See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Rumsfeld said Flight 93 shot down (video)
Source:
youtube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84&mode=related&search
Published: Oct 30, 2006
Author: Rumsfeld
Post Date: 2006-10-30 12:28:18 by RickyJ
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 404
Comments: 47
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: RickyJ (#0)
hmmmmm...
The transcript is still at DoD website. I've enjoyed posting this one from time to time. Most who believe the govt's version of 9/11 have never heard or read Rumsfeld say this. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html Rummy just cannot stick to the talking points very well.
Misspoken words, nothing else.
"The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." Misspoken my ass! Anyone that knows anything about flight 93 knows that it did not all crash where they claim it did. It was shot down without a doubt and Rumslfeld spilled the beans inadvertently by being so careless about remembering who it was that he was addressing.
God is always good! Ricky A lot of people know a great deal about Flt 93 and none of them would agree with you.
Engines don't bounce 1/2 mile away from the crash scene like the idiots in government claim it did. You are again defending the indefensible. Take a course in physics and then get back to me with your absurd theories.
God is always good! I think there are two floating theories for flight 93 within the 911 truth movement, beyond the official line that the passengers brought it down. One is that it was shot down instead of being brought down by passengers, and the other is that it was not downed at all but landed in Ohio, in which case the official crash site in PA would have to have been faked. If it didn't crash where they said it did then that means that it crashed somewhere else. If Rumsfeld's slip is taken as an admission that it really was shot down AND the official crash site was faked, THEN it means it did not land in Ohio AND that the true crash site was somewhere other than the official one. To me that doesn't add up. Why would they fake one crash site when a second real crash site is available? And why would they shoot a plane down for real on a day they planned to fake a crash? I think it's highly likely that if 93 was shot down, that the offical crash site is for real, and if it was faked, then 93 landed in Ohio and wasn't shot down at all. One or the other. I've not ever heard any proposal that 93 crashed someplace other than where officially claimed.
Something definitely crashed, whether it was flight 93 or not I do not know. I should have said that the official crash site is only part of the wreckage of whatever plane that crashed. Other parts of the plane were found miles away from where they claim the plane nose dived into the ground.
God is always good! Ricky Rudeness is never becoming... If you reread my previous post, I advanced no "absurd" theories of any kind. Rational and realistic thinking finds no other conclusion than that offered by many people. Engines...I assume you do know that the engines are designed and engineered to fall off when under certain stress condidtions.
The government's theory is an absurd theory. They are the one's who claim the engines bounced 1/2 mile away from the crash scene.
God is always good! Okay, I read your subsequent post and gathered that must have been your meaning.
That's news to me. It's hard for me to fathom engineers making that a design priority, particularly considering the hazard of having only one wing mounted engine drop off.
misspoken in the same way rummy said on more than one occasion that a missile, not a jetliner, hit the pentagon.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682 Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93 Read into the article below for the following section: "He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington." Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was shot down..)
If you were to see the skinny engine mounts holding the engine you would die of fright. They are indeed designed to fall off rather than to impact or tear off the wing. Aviation engineering is one of the most precise and forward thinking fields today. Indeed it is a very high priority of design to ENSURE the engine falls off under certain stresses. Finding a engine miles away from a crash site is nothing new.
Here is short excerpt.... ">>The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
You do not get an eight mile debris field with a crash. Period. End of story.
If I recall the Pan Am Lockerbie had a crash field in excess of 20 miles.
A 20 mi. debris field makes sense (Pan Am Lockerbie) b/c an explosion caused the crash. We've been told flight 93 did a nose dive straight down at 500 +/- MPH.
Aircraft engines are among the heaviest parts of aircraft so in some crash situations, I can see value in having them break away on impact. However, breaking away during flight, at least with wingmounted engines, would hardly be a saftey measure in my estimation, as if only one broke away, the aircraft would become rather unbalanced. I don't see any advantage to dropping an engine over keeping it on while in flight, even if it was on fire as fuel can be cut and extinguishers applied. I've got a pilots license, and the SOP for crash landings was, if you don't have a clear landing space, try to take the plane between 2 trees or phone polls with the expressed intent of tearing off the wings. That way the enclosed fuel is largely dumped away from the passenger cabin reducing risk of burning to death or serious injury. Many of those killed in aircraft crashes are killed by fire. I think it would be better to have the wings ripped off. Please pardon my skepticism. I do recall a few DC-10 crashes from the 80's that involved engines dropping off, but my impression was they didn't fall off by design. I think I remember another case more recently, within the last 10 years or so in which a plane landed safely, but that there were no abnormal stresses involved. I don't remember hearing any other cases of engines falling off prior to crashes, and certainly none by design.
