses.

Naturally they're all "in on it"... yawn.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The order was given after United 93 crashed.

So the order was necessary even though flight 93 had already crashed

Okay, now it all makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't. How was the order necessary if the plane was already crashed?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by filosophia


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).

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

The 40 people's families worked with the filmmakers. The staff at the FAA are in many cases the actual people who were there - most notably Ben Sliney - and some of the military are real as well. Even the ones who are not are in many cases genuine serving personnel. The crew of the airliner are real pilots and air stewardesses.

Naturally they're all "in on it"... yawn.

Well the families couldn't have been there, now could they?

I'm sure we could figure out what really happened if they released the black box information without any redaction. But, I guess that would be offensive to the families so we'll just keep that in the lockbox.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The order was given after United 93 crashed.

So the order was necessary even though flight 93 had already crashed

Okay, now it all makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't. How was the order necessary if the plane was already crashed?

Contrary to truther mythology, Dick Cheney is not, in fact, omniscient. He doesn't, and didn't, know the status of every aircraft over the continental United States.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


So hang on, it's now your opinion that he should have shot it down? That someone prevented the order getting through? You can't seem to stay consistent - a minute ago you were decrying Cheney's lies and saying the "OS" had been proven false because he ordered a shootdown. Now you are apparently concerned that the order didn't get through!

Rather than trying to sort out what you think I think, I'll just say I think the plane was shot down, since the scattered debris seems to indicate this. It also doesn't make sense that he would give a "necessary" shoot down order after the plane crashed and then continue to say how necessary it was even though the plane had already crashed at this point. The stand down order was for the pentagon, which means this makes even less sense since he gave a necessary shoot down order to a plane that had already crashed and a stand down order for the pentagon. But hey, I'm sure he meant well

I'm glad you weren't in charge.

And yet you're glad Dick Cheney was in charge? I think I could have done a better job than Cheney, if not at the precise moment, I would have at least admitted the truth and not tried to cover up the investigation 10 years running.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The order was given after United 93 crashed.

So the order was necessary even though flight 93 had already crashed

Okay, now it all makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't. How was the order necessary if the plane was already crashed?

Contrary to truther mythology, Dick Cheney is not, in fact, omniscient. He doesn't, and didn't, know the status of every aircraft over the continental United States.

Well it's a good thing then he wasn't in charge. Oh wait...he was. Maybe he should have been held accountable for not knowing rather than trusted to invade Iraq based on lies. And since when does a single person have to be omniscient, don't they have aides and officers working for them?

reply to post by filosophia


O..K! Well no that's not quite what I had in mind,I meant that I could see why that lie was put out there,right or wrong.(I didn't want to debate that aspect here) What would have the reaction of the loved ones of the innocent people who died on flight 93 had the MSM announced from the outset that the flight had been vapourised by a Sparrow AIM fired by an American F-15/F-16? To me they would have experienced a double blow not only are their loved ones gone,but it was a fellow American who killed them?

That's what I meant,I in no way condone the parcel of lies that have been presented in relation to the whole shameful 9/11 episode,just that in this instance,whatever his reasons for so doing,Cheney perhaps spared the loved ones of those killed that double grief.

Originally posted by filosophia

Well the families couldn't have been there, now could they?

I'm sure we could figure out what really happened if they released the black box information without any redaction. But, I guess that would be offensive to the families so we'll just keep that in the lockbox.

I'm not aware of any redaction. But what has this got to do with it? You're saying that - as far as I can tell, you appear not to have a stable idea of what you think - that Cheney ordered a shootdown, and the plane was shot down, in which case there is a conspiracy. Having been shown that this is nonsensical you are now concerned that the order didn't come fast enough - quite a reverse, given that you seemed so disgusted by the notion that Cheney might shoot down the plane.

You've now shifted your concern to the events on the plane. The reason I made the point that all these people were involved is that it shows how bereft your notions of conspiracy are, simply because it's very unlikely they would all take part in a cover up. The only reason redaction would matter is if you doubt what happened on the plane. But that has little to do with this thread.

So what is your point?

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by filosophia

 

To me they would have experienced a double blow not only are their loved ones gone,but it was a fellow American who killed them?

