Posted on 12/27/2004 1:21:09 AM PST by Stoat
You get/keep control of the plane away from any hijackers or prevent them from being succesful, or the plane will be shot down.
No brainer: do nothing and you are dead meat.
Decry this idea if you want, but if you had to decide between a planeload of victims in a rural area and a stadium full (with the plane crew/passengers dead, too), you know what choice you would make. You would have no other.
IIRC... when the men stormed the terrorists, weren't there shots fired? Inside the plane? Isn't that why the plane crashed?
Okay, thanks for the info. It's hard to keep track of all the yellow journalists.
When large passenger jets do maneuvers they were not designed to do in mid-air, things come flying off of them. Not everything that comes off has the civility to auger in where the plane did.
Not to mention a lot of lighter material blows around.
Ah yes. Of course. Thanks, endthematrix, that explains it. :)
Or, a teenage Hackworth worshipper.
That's not my recollection. I recall that there were reports of shouts in Arabic, broken English and American dialect English, the sound of the crashing flight attendant's galley wagon but I don't recall hearing about the sound of shots fired.
"hung"? And that's a doctor? Riiiight. Another roach. Yawn.
"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."
The term "shot down" does not make sense in this context... he is talking about the TERRORISTS, not some hypothetical Air Force jet shooting at a hijacked aircraft to prevent larger loss of life.
My guess is that we have a mis-quote, and he actually said "....brought down...", which fits with the context of the rest of what he was saying.
Read the same sentence with that minor change, and it makes sense:
"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, brought 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."
Snooped out his posts. once every few months, not promising.
I agree that it was most likely a misstatement. If the Government was going to release this sort of information, they wouldn't do so in this sort of offhand manner. If they were going to make such a major announcement, they would do so in a formal press conference and issue a very precise statement. Although WND does indeed raise the possibility of it being a misstatement, they do so only as an aside and use the majority of the article to play up the statement as being plausible. I thought that FR readers might like to see the tabloid-level that WND has gone to in some stories, so that they might view future WND stories with perhaps a new perspective.. Mr. Rumsfeld will most likely issue a correction tomorrow.
Do we have a troll on this thread?
I don't know. Who did you have in mind? The person who wants to put the entire Bush administration on trial? LOL
If you want to complain to the System Administrator you're of course welcome to, but hysterical emotionalism like that can add some color and fun to a thread sometimes :-) Maybe he will come forth with more amusing statements.
Go away troll you would be more at home at the DU
Yep, that is vaguely possible to account for the debris dispersal in theory. It's worth noting though that the most acrobatic maneuvers were conducted by Flight 77 swerving toward the Pentagon and I sure don't recall hearing about any Flight 77 debris found eight miles away...
Also, I thought Flight 93 was going at below cruising speed when it dived for the ground?
AHA! Excellent. You are good at snooping Bad Company. Last post was in October. Should I get out the kitty catnip treat or maybe wait?
It seems clear from the printed version that he misspoke.
"Maybe he will come forth with more amusing statements."
Oh I hope so!
This is the first time I've heard that debris was found several miles away from the Penn flight. I would question the fact sheet on that statement.
We know that it wasn't "shot down". There would be no reason to conceal that fact if it was. It was and is standard military action to do so to any hijacked or unauthorized aircraft.
He said the PEOPLE WHO, and presumably that doesn't refer to US, now does it?
I agree with those who think he said "brought down."
The whole premise of this story is daft.
This is nothing but a shocker headline designed to grab readers. The headline says that Rumsfeld "admitted" that the 9-11 Penn. aircraft was shot down but the article does not support that at all. It latches on to a sentence fragment that may very possibly be a misstatement.
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.