U.S. Secretary of Defense admits Flight 93 was Shot Down

During a speech to troops, one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was shot down, in clear and concise terms.

SecDef Rumsfeld

. . . or 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.

Have a look for yourself:

Video.

For a bit of extra info on Flight 93, go here.


I dunno, rip and debunk this to little pieces if you want, but I very seriously doubt he would have made a mistake or slipped up that bad.

The stuff he had to go through to even get the post he's in now, there is no way he would muck up that horribly. Of course, the Pentagon immediately came out and said it was a slip of the tongue; but if you believe that, then your membership to ATS ought to be revoked.

p.s. I know this is old, but I think a lot of people are missing really obvious points in the 9/11 arguments.

Ahh, and I see, looking back through the pages, Rumsfeld has 'slipped up' previously. He stated that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an aircraft. Once, possibly. Twice? No way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, in fact, Im gonna post a whole new thread with my findings tomorrow, since this one is now hijacked. Ohh, Im soo tired . . .

[edit on 2/6/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

I know people who work for the government. IMO, there is no way for someone of Rumsfeld's caliber to slip up that much. Their speeches are written and re-written several times before they are spoken. So, all these edits on his speech had "shot down" still in it? I highly doubt it.

It had to be a slip of the tongue. Freudian slip if there ever was one.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, it could be that the plan was indeed to shoot it down but they never made it in time, hence the Freudian slip.

In fact, if they had shot the plane down over empty territory in order to prevent it crashing into another building with people in it, such action could be deemed justifiable if all other options were exhausted or impossible.

Now if Flight 93 was indeed shot down, the important question is: why? Was it to prevent another building attack, or, out on a limb here, did the passengers figure out how to deactivate the remote control system and were going to land the plane and spill the beans? Or was it a drone and the real Flight 93 landed elsewhere, a la Operation Northwoods, but the remote control system on the drone malfunctioned/stopped responding?

I don't think we'll ever know unless a pilot comes forward to confess.

People typically correct themselves when they make a Freudian Slip. He did not even flinch because it was the truth.

i personally believe it was shot down and always will. i remember watching the news after the first palne hit, and i kept watching, that flight 93 was well known about and they did have enough time to shot it down.
i remember seeing stories about that over the day or so after, than every one just forgot it. it seemed the press did not want to go near the story.
but like i say i remember that few hours well, and i remember how the news was reporting it.
and like they said above if rumsfield says something like that and does not back track straight away, he most probably is admiting it, even though the press did not semm to want to follow up.

watch_the_rocks

Thanks for bringing this up. I remember reading about both those 'slips', flight 93 being shot down and the missile hitting the pentagon.

The thing about lies is that after awhile, they catch up with you. And the 9/11 story, if it all was a lie, has many, many angles that needed to be covered up. After awhile, I imagine it must be hard for someone in the know to remember what was the truth and what was a lie.

If the truth was that the passengers took over the plane and the plane crashed, there is no way Rummy says 'it was shot down' at all. He said that because he slipped and let the real truth out.

another point that has always gotten to me.
the 8 mile debris field:

I just dont see how a plane that crashed leaces this kind of huge area of debris. If it was shot down however this could be the case. Thanks RUMMY for clearing this up for us....you traitorous swine!

I believed it was shot down too, but if it was, where did it crash? There is no evidence of a plane with thousands of gallons of fuel on board crashing any where near where we were told.

See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

just the old "cant keep track of his own lies" situation...

hell can ya blame him? hes old... and soooooooo many lies to keep track of....
no wonder he has flatulence problems...

if you had keep track of the lies he does, you would have digestive problems too...

6 witnesses
rick gibney, the pilot who shot it down


inconclusive, yet viable, in my opinion.

unlike a plane hitting the ground, and then leaving a little dent in the ground, and debris spread out over miles.

Rumsfeld is not saying the United States Air Force shot down the plane. He is insinuating that it was shot down by "Terrorists". His memory is slipping, he forgot the transcript he was suppose to follow, but with all lies sooner or later they will be exposed.

