Posted on 12/27/2004 7:55:49 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It won't. This story will go a hell lot further than both the Oil for Food program and the sex scandal.
*sigh*
Unfortunately I think you're right.
When was anything ever settled with crackpots?
I vote for "misspoke." Reading the article, sounds like it. I've done stuff like that.
I think he meant brought down (not shot down) in the sense of not letting it land again. It should not be a big deal to anyone. Folks misspeak all the time.
Sheesh....how old is Rummy? 70? Can't they give him a BREAK!!!????
Art Bell and George Nouri will salivate on this for years
The bar has been set at "perfection". One misstep or misspoken word and it's "Off with his head".
The plane auger-ed in under full thrust.
If it were shot down, it would not be so, and the plane would likely not have been in one piece. It was, and it did. So it could not have been shot down. All audio tapes and phone conversations via cell phone also indicate this.
So, there really should be no fuss.
For most people there was no "debunking" needed as the rational types understood plain English.
You can call me a conspiracy nut if you want but I am not sold on the idea that the plane was not shot down. Too many "little" things are still unanswered for.
I wonder if Oliver Stone has sewn up the movie rights yet?
More fertilizer for the kumquats and orange pumpkins.
Then there is the 9/11 Commission report that clearly states all 'conspiracy theories' are simply false.
Now THAT is an interesting read!
Even in his misspeak, he is claiming the terrorists shot down the plane, not us.
If I were going the conspiracy route I would say he knows of other terrorist plane downings like 800 and 587. It was a verbal slip in that sense.
"Back and to the left. Back and to the left."
You're a conspiracy walnut.
He works for Bush. Ain't happening.
I dunno guys.... i'm not much for conspiracy theories.... but i still think that flight was shot down by our jets due to the debris field being so large and i also think TWA-800 was shot down (by terrorists with shoulder fired rockets.... too many people saw con-trails)
Finally, a theory that fully explains the reports that a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away! I have no doubt that Sec. Rumsfeld (whom I respect greatly) misspoke, the question is whether his misstatement was in fact a rare revelation of the truth.
If you still havn't been SOLD on the plane being downed because it was compromised by terrorists, yes, you are a nutter. Pip. Off you go.
"I think he meant brought down (not shot down) in the sense of not letting it land again."
I thought so too.
He was speaking of the terrorists in each instance. So he must have meant "brought down," not "shot down."
This is much ado about nothing.
"i still think that flight was shot down by our jets due to the debris field being so large"want to back that up with a link???
"Art Bell and George Nouri will salivate on this for years"
Didn't this looney retire a few times. Or, you mean his entertainment show is still on?
He's just pushing their buttons over at scAIR AMERICA.
LOL!
Thanks.
Actually, Rummy should say something off the cuff about Roswell and later something about JFK and give all the conspiracy wingnuts something to drool over.
Then I can write a few select blog entries and start a new conspiracy movement to prove Rummy has been taken over by a supreme being to reveal all the secrets of the world before the end times.
Before too long, Rummy will have his own set of counter culture worshippers based on nothing other than the mental lapses of an old man.
Name one and I guarantee you it has been answered and documented.
Kind of a dumb statement from a dumber commission.
Certainly conspiracies exist but I am afraid this one ain't one. I think Rummy meant to say brought down, not shot down.
Please tell me where I said that terrorists weren't involved. I do believe they took control of the plane.
"Eight miles away in New Baltimore, Melanie Hankinson said she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine. Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.
that mirror is a load of crap!!! the engine is the easiest to explain... violent movements during the takeover took the plane OUTSIDE of the DESIGN ENVELOPE and one of the engines snapped off. a four engine plane can fly a long time on three engines, any fighter pilot worth his salt would put a load of 20mm through the cockpit windows and put it down right then and there!!! anything else found on the ground is nothing more than the plane shedding lost skin etc. and could be smoking/on fire from the engine being ripped off the plane.
I also believe mideasteners were involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. I guess that makes me a double-nut.
The plane WAS NOT shot down. You said it. Not me. Don't suggest that I'm telling you that you're a nutter for suggesting it was SHOT DOWN when that's extactly what you are suggesting. The plane was downed. It was by folks on it. Terrorists, or passengers, brought it down. Make a stand one way or another. -Mal
Its no secret that a huge engine section was found over a mile away and light fragments were scattered some 8 miles away from the main crash area.
I've read this from many reputible sources.
And FYI, i'm not much for conspiracy theories. My ex-fiancee's good freind and (co-flight attendant) was the girl on the United Airlines jet that hit the WTC... you can hear her gurggling blood in the background of the recording... her throat slit.
My ex-fiancee was supposed to be on that plane. So this tragedy really hits home for me and is something i dont screw around with.
One of our air to air missiles would have taken the entire engine and part of the wing.the plane would have fallen at no more than about 300mph.
The plane hit at a very high rate of speed. Something a damaged plane with a missing engine could not possible have done. And there was no indication from passengers that anything like that occurred. Also, if we had shot it down, don't you think that we would have acknowledged it since orders had been given to do exactly that.
In point of fact, we actually failed to shoot it down before it crashed and the defense dept. got criticized for that as well.
The DOD transcript has not been posted yet. The CNN transcriber could have misunderstood, however I got a FR post from a new freeper on the day of Rumsfeld speech who posted that Rumsfeld stated shot down. But when I checked on that freeper yesterday, I found that evidently she/he had signed up just to make that one post.
But what of the piece of engine?
pls see #36... i knew about the engine but i didn't consider it a large field, just the engine and some skin etc. along the way
I thought he said "brought down".
If he did not,I did not catch it and it would certainly have been a simple flub.
I have personally witnessed 2000lb bombs broaching on impact and landing over a mile from their original point of impact. A 1000 pound piece of engine landing a mile away from a 500 mph impacting aircraft just isn't that surprising. I had a buddy fly into the ground several years ago, and some hunters recovered his foot more than a mile away from his crash site several months later. It had been buried in the snow and was decently preserved. Crash sites and explosions are strange things. No two are the same, and none of them make sense to anyone who isn't an expert in the field.
Please don't confuse the loyal sycophants with facts.
You mean the passengers punched the terrorists so hard the engine fell off?
Lookie here.
Explosion? From what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.