Clarke just hinted strongly that Flight 93 on 9/11 was shot down...

[DCDemo]

Is anyone recording/has recorded tonight's HARDBALL with Chris Mattews?

I missed it...but people online are talking about it.


THIS deserves a lot more investigation.

If you have a recording, please PM me.

Thanks!

[grasswire]

1. I agree

That totally caught my ear.

Old Chris Matthews was so busy interrupting Clarke that he didn't even notice that whiz by his ear.

He coulda made news there.

A good interviewer would have stopped right there and said "what do you mean, orders to shoot down planes?"

[Guaranteed]

31. Holy bejesus...what did he say??? nt

[unblock]

2. it's a confirmed rumor

ask any air traffic controller working that morning. mrs. unblock knows one from houston who assured us that it was shot down.

[seventhson]

6. emp takedown IMHO

electricity on the ground was knocked out BEFORE the crash

21. Oh my!!

"Let's roll!" was a LIE?
I thought it 'might've been, but why?'
The story now is toothless,
The Bush Regime is ruthless!

We need to grow resolve of steel
We need to make that story real!
"Let's Roll" on Bush's sorry ass!
Let's make the outrage come to pass!

"Let's roll" those bastards outta town,
Let's bring their whole damned airplane DOWN!
"Let's roll" them up in their own shame
And bury them in the VICTIMS' names!

"Let's roll" these lying clowns so hard,
Let's make them EAT that metal shard
Saved from broken WTC
"Let's roll" them into infamy!

"Let's roll" them till they scream for peace,
"Let's roll" them til their lyings cease!
And finally, when they're out the gate,
Let's roll a J and CELEBRATE!

Schwannzeichen

[Stephanie]

32. bravo!

welcome to DU!

[Stephanie]

27. What is emp?

Some kind of weapon?

[Beam Me Up]

40. ElectroMagnetic Pulse n/t

[seventhson]

61. It is thought to be possible in the Wellstone takedown too

a directed beam knocks out the power system and, depending on the system, the plane no longer can keep aloft: it slows down and drops and crashes or veers off and crashes.

It is a well known weapon in the US arsenal, but is kept quite secret - altho there is plenty online if you look.

[CaptainClark23]

45. thats new to me

source, link? thanks in advance.

[seventhson]

62. wellstone probably too: here's the evidence

http://members.fortunecity.com/seismicevent/

[Robb]

69. That website is the biggest bunch of malarky online

...and the author is a Dingbat. ;)

[wtmusic]

75. emp is only effective within a few hundred yards

they might as well have hit it with a missile

[seventhson]

94. Not according to the sites I've read. Directed and targeted beams

can be effective like lasers at some distances.

What is your source for this?

[libertad]

65. a relative of an air traffic controller told me this on 9/11

[JPZenger]

71. Here's Some Articles - I Don't Know How Credible They Are

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2001/10/102901_Flight_93.html

[Burma Jones]

3. The debris pattern indicates it was a shoot down (n/t)

[Skeptical Democrat]

4. I thought I misheard that, but that's what I thought he said??

[madfloridian]

5. Good for him.

I missed that.

[PaDUer]

7. We've heard this

from day one..those people who lived near the area have NO reason to lie.

[berner59]

9. Caught that too...

When he said "the decisions to shoot down planes"... Will this come out in the public hearing in June on the timeline of the day?? Will this cause problems with the public, like why weren't we told of this??

[PaDUer]

12. You can bet your butt

that they do NOT want this out in the public..These families are waiting for more slipups, then more shit's going to hit the fan, and I don't blame them.

[LeahMira]

76. The government will protect itself before it protects you...

Will this cause problems with the public, like why weren't we told of this??

Of course! If your government will shoot down the plane in which you are traveling because that plane is headed towards Washington, D.C. with hijackers aboard, are you going to get on that plane?

Better to imagine the brave passengers willing to fight hijackers no matter the cost to themselves.

