Posted on 06/29/2002 10:42:42 AM PDT by Paul Atreides
A web site with ties to the Democratic Party and ex-President Bill Clinton is charging that President Bush is most likely "personally and directly responsible for the deaths of 37 passengers and 7 crew members on Flight 93," claiming that evidence shows Bush and Vice President Cheney ordered the plane shot down on 9-11.
The left-wing web site Democrats.com goes so far as to contend that the famous photo depicting President Bush talking on the phone that morning aboard Air Force One was likely taken as Bush was authorizing Cheney to give the order to have Flight 93 blown from the sky.
"Here is a very likely scenario," says the web site. "Bush was approving the shooting down of hijacked airliners, which led Dick Cheney to order the shooting down of Flight 93 - with all of the Heroes on board."
The photo, offered earlier this year for $150 as part of a GOP fundraising package, has the Democratic web site complaining that sale of the picture was "a huge insult to the victims of 9-11 — who died never knowing they were helping raise big bucks for the Republican party."
The report, by Democrats.com co-founder Bob Fertik, blames Bush - and not the terrorist hijackers - for killing the Flight 93 heroes:
"A careful analysis of all available evidence points to a shootdown as the most likely cause of the crash of Flight 93 - thus making George W. Bush personally and directly responsible for the deaths of 37 passengers and 7 crew members on Flight 93."
Democrats.com accuses the Bush administration of perpetrating a massive cover-up by going along with the convenient cover story that it was the battle between Flight 93's passengers and the plane's hijackers that caused it to crash into a rural field in Shanksville, Penn.
"Certainly, the White House has every reason to lie," says the Democratic Party's web promoters. "After all, it would look pretty horrible if Bush and Cheney were responsible for the deaths of the crew and passengers about Flight 93, even if the planes were shot down to protect Washington DC."
"Unfortunately for the White House" says web site continues, "there is overwhelming evidence that Flight 93 was shot down - and no evidence at all that the Heroes succeeded in taking control of the cockpit."
In fact, no one has ever claimed that Flight 93's heroes "succeeded in taking control of the cockpit." Otherwise the crash might have been prevented. The question is, did their failed efforts to regain control distract the hijackers long enough to foil their ultimate plans to attack Washington, D.C.
Given their public comments to date, the families of Flight 93's heroes seem to have no doubt about the cause of the crash.
Last April, after hearing the in-flight recording of the plane's final 30 minutes in a special session arranged by the FBI, family members seemed convinced that their relatives' heroic effort to storm the cockpit - and not a missile from an F-16 - was what brought the plane down.
"I felt incredible pride," said Deena Burnett, whose husband, Tom, died on the United Airlines plane, told reporters after hearing the tape. "It was obvious they all acted heroically."
"I never doubted that there were specific individuals who worked together, and the tape confirmed that," said Alice Hoglan, mother of Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham. "I never doubted that the cockpit had been taken over by terrorists who were thwarted, and the tape definitely confirmed that."
Hoglan, who along with the other Flight 93 relatives was asked by the FBI not to discuss specifics, described the tape as "wonderful in a strange and odd way" - hardly the words of someone reacting to evidence that her son was killed on orders of the president.
Further proof of a shootdown, Democrats.com argues, comes from reports that debris from Flight 93 was discovered eight miles away from the actual crash site, a detail the continues to perplex those on both sides of the political aisle.
But if Flight 93 did explode in midair, there are other plausible explanations, such as the bomb the hijackers said they had and threatened to detonate, according to several passengers who relayed the news in cell phone calls to relatives.
But Democrats.com doesn't let details like that get in the way of accusing President Bush of responsibility for the crash and the ensuing "cover-up."
"The FBI has stated that there was no evidence of a bomb at the crash site," the web site argues. "If the hijackers detonated a bomb, it is hard to imagine a reason why the FBI would cover it up."
Democrats.com has at least nominal connections to ex-President Bill Clinton.
Former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg sits on the web site's advisory board.
And last August, Democrats.com boasted it had "arranged with the office of former President Clinton for birthday greetings sent by e-mail to be delivered to him personally," adding, "Please join us in thanking the last legally elected President of the United States for his dedication to public service."
On its "Community" page, the left-wing web site explains:
"Democrats.com is the largest online community of Democrats. We have created a unique space where Democrats can meet, discuss, and work towards building a stronger Democratic Party.... Take our Voter Pledge to sweep all Republicans out of office."
