Rummy just made a hell of a slip!

Hobbes

sovtek wrote:

I would also like to point out that Bush using those surviving family members at the SOTU address shortly after 9/11 is pathological... should they have known that the plane was actually shot down.

Had the survivors of the 93 managed to take over the plane and land it they would of most likely (barring public intervention) faced jail time, as the FAA made it illegal for passengers to stop terrorists.

Moriarty

If there was no trace of explosive on the wreckage, how do you propose that a missile was used? They don't use a really hot curry to explode.

There's also the problem of it being very unlikely that it would have just exploded if it was hit. Odds are one of the engines would have been hit due to heat-seeking missiles being used, but planes have survived intact when they were hit with heat-seeking missiles in the past - in fact, I can't think of a single example of a passenger jet being hit and just exploding.

TomF

Here's what CNN quoted from the report:
*********
9/11 report reveals who was at controls before crash

Friday, July 23, 2004 Posted: 5:57 AM EDT (0957 GMT)

(CNN) -- Who actually put United Flight 93 into a death dive, causing it to slam into the Pennsylvania countryside on September 11, 2001, is revealed in the 9/11 commission report released Thursday.

The passenger revolt began at 9:57 a.m., nearly 30 minutes after the four terrorists aboard launched their takeover of the Boeing 757 loaded with more than 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.

As passengers charged the cockpit door, terrorist hijacker Ziad Jarrah began rolling the plane to the left and right, "attempting to knock the passengers off balance," the 9/11 commission report said. Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door.

By 9:59 a.m., Jarrah changed tactics and "pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault."

"The [flight] recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts and breaking glass and plates. At 10:00:03 a.m., Jarrah stabilized the airplane," the report says.

"Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, 'Is that it? Shall we finish it off?' A hijacker responded, 'No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.' "

Jarrah resumed pitching the plane up and down.

"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die," a passenger is heard saying.

"Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, 'Roll it!' " the report says.

By 10:01 a.m., Jarrah stopped his violent maneuvers and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

According to the report, he then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?"

"Yes, put it in it, and pull it down," the other responded.

The passengers continued with their assault, trying to break through the cockpit door. At 10:02 a.m. and 23 seconds, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," the report concludes.

"The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.'

"With the sounds of the passenger counter-attack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C."
***********

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

If there was no trace of explosive on the wreckage, how do you propose that a missile was used? They don't use a really hot curry to explode.

I meant explosives in that the Terrorists smuggled it on board.

There's also the problem of it being very unlikely that it would have just exploded if it was hit.

Depends a lot on what it was hit with wouldn't it.

Three planes have just done devestating damage, you would want to take out the plane so that even the wreakage didn't cause a serious threat.

Portions of the plane did survive intact btw, just a large amount of it was scattered over a large area which isn't consistent with a ground crash.

There are loads of unanswered questions about the day. For example, how is it a Black box can be destroyed when it hit the towers, yet a terrorists passport who was on that flight was found intact at ground zero? Especially considering the CSMU in a black box are virtually indestructible.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

I meant explosives in that the Terrorists smuggled it on board.

Yeah, but explosives from these supposed missiles would still be spread all over the plane if it was hit by a missile. No explosive traces = no missile.

Hobbes wrote:

There are loads of unanswered questions about the day. For example, how is it a Black box can be destroyed when it hit the towers, yet a terrorists passport who was on that flight was found intact at ground zero? Especially considering the CSMU in a black box are virtually indestructible.

I dunno, doesn't seem all that impossible. Could have been blown around in the blast/etc/etc/etc since passports are so light. There's also pure chance and luck.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Yeah, but explosives from these supposed missiles would still be spread all over the plane if it was hit by a missile. No explosive traces = no missile.

who says there was no explosive traces? I just said based on the other planes and the radio chatter on flight 93 it is unlikely that the terrorists brought on board explosives. Homeland Security are not giving out any details.

I dunno, doesn't seem all that impossible. Could have been blown around in the blast/etc/etc/etc since passports are so light. There's also pure chance and luck.

