rumsfeld's freudian slip

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html


he said something about the united plane being shot down over pennsylvania... maybe he knows something we don't... or something we knew for a long time now.

 

I was coming in here just now to post about this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42130

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 being 'shot down'
Defense chief said to remain firm plane crashed from passenger-terrorist struggle

Posted: December 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


The Pentagon is dismissing a comment by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld regarding Flight 93 having been "shot down" over Pennsylvania, saying it was nothing more than a speaking error.

As WorldNetDaily exclusively reported yesterday, Rumsfeld, during his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the Sept. 11 flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

His complete quote was: "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."

CNN contacted the Pentagon for reaction to the WND story, and the cable network was told Rumsfeld simply misspoke.

"A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists," CNN reports.

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.

The official explanation 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.

Although the onboard struggle – 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 airliners, 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 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 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.'"

Earlier stories:

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down'

The downing of Flight 93

Was United Flight 93 shot down Sept. 11?

'Fighting knife' found in wreckage of Flight 93



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

thanks man.

 

glad to see ya kids picked up on that. i was gonna post it, but im not good at computer shit.

 

go to www.letsroll911.org and order the documentary "In Plane Site". It blows up the entire official story told by the corporate media.

 

I don't know if others remember when this actually happened - there were multiple reports from people in the area who said that they SAW the plane shot down by some type of missle. I've always assumed that the government shot it down and didn't want to admit to killing a bunch of US civilians. I remember very vividly the interviews with folks who saw the plane shot down, but those interviews shortly "disappeared" - I'm sure the witnesses were told to keep their mouths shut or something - otherwise we'd still be hearing from them.

 

Years ago,I had c-band sat system at home because I lived in a radio and tv "dead zone" due to the hills etc.I used to watch the wild downfeeds of the big three news grinders,(abc,cbs,nbc).I watched as they broke the news of flight 800 down in new york.I watched them interview two coast guard officers who were whitness to a "missle" hitting the port(left)wing of the aircraft,as well as seeing a unidentified ship hauling ass outta there.Since I didn't get any local tv,I called a friend of mine,told him what I just seen on the wild feeds,asked him to watch the evening news and see what they say.All that was said is that a twa flight went down,with no survivors,and the ntsb was enroute.The rest you know from the little that was covered.I have no doubts in my mind that our govt has been,and is,and will again,kill innocents to suit their purposes,or just outright cover up a major fuckup.Sad,but I swear this is true.

 

a few little things, im not defending america here just posting a different perspective..

1. why is it when anyone like bush, rumsfeld etc, say anything wrong, its always a freudian slip? not saying that is wasnt, just that people do mess up and say things wrong sometimes.
2. wouldnt shooting down the plane be the right thing to do, considering the prior attacks? im not sure on their policies or anything so i guess i could be wrong here.. but if theres a plane of doomed people wouldnt it be better to shoot them down, rather than let the plane take down others with them..
meh i dunno

 

it's not a matter of if they said something wrong or not... it's a matter of if they're telling us the truth or flat out lying to us. and who wants a president that lies? oh i'm sorry we already have one of those. it's not wrong to question things my friend, and when "slips" happen, it's only natural to question.

 

I seriously doubt they're coverin' anything up in this case. Why would they??? If Flight 93 really was shot down, they'd want people to know it to prove NORAD was actually on the ball. That none of the planes were shot down makes 'em seem inept. Unlike TWA 800, they have no reason to cover up this one - quite the contrary. That's why I don't believe it.

 

where is the freudian slip? i missed it.

 

Rumsfeld describes the plane being "shot down." The "official" report is that the plane crashed after a clash between the hijackers and the passengers. Remember "let's roll"?

 

I bet he just misspoke...

 

Maybe,,,,but I have my doubts.

 

More a matter of the sheer volume of successive lies piled up by this admin in their first four years proving too substantial to keep straight. Sooner or later even pathological liars are undone by their own inconsistency.

 

Agreed.But as usual,they'll spin their way on to something else.If only the sheep would awaken.

 

I agree that the gov't isn't above using deception, but in this case, there's no reason they'd even want to lie 'bout anything. If they'd interceped Flight 93, they would've had every reason to let it be known.

 

not to be anal or anything, but that has nothing to do with freud. what he said was just a slip of the tongue.

 

Once again I miss the point !!
Even if the plane was shot down what the hell will it do to your nation to know about it, except put more stress on your airline companies, government and population ! not to mention the poor pilot that did the actual shooting, the press would be all over him ! Nobody gains by disclosing the plane was shot down, except the terrorist !! they would know that the next time they send crazies to highjack a plane there would be no need to train them to fly to their target, because they wouldn't need to, they would just announce their intent to crash and the government would do the rest !!!
Some times our governments need to keep secrets( a lot of secrets) for our own protection especially with people like you around !
If me not knowing means you don't know ? thats good enough for me......

 

Actually no soliloquy, unmasking yet another inconsistency in the coverstory simply contributes to the body of evidence which demands full and public investigation with forced access to all data long held under the veil of secrecy which has come to characterise this criminal administration.

That lie upon lie has already been exposed reinforces the fact that those who cater to and defend such liars are choosing to willfully avoid any investigation for fear of discovering the heinous truth of treasonous betrayal of both office and nation by the true architects of that day.

To remove the heroic passenger uprising of flight 93 would be to strengthen the calls for release of the black boxes of all flights involved. Those i suspect would show that no hijackers were in fact present on any flights, certainly not the ones named. This in turn would then turn the spotlight on the power grab that day provided and show that it was both contrived at the highest levels and subsequently whitewashed. A sacandal that would make Watergate a walk in the park.

But then, people who prefer to live unruffled complacent lives would rather not consider such plausible scenarios since it might force them to care for more than the maintenance of their own immediate comfort zones.