« Allah Explains... | Main | What Ever Happened to Reading Comprehension? »

Rumsfeld Slip Fuels Conspiracy Mills

The conspiracy nuts are already ga-ga over this...

WorldNetDaily - During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down - long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Those who would cite this as proof of some gigantic cover-up are missing the point. Rumsfeld misspoke, and most likely the misspeak represents the situation the SecDef wishes had happened. If one of the 4 hijacked flights of 9/11 had actually been shot down don't you think that the Bush administration would have been able to raise a tiny victory flag over the fate of that last flight?

Wouldn't we all have felt better in the days after 9/11 knowing that a hijacked plane headed for a spectacular crash could be intercepted and downed even though it was not really planned for? Of course that didn't happen. The 9/11 report has cockpit conversations that prove that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane in response to the passenger rebellion.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rumsfeld Slip Fuels Conspiracy Mills:

» Rooftop Report linked with Plane Shot Down?

» The Counterpoint linked with What really happened to Flight 93?

Comments (13)

I think you need to do more... (Below threshold)

I think you need to do more reading about this subject on WND's website and on various other websites. It's well known that the cockpit voice recorders stopped at 10:03am, the only problem with that is that according to seismic data the plane didn't hit the ground until 10:06am, that's three minutes after the recorder stopped.

There was also paper and other debris scattered for over 8 miles around the crash site, something that didn't happen at the other 3 crash sites. Also, why was a 1000 pound chunk of an engine found nearly 1 mile away from the crash site? It sure as hell didn't bounce that far, that means it had to have seperated from the plane before it hit the ground.

What about the eyewitnesses who say that they clearly saw another fighter-type jet in the area at the same time the crash happened...were all those people hallucinating?

There's a lot of unanswered questions regarding flight 93 and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was shot down intentionally, they had to do what they needed to do to keep it from hitting something else. If they did shoot it down the goverment needs to come clean and tell us that's what they did instead of covering it up which appears to be the case.

one other thing...what abou... (Below threshold)

one other thing...what about seismic data that clearly recorded a sonic boom 60 miles away several minutes before the crash happened?

Ke-rist on a bike, man! the... (Below threshold)

Ke-rist on a bike, man! the cat is 70 freakin years old. Is it at all possible that he had a momentary brain fart?

Brent:A plane can ... (Below threshold)


A plane can be and is often torn apart in flight from extreme sheer. Could very well have been that the flight in question (your remarks) lost a wing or maybe two just moments before impact, caused by the extreme flight angle prior to doom...breaking apart in the air just before impact seems very likely to me, but caused by the physics of the plunge itself and not because of some projectile impacting the plane prior to impact. Think about it...the plane was plunging at full speed head first, not at all extraordinary that a wing or maybe both wings would detach from the wind sheer alone.

Another thing: people ofte... (Below threshold)

Another thing: people often try to accuse some missile as being responsible for damage/cast off parts/elements from a flight, or even because they can't "find anyone or anything" after the flight has impacted...think about the force involved in an aircraft heading for the ground at a very high speed, steep decline: almost everything except the huge solid parts (an engine, for instance) is obliterated, smashed into tiny particles and bits and what isn't is cast on due to the force that all were bearing as they headed for impact. All that force has to go somewhere. If you understand basic physics, you can readily perceive the afteraffects and why they occured.

Ok -S-...but what about the... (Below threshold)

Ok -S-...but what about the burnt papers and other debris that was found over 8 miles away, the sonic boom from an aircraft 60 miles away from the crash site several minutes before flight 93 crashed, the eyewitnesses who saw another smaller fighter type jet and the fact that the recorders stopped recording 3 minutes before the plane crashed and the last sound heard (according to sources mentioned in various articles) as the sound of rushing air? What about the call from INSIDE the plane by a passenger reporting that there had just been some type of explosion?

Brent, the onus is not on -... (Below threshold)

Brent, the onus is not on -S- to prove to you what the 9-11 commission has already found. The onus is on you to disprove it, which you haven't. Simply bringing up half-framed questions and innuendo doesn't count as proof of conspiracy; it merely belies the complexity of the situation.

