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 ...
Thank you kindly for the ping, Howlin!
On your planet does the wind blow constantly all day long?
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.
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.
A single, anonymous internet post vs. recorded historical fact. You are easily convinced.
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.
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".
Excellent summation.
Exactly.
We have certain "authorized" conspiracies that we are able to discuss (Waco, OK City, TWA 800), but no others.
"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".
You are comparing Rummy to Clinton??
LOL.
Are you suggesting they are comparable?
Nice try ... but you are the one that brought it up
Go back and read with a mildly (?) twisted sense of humor. If you don't have any, I've got plenty to spare.
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.
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.