It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Rumsfeld- Flight 93 was "shot" down....

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Slip of the tongue?

I had to double watch this, just to make sure i was hearing right.

This footage must be old and been on here before??
Any reasons why he would make such a mistake?

Video.

More info here.


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.


Source.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Denied]




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Old subject but a good question still. No slips. This doesn't bode well for the shoot-down theory that Rumsfeld seems to have seeded it, as he did with missile @ Pentagon theories.. Or perhaps knowing people might notice his pattern, he may have been using reverse psychology covring the truth by seeming to seed it? Now i'm dizzy...



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
U.S. Secretary of Defense admits Flight 93 was Shot Down

Ohh yeah. Look who bet you to it by half a year!



I don't see how he could have accidentally said that if it did not happen.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
U.S. Secretary of Defense admits Flight 93 was Shot Down

Ohh yeah. Look who bet you to it by half a year!



I don't see how he could have accidentally said that if it did not happen.


Sorry, should of known there would be a thread about this.
Still, maybe its what he said that is important, a real whooper to mistake.....



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Cool beans! Great thread! I like the questions about WHY they would lie about a shoot-down. It's certainly worth a thought.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Why, yes.
Thets assume they did shoot it down, is it the fact of shooting down one of our own planes, too big to deal with, thus the cover up...?

Here's Rumsfeld behaving just as stupid, maybe in an attempt to distract people from what he said...


Video.

Only in the original footage, he really did say, "shot down".



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Cool beans! Great thread! I like the questions about WHY they would lie about a shoot-down. It's certainly worth a thought.


How 'bout this theory...


The government is filled with bungling idiots who were caught with their pants down on 9/11. After hiding all day to make sure they weren't killed too (because after all THEY already knew how incompetent they were) their first concern was covering their own asses sp the public wouldn't hold them accountable.

They got Condi to start the ball rolling by saying nobody ever imagined the terrorists would use planes as weapons. Big Lie #1.

They immediately went on the aggressive, starting the war in Afghanistan. When that was such a big PR success, they took their show into Iraq. By now everybody was questioning the whole WMD story, and not the 9/11 incompetence story.

In the meantime, they planted enough seeds about 9/11 being an inside job or at least a cover-up re Flt. 93 to spawn the entire "truth" movement. This not only helped cover up their initial incompetence, but incredibly made people give them a LOT more credit for being almost omnipotent in what they could achieve with a covert operation.

They never had to worry about getting caught re the "9/11 was an inside job" hoax because it wasn't. It was the biggest display of bi-partisan incompetence in the history of the country.

Yet when everything was said an done, Condi got a promotion, Halliburton and Exxon made billions, they all got re-elected, and millions of people think of these buffoons as if they were geniuses (albeit evil geniuses) who can plan a huge operation that would make Ocean's 11 look like child's play.

As long as the CT movement lives, their reputations are protected. How can anybody argue complete, almost criminal negligence while at the same time arguing that it was an inside job?

Like your saying on your blog, they got people asking the questions they wanted them to ask, and all the answers the CTers came up with don't matter. While the questions that might matter, who's fault was it that 9/11 happened, aren't even being asked.

In other words, the entire Washington political machinery was better off having people whisper about how the military shot down Flt. 93, and how the CIA planned the whole operation than to have people understand the complete depth and breadth of incompetence that includes the CIA, FBI, DoD, Bush, Clinton, and Congress.

Anyway... that's just a theory.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Exactly. they just hand the revisionists their platforms to roost on. Then, YANK!
1) Incompetence can't explain 9/11 very well.
2) Senility can no more explain Rummy's "slips" and so on.
3) Condi's "no one could have imagined thing" along with others from Fleischer, Bush, and others, are funny. So CLEARLY wrong they had to know, but it let us repeat over and over "they tried it! Over and over!" And this helped us see how on 9/11 they tried again and succeeded and ultimately stregthened the official story. They just didn't see it. But again, see point 1.

As for why cover up the Flight 93 shoot down, here's a thought:
A military shoot-down of a civilian airliner is legally different from a plane crashed under unclear circumstances during a terrorist attack. One falls under the President's mandate of attack and natioanl defense. A military shoot-down might open some whole different line of procedings - trials, evidence, media coverage - questions like "how did it get to that point? how did hijackers get through like that?" - and a process not controlled from the hite House. I'm not sure of the laws at all and frankly am afraid to look.
But it's worth a thought.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


As for why cover up the Flight 93 shoot down, here's a thought:
A military shoot-down of a civilian airliner is legally different from a plane crashed under unclear circumstances during a terrorist attack. One falls under the President's mandate of attack and natioanl defense. A military shoot-down might open some whole different line of procedings - trials, evidence, media coverage - questions like "how did it get to that point? how did hijackers get through like that?" - and a process not controlled from the hite House. I'm not sure of the laws at all and frankly am afraid to look.
But it's worth a thought.


Good point!

One more thought...

Maybe they planted to seeds of the "inside job" in order to undermine the rank-and-file al-Qaeda member's beliefs that bin Laden actually pulled it off. It might take some of the wind out of their sails if the average Mohammed on the street doubted the "official" al-Qaeda story. Only problem with this theory is I don't think the yo-yos in Washington would have been smart enough to think it up.

In any case, as long as they aren't arrested, it doesn't hurt them if people think they pulled off 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join