Brent: I'm not an engineer... (Below threshold)

Brent: I'm not an engineer and I really doubt, from what you've written here, that you are, either.

No aircraft that is destroyed prior to impact leaves the concentrated "crater" or impact point that this one flight did. That alone proves that the plane (or most of it) disintegrated on impact in a highly concentrated impact point. Since this plane was headed nose first at ABOUT SIX HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR, it is obvious that this flight, nor any others, would be completely disintegrated by the terrible force of impact and angle of entry to the earth/impact point.

The papers and such scattered around a wider area serve to enforce to my view what tremendous and awful force was involved in the, again, physics of this event: anything of any mass as an object was obliteratd on impact while smaller, less weighty (objects with very little mass) were "scattered" and remained intact.

And, as I wrote earlier, a plane losing a wing/both wings/any wing and any engine or all engines along with a wing or all/any wings would have a decompression event taking place coinciding with the acceleration nose-down toward impact and would be losing objects along the way. Objects that have smallest mass would sustain less damage upon impact while larger objects -- containing greater mass -- would be obliterated and/or sustain the greatest damage from the impact. And, things like "papers" would easily escape an impact event by simply being blown out of the plane during either the descent or upon impact. The impact happens -- everything that's not disintegrated is blown upward and outward and/or carried forward into the earth/impact crater -- while everything else is literally obliterated and/or is ignited by whatever fuel exists at impact.

There are a series of small events all of which comprise the entire, larger, catastrophic event. People later walk over and see an impact crater and things lying around in a general area and wonder "what happened to the plane and all the people" while they then find sheets of paper, shoes, dayplanners and pieces of clothing and such (and parts of some people, sadly and horribly) and marvel that these smaller objects sustained little to no damage. But, that's as I already explained and again, there are a series of events that take place that result in the larger, catastrophic event of the destruction on impact. The larger the object, the greater it's destruction or result from such an high impact (or any impact) while the smaller the object, the less damage to that object from the same impact, particularly when the smaller objects are "blown up and out" or away from the impact itself, as part of the process.

But, the important point about the flight that impacted in Pennsylvania is that it left a crater, an impact crater, upon it's destruction. No craft that was destroyed in the flight would do that, at least not to the extent that was found in Pennsylvania.

And, Brent, a call from ins... (Below threshold)

And, Brent, a call from inside the craft on trajectory toward impact doesn't mean that what's being reported ("an explosion") actually took place. It was a call under terrible circumstances and a blow out or decompression in an aircraft, particularly a large one as was this flight of question, is going to make a very loud and terrible noise. Perhaps decompression occured and that's what was being reported by a passenger as "an explosion" (which decompression would be, an explosion and would make an explosive, very loud and awful sound and then continue to do so afterward, while objects in the craft were sucked outside the craft and strewn along the path of trajectory, AND blown away from the trajectory by the craft itself as it continued to plummet).

Passengers, from what's been pieced together by fact and intuition and reports by those who they called, rushed the cabin, took control of the craft to some extent but did not have enough time to pull the plane out of it's terrible path toward impact. It's doubtful even if they'd had more time to do so whether or not it would have been structurally possible, even.

What probably took place is that a hijacker or hijackers placed the plane into maximum speed and nose dive and then the passengers, one of whom was a capable pilot, tried to regain control of the plane but was not able to do so and the plane made impact.

Again, it was reported to be plummeting toward the earth nose first at about six hundred miles per hour so even if there had been extra seconds/minutes available to even the most capable pilot or pilots, it is questionable whether or not the plane's trajectory could have been altered at that point once that event began, that speed, that angle of the craft.

If there WAS "an explosion," as you suggest and some are trying to make to then irrationally equate with the plane being "shot down" by Americna military...this isn't logical to try to conclude this way. Apparently the military had been authorized by V.P. Cheney TO shoot the plane down IF necessary but there wasn't even time to do that, given the events onboard the plane itself. Such that, whatever "explosion" MAY have occured on that craft was undoubtedly a wing or two being shorn off, an engine also, or both along with that, and decompression of the plane, which would explain your "scattered papers" issue and an engine being found and all that.