[Eurobabe]

89. its in his book, chap. 1 or 2

[Poor Richard]

83. I talked to someone who was there

she said, on 9-11 (when I talkd to her) that they heard an explosion several seconds before the plane hit the ground and exploded, within a 1/2 mile from them.

my take - F-18s intercepted it (it was widely publicized as the last jet in the air, and changing course for DC), shot it down over Pennsylvania. THe "Lets Roll" story probably did occur, it was just magnified to the press to cover the actual shoot-down.

might be a little tin foil hattish, but it fits the facts and motives.

[Must_B_Free]

8. Johnstown PA news gave it away

our friends live up the valley where this happened. They had on the Johnston news and before it got scrubbed, they saw a clip of an interview with a farmer who said something to the effect of "I saw the big plane and them other little planes beside it"...

You'll never see that video clip again.

[spinbaby]

77. Oh yeah,

My husband knows someone up there who saw military planes going by low and fast that morning.

[Rick Myers]

10. I've ALWAYS believed it was shot down

A friend in Columbus, Ohio recalls F-16s launching out of Rickenbacker AFB that morning on full alert. They were perfectly placed to intercept that plane!

Has anyone ever heard anything about FAA/NORAD action on the West Coast? If this was an attack on America, I want to know the ENTIRE defense plan. Until noon Eastern time we had to assume more attacks would come, what did Cheney and Bush-on-the-run do in the interim?

[jfxgillis]

19. Now that's freaky

The contact I had was through a Louisiana Air National Guardsman with contacts in the Ohio Air National Guard who told the same story.

On the other hand, if it was a shoot-down, Bush was right to lie about it and the government was right to cover it up. Time enough for the truth in 20 or 50 years.

[AirAmFan]

63. Why would a coverup have been "right"?

[RandomKoolzip]

90. Yes. Good Question.

Why would Bush be justified in covering something like that up?

[Stephanie]

34. Bush was AWOL on 9/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

+++

9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

+++

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

+++

9:57 a.m.: Bush departs from Florida.

+++

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack /

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:39 word is that Bush has landed at a base near Shreveport, La. Incredibly, at 12:51, there is footage of a Taliban news conference by one Wakil Ahmed Mutawakel. It is difficult to absorb that Arafat and the Taliban have weighed in before Bush. Five minutes later ABC reports that in Shreveport "the president looked grim. His eyes were somewhat red." The only hard information is that there are no national security people traveling with the president. ABC's Peter Jennings, breaking protocol for news anchors, says forcefully that the country needs words from its president in Washington.

+++

1:08: More than three hours after the second tower collapsed. A taped message from President Bush. But the sound isn't transmitting, and the image is jerky. Then the image goes backwards. Then it goes off.

+++


2:35: Guiliani live again: "The number of casualties will be more than anyone can bear."

+++

3:30: Confirmation that Bush has landed at the Strategic Air Defense Command base near Omaha, Neb. ABC's Ann Compton, traveling with the president, is on the phone to Peter Jennings, whose inflection says it all: "Annie, can you hear me? What are you doing in Nebraska?"

When he asks where Bush is, she replies, "He disappeared down the rabbit hole, Peter."

+++

3:48: For the first time an administration official, White House counsel Karen Hughes, gives a live statement: "The president, vice-president, and speaker of the House are all safe." It is astonishing that this late in the day the White House has nothing more to say.

+++

At 6:41, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gives a live press conference -- nearly nine hours after the towers collapsed, a cabinet-level official finally speaks.

+++

8:31: Nearly 12 hours after the attack began, 10 and a half after the towers collapsed, President George W. Bush reads a speech live from the Oval Office.

+++

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-10-05/cols_ventura...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Poor Richard]

84. that would be a great parody song

"Bush* on the Run" to the tune of McCartney's Band on the Run

[neverborn]

11. Why is this covered up?

Why would this be a bad thing? If this was headed to the White House, wouldn't it be GOOD to shoot it down??

