Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by yourmaker
anyone remember that movie where the people on flight 93 'bravely' fought the terrorists to reclaim the plane, only to have it crash?....

so that was bs?? LOL thats hilarious! it fooled so many!

The movie, while fiction (both in being a literal movie while also being based on fiction to begin with and not the true series of events) still gives people the "logic" they need to think in terms of the official narrative. The military was off track (in the movie it was a female officer, visibly shaking, crying a bit, was she to blame

sounds pretty sexist to me). And then when they rush through the door at the last minute just as the pilots take a nose dive, all neatly organized with Hollywood magic to make it seem like it is plausible even though it's not based on any facts. (the movie ends at that point, they don't for example show the coroner failing to find bodies or the plane parts scattered six miles away).

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

You have just raised my eyebrows. How could they depict a crashed plane? Everybody and his brother would have had a hay-day comparing the photos of the disintegrated plane with Hollyweird's depiction of a realistic-looking crash.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

If Zacarias Moussaoui is a planted patsy (which many believe) then how can a mock trial and its evidence, prove anything?

It really doesn't matter what Moussaoui is or isn't or even which side of the 9/11 issue someone stands on. The link I dropped with specific exhibit numbers are the "official" photos of the Flight 93 crash scene from the air and to some detail on the ground. That included the excavation of the engines....they were buried (At least the APU was). Apparently, airplanes do odd things when they make a STEEP angle impact at several hundred miles an hour.


Just a thought for the thread....but let's say Cheney's order (which WAS a matter of public record years ago) was followed. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Shanksville crash site is missing some key parts because they were blown off and came down a distance away. Evidence to the contrary, but lets assume it for just a second.

What motive would there be for never admitting such a shoot down actually happened, despite openly saying it had been ordered? How about the consideration for the men who would have been directly involved in such an order being followed? (and I agree, it was necessary under the circumstances). There can't be a military fighter pilot in the world who isn't at least familiar with the Korean Air 007 in a passing way. I think the horror of having to do it would be enough without being publicly known, by name, as the man who fired the weapon or the C.O. who gave the final green light to do it.

Just a thought for alternative reasons why a mini-cover up on that specific aspect might have occurred..........

that picture of the crash site is sad. you can google plane crash sites and see images of actual plane debris.

even if the passengers overpowered the terrorists how did he manage to get a commercial plane to do a complete vertical dive.

if that was an olympic dive, the pilot would have scored 10's across the board.

maybe the plane was shot down because the passangers did take over and would have stopped the plane from hitting its intended target

reply to post by getreadyalready


I also don't believe that our nations capital wouldn't have an air defense strategy. Since when are leaders of countries vulnerable to attacks. D.C. always had a no fly zone, it wasn't just created for no apparent reason. Leaving the head of the snake vulnerable to enemies has never been military strategy. Jets can't be scrambled quick enough to defend our nations capital? I doubt our political elite wouldn't cover their a$$e$.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I also don't believe that our nations capital wouldn't have an air defense strategy. Since when are leaders of countries vulnerable to attacks. D.C. always had a no fly zone, it wasn't just created for no apparent reason. Leaving the head of the snake vulnerable to enemies has never been military strategy. Jets can't be scrambled quick enough to defend our nations capital? I doubt our political elite wouldn't cover their a$$e$.

Which is why after 9/11, our military got such a boost in funding and a revamping of emergency scramble drills. Now, we could probably shoot foreign pigeons attempting to fly into restricted airspace.

reply to post by randomname

Just a thought here....but this one is a "pretty sad" crash site too.

Value-Jet Flight 592

Like I said, planes do real odd things when they go almost straight in at several hundred miles an hour. The funny thing is though, I remembered Flight 592 from having seen the coverage when it happened. However, when I went looking for an example to cite here with a decent image of how small a spot a plane load of people 'became', half the sources I saw were from here.

Must be Deja Vu, but it seems several threads here have those crash site images. Yikes... You'd almost think entirely different sets of people had the exact same discussion before... Odd.

What was that again about how the fact these divisions exist at all are the real tragedy of 9/11?

WOW!!! I can see why shooting down one would be on the table as a course of action, but to lie to us this whole time shows thats what they said happened didnt... now the question is what else they left out.

The US has a reputation of a World Changing Event occuring, they covering it up and calling all consipiracey theorist crazies. then 10 20 30 years later admitting the truth... THE WORST PART of this is. WE LET THEM DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its happened over and over..

Originally posted by filosophia


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.

But if it wasn't Al-Qaueda's plan and Cheney was in on it then he foiled his own plan! Can you not see this?

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?

The plane was late to take off which gave the people on the plane information about what was happening elsewhere and they decided to act. Likewise if you believe a shootdown the reason they got to this plane was because it was behind schedule. Simple.

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,

How does it show that? How would AL Qaeda have known that? And how did the reconstruction affect the crash?

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)

If America is supposed to be in a "perpetual war" in the Middle East why is it not at war in the Middle East?

Originally posted by filosophia


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)

I literally don't understand what you mean. He's saying that he made the call to shoot down the plane and he believes that was necessary. The correct thing to do. What's remotely odd about that?

reply to post by dreb13


Yeah, yeah, planted disinformation, well done Cheney. This is why nobody reveals the truth because a lot of people are distracted by such statements.

Originally posted by filosophia


Oh, but he did.

So he's talking about himself? Because he's talking about the people who perpetrated the crime. So why would he do this? Unless of course it's a slip of the tongue, which seems an awful lot more likely. In any case, I've l already said that it's quite possible it was shot down. But that that makes Cheney and Rumsfeld's involvement in a conspiracy far less likely.

This is what you seem to struggle with. If they shot it down they were foiling their own plan.

Originally posted by Human_Alien


Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

They found books, clothing and even human remains miles from the impact site.

Earlier you said that no human remains were found. Actually you said that about flight 77, but I assume you meant 93.

I don't understand.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Human_Alien


Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

They found books, clothing and even human remains miles from the impact site.

Earlier you said that no human remains were found. Actually you said that about flight 77, but I assume you meant 93.

I don't understand.

Yes, I mean Flight 93. There were so many 'funny' flights that day it's hard to keep them straight!



What I meant was, at first (when responders FIRST got there) they were reporting no signs of any Human remains. There was hardly any signs of any discernible debris......anywhere!!

It's been suggested, and not that far-fetched: they (whoever 'they' are) started relocating the 'parts' to match the crash impact.


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...




I don't know about you but I certainly trust and believe the immediate witnesses and reports way before I do the official (3-years in the making) story!!!!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000




What motive would there be for never admitting such a shoot down actually happened, despite openly saying it had been ordered?

The ramifications of their People (us) knowing they are quite capable of slaughtering their own people. Even though it would've been alleged: "They killed a few to save a village" it still wouldn't have flown (no pun intended).

Same basic theory (conclusion) would be directed at the WTCs. They would NEVER admit to demolition because, at the end of the day, the government killed their own people.

There's an image to uphold here in the good ol' US of A and that's that this government LOVES and protects their people.
And as long as the PTB have spin-doctors (media) and damage control writers (shills), it's way too easier to do the blame game instead. Especially when there's double value in it. (Take the onus/heat off them and.............incite a war too) Two for the price of one!!!

This government will never ever admit to killing their own people on their own land. That will never happen.

Just heard an actual recording on the news a few minutes ago, with military personnel affirming that VP Cheney gave the go ahead to shoot the plane down.

I think many of us can agree it was shot out of the sky, and the reason there was nothing left of the plane on the ground.

The conspriacy here is we were lead to believe for the last ten years, that it crashed of it's own accord. That means that is what the govt wanted the general public to believe. Yes, there were hints to it being shot down, but no admission, and a fairy tale of a plane full of people that overtook terrorists, but failed and crashed was the official story. SOOOOO, with the comments of Cheney, the new video of the air explosion, the lack of a plane on the ground in one area, we can assume it was indeed shot down.

So they lied to us once, but only once? They expect us to be ok with one lie, but we have to believe the rest of the official story? That is where we should all be at this point.....in disbelief of the entire official story.

i'm not sure what people expect. should they not have shot down the plane? or should they not have lied about it.

NEWSFLASH: This is just in! Someone at the highest levels of governement lied about something!

AND THIS JUST IN: A man has just been bitten by a dog!! Film at 11:00.

I'm glad most of the people are smart enough to tell the differance between giving the order and it accually happening.

My question is this: If they had shot down flight 93, why would they hide it? You really think the american people would want them hung for that? Or would people accept that a heavy choice had to be made and unfortunatly, we had to shoot down a plane full of people that were 99.9% condemed, to save others.

You what, think the government shot it down, then when all the 911 calls recording the passenger revolt came to light, they went WOO HOO! QUICK! PRETEND IT WAS THEM!

reply to post by dreb13


He didn't say he gave the order to shoot the plane down, he said he gave the airforce the authority to do so. That makes a big difference.

I was working with a guy that day whose son worked for the DOD. As everything was happening he was on the phone with his son and I'll never forget - he covered the mouthpiece with his hand, turned to the rest of us and said "we just shot one down over PA" ... I remember it like it was yesterday and gives me chills when I think about it.