Rummy just made a hell of a slip!

Ajnag

Just saw this, Not sure yet how big an impact this is gonna make, but rummy mightnt be with us much longer. No doubt denial will be issued, but this is one that will have everyone thinking. Also what would it mean, would there be any justification what so ever for covering it up?

say: If it had to be done, the plane was shot down, the news was to sensitive at the time to release, and from that continued because it was started in the first place.

I doubt that would do, but as I say there will be a lot of questions about this.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane
'shot down' in Pennsylvania
During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story
Posted: December 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?


Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who 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. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked jumbo jets, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

Well-founded uncertainly as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.

Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"

Also heres a link to the Cnn transcript http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html

spongebob

BUT the USAF should have shot the damn thing down so where is the conspiracy ?

M

gandalf

Well until it hits the mainstream news services I do not see it causing any issues.

Muck in answer to your point if this turns out to be true why did they make up a completely different story at the time?

spongebob

My recollection of the time was that a light aircraft reportedly hit the first tower , it was pandemonium and chaos on the day with reports of about 6-8 hijacks , F16s in the air with itchy triggers etc etc.

Its called the fog of war Gandalf. BTW Rummys probably busy reconfiguring his forces to deal with this here Grave Threat Nearby here to freedom and democracy and all it stands for.

M

gandalf

LOL Muck sounds like operation Enduring "Lets nick the Cubans Oil" might be kicking off soon on a "right wing news channel close to you ".

Ajnag

Fog of war and all muck, thing is they never bothered to report the facts. If this was operational then yea, it could be argued as needed. But if they obscured on a political basis then this would amount to a scandle. They probably missed the window of oppertunity for the least political damage.

Are Cuba INC. selling stock options?

spongebob

gandalf wrote:

LOL Muck sounds like operation Enduring "Lets nick the Cubans Oil" might be kicking off soon on a "right wing news channel close to you ".

Especially if the hairy one asks if he can join OPEC

M

gandalf

Well back to the topic on hand here. I understand the Fog of War etc and facts can be mixed up in the immediate confusion of events like Sept 11th but if they did shoot down that plane what did they gain by hiding that fact especially if it comes out like this.

Then again until its reported by a more mainstream news organisation I will take this story with a pinch of salt.

spongebob

Its a fúcked up conspiracy though. It was the only one they _could_ have shot down .

a) last in the air
b) over countryside
c) interceptors airborne
d) passenger on mobile rang his missus to say they were hijacked (dunno if she rang anyone)

M

Ajnag

I generally dont like conspiracy, but the fact that norad was supposedly down on the morning of 9/11 unerve's me somewhat. I think its something like 8-15 minutes for the planes to get in the air once a scramble alert is issued. It always was kinda fugged how those planes had so much time after they deviated from their flight paths.

Gandalf: Fox are now reporting it!!!



J/k

spongebob

Ajnag wrote:

Gandalf: Fox are now reporting it!!!

Fox ain't mainstream dude so hould yer whisht a while !

They want someone to the right of the Rheumy one to take over, Wolfowitz maybe .

M

mike65

rtsp://real.npr.na-central.speedera.net:80/real.npr.na-central/atc/20041224_atc_01.rm copy and paste into RealPlayer and skip to 3.40.

Rummy is no stranger to freeform speaking, and I'd put it as nothing more than that myself, but that won't stop the conspiracy theorists of course.

Mike.

Astro1996

Payne stewarts learjet in 1999 had 4 f-16s, 1 f15 and a tanker aircraft chasing them within minutes.......september 11 had 4 passenger aircraft meandering around the skies four ages without anything happening....yet nobody was blamed....very strange. The line they like to spout is "we didnt know passenger aircraft could be used as weapons" ala nobody thought this could happen....which is total bull****.

Ajnag

mike65 wrote:

Rummy is no stranger to freeform speaking, and I'd put it as nothing more than that myself, but that won't stop the conspiracy theorists of course.

Mike.