[BattyDem]

16. A tin-foil hat theory of mine ...

Assuming the story about the passenger uprising is true ...
What if the passengers actually did manage to regain control of the aircraft ... but it was too late because the order had already been given to shoot the plane down. :tinfoilhat:

[lostnfound]

46. That exact scenario was discussed on Flashpoints tonight

by the author (David Ray Griffin) of a book 'The New Pearl Harbor'. He said that the FBI was listening in on the cell phone calls from the flight, and while the person talking on the phone was saying that the passengers were fighting to get the controls back from the hijackers, and one woman was saying 'they're doing it! they're doing it!', and a little while later there was a 'whoosh' sound..
http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html
(Interview starts at about 20 minutes; Discussion of possible shootdown of 77 starts at 41 minutes)

[BattyDem]

51. Wow! Thanks for the link

Maybe I'm not as crazy as I think I am! :)

[nolabels]

57. And if they did gain control, subdue the hijackers?

And it landed safely. They would have some pretty good evidence (that they wouldn't want). That would of blown the lid off a lot of things.

There have been so many people been put out as liars in just the last couple of weeks, that I am amazed anybody can believe anything the *co puts out. They are all just Liars, Liars, Liars (excuse my indulgence, because really I quite sick of them :puke: )

[hang a left]

91. Exactly. Like who was really on those planes.

Were they white or brown?

[celestia671]

18. It wouldn't be good for the families of the victims...

I agree with you guys. I always suspected that 93 was shot down, and the Bush team brought out the Todd Beamer/passengers fighting terrorists story to cover it up. Even it was to protect the occupants of the White House, it still would have been a controversy.

That plane was obliterated when it hit the ground. Most planes that crash don't do that, do they? There's always bigger pieces left?

[BattyDem]

24. The debris field ...

reportedly was spread up to 6-8 miles away. (If you want a source, do a Google on the Flight 93 debris field - there are plenty of articles about it). How can that be unless it broke up in mid-air?

[jfxgillis]

23. Strategy

It would have given Al Qaeda a victory to have it known that we had to kill our own people.

Instead, we take a small degree of consolation from our heroic civilians killing the bad guys and foiling their plans for the last plane..

[Minstrel Boy]

Because they have to lie about EVERYTHING.

It's all they know - how can we spin this?

"Let's Roll" - yeah, that's the ticket.

[Stephanie]

35. It's not whether they shot it down or not. It's whether they lied about it

You could argue forever about whether it was the right decision to shoot it down.

But you have to ask WHY would they LIE about it this whole time?

What else are they lying about?

[Beam Me Up]

44. What ELSE are they lying about?

They are LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Absolutely NOTHING that we have been led to believe about the events of 9/11 are TRUE.

Even here on DU, no one wants to believe that, but I'm absolutely convinced of it.

It was NOT an "intelligence failure." It was NOT an "attack on America." They knew "something" was going to happen (they may not have known what, precisely). They knew when the first plane struck that it was not an accident. This was a military style covert operations "black-op"--an "inside job" with multiple layers of plausible deniability. Part and parcel of deep politics in a criminal culture.

[Stephanie]

48. I'm with you, bud.

But I want EVERYONE asking that question. It just takes catching them in ONE lie for the lightbulb to pop on, and then people start asking:

What ELSE are they lying about?

[calimary]

72. Worth contacting somebody about...

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: [phone]
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: [phone]

email: [e-mail]
AL FELZENBERG, DEPUTY FOR COMMUNICATIONS National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Office: 202-401-1725 Cell: 202-236-4878 Fax: [phone]"

[e-mail]

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

[CaptainClark23]

49. Because "Let's Roll" is a more compelling story

and offers the perspective of americans "fighting back". Manipulation of the public psyche. and it worked like a charm in our most vulnerable moments, when we were all looking for something positive.

[maggrwaggr]

52. Bingo! "Let's Roll" is just another Bushco manufactured "myth"

but I don't think Americans will ever want to hear that either.

