crazy conspiracy theory???

View Poll Results :crazy conspiracy theory?
yes 3 75.00%
no 1 25.00%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

December 28th, 2004  

Topic: crazy conspiracy theory???

just another crazy conspiracy theory huh?!?

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania
Posted: December 27, 2004 | 1:00 a.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "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."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked jumbo jets, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane an unmarked military-style jet.

Well-founded uncertainly as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.

Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
December 28th, 2004  
December 28th, 2004  
A Can of Man
The story seemed believable somewhat until the "unmarked military jet" part. Unmarked? Yeah right. Things were happening so quickly that it's even unlikely that the airliner was intercepted by any fighter jet, let alone an unmarked, CIA one.
Also, people will say anything.
It's incredible sometimes how inaccurate "eyewitness" accounts are. They want 15 minutes of fame, tell a fancy story.... urgh.
I think it crashed. If the authorities had the warning to intercept that jet, they would have shot down the ones going for the WTC and the Pentagon as well.
December 28th, 2004  
Charge 7
Was it "shot" down or "brought" down? I would suspect the latter and credit the former to a lousy mike and an eager wire feed.
December 28th, 2004  
have you heard the ''pentagon plane'' one as well? cant remeber the link ill have a look

basically it says that it was a truck not a plane which blew up the pentagon

Main points of it:

- A plane going at 500mph wouldnt just knock down the first wall

- the damaged area wasnt as wide as the width of a plane (not including the wings)

- the grass wasnt damaged where the ''planes'' tail/fuselage should have been

but the most interesting point is..on the pictures which were taken right after the explosion....nothing at all of the plane can be seen...i know that if it blew up it woulnt be intact..but there is bodies
December 28th, 2004  
Then add that it crashed by "coincidence" in the section of the Pentagon which was being renovated(reinforced) at the time-with almost no people in it.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't have wanted it to crash on the other parts of the building, however the info on what was going on at the Pentagon was available to all I believe and it seems like poor planning/piloting skills on the part of the terrorists which objective would be to destroy/kill whatever they can.
Alternatively you can call it another "coincidence".


I've seen that; It does get you to think.
December 28th, 2004  
Locked due to the inability of posters to provide sources.
December 28th, 2004  
If you still don't believe that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, please read these: