Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane "shot-down"

Toshi · Dec 27, 2004

interesting. i suspect the truth will either never come out (if we go all totalitarian) or will surface in a decade or two through leaks by some insider with half a conscience...

Lexx D · Dec 27, 2004

N8 said:
But does it really matter either way?

Yes it does, if they lie about this what else had they lied about?

caboverpete · Dec 27, 2004

Lexx D said:
Yes it does, if they lie about this what else had they lied about?

I would say... damn near everything.

clancy98 · Dec 27, 2004

N8 said:
But does it really matter either way?

yes of course it does... we have to find SOMEONE American to blame for 9/11 instead of the terrorists.... We have to find SOMETHING to divert attention from the actual war on terror.

Heidi · Dec 27, 2004

Lexx D said:
Yes it does, if they lie about this what else had they lied about?

Oh, that is a neverending hole.

clancy98 · Dec 27, 2004

N8 said:
I think Bush hijacked the plane by killing the flight crew then he shot it down using a shoulder fired stinger missle from the ground.

i concur. lets kill him then terrorists won't attack us anymore.

DHanamal · Dec 28, 2004

Oh please, people are giving too much credit to our government.

There have been several interviews with Air Force pilots that were scrambled all over the East coast, and everyone of them showed how disorganized the system was. One pair of planes were sent from Langley over the Atlantic Ocean, because they thought the attack was incoming, before being redirected to DC.

Old Rummy has said so many dumb things, so don't take anything he says seriously. He told our troops, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can still be blown up." Talk about a motivational speaker.

punkassean · Dec 28, 2004

clancy98 said:
i concur. lets kill him then terrorists won't attack us anymore.

sad when we live in a day and age when I'd never have posted the above quote for fear of being stuck in camp Xray for the rest of my life :dead:

That's how fawked up it all really is...

MikeD · Dec 28, 2004

DHanamal said:
Oh please, people are giving too much credit to our government.

There have been several interviews with Air Force pilots that were scrambled all over the East coast, and everyone of them showed how disorganized the system was. .

C'mon, haven't you seen "Spies Like Us?"

Changleen · Dec 29, 2004

See? I was right from day one. Suckers.

valve bouncer · Dec 29, 2004

Changleen said:
See? I was right from day one. Suckers.

LOL, I knew you'd post in this thread.

MikeD · Dec 29, 2004

Even if they did shoot down the plane, which Rummy's folly doesn't prove by a long shot, it doesn't mean the government brought the towers down. (Not denying possiblility, but it's not proof, or as convincing as the obvious transparency of some of the Warren Commission findings vis a vis JFK).

By the way, we were arguing, last time this subject came up, about cell phone use on planes. I think you (changleen) said they didn't work on planes. Seeing as how they're now considering lifting a ban on cell usage on planes, I don't think that's neccessarily the case, either.

DRB · Dec 29, 2004

MikeD said:
Even if they did shoot down the plane, which Rummy's folly doesn't prove by a long shot, it doesn't mean the government brought the towers down. (Not denying possiblility, but it's not proof, or as convincing as the obvious transparency of some of the Warren Commission findings vis a vis JFK).

By the way, we were arguing, last time this subject came up, about cell phone use on planes. I think you (changleen) said they didn't work on planes. Seeing as how they're now considering lifting a ban on cell usage on planes, I don't think that's neccessarily the case, either.

Come on you're smarter than that......its the Aliens and those damn ball bearings.

Westy · Dec 29, 2004

DRB said:
Come on you're smarter than that......its the Aliens and those damn ball bearings.

No it was Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with a candlestick.

Slugman · Dec 29, 2004

Toshi said:
interesting. i suspect the truth will either never come out (if we go all totalitarian) or will surface in a decade or two through leaks by some insider with half a conscience...

If we shot it down why is the field of debris so small?

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

Crash in Somerset: "...debris field spread over an area size of a football field..."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913choppernat3p3.asp

Though the impact crater is relatively small, debris is spread over a broad area

Search PanAm 103 and flight 93compare debris fields.

Zark · Dec 29, 2004

MikeD said:
By the way, we were arguing, last time this subject came up, about cell phone use on planes. I think you (changleen) said they didn't work on planes. Seeing as how they're now considering lifting a ban on cell usage on planes, I don't think that's neccessarily the case, either.

The ban is being lifted because low power cell sites are going to be mounted in planes.

The ban is currently in place because:
1. Officially cell signal can mess with in flight operations, the new low power units will 'fix' this.
2. Unofficially cell phone usage cannot be tracked to a specific cell tower/user. So no minutes used, no LD, no roaming, no money for cell phone companies. The new cell sites on planes will now efficiently bill you accordingly :dead:

BobTheEngineer · Dec 29, 2004

Since it's likely we'll never "really know" the truth about flight 93, the only thing logical is ascribe a likelihood to each possibility based on the known facts.

The facts which lead me to ascribe a higher possibility to the plane being shot down than to the "official" story, are: 1) several eyewitnesses including a viet nam vet saw a white plan in the area immediately preceding the plane going down 2) FBI has gagged 911 operators and seized the transcripts. If you recall someone supposedly called 911 from the plan saying "we've been hit" 3) a 1-ton engine part found over a mile from the crash 4) Flight control transcripts referencing a f-16 in the area

Now, there are other facts, but none for me weigh in as heavily as these. I'm not saying I think the plane was shot down either, just that I give that a higher probablility than the "official" version.