How much more evidence is needed before the round up is executed?

Okay, my head's really spinning, here. Bear with me for a moment while I demonstrate my ignorance.

Two planes crash into the Twin Towers. A third plane (humor me) impacts the Pentagon. A fourth plane is flying over Pennsylvania, under control of terrorist hijackers en route to who knows where.

Maybe it's headed to the White House, maybe to a densely populated metropolitan area. Why would you not shoot the plane down over an isolated area rather than allow it to continue to an unknown destination? I don't know that it was shot down, but would that be such an unreasonable act, given the circumstances?

I'm having a very difficult time assimilating all the theories into anything that makes any sense. If (a) the administration was behind 9-11, why would they shoot down one of the planes? If (b) the admin wasn't involved, wouldn't shooting the plane down over an isolated area make more sense than allowing it to continue to a critical or highly populated target?

That's why I don't think it was shot down. There's no reason to not admit that it was, if in fact that's what happened.

Help me out. Am I way off base here?

Originally posted by yeahright
Okay, my head's really spinning, here. Bear with me for a moment while I demonstrate my ignorance.

Two planes crash into the Twin Towers. A third plane (humor me) impacts the Pentagon. A fourth plane is flying over Pennsylvania, under control of terrorist hijackers en route to who knows where.

Maybe it's headed to the White House, maybe to a densely populated metropolitan area. Why would you not shoot the plane down over an isolated area rather than allow it to continue to an unknown destination? I don't know that it was shot down, but would that be such an unreasonable act, given the circumstances?

I'm having a very difficult time assimilating all the theories into anything that makes any sense. If (a) the administration was behind 9-11, why would they shoot down one of the planes? If (b) the admin wasn't involved, wouldn't shooting the plane down over an isolated area make more sense than allowing it to continue to a critical or highly populated target?

That's why I don't think it was shot down. There's no reason to not admit that it was, if in fact that's what happened.

Help me out. Am I way off base here?

yep i think they should of just told the truth it was shot down, but probably would look bad, american pilot shotting down american jets.

Originally posted by yeahrightWhy would you not shoot the plane down over an isolated area rather than allow it to continue to an unknown destination?

I'm still having trouble finding where it landed if it was shot down! Anybody?

This is strange. Why the all of a sudden non chalant statement. It was like he was telling us about how he saw a squirrel in a tree. As if it was common knowledge. I'm curious to see what comes from this.

Originally posted by andy1033
yep i think they should of just told the truth it was shot down, but probably would look bad, american pilot shotting down american jets.

I don't think that would look nearly as bad as allowing a plane apparently destined to be used as a suicide weapon to continue to a populated target. Given what happened to the other planes, that one was going down, anyway. The only question was where.

Anyone happen to notice that when he says the people who shot down the plane in PA, that the two people behind him are like "huh?". The guy looks over to someone else and the lady has this stunned look on her face. Everyone in that room noticed his slip-up except for him.

Originally posted by Griff
Anyone happen to notice that when he says the people who shot down the plane in PA, that the two people behind him are like "huh?". The guy looks over to someone else and the lady has this stunned look on her face. Everyone in that room noticed his slip-up except for him.

OR


Some one walked, ever notice in a class room when some one walked in during a lecture....it's instinct to turn...don't know why.

Could be, but it's very coincidental that it happened at the exact same moment.

Or do you mean that someone walked in or out BECAUSE of what he said?

Originally posted by yeahright
I'm having a very difficult time assimilating all the theories into anything that makes any sense. If (a) the administration was behind 9-11, why would they shoot down one of the planes? If (b) the admin wasn't involved, wouldn't shooting the plane down over an isolated area make more sense than allowing it to continue to a critical or highly populated target?

(a) If they lost 'control' of the aircraft they would have to 'abort' to destroy the evidence. If things were not going according to plans they would have virtually no choice.

(b) If this is what happened, why lie? If they did lie about this then i propse that they are capable and willing to lie about a lot of things that went on that day.