Thats not exactly fair mike, granted rummy is somewhat erm.... poetic, but he said what he said, and there is a very valid question of weather it was a slip or something more. Granted the ct's are gonna be all over this, but they hop on anything anway and that dosnt negate the implications.

shotamoose

Ajnag wrote:

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who 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. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Isn't it fairly clear he's talking about terrorists bringing down the plane, i.e. the same people who 'attacked the Pentagon'? Just a slip of the tongue to say 'shot', I think.

Hobbes

gandalf wrote:

Muck in answer to your point if this turns out to be true why did they make up a completely different story at the time?

Because the worst thing you can possibly do (outside war) is kill Americans. But if those Americans take their own lives in a patroitic way then thats ok.

TBH, if they did shoot it down (the wreakage suggested that or a bomb on board, which wasn't on the others) they should of just said so. I doubt anyone could of faulted them for it after the fact.

Maybe at the time but not now. Now people are wondering why the order wasn't given faster.

TomF

Thanks for the new smoking-them-out thread: very helpful.

I know the followup story on CNN is not going to carry much weight with the people wearing tin-foil hats, but it says: "A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html

Kazujo

I think they did shoot the plane down it was the only site that was not covered very well by the media I dont remeber ever really seeing a close picture of the wreckage.

When you think about it two planes had already been crashed into the trade center and one into the Pentagon. So I'd say the first thing they do is scramble a squadron of fighters up to patrol incase of any more planes.

Then they see another plane off it's flight path heading for a populated area, this scenario has been played out three times already that day but this time they have a chance to make an executive decision to prevent it. With the footage that has come out of Iraq showing how the pilots will follow orders bombong civilians, I dont think it's too hard to believe that they could shoot down one of their own civilian planes.

The needs of the many outway the needs of the few.

The initial cover up was them trying to save their ass. As patriotic as the Americans can be "laying down their lives for the good of the country" doing it involuntarily like this would lead to whole lot of law suits against the government even though by making this very tough decision they may have saved thousands of lives.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html

Funny from what I read of it the plane broke up in mid-air, finding wreakage strewn across 8 miles and eye witnesses saying they saw it exploded in mid-air is not consistent with a ground crash.

Not to mention that air traffic controllers in that area reported that a miltary plane was near that plane (which the US military deny) and other eye witness reports of a low level flying jet within the area shortly before the plane crashed.

Moriarty

Storm in a teacup, anyone?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sssssssh, it was covered up we're not supposed to know...
Hobbes is endangering all our lives by propagating it in public like this....












http://www.tinfoilhat.org/

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Storm in a teacup, anyone?

Absolutly. The only scandal I could possibly see from this is if it was true and Bush wasn't the one who gave the order to shoot it down. Beyond that either answer is no big deal.

Astro1996

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Just like the report doesnt mention :-

The collapse of WTC7.
The war games that were happening on 911, training for what actually took place.
The fact that they were warned of an impending attack by other nations.
Lack of fighter response.
The 5 frame video of something hitting the pentagon. The home of the US military and this is the only video?

The list goes on and on......

Moriarty

Astro1996 wrote:

Just like the report doesnt mention :-
..
Lack of fighter response.
..
The list goes on and on......

Iirc it went into some detail about that. The north american air defence network had been systematically dismantled since the end of the cold war. What they had left in 2001 was basically useless.

I don't know about the rest of what you list, but it doesn't bode well for it if I knew there was stuff about one of them there without even reading the report.

Ajnag

Why is it anything that do'snt fit is fobbed of as tinfoilhat time? :rolleyes:

I know theres a proliferation of conpiracist since 9/11, but that dos not mean everyone who asks is one.

Rummy made a slip?
Has been known to do so in the past,
And the question is was there anything to it?

That is a very Fúckin valid question!
If you dont think there was anything to it, Then Fúckin refute it with something better then Tinfoilhat!! :mad:

:rolleyes:

[EDIT] Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a bit of a rant, cos Im finding this crap in alot of pol forums these days. [/EDIT]

Ajnag

Ajnag wrote:

Rummy made a slip?
Has been known to do so in the past,
And the question is was there anything to it?

