Posted on 12/27/2004 1:21:09 AM PST by Stoat
Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story Posted: December 27, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania. The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target possibly the U.S. Capitol. During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?
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. Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked jumbo jets, remains the most unclear. Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane an unmarked military-style jet. Well-founded uncertainly as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site. That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down. On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets. Vice President Cheney: "Well, the I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft." NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?" Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ... "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate." Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?" Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? "... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'" |
It doesn't take away from the stories we've heard that the occupants brought down the plane. It just lets us know that there may have been more Americans fighting to keep that plane from hitting DC than just the passengers. In any case, it should be a lesson for the next hijackers. If we can't kill you as a group onboard the plane, we'll just shoot you down.
Rummy could have said "brought down" and an enterprising reporter mangled it.
Do we have a troll on this thread?
Yeah, it's quite likely that a military jet was trailing Flight 93 at the time that it crashed. But a shoot-down is a whole seperate question. I think they would have waited for the hijacked jet to get closer to Washington, D.C. before shooting it down--at least into Maryland. (I'm assuming Flight 93 was heading for Washington at the time of its crash.)
Umm, yes, if "more or less" is the operative phrase. LOL
you hit a plane with a missile and it will fly apart in the air, if not exploding entirely....
Nah. The furthest debris was recovered several miles away. That wasn't from an intact plane nosediving to the ground.
And, are you telling me you've never seen photos of military planes shot down, or perhaps even the actual debris? If you have I can't imagine why you've bought this line that a plane necessarily shatters to bits when it's fired upon.
But, really, I don't think it's worth debating. I'm just saying that I find it obvious myself. Doubt we'll ever know for sure, since no one is ever likely to revisit the anomalies in an official capacity..
I have no problem with someone thinking otherwise.
I don't disagree with that in the slightest.
Wow, talk about grasping for straws!!!
The immediate antecedent to "shot down the plane", is the phrase "the people who". And in everyone of the other five examples given in that single sentence, Rumsfeld clearly intended "the people" to mean "the terrorists". How in heavens name could it be any different for the sixth example (the jet in Pennsylvania) in that sentence??? Rumsfeld meant that the terrorists down flight 93.
WND has become an internet embarrassment by publishing whacko stories like this.
--Boot Hill
But then, they loved Clinton, and are still attacking Bush.
Not sure it's a slip-up, or a misquote. It is strange that World Net Daily is trying to make something out of nothing.
My President and Rumsfeld are Safe from the Likes of you, because my King in Heaven is their Protection and their Strength.
Debris found several miles away could have been caused by a bomb exploding on the plane. I wouldn't call this an obvious shoot-down.
What we have here is a troll.
Yeah, it's been known to happen. Same with Capitol Hill Blue when their guy went off the deep end.
Ratings?
He was referring to planes being shot down by terrorists, no-where does it say WE shot down a plane loaded with terrorists. It was a generalization.
Trust the lunatic left to jump all over a poor choice of references while making a generalization. Let the lefty's waste their time on it, It will keep them busy.
Yes, that is correct, but I have never seen anyone allege that the 9/11 terrorists had bombs or that a bomb brought down Flight 93. However, I have no problem with saying "shot down or bombed" although shot down appears much more likely than bombed in this case.
Also, wouldn't a sizable bomb in the fuselage be more likely to ignite the jet fuel and create a spectacular explosion? I'm not sure about that one, just wondering.
English is probably not the poster's first language or the poster is a student. Because of that, it's possible the poster is trying to be humorous or sarcastic and failing miserably. / optimistic opinion
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.