There was also an engine found in NYC of one of the planes that impacted the two towers, just lying on a Manhattan street, debris from either/both the planes found far after their point of impact (objects continued on forward after the impacts with the towers, including, awfully, some parts of some human beings), but the point is that the planes break apart both just before impact and then of course the greater destruction at impact, but there are a series of destructive, "exploding" events along the way in miliseconds as a plane of this/these size/s travels at such a high rate of speed.

The plane that impacted in Pennsylvania was travelling at a higher rate of speed than those in NY, also. I don't know if you can comprehend a rate of speed of around six hundred miles an hour, but, it'd be strange at that rate of speed and the plane's trajectory (in Pennsylvania) if a wing or both wings did NOT detach prior to impact, from the rate and angle of descent alone. Gravity is a powerful thing.

Consider this:Rums... (Below threshold)

Consider this:

Rumsfeld and Cheney and persons in their circle of information were aware that there had been that terrible order, to shoot down a plane if necessary, to save greater damage being done. It's an awful responsibility to even consider such a terrible event, but it's also a necessary aspect of being in a leadership/command position in such a time.

Anyway, just try to consider that Rumsfeld is and was aware that the order itself had been issued by Cheney for that plane to be shot down before it could fly to Washington or any other area and be used as a WMD against even more Americans. But there was not even enough time to do that, and the brave people onboard that flight in Pennsylvania preempted the decision itself by overtaking the hijackers on that plane.

So, try to consider, from a humane, empathetic point of view, that Rumsfeld, a human being, bears memory of that awful day, remembers the grave consequences and the considerations made that day, and among many other traumatic and complicated, very grave decisions and issues he has had to consider and manage every single day since 09/11, as has V.P. Cheney and President Bush, that sometimes these humans are going to not speak as clearly as they might or would be preferred they'd speak by others.

I mean, imagine the weight of the knowledge and responsibilities involved and then try to accept their speech as that of humans managing a huge array of complex and immensely weighty decisions and information. I can imagine that even one day of that would be more than enough to make most humans have bad dreams and lose sleep, and maybe start up with facial twitches now and then, stutter and/or lose words or speak loudly, too rapidly, impatiently, lose thoughts in mid stream, among many other displays of complex issues and responsibilities.

I mean, there's Rumsfeld, not even ACTUALLY misspeaking but misspeaking somewhat, sorta running together those general concepts/statements, and there's liberalism and paranoia just rushing to assign wrongdoing or misinterpretation to what was being said. Sometimes I just cannot believe the crassness of some people, the depravity involved in such awful mistrust about people like Rumsfeld who do nothing but hardwork and dedicated service most of thier lives for their fellows.

All these imaginings toward darkness, that the U.S. has to be the bad force in the world's problems, it is just truly and really misguided and wrong thinking. How much do you think Rumsfeld is paid? Do you see the guy calling in sick? Refusing to do his job? No, you see a guy past seventy years of age, showing up day in and day out and applying himself to service...I'm amazed at his capabilities, truly I am.

whatever. wake up people.</... (Below threshold)

whatever. wake up people.

My Goodness people, go back... (Below threshold)

My Goodness people, go back and read all the "excuses", "rationalizations" and "denials" about something so blatantly evident.

You think Rumsfeld is just one of these 'jolly old guys' who just happened to have a brain fart?

Now that is a bigger stretch than any conspiracy theory I have ever heard. You have to really, really reach to get there. This is a conniving brilliant man who says and does nothing without it being absolutely necessary to accomplish some goal.

Lets see, what could that be? Get you used to the idea of civilians being attacked by their own miliary IF the justification can be sold to the average American????? Now that makes more sense based on history of this man and this administration.

They are getting ready for Martial law. Mark my words! As Franklin Roosevelt once said and I believe you canfind it on the net "There are no missteps or accidents in politics; everything is planned and executed right down to the most minute detail". I believe this is a good example of that philosophy.

Oh, and -S-, you appear to ... (Below threshold)

Oh, and -S-, you appear to be a very naive and nice person. Don't use "liberals" as a justification for allowing Rumsy to do his thing unencumbered. Remember this is the man who, along with others in this administration, approved of the sexual abuse of Iraqi children in front of their mothers to get hte mothers to talk.

A nice, hard working guy? NOT! A Nazi? YES






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy