Rumsfeld said Flight 93 shot down

[Idaho]

OK, well maybe, but why couldn't they just come out and say, 'sorry folks we had to shoot down that third plane, just in case'?

Not really a $10m question. Obviously it wouldn't sit too well with the punters.

I am not saying that this definately happened this way (seeing as I live nowhere near nor have anything but a few second hand sources to check through) but this theory is, as the editor mentions, at least on this side of the interdimensional spangle barrier.

 

[Jazzz]

Just a rough figure will do, please.

If you doubt anything I have said, why don't YOU point out where I am wrong, instead of calling for silly statistics?

 

[frogwoman]

He's bumbling incoherently through the whole interview, so I really wouldn't start drawing any exciting conclusions.

Im not drawing any conclusions ... it'll just be interesting to see where this goes

 

[pyrovitae]

Well it does if you don't know the first thing about it.

i never claimed to.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

i never claimed to.

That's nice dear, you heard the one about the magic dragon who lives by the sea? It's got about as much factual information as the "thermite explosion" theory...

If you ever mention it again then i will make excessive use of these smilies =

 

[Idris2002]

Not really a $10m question. Obviously it wouldn't sit too well with the punters.

Why wouldn't it? You may be right, but given everything else that happened that day, shooting down a plane wouldn't really be that big a deal.

(though obviously it's a big deal to the people concerned and their families, regardless of what caused their 'controlled flight into terrain').

 

[omlette]

I'm absolutely not a conspiracy theorist either, not at all, and I also felt quite strongly that the plane could well have been shot down.

My feeling was that the hasty, and in hindsight stupid, decision wasn't the one to shoot it down, but the one to lie about it. On the day, that was something that would have had to have been decided very quickly - do we make it public or not that we did that? - and I can imagine the nincompoops in power (wrongly IMO) concluding that the public would not be able to forgive a civilian plane being shot down, and living to regret that almost spur of the moment decision to lie about it.

See, I do believe that it would have been a hasty decision, precisely because I also believe that the government were actually taken by surprise on 9/11, not that they planned it.

 

[TeeJay]

I found it very odd that a plane thats was deliberately crashed would have a small debris site just over a mile from the crash site. What would case the debris? This is the one thing i remember clearly from the news at the time.

You want some speculation about could cause a second bit of debris?

How about:

[speculation]...the plane came in at a shallow angle over som3e higher ground and clipped a tall electrical or telegraph pole or tree, maybe detaching a bit of wingtip, but then only actually hit the ground a mile further on?...[/speculation]

How does this "shooting down" theory tie in with all the other evidence for example phone calls made by passengers on the 'plane?

Are these phone calls and distraught reletraives who received them forgeries and actors making it all up? Why did these phone calls mention hijackers taking over the plane but didn't make any mention of being shot at by USAF jets?

Sorry, some bumbling slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld is entirely insufficient to suggest anything. Analysis of the debris might make a more plausible case for a missile strike (presumably after the hijacking had been notified and to stop it from being flown into another target - after all better to only allow the 300 on the plane to died than those 300 plus another 3000? in the nearest city when the plane was flown into a random skyscraper or block of flats).

 

[editor]

If you doubt anything I have said, why don't YOU point out where I am wrong, instead of calling for silly statistics?

So asking for specific details of this 'debris' that formed your central argument has now been reduced to a "silly statistic"?

What percentage of the plane's debris was found at the site, Jazzz?
And what was the nature of the debris found elsewhere?

All important questions - so why haven't you bothered researching them adequately?

 

[Idris2002]

If Rumsfeld has now taken to appearing in public while sozzled, that's probably more important.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I found it very odd that a plane thats was deliberately crashed would have a small debris site just over a mile from the crash site. What would case the debris? This is the one thing i remember clearly from the news at the time.

Some bits of the plane are really, really light. As such if the plane hit hard and bounced (for example) the wing material can be torn off, making what's effectively a kite. With a bit of wind that can go a fair distance.

