Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania

During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story
December 27, 2004

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.'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was shot down. Eyewitnesses, one of who was in Vietnam said he saw a air to air missle hit the plane. The plane was scattered a mile from where it landed, if it had crashed why was it seen breaking up prior to crash? It was shot down.

This is one of many unanswered questions regarding that day. Along with where the blackboxes are for the planes at the WTC, they were found, and never heard from again. Why warnings were given to high ranking Government Officials. Why insider trading on American and United were never investigated. So many more. But one finally comes to the surface.

Don't get me wrong here either, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been shot down. But like in a trial once your caught lying your charactor is taken into question. It's quite obvious many lies surround 9-11-01, this being one of them that contradicts with the official story, very similar to WTC7's collapse. Which is another complete farce.

It is pretty much standard operating procedure of interception that if a plane veers off course from its flight plan, and is unable to be either identified or has hostile intent, the afore mentioned plane will be intercepted and if need be, shot down.

I wouldn't be surprised and unfortunately for those aboard, it probably was the right move.

the only problem i have with this scenario, and believe me, i could care less whether it was shot down or the passengers brought it down, is the fact that the family/friends of the passengers felt like their family/friends died heros, and instead, this will undoubtly cast more resentment against the government

Well, it doesn't take away the fact that they were still attempting to take back control of the plane. So in that sense, they are heroes still.

I've always suspected that that plane was shot down, but this slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld does NOT constitute any evidence of anything. Sorry. If you read it in context, "the people" who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania" are obviously the terrorists, not the military. Personally, I think he said "shot down" when he meant to say "brought down".

Now maybe this was a Fruedian slip and he does know that the plane was actually shot down by US military planes, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on this statement, or misstatement as the case may be.

--PunkDavid

True dat. If I had family members on a plane, and I knew that plane was headed for the White House or the Capitol Building...shoot the plane down.

If would definately be a difficult situation. Especially if it was your wife or husband or son or daughter. But if they were already destined to die then I suppose it is better to save more lives. It still would be confusing pyschologically.

i agree, and i would hope people would agree, but i meant that they were actually responsible for, instead of, hmmmm i cant think of the right way to phrase it, innocent bystanders of the military?

No doubt it would be tough, but if my wife had to die to avert a national tragedy...well..

I've always supported the idea that the plane was shot down. If you look at the time line in relation to the first plane that hit the WTC, and how far off course this plane was at the time of the initial attack, it makes perfect sense that a warplane from DC or Michigan could intercept it, and shoot it down.

There's a lot of eye witness accounts from PA that say they heard jet fighters (distinctly different from commercial jet engines) and saw the plane come down in two sections. The first pictures of the plane crash in PA showed two distinct craters as well.

But if you're a crazy conspiracy theorist like me who thinks its very possible that the 9-11 attacks were actually a secret operation carried out by the U.S. military, then it makes sense in that context to say that "the people" Rumsfeld referred to are, in fact, people perfoming secret ops for the U.S. military. It's thought that Al Qaeda's leadership works for Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al. However, does this mean that ispooks working for the U.S. government also bombed Madrid, Mosul and carried out beheadings in Iraq? Well... it's a lot to get into right now.

Anyway, I heard this on the radio Friday night, and me and my fiance were like: "Oh, he finally slipped!"

I hope you all understand the modifier and the subject in this clause are inconsistent with your theories. He's saying "the people [terrorists) who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania"... it's a mess up. Rumsfeld should have either said "blown up the plane" or "forced us to shoot down" the plane.

I hope I'm being clear on this. He's talking about the terrorists. The following action is "shot down", which indicates the terrorists shot down the plane, which, as we know, is impossible, unless Rumsfeld equates bombing a plane mid-flight with shooting it down.

Whatever.

heheh... look what I just found:

I always liked this one:

Different haircuts, but same face.





--PunkDavid[/img]

John Kerry looks French.

Teresa Kerry looks French to me.

I agree. In that entire excerpt he is talking about terrorists, and what the terrorists did. I wouldn't have looked twice at his slip.

No, she's a commie.

but regardless of who did the shooting, that still equals a plane getting shot down. which is not what we were told.

everyone has seen that video about the pentagon regarding the theory that it wasnt a plane but a missile or something, right? crazy shit. don't know what to believe, sometimes.