Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash

CNN ^ | 12/27/04 | Jamie McIntyre

[bd476]

Thank you kindly for the ping, Howlin!

[piasa]

Don't post a map of the space shuttle's debris field, people will really lose their cookies on that one.

[piasa]

Explain how the wind blew this stuff into the lake. Also, you do not need to see a video of the smoke from the crash. The still photo shows the smoke going straight up. If there was a breeze the direction of the smoke would not be going straight up.

On your planet does the wind blow constantly all day long?

[bd476]

Did you ever see this one? It even had some humor potential for awhile.

Same subject day before

[Rokke]

"Explain how the wind blew this stuff into the lake."

I have seen no reports that indicate anything pulled from the lake was anything more substantial than paper and scraps of nylon. Whether something that "looked like a rib bone" was actually a human rib bone from Flight 93, or a remnant from Uncle Jed's BBQ three days before is impossible to say. Regardless, unless you care to refute all the evidence including radar tapes that clearly show Flight 93 never flew over Indian Lake, 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. By all accounts, the aircraft was very low, and heading southeast just before it crashed. It was witnessed by people in Lambertsville and Stoysville just prior to its impact. Both those towns are northwest of the crash site. So somehow, a very fast, very low flying aircraft that hit the ground 2.5 miles shy of Indian Lake was able to scatter debris into that lake. What is your theory about how the debris got there?

Finally, the only photo of the fireball I am aware of, was taken from Indian Lake. That is directly downwind from the crashsite. Let's say for the sake of arguement that a single photo of the smoke from the fireball could give you an indication of wind velocity and direction. If you were downwind of that smoke, the smoke would be blowing directly at you and would show no wind driven bias to the left or right of your photo.

[Rokke]

"I live 20 min away from the crash site and there was no wind that morning. It was a crystal clear calm beautiful morning."

Well, you'll have to reconcile that with several eyewitnesses who reported Flight 93 descending through clouds moments before it impacted. You'll also have to reconcile the accounts of your neighbors who clearly describe Flight 93's flightpath as heading southeast before it impacted. You'll also have to reconcile the fact that several investigations since the crash have somehow missed the very important "fact" that there was no wind that day. And finally, you must also be aware that Val McClatchey took her famous photo from her home...which is directly downwind from the crashsite, making it even more unlikely her photo would show evidence of wind direction.

No offense, but I chose to believe your recollection of the day isn't as accurate as the historical record.

[Rokke]

A single, anonymous internet post vs. recorded historical fact. You are easily convinced.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. . .you are a conspiracy nut.

Here on FR there are plenty of current and former military fighter pilots to help you understand that the jet was not shot down. Didn't happen. Couldn't have happened and kept a secret.

No way.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. . .ONCE MORE for the nuts: It was not shot down. It was never intercepted. The jets were screaming over the Mach to intercept but never made it.

Air traffic controllers, weapons dumps, weapons loaders, Wing MOCs, Wing Ops, Squadron schedulers, the pilots themselves and their squadron mates, crew chiefs. . .this means literally hundreds and hundreds of people would know if a missile was fired and a jet was shot down. . .for goodness sake, think about it. . .no way you could keep anything of that nature quiet. "We" would know.

But for conspiracy people, the lack of proof is proof of how good the cover-up actually is.

IT WAS NOT SHOT DOWN.

Jets break up under high G, and jets, if shot down, spread over miles and miles and miles of area. This wreckage was localized and "clean." A small amount of parts will be projected here and there, and parts may fail and fall off the jet when under high G (such as rolling and pulling at a high rate of speed when fighting for control). Basically, jets fold and crumple when stressed outside their design parameters or G limits. THAT is why some parts fall off pre-impact.

For a jet flying into the ground at a high angle the wreckage is small and localized. . .like this was. It is clear the jet impacted the ground nearly vertical. Therefore, it did not break up widely in flight. Jets are crepe-paper when compared to cars.

Sheesh. . .no more of this nut-job conspiracy stuff, please, we are better than this.

[Gunrunner2]

Sorry about your friends loss.

"Its no secret that a huge engine section was found over a mile away and light fragments were scattered some 8 miles away from the main crash area.

I've read this from many reputable sources."

Sheesh. . .newspapers are reliable sources?

Average Joe Six-Pack that can't explain why an aircraft can fly is an expert witness?

8-miles is hardly far. It is so close it is considered the immediate area.

[dmz]

Yea, Clinton mis-spoke when he proclaimed, "I did not have sex with that woman", what he really meant to say was "I didn't have vaginal sex with that woman".

[Gunrunner2]

Excellent summation.

[dmz]

Sheesh. . .no more of this nut-job conspiracy stuff, please, we are better than this.

Exactly.

We have certain "authorized" conspiracies that we are able to discuss (Waco, OK City, TWA 800), but no others.

[John W]

"What rationalization would there be to keep a shootdown secret? If anything, it would be helpful to broadcast the fact that we did shoot one down."

Well,the nuttiest of the conspiracy theorists would say this one had to be shot down as the passengers were about to take control of it and supposedly land it with hijackers still alive to tell "the truth".

[Mo1]

Yea, Clinton mis-spoke when he proclaimed, "I did not have sex with that woman", what he really meant to say was "I didn't have vaginal sex with that woman".

You are comparing Rummy to Clinton??

[dmz]

LOL.

Are you suggesting they are comparable?

[Mo1]

Nice try ... but you are the one that brought it up

[dmz]

Go back and read with a mildly (?) twisted sense of humor. If you don't have any, I've got plenty to spare.

[Howlin]

They have never been denied by investigators.

You posted some unattributed quotes and now claim they are true because nobody said they weren't?

Is that what you're passing off for knowledge on FR?

Good to know when we read your other posts.

YOU made the statement; it's up to YOU to prove it. Until you do, we can all just assume they are false.