I think you're forgetting that it was an American citizen who killed them, CIA operative Tim Osman, A.K.A. Osama Bin Laden.

dosmosis.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


you are now concerned that the order didn't come fast enough

I'm not saying that, fox news is

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.

You've now shifted your concern to the events on the plane. The reason I made the point that all these people were involved is that it shows how bereft your notions of conspiracy are, simply because it's very unlikely they would all take part in a cover up. The only reason redaction would matter is if you doubt what happened on the plane. But that has little to do with this thread.

So what is your point?

When I first heard about 9/11 conspiracy theories I also that it was impossible to have that many people involved, but after seeing how the media still lies about it 10 years later it's not too hard to convince people it was the way the government said it was.

Originally posted by filosophia
Rather than trying to sort out what you think I think, I'll just say I think the plane was shot down, since the scattered debris seems to indicate this.

That seems quite likely to me, although hardly proven. But it doesn't help the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy involving the government. Because I doubt they would foil their own plan.

The only counter argument to this is that "nothing about that day is clear", which is a pathetic cop out, or the plane was "scuttled" which is tortuous logic. And requires whole new narratives to be marshalled in order to explain it. Neither makes more sense than the OS. Or the slightly different "OS" that says that a panicked government, attacked by terrorists, shot the plane down. Most people would not even disagree with the decision.

It also doesn't make sense that he would give a "necessary" shoot down order after the plane crashed

How would he know the plane had crashed?

and then continue to say how necessary it was even though the plane had already crashed at this point.

How would he know the plane had crashed? And if you mean it's odd that he continues to say it was necessary now, then you're wrong, because he's explaining why he thinks the decision was justified.

And yet you're glad Dick Cheney was in charge?

Where did I say that? I am broadly very slightly happier that he was in charge than you, given your inability to decide 10 years later whether shooting it down was a good idea. How would you have reacted if given twenty minutes to decide?

I think I could have done a better job than Cheney, if not at the precise moment, I would have at least admitted the truth and not tried to cover up the investigation 10 years running.

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

Easy to say. And I think there was a cover up of their inefficiencies. Just not of a government conspiracy. And nothing you've written on this thread makes one more likely - indeed much of what you contend makes it less probable.

Originally posted by filosophia
I'm not saying that, fox news is

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.

I thought you were saying that this was suspicious? Which would imply that you wanted the order to be enacted swiftly.

It's a red herring anyway, something you're using to deflect from your inability to find anything particularly suspicious. And by the way, when the news source says the order came "too late", it doesn't mean this as a moral judgement on Cheney. It means "too late to have the plane shot down". What is odd or incriminatory about this I can't grasp at all.

When I first heard about 9/11 conspiracy theories I also that it was impossible to have that many people involved, but after seeing how the media still lies about it 10 years later it's not too hard to convince people it was the way the government said it was.

So the families of the victims and people who were ordinary air-traffic controllers would participate in a cover-up? Riiiiight....

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


That seems quite likely to me, although hardly proven. But it doesn't help the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy involving the government. Because I doubt they would foil their own plan.

How would it foil their plan? I'm not sure what you mean by this. It foiled the plan to shoot the plane down? The phone calls have been proven to be fake and there was not a plane that crashed at Shanksville, so most likely they also faked the story about the passengers taking the plane out.

The only counter argument to this is that "nothing about that day is clear", which is a pathetic cop out, or the plane was "scuttled" which is tortuous logic. And requires whole new narratives to be marshalled in order to explain it. Neither makes more sense than the OS. Or the slightly different "OS" that says that a panicked government, attacked by terrorists, shot the plane down. Most people would not even disagree with the decision.

Nothing was clear that day, except military war games were running on the exact same day in the exact same manner.

www.oilempire.us...

That's why nothing was clear, it was an intentional misdirection to keep the military in the dark as to whether 9/11 was a real world or exercise situation.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by filosophia

 

To me they would have experienced a double blow not only are their loved ones gone,but it was a fellow American who killed them?

I think you're forgetting that it was an American citizen who killed them, CIA operative Tim Osman, A.K.A. Osama Bin Laden.

dosmosis.blogspot.com...

Sure,that's one theory,however,(Again!) I thought this thread was about flight 93,maybe perceptions are different on Neptune?