Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it.
Moderator: Moderators
- prole art threat
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: London Town
Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready!
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready!
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
-Johnny Pixels
- chipmunk stew
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:06 pm
Re: Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it.
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Which was it--a shoot-down order or a stand-down order? Which one means it was an Inside Job, again?prole art threat wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready!

"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
- prole art threat
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: London Town
Re: Flight 93 shot down! Rumsfeld admitted it.
Youre cracking up, Chipmunk.chipmunk stew wrote:Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Which was it--a shoot-down order or a stand-down order? Which one means it was an Inside Job, again?prole art threat wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84
Come on critics, marigolds and scrubbing brushes at the ready!
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
-Johnny Pixels
- Patrick Brown
- 9/11 Truth critic
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:18 pm
- Contact:
Yes he said shot down when the OCT says it crashed!!
Yes that should read munky stew.
Yes that should read munky stew.

We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
and yet if they just admitted they shot down flight 93 in the first place the whole offical conspiracy theory might of been more believable at the start. i wonder if mistakes were made on purpose in order to make the public aware, its the only explanation for such poor story's that needs new excuses repeatidly to carry on exsisting. i reckon some people in the ranks gave us the tip off's needed. no one is that dumb surely, if it was a cover-up. flight 93 shot down is logical i would of thought if we were told that first. they were preventing more loss of life presuming the plane would be slammed into a full building, however they shot it down then to cover it they told us they took the controls and flew it into the ground. so eager were they to cover the whole thing they failed to realise that something they really did would of been a better explantion than a lie.
For me there was never any doubt the plane over PA was shot down. The debris pattern on the ground gave it away.
Ironically enough, that was the one component where I felt they could have told the truth and got away with it. Something along the lines of "take a few hundred to save a few thousand" would have been saleable to the US Public that day.
So has anyone reported this video to their FBI local field office and asked for an investigation I wonder?
Ironically enough, that was the one component where I felt they could have told the truth and got away with it. Something along the lines of "take a few hundred to save a few thousand" would have been saleable to the US Public that day.
So has anyone reported this video to their FBI local field office and asked for an investigation I wonder?
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
Hypothetically at least, there are several reasons why the two points are potentially consistent -
- Something went wrong with 'the plan' - e.g. there was an actual insurrection or 'global hawk' malfunctioned or whatever.
- The plane had been in the air too long (wasn't 93 delayed taking off?) and it stretched the credulity of the failure of the air defence if it'd got to Washington.
- It was scripted - you need all American heroes to add some fight back spirit to the day.
I'm not supporting any of these specifically, just suggesting there are numerous possibilities that would be consistent.
- Something went wrong with 'the plan' - e.g. there was an actual insurrection or 'global hawk' malfunctioned or whatever.
- The plane had been in the air too long (wasn't 93 delayed taking off?) and it stretched the credulity of the failure of the air defence if it'd got to Washington.
- It was scripted - you need all American heroes to add some fight back spirit to the day.
I'm not supporting any of these specifically, just suggesting there are numerous possibilities that would be consistent.
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
You're working well, wobbler, now see if you can add in it not really being the plane wreckage in Shanksville, to win a major prize.wobbler wrote:Hypothetically at least, there are several reasons why the two points are potentially consistent -
- Something went wrong with 'the plan' - e.g. there was an actual insurrection or 'global hawk' malfunctioned or whatever.
- The plane had been in the air too long (wasn't 93 delayed taking off?) and it stretched the credulity of the failure of the air defence if it'd got to Washington.
- It was scripted - you need all American heroes to add some fight back spirit to the day.
I'm not supporting any of these specifically, just suggesting there are numerous possibilities that would be consistent.
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
not sure i understand the logic here, but from everything thats been said over time there are 3 possibilities. 1. the plane was shot down because it was hijacked. 2 the plane was hijacked and the passengers took control and flew it into the ground in the struggle. 3 the plane wasnt hijacked at all but just diverted then shot down. why would shooting it down mean it was hijacked if there was a cover-up? as it stands we were told 2 but with a crashsite looking like 1 or 3. its why there should really be a reinvestigastion, a proper one not a behind door on sensitive matters and picking out the witnesses who give nothing away to put in the report, but lets just ignore the others and things that dont fit in.Bushwacker wrote:So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart?
