more like punched Habeeb who turned the wheel hard/fast enough to make the airplane do things(read stressed) it was NEVER built to do and the engine departed on it's own course.
Posted on 12/27/2004 7:55:49 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.
In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Sorry .. I'm still in need of more coffee and didn't get it :0)
Plus I can't stand Clinton
more like punched Habeeb who turned the wheel hard/fast enough to make the airplane do things(read stressed) it was NEVER built to do and the engine departed on it's own course.
yer right, my bad... i thought it was a 747 for some reason, it's been a while, but my point still holds. i would put a load of 20mm right through the cockpit windows before i would ever foxone or foxtwo to bring it down.
don't get me wrong... i have NO PROBLEM if we did take it down/were in the process of taking it down, it was be the right thing to do!!! i just don't believe it happened at the exact same time as the "Let's Roll" guys were doing their thing. Occam's(sp) Razor and all that.
On your planet does the wind blow constantly all day long?
So, you want to believe the government account of flight 93. That is your perogative. It is my perogative to look at the facts and form my own opinion.
you are going to have to provide some explaination for how debris (a single piece of burned check stub) from the Flight 93 was able to float down as far as 8 miles away from the crashsite.
No, I am asking you how that debris got there. It is my theory, which is the basis of this discussion, that the plane was shot down. Also, an eyewitness has already posted on this thread that there was no wind that day.
I have posted eyewitness accounts. How does a person prove eyewitness accounts?
You know, there are actually people in prison because of eyewitness accounts.
Well, how about this part:
Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.
Now, either you believe what she said or you believe she's lying about that part. Which is it?
Bull carp.
Boy is THAT convincing!!
The violent actions of the plane would be easy to verify if the investigators had the black boxes from the plane.
Hmmm, now where are those boxes now, and just how unusual is it for them not to be in the possesion of the NTSB after a crash on dry land?
Side note: I do not care if the plane was shot down or not. In either case the deaths are on the hands of the terrorist scum.
I also lean to not shot down - but I do seem to recall that the flight data recorder was not recovered, and that not recovering it is unusual.
I have mentioned this on a few threads before but I believe the conspiracy theorists to be completely wrong on this issue.
I know quite a few details about Flight 93 - some that not even the publice know....because my father, Patrick 'Joe' Driscoll, was a passenger on Flight 93. I have spoken with the Cororner of Somerset County, spoken with the FBI, I heard the tapes of the flight recorder when they played them for the families of the crew and passengers in Princeton...they were fighting to the end. They made it into the cockpit and fought the homicidal terrorists.
It was awful to hear - but now I am convinced the plane was NOT shot down.
Chris Driscoll
Son of Patrick Driscoll, Flight 93
And I have explained that as clearly as I could. I'll try again. When an aircraft impacts the ground and explodes, it creates a fireball. When the force of the explosion combines with the vacuum created by the fireball, pieces of wreckage and debris can rise several thousand feet into the air. That debris is then left to the mercy of whatever wind exists. The winds the day of the crash were blowing in a southeasterly direction, which is exactly the direction the bits of burned paper and fabric from the wreckage were recovered. If you've ever thrown trash or newspaper into a bonfire, you've probably noticed burning trash can float a long way. Now imagine a bonfire capable of creating a fireball large enough to rise several thousand feet and be seen for miles. There is no mystery here at all.
Now it is your turn. Can you explain how, if there was no wind, debris from an aircraft impact was found several miles from a crash site, when by all accounts, the aircraft never flew over the areas in which the debris was found? And the "eyewitness" you are refering to NEVER claimed he was an eyewitness. Don't make him into something he isn't to support an otherwise unsupportable theory. He says he lived about 20 minutes away and he remembers there was no wind that morning. He also says there were no clouds, while actual eyewitnesses to the crash describe the aircraft as descending through clouds. His recollection of the wind that day does not match official weather records. That isn't surprising, considering surface wind conditions can vary considerably in rolling terrain.
Now, either you believe what she said or you believe she's lying about that part. Which is it?
She is stating a possibility. I am saying that the possibility didn't happen. I am not saying she is lying because all she stated was a possibility.
I refer you back to post# 114.
I don't know much about the aircrash in Pennsylvania, but I do know this: lies are deliberate; the truth is sometimes told inadvertently. No one ever "blurts out" a lie, but one may sometimes "blurt out" the truth even though he means to keep the truth hidden. The whole idea of "misspeaking" can only mean that one meant to maintain a lie, but inadvertently spoke the truth. No one misspeaks and tells a lie rather than the truth.
You are a conspiracy nut!
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.