Player one comes up with a negative event, such as a company going bankrupt, a dog getting sick on a car ride, whatever. All other players then write on an index card how that event can be blamed on President Bush. Supercat replied: What if the event actually transpires and the Democrats actually spin it as predicted?
I reply:
Remember this game is come up with ridiculous stuff. Players would come up with off-the-wall stuff that even the Democrats wouldn't say, like Bush knowing about September 11th and letting it happen because he was feeling mean, or Bush bombing Afghanistan to get a pipeline in there, or...
Wait a sec...
Okay, okay, your scenario gets a player triple credit.
Is there anyone who could argue that it would be better to let it go on and hit its target? Wouldn't it have been better if the 2 WTC planes had also been shot down like this one (supposedly) was...rather than reaching their targets?
This allegation will backfire on the Democrats, who would actually be crediting Bush with fast action and reducing of ultimate number of deaths and demoralization of the people.
Is there anyone who could argue that it would be better to let it go on and hit its target? Wouldn't it have been better if the 2 WTC planes had also been shot down like this one (supposedly) was...rather than reaching their targets?
This allegation will backfire on the Democrats, who would actually be crediting Bush with fast action and reducing of ultimate number of deaths and demoralization of the people.
1. If the Air Force was goint to shoot down a civilian airliner, it shur' as heck would want to do it without any possibility of hitting the wrong target, hence the inteceptor would be sure to have a visual confirmation prior to firing, figure less than 3 miles, although he could drop back somewhat to shoot.
2.The obvious choice of weapon for such a shootdown is the AIM9 Sidewinder, with a range of 1/2 to 11 nautical miles and a warhead of 22 lbs. of explosive. While you could use an AMRAAM, with 40 lbs. of explosive, the sidewinder is probably the weapon of choice. After all this is a big ol' boeing without too much advance knowledge.
3.Now, that Sidewinder is gonna go flying right up the tailpipe of one of the two engines, which are hanging out on pods below the wings. I'm pretty sure that to get an airframe certification, the Boeing engineers did some calculations regarding what would happen if one of the engines suffered a catostrophic event, like sucking in a goose and throwing out turbine blades. 22 lbs/ of TNT up the tailpipe would probably put that wing engineering to the test, but I seriously doubt that the wing itself would have suffered a massive failure. If it did, it would have vented fuel (lots of fuel) all over the sky. Instead, what I would expect would be that the engine would basically fall off the plane and drop in a ballistic arc from the point of fracture. The rest of the plane wold follow pretty quickly.
However, it is my opinion that an air-to-air missle strike would not have caused the plane to disintigrate like the theories say. Instead, even if there was an engine blown off, the plane would have remained intact, albiet flyable only by a highly trained and skilled pilot, not a hijacker or passenger.
Moreover, any number of other things could have caused debris to be scattered, not the least of which has been mentioned earlier. If the plane goes out of control and dives at full throttle, it is going to start shedding parts real fast once it gets real near to mach 1, since the tailplane surfaces are not designed for supersonic speeds. It would probably start shaking violently until parts started to fall off or the compressors stalled. And if someone grabbed the flap handle or gear lever while in a high speed flat spin, I would be amazed if the airframe stayed together at all.
Finally there are just too many people woho would have been involved for this to stay a secret: The air force pilots, their commanders and ground crew (someone comes home short a missle, there are questions), the air traffic control people (radar controller, data man, supervisor etc.). By now, someone would have talked.
This is just a sorry attempt to put a bad light on a good man, and to keep the far out members talking conspiricy garbage to family, friends and strangers.
Next we'll hear that the plane was shot down in a soy bean field to deprive senoirs of their Ensure. Sick
"Now, here's Linda Moten Howell to report that the temperature of the earth has now risen 10 degrees in the last year due to global warming. After that, our next guest will talk about his new book, 'The Coming Ice Age.'"
I think this is the most obscene and insulting items I've ever seen. I hope Hannity, Rush or O'Reilly speak about this. Better yet, how about one of the survivor's families suing the RATS and getting the website taken down?
Of course I haven't hear them. But the families of the heroic passengers and memebers of the media have listened to them and reported that there was a ferocious battle between the passengers and the terrorists!
And we know that they were planning to overtake the terrorists because many including Todd Beamer said that they were making plan about how to proceed with that goal!
If you believe this malicious garbage put out by the desparate RATs you belong on DU!(snarl)
Instead of crossing swords with an attacker , it is simpler to use the "Indiana Jones response".
I think I know who you are.
Please tell me you're joking. Do you seriously want GW to be an actor and a phony like Bill Clinton?
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.