[VOX]

56. Sad to say you're right.

It's the stuff of licence-plate frames and bumperstickers.

It's all illusion.

[Changenow]

67. It was heading for TMI.

It was flying too low and fast to make it back to Washington. It was on a perfect route to TMI.

IMO there would have been no political fall out if they 'fessed up to shooting flight 93 down, but they are cowards first and foremost so they weren't going to take any risk. The Let's Roll story rallied everyone's hope so that's the story they went with. The passengers did plan to take over the plane so the myth wasn't entirely fiction.

[IkeWarnedUs]

82. What is TMI? n/t

[Changenow]

85. Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

It is just as sure as it can be.

[hexola]

87. Isn't TMI mostly offline these days...

I'm sure at least one of the reactors is running - but are all of them running?

I've heard that it would take a bit more than Jet to penetrate the reactor...

[Zero Gravitas]

74. They Never Make Mistakes

one of the bizarre traits of this Administration is that never ever admit to making mistakes. Even when they do a 180 degree about face they were always right. When rumors started circulating on 9/11 that Flight 93 was shot down it was immediately denied (maybe the person denying didn't know the truth or maybe they just didn't want to upset people further) in any case once the denial was made they couldn't reverse things. Usually they'd just go down the old "we've always been at war with Eurasia and BTW the chocolate ration has been increased" route but this issue is just too big and emotional to pull that sort of thing off right after 9/11.

I don't know if the plane was shot down or not. From what I can find the evidence is inconclusive. Under the circumstances it probably should have been shot down, but given the Chimp Regime's total ineptness I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the ball on Flight 93 just as they did on everything else that happened on 9/11 and afterwards.

[Sophree]

92. There's a DUer

Who theorized that they are covering it up because Cheney was the one to make the shoot-down order. And remember- "only the PRESIDENT can order a civilian aircraft shot down."

I think s/he is right. Why else would they have made such a big deal about that picture of Bunnypants hiding on Air Force One- supposedly giving the shoot-down order.

Personally, I think the look on *'s face in that picture is pretty scary. A person obviously scared $hitless- extremely unreassuring.

[Triple H]

13. I've always thought it was shot down, too.

[salinen]

14. Someone should ask Condi

she always tells the truth.

[iamjoy]

15. If It Was Shot Down...

Is that okay?
I mean, knowing the plane was in the hands of terrorists, and knowing that other planes were used as missiles, would the government really have been wrong in shooting it down? I know that sounds awful, but everything about 9-11 was horrible. I really want to believe all those brave passengers and crew fought back against the rotten slime. Don't we all want to believe it?

I'm not ready to buy into all of these conspiracies, but something is very strange about Flight 93. For one thing, didn't it make it as far west as Ohio before turning and heading back East?

Did something delay the terrorists? Why did they tell people to call their loved ones? Supposedly the hijacker who crashed the plane into the North Tower told the passengers to remain in their seats, they were returning to the airport (other airline pilots heard this over a "public" radio channel.)

I'm not one to embrace conspiracies, but there is a mystery here. One idea is that the terrorists wanted to provoke the U.S. into shooting down a passenger airliner. They had a target in mind in case that didn't happen. It's just an idea, I haven't really pursued it.

[berner59]

20. shouldn't we question then....

Why wasn't plane #2 into WTC shot down when they had 20 mins between 1st hit??? Were fighter jets even sent to NYC??? Wouldn't it seem better to have shot it down instead of letting it hit the tower?? I remember pilots talking that day saying that the terrorists must have taken over the controls since pilots would have flown the plane into the water instead of a building...anyone remember that??

[arcane1]

28. ok, let's go total tin-foil extension

not saying I endorse this notion, but as a rhetorical answer to your question why:

9/11 was LIHOP

the passengers on 93 regained control of the plane from the hijackers

with control of the plane, they would've lived, with info

........