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
Your possibilities 1 and 2 involve the plane being hijacked. If the plane was really hijacked then 9/11 was not an inside job. LIHOP is still a possibility with 2 but not 1, there would be no point letting it happen and then shooting down a plane.marky 54 wrote:not sure i understand the logic here, but from everything thats been said over time there are 3 possibilities. 1. the plane was shot down because it was hijacked. 2 the plane was hijacked and the passengers took control and flew it into the ground in the struggle. 3 the plane wasnt hijacked at all but just diverted then shot down.Bushwacker wrote:So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart?
What would be the point of your possibility 3, it just adds complication to the plot and nothing else?
The 9/11 Commission was not behind closed doors. Ignoring inconvenient witnesses and things that do not fit it is more of a truthshirker tactic, like the hundreds of witnesses of flight 77 at the Pentagon, and the calls made by passengers in the hijacked aircraft. Some of course do attempt to explain those, but the explanations involving family and friends being deceived by actors or strange technology are all quite absurd.its why there should really be a reinvestigastion, a proper one not a behind door on sensitive matters and picking out the witnesses who give nothing away to put in the report, but lets just ignore the others and things that dont fit in.
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Bushwacker -
If it were that, I suppose you'd suggest what they say in LC is true and they dumped some wreckage or crashed a drone or something. The Rumsfeld comment was therefore cunning disinformation referring to a bogus plane. What do I win?
I'm not sure I get you - do you mean that LC idea about it not actually being flight 93? - do many people subscribe to that idea?now see if you can add in it not really being the plane wreckage in Shanksville, to win a major prize.
If it were that, I suppose you'd suggest what they say in LC is true and they dumped some wreckage or crashed a drone or something. The Rumsfeld comment was therefore cunning disinformation referring to a bogus plane. What do I win?
Well most of it was. Some of it was behind closed doors. Mind you, at least they got one. Conspiracies aside, I'm bemused at how the British public were so complacent about the lack of a proper investigation into 7/7. The 'official narrative' for that makes the 911 commission look like the most rigorous investigation in history.The 9/11 Commission was not behind closed doors.
I totally agree a lot of that goes on, but feel compelled to point out the commission did a lot of that too.Ignoring inconvenient witnesses and things that do not fit it is more of a truthshirker tactic,
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
- prole art threat
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: London Town
God, youre fukking stupid. If you listen to what the evil b*stard is saying he basically states that 'the people who shot down the plane in Pensylvania' are the same group ' who atacked the towers'.Bushwacker wrote:So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart?
Go on Bushwacker, get your marigolds on, get your hard-on, and start scrubbing the doorstep again. You Neocon's bitch! Go on, get on your hands and knees Bushwacker bitch and give it some more whitewashing.
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
-Johnny Pixels
- Johnny Pixels
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
- Contact:
If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
- prole art threat
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: London Town
If the plane wasnt shot down, why is Donald Rumsfeld saying it was? Just that, Pixels, answer me that.Johnny Pixels wrote:If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
*throws Pixels a new xmas scrubbing brush*
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
-Johnny Pixels
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.prole art threat wrote:God, youre fukking stupid. If you listen to what the evil b*stard is saying he basically states that 'the people who shot down the plane in Pensylvania' are the same group ' who atacked the towers'.Bushwacker wrote:So if the plane was shot down, then it had been hijacked, so 9/11 was not an inside job, is that what you are telling us, prole fart?
Go on Bushwacker, get your marigolds on, get your hard-on, and start scrubbing the doorstep again. You Neocon's bitch! Go on, get on your hands and knees Bushwacker bitch and give it some more whitewashing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out.
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
- prole art threat
- Validated Poster
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: London Town
Oh he mis-spoke did he? He just 'mis-spoke'? Is that all you can say? Rumsfeld talks about, "the people responsible for the attacks in New York, who shot down the plane in Pensylvania and who attacked the Pentagon". He puts them all under the same umbrella. But he just 'misspoke'.Bushwacker wrote: Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out.
That plane was shot down because if it had been left to land safely, it would have been obvious that there were no hijackers on it. It was probably destined for WTC 7.
'Mis-spoke'? Get back on your hands and knees 'Bushwacker Bitch'! You're a useless Neocon's tart because you dont seem to have scrubbed this one very clean. I may report you to your Neocon masters for negligence!
