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.

 

Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I don't WANT the shoot down order to be enacted swiftly or slowly, I WANT the shadow government not to stage false flag attacks, and I WANT the government not to cover up what the shadow government (CIA, NSA) is up to.

I'm sorry if you thought I flip flopped when it came to wanting Cheney to shoot down or not shoot down. If it was up to me he wouldn't have gotten into the bunker in the first place.
edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The order was given after United 93 crashed.


So the order was necessary even though flight 93 had already crashed


Okay, now it all makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't. How was the order necessary if the plane was already crashed?

Contrary to truther mythology, Dick Cheney is not, in fact, omniscient. He doesn't, and didn't, know the status of every aircraft over the continental United States.


Well it's a good thing then he wasn't in charge. Oh wait...he was. Maybe he should have been held accountable for not knowing rather than trusted to invade Iraq based on lies. And since when does a single person have to be omniscient, don't they have aides and officers working for them?


Yes. And those people can telepathically know the position and situation of every plane in the United States.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I don't WANT the shoot down order to be enacted swiftly or slowly, I WANT the shadow government not to stage false flag attacks, and I WANT the government not to cover up what the shadow government (CIA, NSA) is up to.


So the speed of the shoot down is irrelevant? Why did you bring it up as though it was suspicious? Anyone would think you were just firing out any old rubbish in an attempt to find criminality where none exists.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The order was given after United 93 crashed.


So the order was necessary even though flight 93 had already crashed


Okay, now it all makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't. How was the order necessary if the plane was already crashed?

Contrary to truther mythology, Dick Cheney is not, in fact, omniscient. He doesn't, and didn't, know the status of every aircraft over the continental United States.


Well it's a good thing then he wasn't in charge. Oh wait...he was. Maybe he should have been held accountable for not knowing rather than trusted to invade Iraq based on lies. And since when does a single person have to be omniscient, don't they have aides and officers working for them?


Yes. And those people can telepathically know the position and situation of every plane in the United States.


No, but let's get real, their job is to know, and of course it was harder for them since so many war games were going on, but the military ought to know, it's not even really the issue if in fact the plane was shot down. It shows that whoever was controlling the military (Cheney) was being efficient, while the war games made everything else inefficient. What I'm saying is the plane was shot down (at least the evidence points to this) but Cheney is saying he gave the order to avoid looking incompetent, but then lied in order to ramp up the emotional appeal of 9/11 as opposed to just saying America destroyed the plane.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OleMB
 


Keep searching for the MISSING LINK. Question one: How does a jet plane traveling at 300 to 500 mph create an almost straight vertical crater and end up 45 feet into the ground (4 stories down). YES the plane was shot down by EXECUTIVE DECISION and still has traces of chemical/electronic LASER WEAPON residue.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I don't WANT the shoot down order to be enacted swiftly or slowly, I WANT the shadow government not to stage false flag attacks, and I WANT the government not to cover up what the shadow government (CIA, NSA) is up to.


So the speed of the shoot down is irrelevant? Why did you bring it up as though it was suspicious? Anyone would think you were just firing out any old rubbish in an attempt to find criminality where none exists.


It's suspicious that he called the order necessary when the plane was already crashed. Or if he didn't know it was crashed, it's suspicious he still says the order was necessary when it came too late, it should have been necessary prior to that. It's also suspicious that he says the plane wasn't shot down when Rumsfeld said it was and when the evidence points to this. So there are a lot of things suspicious about Cheney. What's really suspicious is that he doesn't admit to any mistakes when it comes to Iraq, that's suspicious as well.
edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

How would it foil their plan? I'm not sure what you mean by this. It foiled the plan to shoot the plane down? The phone calls have been proven to be fake and there was not a plane that crashed at Shanksville, so most likely they also faked the story about the passengers taking the plane out.


Can you not see that the crash foiled the plane from reaching its intended target? If you can't grasp something this basic then I'm not sure there's any point proceeding.




Nothing was clear that day



Thought we'd get that one.