Airplanes come apart from stress. To find a hole in the ground that fit exactly the shape of the aircraft would never happen. That is a false assumption. I have witnessed one large four engine acft crash, nearly straight down, there were engines and parts all over the place. Trying to imagine everything being in its original configuration is futile, it does not happen.
I assume you are speaking of a single engine acft???? If you have never seen or experienced an engine tearing itself up or running away, you would be praying it would drop off. Jet engines are slung down and ahead of the wings for a purpose, falling off is part of the purpose.
There's no talking to the conspiracy-minded. Everything to due to someone. Illumati, Masons, Zionists, blood-drinking shapeshifter reptilian aliens from space...it doesn't matter. Someone did it.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
This is not the same thing as saying that they are designed to fall off under certain stresses, as though it's better to not have an engine on the wing than to have one. This is saying that, IF "something happens that causes the mount to break" that it would break off a certain way so as to minimize damage. Any time you have something mounted with more than one mount, one will be stronger than the other. In this case, the decided it's advantageous to make the rear one weaker. Again, I think it's generally better to have a dead wing engine stay attached to the plane than to have it drop off. The plane will be easier to control.
The designers and engineers would not agree.
Airplanes come apart from stress. To find a hole in the ground that fit exactly the shape of the aircraft would never happen. That is a false assumption. You're obviously not discussing the matter sincerely. The Lockerbie crash was a plane that exploded and broke up at high altitude. No one is looking for a clay mold of an airplane at the 93 crash site.
With die-hard conspiracy theorist like you, I would agree, no amount of reasoning will change your very closed mind. But I think that all initial believers of the government conspiracy theory are not beyond reaching, or otherwise I wouldn't even attempt to do so.
God is always good! I'll wait for an authoritative source to state otherwise. I'll qualify this with a description or list of the particular stresses which are intended to result in engine breakaway. Applying this to the topic at hand, you're suggesting that 93 experienced some of these stresses that resulted in engine breakaway. Do you maintain that a cockpit fight would be one of them?
Why be personal like ricky???? Why not call any pilot friend that flies jumbo jets and ask him, get it first hand. Quicker, google will bring you tons of info and show pictures, its all there to see and read.
Neil... You like ricky digress and become personal. I made no "absurd theories" about the flight and I have no information about what happened aboard the acft other than what we all know. I am not interested in any theories, only what is realistic and rational about an accident.
Nothing personal, that's just candid observiation. Obviously... Ricky mentions an 8 mile debris field and you make some comment about there not being airplane shaped holes in the ground as though a whole plane impacting the ground would naturally make an 8 mile debris field. Candid observation: There's no sincerity in that response.
I am not interested in any theories, only what is realistic and rational about an accident. Then what stresses, in particular, would realistically and rationally cause the engines of flight 93 to break away on 911 while in flight? Or otherwise cause an 8 mile debris field?
By calling it an "accident" you are indeed advancing a theory. A strange theory indeed, not even the government is claiming it was an accident.
God is always good! I'll volunteer one realistic and rational possibility that I can think of, and that's flight 93 being struck by an anti-aircraft missle. Why not? It's very plausible that 93 was known to be hijacked and F-16's were on to it and shot it down. It would explain why the FBI refuses to release the last 3 minutes of cockpit recordings on 93. Politically, it's more desirable to have everyone think of the passengers as heros and without any divisive public controversy over whether it was proper to shoot down flight 93. About whether, just maybe, the passengers would have been successful in taking the plane back and safely landing it. It explains the wide debris field quite nicely. Is there a more rational explanation?
Refresh my memory of where I called it an accident??? It was a crash.
The cockpit voice recorder and I believe the black box also indicated that the hijacker was putting the acft thru unusual attitudes trying to dislodge the people that were trying to take over.