In fairness, Rummy's into his 70's.
When you get to that age, you might be saying some things all arséways aswell...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

spongebob

Ajnag wrote:

Why is it anything that do'snt fit is fobbed of as tinfoilhat time? :rolleyes:

Good Un Laddie

M

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because the official stance was the jet was purposely crashed before the official order to shoot them down was given. This is why I am saying it is a non-event unless it was shot down without presidential authorisation (Only Bush could do it, but he was too busy reading about a pet goat and getting a photo-op).

However there are a large number of decrepencies.
- Eye witness reports of the plane breaking up and falling "Like confetti".
- Eye witness reports of a low level jet in the area.
- Air traffic controller tower reporting that a military jet was in the area following it.
- Bodies+wreakage from the plane crash where found miles away from the main crash site.
- Crash was recorded at 10:03 on the flight box recorder, however seismic tracking stations detected the crash at 10:06.*
- Not all information on the recorders has been released.

So it would seem to suggest that it broke up in mid-air.

* AFAIR you can fall 1000ft in about 16 seconds. So the plane when it blew up would of been around 11,250ft in the air. This would allow for the flight recorder to be consistent with the seismic tracking stations.

If I was to put forward a theory based on what I have read, the plane was followed by a US jet. The passengers just about making it into the cockpit forced the terrorists to start the plane into a dive, this would of looked like they were starting an attack run for anyone who wasn't aware of what was going on and it was shot down before it could finish without presidential order. There was no mention of explosives on any of the planes, which is the only other thing that could caused the plane to explode like eye witnesses said.

Then after the crash they have more details about the voice recorder and phone calls to families and think "Hey lets spin this that Brave Americans died to save the lives of others" (which they would either way it went) and it was put onto Prime Time US television more times then Keri Strugg during the 1996 Olympics. (God forbid it was told they were shot down before they could save the day at the last moment). Basing this on Bushes history of blatant photo-op'ing of 9/11 for his own agenda.

"In order to live the lie, you have to believe it" - Fox Mulder.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think you've been here long enough to know there's quite a bit more pointing to this than just NORAD's supposedly slow response.

I would also like to point out that Bush using those surviving family members at the SOTU address shortly after 9/11 is pathological... should they have known that the plane was actually shot down.

Hobbes

sovtek wrote:

I would also like to point out that Bush using those surviving family members at the SOTU address shortly after 9/11 is pathological... should they have known that the plane was actually shot down.

Had the survivors of the 93 managed to take over the plane and land it they would of most likely (barring public intervention) faced jail time, as the FAA made it illegal for passengers to stop terrorists.

Moriarty

If there was no trace of explosive on the wreckage, how do you propose that a missile was used? They don't use a really hot curry to explode.

There's also the problem of it being very unlikely that it would have just exploded if it was hit. Odds are one of the engines would have been hit due to heat-seeking missiles being used, but planes have survived intact when they were hit with heat-seeking missiles in the past - in fact, I can't think of a single example of a passenger jet being hit and just exploding.

TomF

Here's what CNN quoted from the report:
*********
9/11 report reveals who was at controls before crash

Friday, July 23, 2004 Posted: 5:57 AM EDT (0957 GMT)

(CNN) -- Who actually put United Flight 93 into a death dive, causing it to slam into the Pennsylvania countryside on September 11, 2001, is revealed in the 9/11 commission report released Thursday.

The passenger revolt began at 9:57 a.m., nearly 30 minutes after the four terrorists aboard launched their takeover of the Boeing 757 loaded with more than 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.

As passengers charged the cockpit door, terrorist hijacker Ziad Jarrah began rolling the plane to the left and right, "attempting to knock the passengers off balance," the 9/11 commission report said. Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door.

By 9:59 a.m., Jarrah changed tactics and "pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault."

"The [flight] recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts and breaking glass and plates. At 10:00:03 a.m., Jarrah stabilized the airplane," the report says.

"Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, 'Is that it? Shall we finish it off?' A hijacker responded, 'No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.' "

Jarrah resumed pitching the plane up and down.

"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die," a passenger is heard saying.

"Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, 'Roll it!' " the report says.

By 10:01 a.m., Jarrah stopped his violent maneuvers and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

According to the report, he then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?"

"Yes, put it in it, and pull it down," the other responded.

The passengers continued with their assault, trying to break through the cockpit door. At 10:02 a.m. and 23 seconds, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," the report concludes.

"The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.'

"With the sounds of the passenger counter-attack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C."
***********

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

If there was no trace of explosive on the wreckage, how do you propose that a missile was used? They don't use a really hot curry to explode.

I meant explosives in that the Terrorists smuggled it on board.

There's also the problem of it being very unlikely that it would have just exploded if it was hit.

Depends a lot on what it was hit with wouldn't it.

Three planes have just done devestating damage, you would want to take out the plane so that even the wreakage didn't cause a serious threat.

Portions of the plane did survive intact btw, just a large amount of it was scattered over a large area which isn't consistent with a ground crash.

There are loads of unanswered questions about the day. For example, how is it a Black box can be destroyed when it hit the towers, yet a terrorists passport who was on that flight was found intact at ground zero? Especially considering the CSMU in a black box are virtually indestructible.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

I meant explosives in that the Terrorists smuggled it on board.

Yeah, but explosives from these supposed missiles would still be spread all over the plane if it was hit by a missile. No explosive traces = no missile.

Hobbes wrote:

There are loads of unanswered questions about the day. For example, how is it a Black box can be destroyed when it hit the towers, yet a terrorists passport who was on that flight was found intact at ground zero? Especially considering the CSMU in a black box are virtually indestructible.

I dunno, doesn't seem all that impossible. Could have been blown around in the blast/etc/etc/etc since passports are so light. There's also pure chance and luck.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Yeah, but explosives from these supposed missiles would still be spread all over the plane if it was hit by a missile. No explosive traces = no missile.

who says there was no explosive traces? I just said based on the other planes and the radio chatter on flight 93 it is unlikely that the terrorists brought on board explosives. Homeland Security are not giving out any details.

I dunno, doesn't seem all that impossible. Could have been blown around in the blast/etc/etc/etc since passports are so light. There's also pure chance and luck.

Blown around in the blast that vapourised pretty much everyone and the plane at the contact point, which is also being cited for the destrcution of the black boxes, yet a passport most likely in his pocket is found near the site?

Who's wearing tinfoil now? :rolleyes:

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

who says there was no explosive traces? I just said based on the other planes and the radio chatter on flight 93 it is unlikely that the terrorists brought on board explosives. Homeland Security are not giving out any details.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/09/25/1

The FBI said Monday that it had completed its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 and found no evidence of an explosion as a possible cause for the plane's crash near Pittsburgh.

Investigators searched for evidence of a bomb after reports that at least two passengers on the flight phoned relatives and mentioned that the hijackers claimed to have a bomb.

"The conclusion of the investigation is that no explosives were used on board the plane," said FBI spokesman Bill Crowley.

...

Hobbes wrote:

Blown around in the blast that vapourised pretty much everyone and the plane at the contact point, which is also being cited for the destrcution of the black boxes, yet a passport most likely in his pocket is found near the site?

It wasn't all vapourised instantly, it took more than half an hour for the fire to do that. It's not impossible that that passport, along with thousands of other things like sheets of paper that were seen flowing out of the gash in the side of the buildings, survived.

Hobbes

As the quote says, it just says no explosives were used on board the plane.

It wasn't all vapourised instantly,

I think you are missing the point by miles.

The black boxes were wreaked. Do you have any idea how much damage has to be inflicted to a black box to destroy it or make it unusable? It is normally put in the back of the plane so that the crushing of the plane cusions any damage. Not to mention they come with ejection systems. Yet somehow that gets destroyed but a passport from a terrorist who was most likely in the cockpit at the front of the crash survives.

