Here's what Rumsfeld said 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 intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.
I'm sure the man has a lot to think about on a daily basis. I wouldn't be surprised if it was genuinely a slip-of-the-tongue with no basis in "hiding a secret" or whatever. Still it is consistent with the sightings of the "military style jet" seen nearby by witnesses that I recall hearing from as early as 9/12/01
A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
[...]
A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.
The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
And there you have it. Though shame on CNN for not knowing that these "conspiracy theories" are not "NEW" conspiracy theories - they're simply old ones rekindled. they make it sound like suddenly entirely new tales have been fabricated based solely on one misspoken word 3 years aftre the event. Further it's questionable to call this a "conspiracy theory" at all - the only conspiracy per se, if any, would be that of covering up the truth that the plane was shot down - despite presidential authorization to do so. Perhaps they simply put the authorization out there to see how the public would react to gauge the feasibility of taking such action in the future. Who knows. We only know as much as they tell us, right?
It's jacked up to say, but going down in a barren field is better than slamming into the Capital building.
I remember hearing several reports of people seeing military airfraft near that flight. I was also a little suspicious that the only plane that was able to get a call out had the only group of passengers that 'officially' tried to subdue the hijackers.
There was nobody left to fly the plane anyway.
I am almost positive that the military aricraft didn't respond in enough time to be anywhere near that plane to shoot it down. They did however have authorisation to do so. I just don't believe it happened.
They slit the throats of the flight attendants and the pilots.
Any bit of struggle in the cockpit could bring that plane down in a matter of seconds. Most planes crash within 15 seconds of trouble.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
There were no hijackers on flight 93 .the whole story about passengers retaking the plane is a silly lie.It's obvious that it was shot down because the debris field covers a good eight miles.No transcontinental flight leaving on Tuesday morning would ever have only 33 passengers .(9/11 was a fake simulation of an attack.
I think he meant what he said, but he just didn't mean to SAY it... I don't think it's far-fetched for the US military to shoot down a civilian plane if it was threatening national security, and the plane was headed for the White House, wasn't it? I'd say that constitutes a threat to national security if ever there was one.
But your are not looking at the context of the rest of what he said. The whole train of thought was talking about what terrorist have done. Unless you are saying that terrorist shot down the plane. No either he misspoke and meant to say something like brought down the plane or the listener missheard. Read it again
quote:
"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 intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that.
No where in there is he talking about anything but what terrorist have done to the US. So the word should be Took or Brought, not shot.
people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
It's very clear that "shot" was not the right word because 1. there was no shooting involved and 2 it would throw off the whole context of what he was trying to convey.
Fair enough. You have a good point. But I still think that the truth behind what happened is highly spun by people like Rumsfeld. Just my opinion; my gut feeling.
12-27-2004 07:39 PM