Cynicom posted on 2006-10-30 15:21:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply God is always good! OKAY, my error... Perhaps you might like to read this one, google is replete with such... British Overseas Airline Company Flight 712 "For the passengers who had a view out of the port windows aboard BOAC Flight 712 to Zurich, enroute to Sydney, Australia, it must have seemed that their worst nightmares had come true. One and a half minutes after takeoff on the clear and sunny afternoon of 8 April 1968, the no.2 engine of the Boeing 707 broke away from its mounting pylon and fell, tumbling in flames, over Hounslow, on the fringe of Heathrow Airport..."
Yes, I've heard that before. And you think this would have made the engines break off? Only if the plane was designed horribly would it be even possible for any pilot to make the engines break off simply by working the control yoke.
I dont have any opinion on that. The experts would have written it in their reports. Rumsfeld is about my age, he misspoke and I misspoke calling it an accident instead of a crash.
Comments (41 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: RickyJ (#0)
(Edited)
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
#3. To: RickyJ (#0)
shot down
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
(Edited)
Misspoken words, nothing else.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
Anyone that knows anything about flight 93
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#7. To: RickyJ (#4)
#8. To: Neil McIver (#7)
(Edited)
I've not ever heard any proposal that 93 crashed someplace other than where officially claimed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#9. To: RickyJ (#6)
Take a course in physics and then get back to me with your absurd theories.
#10. To: Cynicom (#9)
(Edited)
If you reread my previous post, I advanced no "absurd" theories of any kind.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#11. To: RickyJ (#8)
I should have said that the official crash site is only part of the wreckage of whatever plane that crashed. Other parts of the plane including the engines were found miles away from where they claim the plane nose dived into the ground.
#12. To: Cynicom (#9)
Engines...I assume you do know that the engines are designed and engineered to fall off when under certain stress condidtions.
#13. To: RickyJ, robin (#4)
Misspoken my ass!
#14. To: RickyJ, christine (#0)
(Edited)
#15. To: Neil McIver (#12)
That's news to me.
#16. To: Neil McIver (#12)
That's news to me.
point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal stabilizers.)"
#17. To: RickyJ (#0)
Of course it was shot down.
#18. To: lodwick (#17)
You do not get an eight mile debris field with a crash.
#19. To: Cynicom (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: Cynicom (#15)
They are indeed designed to fall off rather than to impact or tear off the wing.
Indeed it is a very high priority of design to ENSURE the engine falls off under certain stresses. Finding a engine miles away from a crash site is nothing new.
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
(Edited)
We've been told flight 93 did a nose straight down at 500 +/- MPH.
#22. To: Neil McIver (#20)
I've got a pilots license,
#23. To: Cynicom (#15)
Finding a engine miles away from a crash site is nothing new.
#24. To: Cynicom (#16)
The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal stabilizers.)"
#25. To: Neil McIver (#24)
Again, I think it's generally better to have a dead wing engine stay attached to the plane than to have it drop off. The plane will be easier to control.
#26. To: Cynicom (#21)
#27. To: YertleTurtle (#23)
There's no talking to the conspiracy-minded.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
The designers and engineers would not agree.
#29. To: Neil McIver (#26)
You're obviously not discussing the matter sincerely.
#30. To: Neil McIver (#28)
Do you maintain that a cockpit fight would be one of them?
#31. To: Cynicom (#29)
Why be personal like ricky????
#32. To: Cynicom (#30)
#33. To: Cynicom (#30)
I am not interested in any theories, only what is realistic and rational about an accident.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#34. To: All (#32)
Then what stresses, in particular, would realistically and rationally cause the engines of flight 93 to break away on 911 while in flight? Or otherwise cause an 8 mile debris field?
#35. To: RickyJ (#33)
By calling it an "accident" you are indeed advancing a theory.
#36. To: Neil McIver (#32)
(Edited)
Then what stresses, in particular, would realistically and rationally cause the engines of flight 93 to break away on 911 while in flight?
#37. To: Cynicom (#35)
(Edited)
Refresh my memory of where I called it an accident???
I am not interested in any theories, only what is realistic and rational about an accident.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#38. To: All (#35)
Refresh my memory of where I called it an accident??? It was a crash.
#39. To: Cynicom (#36)
The cockpit voice recorder and I believe the black box also indicated that the hijacker was putting the acft thru unusual attitudes trying to dislodge the people that were trying to take over.
#40. To: Neil McIver (#39)
And you think this would have made the engines break off?
.
.
.