Dick Cheney ADMITS to 'giving the order to shoot down' flight 93

my title about says it ALL folks, but for your edification, here is the utube link




Debunk THAT..............

I did a search and I have posted this on a couple of 'other' flight 93 threads but one is on page 125 and the other is also lost in the crowd, so I think it deserves its OWN thread. Hence my making this one........ENJOY

been posted many times before...

reply to post by captaintyinknots



Oh well, Ive never seen it before..........I thought it was worth posting but maybe not........
sorry if its a yawn

I took it as he was careful enough to leave room for doubt as to whether he gave the order or authorized the action if necessary. Watching him just makes me sick to my stomach.

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Oh well, Ive never seen it before..........I thought it was worth posting but maybe not........
sorry if its a yawn

No no no, thats not what I was saying at all. I find it a very valid video. I was just pointing out that there have been a few discussions about it before, and that there was a lot of good info in those threads, if the topic interests you.

I wasnt in any way saying it wasnt a good thread...sorry if i came of that way!

A family I know was visiting relatives in PA on 9/11 and they were actually real close to the area where the plane supposedly crashed, they have always said there was a debris field from that plane and it was spread out over a square mile. I wonder why they are telling us about this now?

reply to post by theRiverGoddess


I believe it's been public knowledge for years that Cheney gave an alleged "shoot down" order for incoming planes following the WTC attacks. The question is--how was a plane still able to hit the pentagon?

Also, some allege that Cheney gave a "stand-down" order which ALLOWED the plane to hit the pentagon. That's what many truthers have been all enraged about--that he allowed it to happen, as if he were part of the plot.

This isn't news, it's been public knowledge for a long time. The story goes that by the time he actually gave that order, the plane had already gone down but nobody in the command structure knew that yet. Events were moving very rapidly by that point and info wasn't getting up the chain of command fast enough to respond that rapidly to tactical level events.

Anyway, that's the official story. It's not impossible, I suppose, that the order was given and it was shot down, but the alternate story was created that it went down when the passengers tried to take it back in case the public was angry about the shoot-down order. As it was, polling showed that the public was in agreement with the shoot down order by an overwhelming margin.

reply to post by LifeInDeath

As it was, polling showed that the public was in agreement with the shoot down order by an overwhelming margin.

...and then Americans scratch their head and wonder, "Where did all my rights go?". Up in flames when your government shot down the plane full of Americans.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Study the timeline. There wasn't enough time, nor ability to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

Giving an order to shoot down any rogue aircraft was the correct course of action. Of course it's a horrible decision but what choice did he really have considering the situation?

reply to post by drock905

Giving an order to shoot down any rogue aircraft was the correct course of action.

Why?
Was it armed?
What would it have ultimately done?
I'm not being witchy I'm asking for you to expound on your thought.
I'd really like to hear what you have to say.
Thanks
peace

reply to post by vipertech0596

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Study the timeline. There wasn't enough time, nor ability to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

At approx. 9:00 a.m. UA 175 hits Tower 2. It's now obvious that "America is under attack". You're telling me that a FORTY minute warning is not enough to protect and secure the air-space around the Pentagon and the Nation's Capital? The GODDAM Pentagon! 40 minutes? How much do we spend on defense? I don't care what they claim the problem was. There's NO excuse for this. Not claiming it was deliberate or part of some government conspiracy--just saying it's BS. Abject negligence if nothing else, and some-one should have been held responsible.

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess

My friends, watch and listen to this man, DICK...

He says: " Once one of those planes BECAME... was highjacked..."

Now, the word BECAME was the truthful course that the conversation should have taken.

Dick intended to say "Once one of those plans became (-----------)...."

Instead he paused, looked down, gave a very clear tell with his eyes and censored the truth by
inserting the official story plot line.

Being that DICK is an old military industrial complex man, I think we can easily assume that
he uses scenario based, M.I.C lingo. It is also very clear by the velocity of his sentence that
he had one word after BECAME before coming to a natural stop/pause/breath. His phrase
was poised for a pause which is also why the "was highjacked" sounded awkward.


I think of all the probably words that would fit the sentence he should have said
and the one word that fits in context and grammatically is the word operational
What ever the case, he censored the truth, check it out.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


A couple of questions...

How old were you on 9/11 ?

Did you vote for George H W Bush or Bill Clinton ?

And...

Are you one of those misinformed individuals who thinks that every fighter plane in the US military sits around fully loaded and ready to launch at a seconds notice ?

reply to post by silo13


Why? It seems real clear that losing 3000 is a lot worse than losing 100 on a plane. Sorry, but it comes down to protecting the greatest number of people. It is a sickening decision to have to make. However, it is one that is some times necessary.