I don't necessarily go there myself, though I do believe LIHOP, and the 93 story was always smelly. One thing is for certain about the way this bunch of worms does PR, they have the same pattern:

the more "color" and "human interest" details they provide for a story, the more likely that story is utter bullshit

Jessica Lynch

Spider Hole

WMD (the evil genius "Dr Germ" etc)

"Is that Airforce one?" "No, it's Gulfstream 5"

etc

and I know DAMNED WELL the pretzel story is bullshit too :)

[takebackthewh]

78. How would they have landed safely?

>>with control of the plane, they would've lived, with info<<

Are you sure that's not wishful thinking? Chances are the pilots had already been killed. So who would land the plane safely? A stewardess? A passenger?

I'd like to think I could land a jumbo jet safely like they do in the movies. But I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.

[arcane1]

86. yeah, that's why it was the extended tinfoil

:silly:

[submerged99]

55. berner go to this website.

Berner, here's an excerpt from this website that details the scramble times of the fighter jets, using Norad's own official timeline.

"According to NORAD's official 9/11 time line, the FAA notified NORAD at 8:40 a.m. Eastern time that there was something peculiar going on with American Flight 11. But NORAD didn't issue an order for fighters to scramble until 8:46 a.m., the time when American Flight 11 hit the first WTC tower. Six minutes later, at 8:52 a.m., two F-15 fighters responded to the order by launching from a base 153 miles from New York City. They still were not on the scene at 9:02 a.m. when the second airliner, United Flight 175, hit the second WTC tower. They wouldn't get there for another eight minutes, at 9:10 a.m. A NORAD senior officer, Major Gen. Larry Arnold, told NBC that when the fighters took off, they were flying straight to New York City. He also said that they were going "about 1.5 Mach, which is, you know, somewhere—11- or 1,200 miles an hour." But note that the F-15 fighters took 18 minutes to cover those 153 miles, which comes out to more like 510 mph. Yet, according to the Air Force, the F-15 has a top speed of 1,875 mph. So, you have to wonder, why were they flying at less than a third of what they're capable of?

According to NORAD, the FAA notified it at 9:24 a.m. that there was something suspicious with American Flight 77. Two F-16 fighters were immediately ordered launched, and they got airborne at 9:30 a.m. The New York Times reports that at first, they were headed to New York at "top speed" reaching "600 mph within two minutes," before vectoring toward Washington instead. These planes didn't arrive in the vicinity of the Pentagon until 9:49 a.m., 12 minutes after American Flight 77 hit it. (They then stayed in the skies above Washington to protect against the fourth errant airliner, United Flight 93, with orders to shoot it down if necessary, a command mooted by an apparent passenger insurrection that caused that plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field.) The F-16s covered the 130 miles of their journey in 19 minutes, which would be an average speed of about 410 mph. Now, that's artificially low because these fighters spent several minutes flying toward New York, but even allowing for this, you don't come up with anything like what the Air Force (which may know better than the New York Times) says is the plane's top speed of 1,500 mph. So, again, why didn't NORAD feel the need for speed? It wasn't because of FAA regulations prohibiting supersonic flight over land in U.S. civil airspace. A NORAD spokesman told me that fighters violate that speed restriction "when circumstances warrant."

http://www.attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm

[KansDem]

79. "Let one happen. Stop the rest!!!"

Delmart Edward "Mike" Vreeland, an American citizen whose claims to being a US Naval Lieutenant assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) are being increasingly corroborated in open court, has been in a Canadian jail since December 6, 2000. On August 11 or 12 of 2001, the date is uncertain, after trying to verbally alert his Canadian jailers to the coming World Trade Center attacks, he wrote down key information and sealed it in an envelope which he then had placed in jailers’ custody. This event is not disputed by Canadian authorities. The letter specifically listed a number of targets including The Sears Towers, The World Trade Center, The White House, The Pentagon, The World Bank, The Canadian parliament building in Ottawa and the Royal Bank in Toronto.

A chilling sentence follows the list of targets, "Let one happen. Stop the rest!!!"

