|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no it isn't.
|
Well, it is. In our haste to quell the quagmire of bullshit that is 9/11 conspiracy theories, let's not exclude or even forget a few decades of very well documented (and officially conceded) coverups ranging from covert action to document tampering, to witness suppression over the last century.
(Pentagon papers, Susan McDougal, the 45 minute claim etc).
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i too remember reading that quote, but all the evidence points to flight 93 crashing on its own. no airforce planes ever made contact with 93. that's proven fact. |
Actually, it's not. That's just what the norad records state (and yes, I've read the entire thing).
This, if it did happen, is the first and only apparent instance in US history of a civilian aircraft being taken down for the greater protection. I doubt, that if it did happen, they are going to send a Mig with a nice big Star Spangled across the tail and record the data of the whole thing.
The problem is, many people said they saw at least one other plane in the sky near flight 93, when every single plane had already been ordered to land at the nearest airport (and there was no airport nearby). Also, if migs had been scrambled for the other planes but got there too late, why wouldn't they have done the same for the last plane which happened later and had more time to react to?
It simply doesn't make sense. Grand, mass scale ineptitude again?
This quite eloquently sums up the inconsistencies, not to mention states the clear fact that at least the decision HAD been made:
| quote: | Well-founded uncertainty 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.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28200/#q5CjqyKUi5Kz2X2u.99 |
|