Blown around in the blast that vapourised pretty much everyone and the plane at the contact point, which is also being cited for the destrcution of the black boxes, yet a passport most likely in his pocket is found near the site?

Who's wearing tinfoil now? :rolleyes:

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

who says there was no explosive traces? I just said based on the other planes and the radio chatter on flight 93 it is unlikely that the terrorists brought on board explosives. Homeland Security are not giving out any details.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/09/25/1

The FBI said Monday that it had completed its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 and found no evidence of an explosion as a possible cause for the plane's crash near Pittsburgh.

Investigators searched for evidence of a bomb after reports that at least two passengers on the flight phoned relatives and mentioned that the hijackers claimed to have a bomb.

"The conclusion of the investigation is that no explosives were used on board the plane," said FBI spokesman Bill Crowley.

...

Hobbes wrote:

Blown around in the blast that vapourised pretty much everyone and the plane at the contact point, which is also being cited for the destrcution of the black boxes, yet a passport most likely in his pocket is found near the site?

It wasn't all vapourised instantly, it took more than half an hour for the fire to do that. It's not impossible that that passport, along with thousands of other things like sheets of paper that were seen flowing out of the gash in the side of the buildings, survived.

Hobbes

As the quote says, it just says no explosives were used on board the plane.

It wasn't all vapourised instantly,

I think you are missing the point by miles.

The black boxes were wreaked. Do you have any idea how much damage has to be inflicted to a black box to destroy it or make it unusable? It is normally put in the back of the plane so that the crushing of the plane cusions any damage. Not to mention they come with ejection systems. Yet somehow that gets destroyed but a passport from a terrorist who was most likely in the cockpit at the front of the crash survives.

Redleslie2

Moriarty wrote:

It wasn't all vapourised instantly, it took more than half an hour for the fire to do that. It's not impossible that that passport, along with thousands of other things like sheets of paper that were seen flowing out of the gash in the side of the buildings, survived.

The pseudoscience behind tinfoil hat wearing actually has more plausibility than what you're suggesting here.

spongebob

/me is still utterly underwhelmed by all this

M

Moriarty

Right. So, nothing unusual has ever happened to you? Nothing unusual ever previously happened in things like september 11th?

What I'm trying to get across is that there's a million and one reasons this passport (which I don't even know about) could be seperated from whomever owned it. It could have been with his carry-on luggage that got thrown out the other side of the building after the crash, or been flung out the cockpit window when they crashed, for all you know. You're reading far too much into irrelevancys.

Black boxes are secured inside planes. When planes crash, the black boxes sit right where they landed. The plane crashed into and stayed in the tower, where the jet fuel incinerated the metal superstructure of the building over the next 30-50 minutes.

Passports, on the other hand, are light and like everything else not secured in place fly all over the place if theres a crash. Black boxes will melt just like everything else if exposed to high enough temperatures.

Ajnag

What Im seeing out of this is politics, pure and simple.

We all admit we'd shoot that jet down were we in that situation.

So maybe they did, given the oppertunity.

Thus It beomes a matter of politics, if they covered it up, It would be a loss of face to admit it, so why would they?
Public good?

So maybe rummy did slip, If he did no big deal, cept his fellow citizens may be pissed the people couldnt be trusted with the truth.

Hobbes

Err Blackboxes don't just melt. I gave you a link on them. The solid state memory in them is virtually indestrucible (well withstand the damage inflicted on the towers) yet it was damaged not only in the towers but also in the Flight 93 crash.

Add to that we are somehow to believe that a paper passport could survive the damage a lot easier. That it somehow left the plane at the time of explosion and wafted down for someone easy to find while a whole fricken building collapsed in the area.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

Add to that we are somehow to believe that a paper passport could survive the damage a lot easier. That it somehow left the plane at the time of explosion and wafted down for someone easy to find while a whole fricken building collapsed in the area.