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
-Johnny Pixels
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
You truthshirkers have a wonderful way of avoiding what you don't want to see! Or perhaps more than one point at a time is too much? MADRID, he also mentioned Madrid and other bombings, why don't you include those?prole art threat wrote:Oh he misspoke did he? He just 'misspoke'? Is that all you can say? Rumsfeld talks about, "the people responsible for the attacks in New York, who shot down the plane in Pensylvania and who attacked the Pentagon". He puts them all under the same umbrella. But he just 'misspoke'.Bushwacker wrote: Oh, you want me to listen to what he is saying do you? Well then I think he just "miss-spoke" as so many of the administration seem to. If you think he meant it literally you also have to believe, according to you, that the 9/11 insiders also were responsible for the Madrid bombing.
Do tell us why you think the 9/11 insiders shot down a plane that had not been hijacked, lied about it, and faked calls from the passengers. And do you think the wreckage in Shanksville was flight 93 or not?
We'll wait while you work all that out.
That plane was shot down because if it had been left to land safely, it would have been obvious that there were no hijackers on it. It was probably destined for WTC 7.
'Misspoke'? Get back on your hands and knees 'Bushwacker Bitch'! You're a useless Neocon tart because you dont seem to have scrubbed this one very clean. I may report you to your Neocon masters for negligence!
and why should it not then have been flown into WTC7 or anywhere else, like the ground, if it was flown by remote control? And why risk discovery by faking calls from passengers? And how about answering the question, do you now accept it was flight 93 that crashed at Shanksville, whether shot down or not?
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
- Johnny Pixels
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
- Contact:
What makes you think that Donald Rumsfeld is incapable of making mistakes?prole art threat wrote:If the plane wasnt shot down, why is Donald Rumsfeld saying it was? Just that, Pixels, answer me that.Johnny Pixels wrote:If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
*throws Pixels a new xmas scrubbing brush*
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
- Johnny Pixels
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
- Contact:
If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
I still need an answer to this.Johnny Pixels wrote:If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's.Johnny Pixels wrote:If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
I still need an answer to this.Johnny Pixels wrote:If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
- Johnny Pixels
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
- Contact:
Some people on this site seem to think it is significant that Rumsfeld said it was shot down. It has been pointed out that this was a mistake. The pattern of debris in the field indicates that the plane hit the ground at high speed, rather than as debris from a mid-air explosion, therefore the evidence backs up the fact that Rumsfeld made a mistake.marky 54 wrote:didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's.Johnny Pixels wrote:If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
I still need an answer to this.Johnny Pixels wrote:If the plane was shot down, why was the debris buried in a field? Look at Lockerbie. That plane exploded at high speed, and left large debris. Why would the Shanksville plane, if blown up, then bury itself in the ground?
So can we conclude that a mistake was made, and not keep bringing up non-issues?
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
- Patrick Brown
- 9/11 Truth critic
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:18 pm
- Contact:
Hmm maybe there was a bomb of that plane! 

We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
-
- Relentless Limpet Shill
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 pm
- Johnny Pixels
- Moderate Poster
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
- Contact:
If it were shot down then the debris would be spread out much differently than how it did. If it were shot down it would break up in mid-air, causing it to lose speed rapidly, spreading the debris out, rather than it burying itself into the ground.hampton wrote:if it was shot down, the fighter pilots probably didn't know it was an inside job. maybe they disobeyed orders.
Basically the plane wasn't shot down.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
ah ok just a mistake then. not a slip up. and why can we conclude? YOU keep qouting the offical storey, YOU keep saying it looked like the plane crashed into the ground, however others disagree so how can we conclude? ah i see how it works now, someone says something you debunk it by qouting the offical storey which people are questioning in the first place then no one else can comment because you concluded it. you keep saying the plane buried itself how the hell does that work then? some physics please because i cannot picture it as other planes have slammed into the groud at 500mph and not buried them selves and left remains that can be identified as a plane.Johnny Pixels wrote:Some people on this site seem to think it is significant that Rumsfeld said it was shot down. It has been pointed out that this was a mistake. The pattern of debris in the field indicates that the plane hit the ground at high speed, rather than as debris from a mid-air explosion, therefore the evidence backs up the fact that Rumsfeld made a mistake.marky 54 wrote:didnt the commission report answer that?, if so why ask us. they said it was flew into the ground, they came to the conclusions in the commission report, and they (rummy) said it was shot down.and your asking us the questions? think your mistaken your asking the wrong guys we didnt invent any of those story's.Johnny Pixels wrote:If Donald Rumsfeld said the world was a cube, it wouldn't make it true.
I still need an answer to this.
So can we conclude that a mistake was made, and not keep bringing up non-issues?