I do not believe the official story. I believe that either government negligence or compliance was involved in 9-11. I however would support shooting down a plane before it reached a highly urbanized area like Washington, D.C. That is in this specific instance.

At least two planes had already been used as missiles. Other planes were being ordered out of the air. Any plane that was hijacked and headed to Washington had to be assumed to be a threat.

This video makes it sound like he gave the order to shoot down a plane if necessary. It doesn't really say that anyone did shoot down a plane.

reply to post by theRiverGoddess


The dude in the sunglasses is incorrect.

He, like so many, have a confirmation bias built in, and will cling to any tiny shred of info, despite all the other evidence.

After the Pentagon was hit, there is no doubt (this is not "new" news) that orders were handed down from the Executive Branch (note, Cheney did not personally give the "order", on his own authority. This was a contingency as he says, that had already been discussed with the President.

In any event, it has been known for many years that at least one F-16 was enroute to attempt to locate United 93, and the pilot of that jet has been interviewed. Look for a book titled "Touching History", by Lynn Spencer. She interviewed this F-16 pilot.

The author of that particular video, in the same manner that so many do, as I mentioned, completely misconstrues what Cheney is saying....by taking the incorrect (based on all the evidence) leap that UAL 93 was "shot down". It wasn't.

However....IF the hijackers had not put it down themselves, because of the uprising by the passengers, then in all probability UAL 93 would have been intercepted in the air, prior to reaching the DC area. 15 or 20 minutes further Eastward from where it went down? Still not at its "target" (likely the Capitol Building), but those extra minutes would have meant a fighter would have found it, as ATC did see it's primary radar return at that point.

The dude in the sunglasses is also overstating the "8-mile debris field", because quite frankly? He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, regarding the type of debris, the nature of it, and the amount of distribution.

This is the problem: People like him, who are not knowledgeable enough about the facts, and don't know all the technical details, and also what REALLY happens, and what the crash pattern would really look like.

For instance, there would have been debris from the airplane west of its final impact point (there was none). All that was found was either in line with the ground track but downrange.....and, most was very lightweight material that could have been carried some distance by winds. Even the "8-mile" figure is deceptive, since that is derived from someone looking at Google Map, and it is the roadway distance, not straight-line.

Finally....the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder. The Flight Recorder showed nothing wrong mechanically, at all, with the airplane until it hit the ground. Also, there was no mention, at all, by the two hijackers in the cockpit of any control difficulty, or any exclamations that would have been obvious, had the jet been hit. There were a few final seconds of "wind noise", but that is to be expected, as the airspeed increased significantly as it dove into the ground.

The intent is clear, when you read the CVR transcripts. "Shall we finish it off?"

CNN article: Flight 93 hijacker: 'Shall we finish it off?'

reply to post by lunarasparagus



You've seemed pretty level-headed on some of these threads, so I think if you understand some logic and logistics it will be clear:

At approx. 9:00 a.m. UA 175 hits Tower 2. It's now obvious that "America is under attack". You're telling me that a FORTY minute warning is not enough to protect and secure the air-space around the Pentagon and the Nation's Capital?

The focus was on NYC. In addition, there was a communication muck-up, and interceptors that were on their way to New York got there a few minutes after UAL 175 hit. Then, the mistake was, they were sent further East, out to sea....that's where the ADIZ is, and that was the confusion, and assumption, of the threat direction, in he early stages of it.

They were re-directed to the southwest, to DC...but, that is about a 35 or 40 minute flight, when sub-sonic.

It's been a while, but if you read the book I mentioned above, "Touching History", by Lynn Spencer, you will see the explanations in detail. The book is based on interviews of many of the people involved that day, both military and civilian.

If he shot the plane down it means the government aren't involved, right?

Also makes a bit of a mockery of all those "no plane at Shanksville" threads...

As to the plane that hit the Pentagon:
The distance between Reagan and the Pentagon is 1 mile. It appeared to all that it was going to land at Reagan airport with radio problems. As far as I know other planes landed there as per orders. So should they have shot down all the other planes landing at Reagan?

As to flight 93:
Passenger plane vs no plane.
Unload passengers at Cleveland vs shot down vs forced crash.

The conspiracy theories have far more inconsistencies than the truth.
Until the truthers can come up with ONE consistent theory that covers ALL aspects of 911 it will remain nothing more that website fodder.