I'm seriously trying to track down a quote from an FBI agent saying something like "what we found of the hijackers we were meant to find".
It may have been a Discovery documentary or something like that.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Err Blackboxes don't just melt. I gave you a link on them. The solid state memory in them is virtually indestrucible (well withstand the damage inflicted on the towers) yet it was damaged not only in the towers but also in the Flight 93 crash.

Yes they do, just like everything else when it's exposed to a high enough temperature. From your link, they're rated for 1,100C/30 minutes. The steel support structures of both towers (which have a higher temperature resistance than the black boxes) were melted by the fire, with both staying up for a minimum of 50 minutes after the crash.

Hobbes

And if you read about the solid state memory you would see that those could of easy survived. They are designed to withstand heats of over 2000C for one hour. Add to that each plane carries two blackboxes.

Even that doesn't explain Flight 93s blackbox. Even if you are correct the fact a passport survived (and a passport they would want) is totally out there in the realms of fantasy.

Also just noticed (in looking up the passport news), appears the FAA gave the pentagon 12 minutes warning that a plane was going to hit them but no action was taken.

Moriarty

Sigh.

Bored now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

So why shoot down the 4th plane if they had no interest in hitting the first 3???

Thats the great thing about conspiracy theories. They dont have to make sense.

Ajnag

Sand wrote:

Thats the great thing about conspiracy theories. They dont have to make sense.

Sand you read the thread yet?
Read my little rant about discussion as opposed to fobbing things off hand as conspiracy?

If not stfu.

Anyway what wouldnt make sense about shooting the fourth plane?, Seems norad and a few others forgot their coffee that morning, Also wasnt the 4th plane on route and chronologicly the last to be hijacked that morning(not sure bout that but afaik). Hint: The other 3 planes made their targets.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well you would have to assume that not everyone is in on it.

Bush and Co knew there was a hijacking to take place (Numerous intel given to them beforehand). They didn't know they were going to be used as missiles though.

As for the NORAD hooey, they were told around 30 minutes before the first plane hit, yet didn't scramble a jet into the air until 6 minutes before it hit.

Even if they got there in time only Pres can only authorise the shooting down of a commercial airliner. Mr Bush was told of the first crash before he went into the school.

At 9:05am the President is informed that they are under attack. He proceeds to sit on his ass for 28 minutes. He was informed of flight 93 being hijacked at this time. He proceeded to do a photo-op from the school.

9:32am Cheny is forciblely removed from white house office and into a bunker by the secret service. Bush is still allowed to remain in the school (which was advertised well in advance where he was).

10:03/10:06 - Flight 93 crashes. At this time the president has not given the order to shoot down any planes. All flights have been grounded since 9:40.

It isn't until around 12:30 that Bush makes a statement that they are on high alert.

Now if he didn't know what was going on, he is the worst president ever. Sitting on his ass for so long while people were dying. Now I say that during 10:03 military brass or possibly the pilot did the deed as they had a clue as to what was going on.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

The 9/11 commision report mentions that the order to shoot down the planes had not been given at or before the time of the crash.

So Clarke said otherwise too. Intresting.

Sand

Sand you read the thread yet?
Read my little rant about discussion as opposed to fobbing things off hand as conspiracy?

Sorry anjag, I havent had the time - apparently eye witnessess statements and photographic/video evidence demonstrate that alien visitors to our solar system are abducting and anally probing hundreds if not thousands of people. You have to admit its a far more interesting theory.

So Clarke said otherwise too. Intresting.

Actually, whats most interesting is how the point you take out of that is that Clarke, a known White House critic, claims that the order to shoot down the 4th plane was given, rather than his equally valid claim that it was not shot down.

But then thats the sort of mindset you need for a good old fashioned conspiracy theory.

Though to be fair, its easy to believe that an order to shoot down the airliner was or might have been given. The two pilots in the air over washington claim that they got a garbled message that the white house could be a target and that they should take steps to protect it - thats vague because the recollection is....variable. The NYT claims that a secret service man told the leading pilot to protect the white house "at any cost". The leading pilot claims that he was *merely* told to be aware the white house *could* be a target. The second pilot says that the leading pilot later told him that he *thought* it was the secret service. Both pilots stated they were never given clear and direct orders to shoot down the airliner. Interesting jump from the pilots account to the NYT account eh?