Now also remember that you're not going to get much more debris from a shot down airliner, a sidewinder missile only carries a 25lb explosive warhead. It's not exactly a strategic nuclear warhead. All it does is destroy the lifting surfaces and an engine or two.

 

[Jazzz]

So asking for specific details of this 'debris' that formed your central argument has now been reduced to a "silly statistic"?

What percentage of the plane's debris was found at the site, Jazzz?
And what was the nature of the debris found elsewhere?

All important questions - so why haven't you bothered researching them adequately?

I am not supplying you with your game of silly buggers. Is there anything I have said on this thread that you doubt? You can easily find out about the debris field by googling, as you expect me to.

 

[omlette]

How does this "shooting down" theory tie in with all the other evidence for example phone calls made by passengers on the 'plane?

Are these phone calls and distraught reletraives who received them forgeries and actors making it all up? Why did these phone calls mention hijackers taking over the plane but didn't make any mention of being shot at by USAF jets?

The events on the plane are in no way impossible to reconcile with the notion of the plane being shot down. Whether the final second was the hijackers nose-diving the plane into the ground or a missile hitting it from behind would have made no difference to the account heard by relatives. All the hero stuff could be true, and it could still have been shot down.

I agree with you that the Rumsfeld slip ain't such a big deal, though.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I am not supplying you with your game of silly buggers. Is there anything I have said on this thread that you doubt?

Well you came out with a blinding bit of idiocy earlier, and i quote:

But the debris WAS spread over a wide area - an eight-mile radius. I wonder what ATD makes of that?

Radius is the wrong term in so many ways, it'd be an elipse if the plane was moving (then again why would it be moving, probably just a hologram from the year 2025 ) or if there was any wind at all on the day.

Splitting hairs? Fucking right i am, it's this sort of sloppy thinking that lets this sort of crap spread so wide.

 

[Tox06]

I really don't know whether it was shot down, but I think it might have been and even think it would in some circumstances be the right thing to do.

But why did the US and the UK have its major cities patrolled by jet fighters for 2 -3 days afterwards, if not to shoot down rogue or even hijacked aircraft? Can anyone else suggest the sense in this? Is this an admission that the USA may have been prepared to do so?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I really don't know whether it was shot down, but I think it might have been and even think it would in some circumstances be the right thing to do.

But why did the US and the UK have its major cities patrolled by jet fighters for 2 -3 days afterwards, if not to shoot down rogue or even hijacked aircraft? Can anyone else suggest the sense in this? Is this an admission that the USA may have been prepared to do so?

Fuck me, this is classic stuff. You've never heard of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted?

I'm sorry if this is being excessivly harsh, it probably is, but i've little patience with anyone who wastes time on this topic as the examples of stunning intellectual hypocracy, double standards and other fuckwittery provided by Jazzz and friends has drained me.

 

[omlette]

...and even think it would in some circumstances be the right thing to do.

But why did the US and the UK have its major cities patrolled by jet fighters for 2 -3 days afterwards, if not to shoot down rogue or even hijacked aircraft? Can anyone else suggest the sense in this? Is this an admission that the USA may have been prepared to do so?

Of course it would have been the right thing to do! That was sort of my point in my last post - I reckon the public would have understood, even perhaps been reassured at the ability to protect 'them', if it'd been shot down.

Deciding to lie about it (if it was shot down) was the mistake...

 

[Jazzz]

Well you came out with a blinding bit of idiocy earlier, and i quote:

Radius is the wrong term in so many ways, it'd be an elipse if the plane was moving (then again why would it be moving, probably just a hologram from the year 2025 ) or if there was any wind at all on the day.

Splitting hairs? Fucking right i am, it's this sort of sloppy thinking that lets this sort of crap spread so wide.

You're the idiot. Radius is the suitable generic term for describing the outer limits of an area within something falls. It's not an attempt to describe the pattern. You have your central crash area, then if the further debris from that is eight miles away, you can say the debris is within an eight-mile radius. Kapish?