When the envelope was opened on September 14th it set off alarms in the US and Canada.

http://members.freespeech.org/ltvreeland/interviews/rupport012502.html

Perhaps Flight 93 was "stop the rest"

[neverborn]

22. I do hate * and his administration...

but I'd say shootdown of 93 would be okay... hell, shootdown of all 4 would have been fine.

[Stephanie]

38. It's arguable. BUT - why lie about it?

Why would they lie?

[Guaranteed]

43. For morale reasons, probably.

And they don't want to spark a debate about shooting down our own airplanes.

They shot it down. Here's my reasoning: Flight 93 crashed 80 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC. IF it wasn't shot down, with SO MUCH TIME having gone by, shouldn't it have been?

[Cooley Hurd]

66. The WH could've come clean on this, except...

...the story about the "Heroes of Flt 93" story hit the airwaves before they (the WH) had a chance to tell how it was shot down. Remember, the "heroes" story broke because passengers from the flight called their loved ones via cellphone and told them of their intention to fight back. Once this story broke, there's no way this WH could say. "Hey... we shot down the only airliner in which the passengers fought back and regained control of the plane," so they stuck with the hero story for (probably) morale reasons. Probably reason #1291 why they didn't want 9/11 investigated...

[Lugnut]

17. Clarke has said this before

While I do believe that Flight 93 was shot down, Richard Clarke has not made that suggestion at all. He was simply going down the list of authorizations needed from higher up and that was one of them.

I'm in the middle of reading his book. He specifically writes, at this point in the book anyway, that the passengers helped take that plane down. Even if he knows better there is no way he could ever make that kind of claim unless he had a lot of proof. You can bet that all the details regarding that flight are under lock and key.

[pacifictiger]

25. I read somewhere that

one of the engines was found pretty far away from where the actual plane hit ground indicating it came off well before the actual crash.

[Must_B_Free]

26. there was cover for this

they said strong wind blew he debris up to miles away. the engine i think they said bounced and landed far away.

[Art_from_Ark]

42. Wow, an aircraft engine made of rubber

That's the only way it could have "bounced and landed far away".

[Guaranteed]

29. No way...he said that?

I knew it the second I heard it crashed...but what did he say, exactly?

[bobthedrummer]

30. It probably was shot down because of all the command and control

sites in that area.

For instance SITE R (near Waynesboro, PA) has the Alternate Joint War Room and the Alternate Joint Communications Center. One would expect them to be robustly defended.

Then there is SITE CREED, just west of the AJCC.

There is Raven Rock, near Camp David MD. There is Ft. Ritchie, Cascade, MD., home of U.S. Signal Command, and the fully sealed administrative arm of SITE R.

Sheesh, who doesn't know that? There are many other underground/mountain command and control sites in that region-all within a short chopper flight of D.C.

It is logical to expect that they were defended on 9-11, and then that was spun into bullshit too.

Wake up kids, this was NOT unplanned for.

[RedEagle]

73. Would any of those sites have planes ready to scramble?

Or the ability, sans NORAD, to get planes up in the air?

[Guaranteed]

33. I'm looking through the transcript...how far into the interview was it? nt

[Guaranteed]

36. Here's what he said:

MR. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to “Hardball.” We’re back with Richard Clarke.

Let me ask you about that day of days, day of infamy, 9/11. When Condi Rice put you in charge, she said, “Okay, Dick, you’re the crisis manager. What do you recommend?” Out of nowhere, a man who’s been an adviser in the background with the president of the United States, who hasn’t been given much attention from the president, all of a sudden you’re thrown out into the front lines, and you’re made commander-in-chief.

MR. CLARKE: No, no, no. No, I was not made in commander-in-chief.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, weren’t you—in your book, you were told you were to give everybody instructions, particularly the vice president, “What do we do?” And he said, “We’ll do it. What else do you want us to do? We’ll do it.” A checklist.

MR. CLARKE: I—I had some things I could decide at my level. I had a lot of things that I referred to the vice president, and he referred to the president. And they very quickly turned—

MR. MATTHEWS: The president was out of town, wasn’t he?