It's not an excuse to just make stuff up, evade the implications of your arguments or avoid answering the most basic flaws in your ideas. Although you seem wedded to the notion that it is.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
There's so many errors here it beggars belief.


Originally posted by filosophia

It's suspicious that he called the order necessary when the plane was already crashed. Or if he didn't know it was crashed,


He didn't.


it's suspicious he still says the order was necessary when it came too late, it should have been necessary prior to that.


He says the order was necessary at the time. He feels it was the right order to give. Not that it remained necessary after the they discovered the pane had crashed. He doesn't mean that it's still necessary now, obviously.But that at the time it was the required response.

This is incredibly simple.


It's also suspicious that he says the plane wasn't shot down when Rumsfeld said it was and when the evidence points to this.


Rumsfeld didn't say it was. But it's not that suspicious. It certainly doesn't suggest a false flag, does it? Because if he was running a false flag he specifically wouldn't be preventing it from happening!

The most "suspicious" thing here actually suggests that your notions of a conspiracy involving a shadow government are probably wrong.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
There is another angle to this story....

Colonel David Hackworth reported that there was an Air Force Officer on duty the day of 911 that did not obey the Cheney order to "stand down". It was that AF Officer who saved the day and kept the US from being put under "martial law" since Flight 93 was headed for Capital Hill. Now of course I can't find that story on the net. If anyone can I would really appreciate a URL to it. Hackworth made his claims according to inside info that he was privy to due to his long military career and many contacts within the Pentagon. But... who knows? That's life... plausible deniability. I have seen many plane crashes and not one has "liquefied". Hackworth's story might explain the "shoot down/stand down" enigma.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Can you not see that the crash foiled the plane from reaching its intended target? If you can't grasp something this basic then I'm not sure there's any point proceeding.



It foiled "al Qaeda's" plan, but that's assuming I think it was an al Qaeda plan to begin with, which I don't. Even if you think it was an al Qaeda plan, don't you find it odd that the only plane that failed to reach its target was the one aimed at the white house? Doesn't this suggest the military has their priorities in order and the American public is not one of them? But the coincidence of hitting the one side that was being reconstructed at the pentagon just shows the entire al Qaeda "plan" was impossible to begin with, it was a shadow government, CIA plan from the start, including the highest members of the executive branch including Dick Cheney, and was of military origin for the sake of geo politics.

I'm just answering your questions honestly, trying to help you see a different perspective, but if you think I'm just making stuff up then why are you even bothering talking to me? Which I'm not, by the way, making stuff up. None of this is my own opinion, only my best guess at what is real based upon numerous opinions. I'm not creative enough to come up with a 30 year old plan to push America into perpetual war in the middle east with the assistance of Israel and the CIA.
edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Of course he did silly.


www.youtube.com...


No one was on board anyway.

www.youtube.com...






In the entire history of plane crashes, this was the first time not a single cell belonging to any man or woman on the ill-fated flight 77 was ever found.

In the entire history of plane crashes has a single plane; crashed (in a hole) and still...... its remnants scattered over 8-miles of land.

In the entire history of hijacking were the hijackers capable of over-powering a cockpit yet over taken by the "Let's Roll" passengers.

In the entire history of fires, did two steel and concrete buildings fall in less than an hour due to kerosene/plane fuel.

In the entire history of fires,did a steel and concrete building fall due to ANOTHER fire in ANOTHER building.

In the entire history of cell phone, were people able to use their cell phones despite cell phone towers.

In the entire history of war-mongering, did the perpetrator (bin Laden) denied involvement instead of celebrating.

In the entire history of flying, have four cockpits been taken over four different times in the same day using plastic knives.

In the entire history of security measures in US airports have 19 Arab men gone undetected wielding 'box-cutters'

In the entire history of aviation has a plane ever hit five objects in flight (5 lamp posts) and carry on as if nothing happened.

In the entire history of physics, has an airplane been able to punch holes in one of the worlds most protected and guarded building as if it were a missile.