And for everybody asking "what does it matter?", these things are important. If this official story isn't true (which I believe a rational look at the facts leads other possibilities to be more probable) than we are likely being deceived about other things. If we let this happen by not thinking for ourselves then we deserve whatever fate we get

DRB · Dec 29, 2004

BobTheEngineer said:
If this official story isn't true (which I believe a rational look at the facts leads other possibilities to be more probable) than we are likely being deceived about other things. If we let this happen by not thinking for ourselves then we deserve whatever fate we get

Oh my God the government doesn't tell us the truth all of the time..... holy crap. You gotta be kidding. Please tell me they would never lie to the people. Okay maybe just this ONE time and they'll never do it again.

:rolleyes:

One of three things happened,

1. Control of the plane was lost when passengers rushed the cockpit causing the terrorists to lose control.
2. The terrorists purposely crashed the plane into the ground because they didn't feel they would be able to hold off the passengers who at the time had started to rush the cockpit.
3. A warplane shot it down.

Guess what? In each situation they are equally as dead. In none of the situations does it change the circumstances of the hijacking or the end result of the hijacking.

If the plane was shot down, so what? They should have shot it down if they could.

DRB · Dec 29, 2004

And if they did shoot it down they should keep it a big fat secret because somewhere there is a pilot who probably is feeling pretty f'ing guilty about it and the LAST thing he needs is publicity or even the chance of the public finding out who he is.

Thinking about sleeping with that on your mind.

Not all secrets are bad.

MMike · Dec 29, 2004

DRB said:
And if they did shoot it down they should keep it a big fat secret because somewhere there is a pilot who probably is feeling pretty f'ing guilty about it and the LAST thing he needs is publicity or even the chance of the public finding out who he is.

Thinking about sleeping with that on your mind.

Not all secrets are bad.

I doubt that is the reason they would keep it quiet.

"Attention family members of the deceased: Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have murdered your loved ones. That is all....". -Your government.

There could have been some fall out from that. Spinning it so that they look like heroes and opened a can of whoop-ass on the hijackers likely made at least a few people sleep a LITTLE better at night....

Skookum · Dec 29, 2004

MMike said:
I doubt that is the reason they would keep it quiet.

"Attention family members of the deceased: Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have murdered your loved ones. That is all....". -Your government.

There could have been some fall out from that. Spinning it so that they look like heroes and opened a can of whoop-ass on the hijackers likely made at least a few people sleep a LITTLE better at night....

True i've often suspected that the plane was shot down from day 1. Doesn't suprise me if indeed it was true since it took nearly a year for the fact that Pat Tillman died from freindly fire. An omission that supposedly helps a negative event more palatable for some people i guess. But ultimately i agree with DRB in the respects that it doesn't really change the event or impact.

fluff · Dec 30, 2004

If the decision was taken to shoot it down it quite possibly saved lives. Had either of the planes that hit the WTC been shot down out of harms way many lives would have been saved, and none sacrificed. After all the passengers on flt 93 would be dead either way, perhaps it was shot down and some lives were saved. It certainly does seem better that the passengers are revered as heroes who sacrificed themselves fighting than mere helpless victims. As DRB says there may be some pilot with a heavy burden. I

f it was shot down it would be a decision I would applaud.

Transcend · Jan 1, 2005

MikeD said:
Even if they did shoot down the plane, which Rummy's folly doesn't prove by a long shot, it doesn't mean the government brought the towers down. (Not denying possiblility, but it's not proof, or as convincing as the obvious transparency of some of the Warren Commission findings vis a vis JFK).

By the way, we were arguing, last time this subject came up, about cell phone use on planes. I think you (changleen) said they didn't work on planes. Seeing as how they're now considering lifting a ban on cell usage on planes, I don't think that's neccessarily the case, either.

All the planes that will be allowed to have service will have cell repeaters on them. Basically it repeats the cell signals to towers via VHF, UHF or sattelite, depending on the system. Private businesses can buy them, and subways around the world are using wired versions of them.

Unless the flight is extraordinarily low, or in a very heavily saturated cell market (or a combination of the two) you CANNOT use them on a plane. No tower to hit up for a carrier.

Also, it is important. Although it cannot change the outcome, it can lead to increased accountability and transparency within the government, which is an important thing in this day and age.

Silver · Jan 1, 2005

Cell phones work on planes...I thought the reason for not being able to use them was that 200 people hopping from cell to cell every couple of seconds isn't really feasible (which makes sense what Transcend posted about the repeaters.)

ummbikes · Jan 1, 2005

Somebody please show me a verifiable source of Todd Beamer telling his wife via cellphone on the flight in question, "let's roll."

DRB · Jan 1, 2005

Transcend said:
Also, it is important. Although it cannot change the outcome, it can lead to increased accountability and transparency within the government, which is an important thing in this day and age.

Why?

Secrets are good.

DRB · Jan 1, 2005

ummbikes said:
Somebody please show me a verifiable source of Todd Beamer telling his wife via cellphone on the flight in question, "let's roll."

He didn't tell his wife, he told the GTE operator. The confusion was that both of them were named Lisa.

The 9-11 Commission quotes it from the GTE operator tapes that were made when he called. He did in fact say "Let's roll."

ummbikes · Jan 2, 2005

DRB said:
He didn't tell his wife, he told the GTE operator. The confusion was that both of them were named Lisa.

The 9-11 Commission quotes it from the GTE operator tapes that were made when he called. He did in fact say "Let's roll."

Todd Beamer is mentioned twice in the 9-11 Commission report, he is never quoted.

Is it in another 9-11 document?

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane "shot-down"

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

butthole powerwashing evangelist

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Dirty Dozen

Monkey

Monkey

Der hund ist laut und braun

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Paranoid Member

Master Dildoist

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

unemployed bum

the teste

Frankenbike

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?

Chimp

unemployed bum

unemployed bum

A fowl peckerwood.

bikey's is cool

Monkey Turbo

My Nuts Are Flat

find me a tampon

Don't mess with the Santas

unemployed bum

unemployed bum

Don't mess with the Santas