**MR. CLARKE: Yeah. The vice president had him on the phone, and the phone dropped off from time-to-time. But when we needed decisions to shoot down airplanes and to do similar things like that, the president made those decisions.**

MR. MATTHEWS: But you were like Mr. Spock to his Captain Kirk. I mean, you were basically giving the advice of an expert on what you had to do, and they were taking it.

MR. CLARKE: We were making most of the decisions. When we realized we didn’t have the authority—

MR. MATTHEWS: Right

MR. CLARKE: --we went to the vice president. He got the decisions from the president. They did a great job turning those decisions around very quickly.

[althecat]

37. Do you have a link BGL?

[Guaranteed]

39. Sure

He says it just a smidge more than halfway down the page:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4641345/

[troublemaker]

41. There's nothing even vaguely controversial in Clarke's statement.

"Decisions to shoot down airplanes..." means exactly what it means.

It is acknowledged by everyone (including the 9/11 comiss. staff reports) that Cheney transmitted orders to shoot down both flight 93 and the Pentagon plane. Decisions were made to shoot down airplanes.

There's just no "there" there.

[Guaranteed]

47. Yeah, but they DID shoot it down. nt

[Skittles]

68. decisions were made?

so why weren't the second tower and the Pentagon evacuated ??

[burrowowl]

50. Actually

if it was shot down, that would be the only non-SNAFU according to SOP.

[Robin Hood]

53. I thought the same thing when I heard him imply that.

It's like he caught himself short but didn't want to stop talking.

[librechik]

54. wasn't this the flight where the highjackers said they had a bomb?

I think this is the one where the stewardess called and reported that they had a gun, mace (or something) and a bomb. I'm not sure it's the same flight, but on 93 I've always thought the debris field evidence points just as strongly to an onboard explosion as a missile takedown.

[MinnFats]

58. There was a passenger revolt.

I have a friend whose spouse was on Flight 93. They had four telephone conversations between the time it was hijacked and the time it went down.
I'm not saying it wasn't shot down, but "Let's Roll" is not fiction.

[nolabels]

59. Somebody watching the plane on a radar screen would be able to tell

This incident on 9/11 seems one of the most obscure (it all does, but this one has really been a hush hush )

My guess, more is going to leak out, others have motives also.

[dad]

60. .

My theory is that the passengers unexpectedly regained control of the plane.. and THEN it got shot down. The order to shoot it down had already been made and there was not time to reverse it. Can you see the reason for the cover-up now?

[BabsSong]

64. You overlook the most important thing of that day: propaganda

They were as busy putting that together as trying to find out what was going on. So, let's say you had the 3 planes hit the towers and the Pentagon but one was shot down by us to stop it. Instead of one unified nation mad as hell and looking to kill someone; you might have had a few people yelling about the shoot down. Just like the did their spin in Iraq, any elements of 9/11 that needed to be spun so that Bush came out on top with a "do what you want" mandate would have indeed been spun.

[Tracer]

70. The day following the Pennsylvania crash ...

... I saw an interview with a local resident who said that he saw the plane flying fast, low and UPSIDE DOWN before crashing out of sight behind a nearby hill.

I remember this specifically because of the odd upside down detail. And I never heard another word about it.

[Gin]

80. I thought it was strange the plane crashed nose down...and so deep in the

crater it created.. that they couldn't retreive anything....Is that normal?

When I heard that...I thought it was shot down.

[theboss]

81. They should have shot it down

I've never understood why there would be a cover-up if the military did shoot the plane down.

I mean, would anyone here have complained?

[Ripley]

88. I agree.

They should have shot down the one that hit the Pentagon, too.

I think the point is that they used that "Let's Roll" crap to rev up a patriotic fervor and if this is true, then the other story is bogus.

[0007]

93. Read the book!

Richard Clarke makes similar implies in his book to flight 93.

I believe it was shot down.