Redleslie2

Moriarty wrote:

It wasn't all vapourised instantly, it took more than half an hour for the fire to do that. It's not impossible that that passport, along with thousands of other things like sheets of paper that were seen flowing out of the gash in the side of the buildings, survived.

The pseudoscience behind tinfoil hat wearing actually has more plausibility than what you're suggesting here.

spongebob

/me is still utterly underwhelmed by all this

M

Moriarty

Right. So, nothing unusual has ever happened to you? Nothing unusual ever previously happened in things like september 11th?

What I'm trying to get across is that there's a million and one reasons this passport (which I don't even know about) could be seperated from whomever owned it. It could have been with his carry-on luggage that got thrown out the other side of the building after the crash, or been flung out the cockpit window when they crashed, for all you know. You're reading far too much into irrelevancys.

Black boxes are secured inside planes. When planes crash, the black boxes sit right where they landed. The plane crashed into and stayed in the tower, where the jet fuel incinerated the metal superstructure of the building over the next 30-50 minutes.

Passports, on the other hand, are light and like everything else not secured in place fly all over the place if theres a crash. Black boxes will melt just like everything else if exposed to high enough temperatures.

Ajnag

What Im seeing out of this is politics, pure and simple.

We all admit we'd shoot that jet down were we in that situation.

So maybe they did, given the oppertunity.

Thus It beomes a matter of politics, if they covered it up, It would be a loss of face to admit it, so why would they?
Public good?

So maybe rummy did slip, If he did no big deal, cept his fellow citizens may be pissed the people couldnt be trusted with the truth.

Hobbes

Err Blackboxes don't just melt. I gave you a link on them. The solid state memory in them is virtually indestrucible (well withstand the damage inflicted on the towers) yet it was damaged not only in the towers but also in the Flight 93 crash.

Add to that we are somehow to believe that a paper passport could survive the damage a lot easier. That it somehow left the plane at the time of explosion and wafted down for someone easy to find while a whole fricken building collapsed in the area.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

Add to that we are somehow to believe that a paper passport could survive the damage a lot easier. That it somehow left the plane at the time of explosion and wafted down for someone easy to find while a whole fricken building collapsed in the area.

I'm seriously trying to track down a quote from an FBI agent saying something like "what we found of the hijackers we were meant to find".
It may have been a Discovery documentary or something like that.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Err Blackboxes don't just melt. I gave you a link on them. The solid state memory in them is virtually indestrucible (well withstand the damage inflicted on the towers) yet it was damaged not only in the towers but also in the Flight 93 crash.

Yes they do, just like everything else when it's exposed to a high enough temperature. From your link, they're rated for 1,100C/30 minutes. The steel support structures of both towers (which have a higher temperature resistance than the black boxes) were melted by the fire, with both staying up for a minimum of 50 minutes after the crash.

Hobbes

And if you read about the solid state memory you would see that those could of easy survived. They are designed to withstand heats of over 2000C for one hour. Add to that each plane carries two blackboxes.

Even that doesn't explain Flight 93s blackbox. Even if you are correct the fact a passport survived (and a passport they would want) is totally out there in the realms of fantasy.

Also just noticed (in looking up the passport news), appears the FAA gave the pentagon 12 minutes warning that a plane was going to hit them but no action was taken.

Moriarty

Sigh.

Bored now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

So why shoot down the 4th plane if they had no interest in hitting the first 3???

Thats the great thing about conspiracy theories. They dont have to make sense.

Ajnag

Sand wrote:

Thats the great thing about conspiracy theories. They dont have to make sense.

Sand you read the thread yet?
Read my little rant about discussion as opposed to fobbing things off hand as conspiracy?

If not stfu.

Anyway what wouldnt make sense about shooting the fourth plane?, Seems norad and a few others forgot their coffee that morning, Also wasnt the 4th plane on route and chronologicly the last to be hijacked that morning(not sure bout that but afaik). Hint: The other 3 planes made their targets.