In the entire history of United States of America has a government FAILED to cooperate with their strung out and paranoid citizens and just FINALLY put the entire 9-11 conspiracy debacle to rest so we can be united again
etc etc etc...............................


In the entire history of history........why is it on that ONE particular day....so many FIRST-TIME evers, happened?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


He says the order was necessary at the time. He feels it was the right order to give. Not that it remained necessary after the they discovered the pane had crashed. He doesn't mean that it's still necessary now, obviously.But that at the time it was the required response.



www.foxnews.com...


Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended his Sept. 11, 2001, order to shoot down hijacked planes over Washington, saying the call was "necessary."


Seems like he is still suggesting it was necessary. If the plane was never shot down, it was necessary long before he gave the order. But that's assuming the OS is true, which most likely it is not.
edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Rumsfeld didn't say it was.




Oh, but he did.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because if he was running a false flag he specifically wouldn't be preventing it from happening!


His actions surrounding the pentagon stand down order suggests he had to have been on the inside, there's no way he was just an ignorant fool like Bush. Cheney was and still is more cold calculating. But without some type of crash or explosion, there'd be nothing to base the 9/11 fable off of. You're assuming there was a real terrorist attack when in fact the entire thing could have been staged.

edit on 7-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Of course he did silly.


www.youtube.com...


No one was on board anyway.

www.youtube.com...






In the entire history of plane crashes, this was the first time not a single cell belonging to any man or woman on the ill-fated flight 77 was ever found.

In the entire history of plane crashes has a single plane; crashed (in a hole) and still...... its remnants scattered over 8-miles of land.

In the entire history of hijacking were the hijackers capable of over-powering a cockpit yet over taken by the "Let's Roll" passengers.

In the entire history of fires, did two steel and concrete buildings fall in less than an hour due to kerosene/plane fuel.

In the entire history of fires,did a steel and concrete building fall due to ANOTHER fire in ANOTHER building.

In the entire history of cell phone, were people able to use their cell phones despite cell phone towers.

In the entire history of war-mongering, did the perpetrator (bin Laden) denied involvement instead of celebrating.

In the entire history of flying, have four cockpits been taken over four different times in the same day using plastic knives.

In the entire history of security measures in US airports have 19 Arab men gone undetected wielding 'box-cutters'

In the entire history of aviation has a plane ever hit five objects in flight (5 lamp posts) and carry on as if nothing happened.

In the entire history of physics, has an airplane been able to punch holes in one of the worlds most protected and guarded building as if it were a missile.

In the entire history of United States of America has a government FAILED to cooperate with their strung out and paranoid citizens and just FINALLY put the entire 9-11 conspiracy debacle to rest so we can be united again
etc etc etc...............................


In the entire history of history........why is it on that ONE particular day....so many FIRST-TIME evers, happened?






You forgot one...

In the entire history of aviation...indestructible black boxes were vaporized or never found.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
No, but let's get real, their job is to know, and of course it was harder for them since so many war games were going on, but the military ought to know, it's not even really the issue if in fact the plane was shot down. It shows that whoever was controlling the military (Cheney) was being efficient, while the war games made everything else inefficient.

An interesting theory. Is there any evidence that exercises on 9/11 decreased military readiness, particularly with respect to United 93? Do you have examples of previous military exercises having a deleterious effect on readiness? If exercises decrease readiness, why are they so often conducted close to enemy territory?

I will save you some time and tell you there isn't any, they generally don't, and because they do, in fact, involve a high level of alertness.


What I'm saying is the plane was shot down (at least the evidence points to this)

No evidence points to this.


but Cheney is saying he gave the order to avoid looking incompetent, but then lied in order to ramp up the emotional appeal of 9/11 as opposed to just saying America destroyed the plane.