 

[editor]

I am not supplying you with your game of silly buggers. Is there anything I have said on this thread that you doubt?

So you don't think the percentage of debris found at the crash site and elsewhere is even slightly relevant?

So why bring it up?

 

[mikeinworthing]

*pops head into thread for an update - wish I hadn't*

Jazzz - you seem to be a total fruitnut

 

[William of Walworth]

IF this plane was shot down (big if, the more that known conspiranoids eagerly seize on this story) then presumably, in conspiraland, the US shot it down because it had been hijacked.

How, one fearfully wonders**, does that square with the apprarant widespread conviction by conspirafools (sorry, 'truthseekers' ) that the Twin Towers were not hit by a plane at all, that THAT particular plane (the one that didn't hit the Twin Twoers) was either non existent, not in the area, or not hijacked.

**'Fearfully' because no doubt me posting the above at all will lead to a load of ever more fanciful, common sense defying, Occams Razior ignoring, evidence-light nonsense, with a few accusations of 'gullible dupe of Establishment Propoganda', 'Shill', 'State Asset' etc. etc., thrown in for good measure ...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You're the idiot. Radius is the suitable generic term for describing the outer limits of an area within something falls. It's not an attempt to describe the pattern. You have your central crash area, then if the further debris from that is eight miles away, you can say the debris is within an eight-mile radius. Kapish?

Hmm, you may be right overall. I stand by my comment that it's misleading. Remind me what the winds were like that day and what exactly was found?

 

[Jazzz]

(to editor) okay, I take it that you accept everything I have posted on this thread. Try google editor. Your questions are, as you well know, designed simply to irritate.

 

[mikeinworthing]

Your questions are, as you well know, designed simply to irritate.

pot/kettle

 

[editor]

(to editor) okay, I take it that you accept everything I have posted on this thread. Try google editor. Your questions are, as you well know, designed simply to irritate.

No, they're designed to expose the dishonest way in which you try to present information to further your idiotic theories.

Even now you're trying to pretend that the percentage of debris found at the scene is somehow totally unimportant to your claims, and your persistent wriggling on this issue is desperately embarrassing. I doubt if it's fooling anyone, either.

You want to endlessly talk about this shit, so why are you so reluctant to post up some hard facts?

 

[Jazzz]

Hmm, you may be right overall. I stand by my comment that it's misleading. Remind me what the winds were like that day and what exactly was found?

the wind speed was 9 knots.

You can read about the debris here

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

Interesting also that the main debris site contained no large pieces of plane. Can you see a plane here? Pretty unusual plane crash, that's for sure...

 

[TeeJay]

You're the idiot. Radius is the suitable generic term for describing the outer limits of an area within something falls. It's not an attempt to describe the pattern. You have your central crash area, then if the further debris from that is eight miles away, you can say the debris is within an eight-mile radius. Kapish?

Diameter would be more accurate - radius is measured from the *centre* of a circle to the edges, diameter is the distance between the two sides - ie all the way across it going through the centre.

Kapish?

 

[longdog]

the wind speed was 9 knots.

You can read about the debris here

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow. The wind was blowing towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore at 9 knots. "According to the NTSB, it is not only possible that the debris is from the crash, it is probable," Crowley said.

Your move I believe.

 

[Jazzz]

Diameter would be more accurate - radius is measured from the *centre* of a circle to the edges, diameter is the distance between the two sides - ie all the way across it going through the centre.

Kapish?

Not when you have a central point of reference; in this case, the main debris field. The statement means, succintly, that all debris was up to eight miles of the main crash site. If you start talking about diameters it could get confusing.

 

[pk]

If I were in charge of National Security for the USG on 9/11 - I'd have shot the plane down, and lied about it.

Seems to be entirely plausable.

What isn't plausable is the concept of planes being switched and the real passengers shipped off to a compound elsewhere, as is the popular conspiranoid theory.