Oops, Rumsfeld Says Flight 93 'Shot Down' in Pennsylvania on 911

B

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
12,467
Reaction score
528
There he goes again. As a lot of you know, I have always maintained that 911 was an insider job pulled off by elements within our own government.
Rumsfelt did it again.
One time he said that a "missile" struck the Pentagon, which I am in total agreement with, but a lot of people squawked that he meant the airliner, that is qulaifies as being a missile, ad nauseum.
Listen to what he said last 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 intimidateto frighten--indeed the word "'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than they want to be."
Again, I am in total agreement with him about Flight 93, because the wreckages were eight miles apart, so it is obvious that it was either shot down or a bomb went off onboard.
Glad he straightened that out for me, though, because I have been hearing about an unmarked military fighter jet shot down the flight.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE.ID=92112
 
Yup, saw that this morning.
Let's see...the wreckage was scattered over eight miles, five eyewitnesses reported seeing a jet fighter in the area...
Do I believe the evidence or the Pentagon's assurance that it was all a big misunderstanding, hahaha folks...
No-brainer.

Just google "jet fighters ordered to shoot down airliners on 911" and you will be astonished at the sheer number of hits you get.
 
Last edited:
Beowulf said:
Just google "jet fighters ordered to shoot down airliners on 911" and you will be astonished at the sheer number of hits you get.
Click to expand...
No surprise. There are sheer numbers of paranoid conspiracy freaks, and they all have websites.
 
Beowulf said:
Yup, saw that this morning.
Let's see...the wreckage was scattered over eight miles, five eyewitnesses reported seeing a jet fighter in the area...
Do I believe the evidence or the Pentagon's assurance that it was all a big misunderstanding, hahaha folks...
No-brainer.

Just google "jet fighters ordered to shoot down airliners on 911" and you will be astonished at the sheer number of hits you get.
Click to expand...


Let's assume that yes, the plane was shot down. It's intended target was either the Capitol or the White House. Vice President Cheney admits that he gave the order that any airliners that were not responding to air traffic controllers could be shot down to prevent further attacks on the US and its economic or political infrastructure.

If this is the case, then I'd say the shoot-down would be justified but would argue that any "coverup" is not justified. Eyewitnesses said that the plane was "whole" at about 2000 feet but then it began to break up as the plane pitched left-and-right (many believe this is during the time that the passengers began to fight the hijackers) and this continued for several minutes. Eyewitness recounts: Note that the F-16 jets were still approximately 14 miles away at the time of the crash. The sidewinders are short-range missles that are only intended to for use in dogfights.

I think there are two real tragedies here:
1) The scandals of the past have eroded people's trust of the government to such a degree that we have an entire "subculture" of conspiracy theorists who try to find things that aren't there.

2) That the Shanksville, PA fire department was turned down for a federal grant to replace their old-falling-apart Tanker truck after staging on the scene of the crash of Flight 93 for several days. It's ridiculous that the federal government expects fire/rescue/EMS departments to shoulder the burden of first-response to terrorist attacks without giving the same departments the tools and funding to do so.
 
NeilMcD said:
Let's assume that yes, the plane was shot down. It's intended target was either the Capitol or the White House. Says who? This is just assumed, and may not be true. Vice President Cheney admits that he gave the order that any airliners that were not responding to air traffic controllers could be shot down to prevent further attacks on the US and its economic or political infrastructure.

If this is the case, then I'd say the shoot-down would be justified but would argue that any "coverup" is not justified. No argument there, was but WAS, and there IS, a coverup. Eyewitnesses said that the plane was "whole" at about 2000 feet but then it began to break up as the plane pitched left-and-right (many believe this is during the time that the passengers began to fight the hijackers) and this continued for several minutes. Eyewitness recounts: Note that the F-16 jets were still approximately 14 miles away at the time of the crash. Says whom? Those with a dismal track record in telling the truth. The sidewinders are short-range missles that are only intended to for use in dogfights.

I think there are two real tragedies here:
1) The scandals of the past have eroded people's trust of the government to such a degree that we have an entire "subculture" of conspiracy theorists who try to find things that aren't there. You seem to avoid the fact that they also find things that ARE there. And it is pretty intelligent for people to mistrust a government that consistently lies to them

2) That the Shanksville, PA fire department was turned down for a federal grant to replace their old-falling-apart Tanker truck after staging on the scene of the crash of Flight 93 for several days. It's ridiculous that the federal government expects fire/rescue/EMS departments to shoulder the burden of first-response to terrorist attacks without giving the same departments the tools and funding to do so.
Click to expand...


This is a very reasonable and plausible post and I agree with the main thrust of it. But we must not forget that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that the truth is still making its excruciating way into the light of day, and one can thank the "paranoid conspicary theorists" for that. I have friends who have been consistent in their outspoken beliefs concerning 911 from the very beginning, and it is becoming increasingly more apparent on an almost daily basis that they were, and are, correct in their original beliefs. My hat is off to such people, because they are the true patriots.
You ask why the government feels a need to cover up the truth? You will find out eventually that the truth will be almost too unbearable to bear.
But I do admire your frank honesty and courage in making the post.
I do NOT enjoy this sort of discussion, but personally I feel that it is utterly vital to discuss it.
 
Last edited:
OK: whatever the intended target was, it was clear from the cell phone calls that the plane was hijacked. For all we know, it could've been aiming at a desolate field in the middle of rural Pennsylvania but most likely, it was trying to reach a high profile target just as the first three airliners did in attacking the WTC/Pentagon.

A government inquiry probably isn't the best source but the link I provided is independent eyewitnesses telling how they saw the plane starting to break apart fairly close to the ground. You should also remember that the hijackers had told the passengers that they had bombs on board the plane. It's also entirely plausible that they detonated a bomb during the flight.

Look, I'm not a government apologist and like we both agree, coverups are bad. But with a disaster of this magnitude, any coverup would be exposed in minutes flat and so far, that hasn't happened even after three years.

Like I said in another post: it's up to each individual to believe what they want to believe. If the official investigation or the accepted/mainstream explanation doesn't convince them, then they're going to find their answers elsewhere.

We can debate this stuff until we're blue in the face and we'll still be miles apart. It's just that I'm at peace with the "how's" of 9/11 but I'm still furious about the "why's".

-N
 
NeilMcD said:
it was trying to reach a high profile target just as the first three airliners did in attacking the WTC/Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Pentagon? No such plane crashed into the Pentagon. Where are the wing fragments at the Pentagon? Wing fragments were found on WTC area. And the puncture into the Pentagon building was too small and penetration too deep to be coming from a fat commercial plane. Most interestingly, body fragments attention was focused on WTC crash passengers and not the Pentagon.

What hit the Pentagon? A large missile? An asteroid? An alien craft?

Also the face President Bush had on him after being told of the tragedies suggest he had been knowleadgeable of the events before it happened. I seen this kind of face before too.

Richard
 
Last edited:
Pentagon? No such plane crashed into the Pentagon. Where are the wing fragments at the Pentagon? Wing fragments were found on WTC area. And the puncture into the Pentagon building was too small and penetration too deep to be coming from a fat commercial plane. Most interestingly, body fragments attention was focused on WTC crash passengers and not the Pentagon.

What hit the Pentagon? A large missile? An asteroid? An alien craft?

Also the face President Bush had on him after being told of the tragedies suggest he had been knowleadgeable of the events before it happened. I seen this kind of face before too.

Richard
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
Back
Top