So somewhere there was an O-3 who just decided to shoot down an airliner without any authority or any particular reason to do so, and he lied about it, and everyone in his unit lied about it, and everyone above him in the chain of command up to the President lied about it, and the FBI lied about it, and the NTSB lied about it, and a bunch of people living in or around Shanksville lied about it, and, all the tapes of radio conversations between military aircraft and their bases and ATC lied about it. All of this was perfectly orchestrated by Dick Cheney, in order to ramp up the emotional appeal surrounding the most emotional event in decades.

I get it. Dick Cheney isn't omniscient. He's omnipotent.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Rather than trying to sort out what you think I think, I'll just say I think the plane was shot down, since the scattered debris seems to indicate this. .



No up-track debris that would indicate a shoot-down was reported. No projectiles or cartridge gases were found from cannon fire. No missile parts were reported nor were sounds of missile strikes reported before impact.

What is your position? Shoot down, crash, or faked event?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


One school of thought put forwards over the years is one of the jets rigged to be flown by remote (the mentioned AWACS) it would have been easy enough to take control of the plane.

If something had gone wrong with the remote link (as we know, technology isn't always reliable) and the remote 'pilot' had lost some level of control, or the aircraft looked as though it may land or crash in pieces big enough for crash investigators to piece together the fact that either the plane was packed with explosives, or carried no passengers or human pilots, but had been pre-rigged for remote control...everything, the whole dirty business of the FF events of that day would have been exposed.

They had to either detonate on-board explosives or shoot it out of the sky, effectively blowing it to bits, over a wide area. Missile inventory checking out has been mentioned...does this inventory take into account gun rounds? Fighters test their guns before combat, every now and again, if the plane was carrying explosives (and jet fuel obviously) and not passengers, the fighter guns would have taken it out on their own, no missiles required.

Get their 'own people' to clear the debris and that prevents testing the bits and pieces for explosive residue. Not that it would matter...WTC and surroundings were covered with nano thermite, and that discovery hasn't changed much in the OS if anything at all.

The above about F93 is hypothetical of course, as unless we get a high level whistleblower who was privy to all this from the inside, trying to save themselves, this stuff will be trapped in a circular debate for decades to come.

I agree that in legitimate circumstances where an aircraft is hijacked and heading for a populated area, the thing should probably be taken out of the sky.

But what a slug Cheney is...'I didn't order it, we all did'...then says it was Bush's decision, effectively saying 'no, wasn't me, it was him, him!' Of course Bush had to 'sign off' on it as POTUS, but everyone knows Cheney made all the decisions in the White house, Bush didn't take a dump without Cheney giving him the nod.
Slimy git.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This is total speculation, but I started thinking about it years ago, and I'm surprised not to see anyone suggest it here... what if flight 93 was shot down because the passengers were taking control back from the hijackers?

This is pretty far through the looking glass, but I think it's interesting to consider, and offers a possible explanation to the questions in this thread - i.e., if Cheney was involved in an inside job, then why would he give an order to shoot down one of the planes instead of allowing it to hit its target? Possibly because he knew it wouldn't hit its target, and that the passengers were about to foil his plans...

To be clear, I'm not saying I believe this is what happened (and I realize it's a pretty horrible thing to consider, but I'm not one to shy away from thinking about horrible things, since I know horrible things have been done all through history). In fact, I don't know much of anything about what happened. I know there's a lot of evidence that doesn't make sense, and that makes me wonder about what might have happened. This is a scenario I could imagine, but I wouldn't say that I "believe" it, since I don't have evidence to support it.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Agreed, it's possible.

Would also link into the speculation about something on the aircraft not being legit...remote control, explosives or total lack of any terrorists...whatever the reason, using pure speculation alone, it would not be something that could be discovered, so it had to be destroyed.

I speculate Flight 93 was never headed for Washington, but instead was intended to be headed back to NY..specifically Building 7 WTC. Something went wrong with the control of the aircraft, and they destroyed it before it could 'melt' building 7's steel frame and bring the third ever steel framed building down 'due to fire' in the history of the world...not that building 7 could remain standing, prewired as it was with explosives...it had to come down, as did the errant jetliner that was meant to crash into it.

Speculation, so calm down everyone!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join