Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

Rumsfeld was visiting our troops in Iraq when he had a slip of the tounge.  He said the plane that our citizens supposedly 'heroically took back the plane' in Pennsylvania on 9/11 was shot down.  This would match several eyewitnesses who said an unmarked military jet was spotted alongside it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible, and that's the theory I've always thought correct.  After all, if you're going to try  to lead a nation into war you want martyrs. 

To play Devil's Advocate, in defense of the administration, it's genuinly possible however, that he did mis-speak.    To further play Devil's Advocate, the official Pentagon denunciation, stating the Secretary of Defense mis-spoke.

Pentagon:  Rumsfeld Misspoke

Link to post
Share on other sites

well I don't really know what to say, I don't know if the government knew about the take over by the passengers at that time, but on the other hand they couldn't really afford to take any changes? Regardless the people are in their right to know the truth IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was quite clearly a brain fart.  He's talking about terrorists when he said that and probably just meant to say brought down instead of shot down.

A plane may have been flying alongside it but that is no surprise for this type of situation.  There are recorded phone calls from passengers in which it is obvious that the passengers were going to attemt to re-take the plane and among them was a Judo champion and I think some collegiate wrestlers vs, what, three thug terrorists and the two pilot terrorists.

I dont buy that the plane was shot down.  If it had been, the hull would have been spread over a much greater distance in a very different fashion.  From the way the plane hit the ground you can tell that it entered almost straight down and was intact when it hit because of the lack of debris anywhere else.  The wreckage was subject to a phenomenon in which virtually the whole craft, wings and all, was compressed into a single hole scarcely bigger than the size of the body of the plane.  I can't think of any way that could happen other than the pilot flying straight into the ground.  Unless the engines were shot out or something and that caused the pilot to fly it into the ground, but I think if the military wanted to shoot it down they would have shot to kill and that means missle.

There is absolutely no evidence to support a shoot-down so until I see otherwise it's just another silly conspiracy theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if the plane really was shot down. But of course, once they've stated their "facts" then that is final - even if we would find evidence of someone, friend or foe, shooting it down they would still go along the "original" story. They can't be wrong. People must trust the government - that is an preogrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think if the military wanted to shoot it down they would have shot to kill and that means missle.

I agree, there would have been no crater if it were shot down by US forces. were talking missles that obliterate. Maybe some scattered debris here and there but thats about all that would have been left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I wouldn't be surprised if the plane really was shot down. But of course, once they've stated their "facts" then that is final - even if we would find evidence of someone, friend or foe, shooting it down they would still go along the "original" story. They can't be wrong. People must trust the government - that is an preogrative.

The point is a whole picture. You look all elements pertaining to a given subject from macro (political context...) to micro (bunch of events) and you look how probabilities end up. The higher probability, if probable enough, is often called a conclusion. If something new comes, it alters the probability; should it alter the probabilities enough, people would not talk about a conclusion as before or even would change to another conclusion. (I like to answer to that... looks easy) In the meantime, people keep the same conclusion.

And in this case, I do not care alot... even if it was shot by aliens, I'd rather put my time where I get more intellectual or personal upgrade per hour than in studying all details of whattever element in a global scheme. I'd rather have a global idea of this global scheme, and well... it's politics, works by Machiavelli's Prince, a good record from all sides shows certain tendancies and a detail on one side or another would not change the whole scheme neither my day. To resume my point, it's crAAAAp! ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...