So theres something for everyone. Conspiracy theory fans can take the vague nature of what theyre being told as orders to shoot down the airliner, to protect the white house "at any cost". Reality fans can accept that the pilots say they were never ordered to do so.

Anyway what wouldnt make sense about shooting the fourth plane?, Seems norad and a few others forgot their coffee that morning, Also wasnt the 4th plane on route and chronologicly the last to be hijacked that morning(not sure bout that but afaik). Hint: The other 3 planes made their targets.

Actually NORAD was pretty much at full strenth, though on a training exercise which meant they mightnt actually realise the difference between what was a drill and what was for real. There were aircraft in the skies training as well. The planes that were supposedly sent after flight 93 were unarmed but were ordered to intercept anyway?

The first plane hit at 8:46, the second at 9:03, the third doesnt hit till 9:38, the passenger fightback on flight 93 doesnt actually being until 9:57 and the plane crashes at around 10:06 - the intervening minutes being filled with the terrorists shouting about the passenger revolt and finishing it, which they do.

So the question is , why wasnt the third flight shot down? Theres almost an hour between the first WTC hit and the pentagon. By the time of the third plane hit it was clear it was a terrorist attack using many planes - up to 11 planes were suspected of being hijacked on 9/11 at varying points. So if the 4th flight was shot down why wasnt the 3rd flight shot down?

Show me evidence of a missle hit. Or a mid air collision even. Show me pilot accounts that they were ordered to shoot down the 4th airliner. Give me a good reason why the 3rd plane wasnt shot down despite a 35 minute time gap between the second WTC hit and the pentagon hit, a 52 minute time gap between the first WTC hit.

Dont give me a faux pas by a 73 year old, highly stressed man and claim theres your proof! Oh and dont get all upset when this isnt taken as overwhelming proof that all the other evidence and accounts of what happened on flight 93 were false.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

The first plane hit at 8:46, the second at 9:03, the third doesnt hit till 9:38, the passenger fightback on flight 93 doesnt actually being until 9:57 and the plane crashes at around 10:06 - the intervening minutes being filled with the terrorists shouting about the passenger revolt and finishing it, which they do.

10:06 you say, but the US government said it was 10:03. So how do you account for those three minutes?

Also I bothered to try to find when Bush actually said he gave the order, that time was After 9:56. After the Pentagon attack, also ABCNews at that time reported that fighter jets were on their way to flight 93 with the orders to possibly shoot it down. (reference).

9:56 Bush was on air-force one and it had just taken off. Bush left the school at 9:34 (pentagon crash in between him leaving and arriving at air-force one). Why didn't he get to work straight away?

Also might add it was Cheny who told Bush they should start shooting them down. Not the other way around.

So if the 4th flight was shot down why wasnt the 3rd flight shot down?

In our world time doesn't go backwards. 3rd flight crashed before the 4th. If there was no presidential order then what makes you think there was one for the third?

Show me pilot accounts that they were ordered to shoot down the 4th airliner.

As I said the only reason this may be of an event would be in the case where no presidential authorisation was given and it was action taken by the military (considering the Pentagon had only just been hit). At the time it would of been career suicide (if not criminal) but hindsight shows us it was the right call if it was made.

Give me a good reason why the 3rd plane wasnt shot down despite a 35 minute time gap between the second WTC hit and the pentagon hit, a 52 minute time gap between the first WTC hit.

Actually that is what we are asking ourselves. Why weren't the planes taken down sooner? Why was the President reading a story about a goat to kids and hanging on in a school for a photo-op instead of being taken away by secret service

accounts of what happened on flight 93 were false.

Fair enough so how do you explain the difference in recorded crash times? Or how about the spread out of wreakage which isn't consistent with a ground crash?

Or do you just take what your told and happly forget about the discrepencies?

Sand

10:06 you say, but the US government said it was 10:03. So how do you account for those three minutes?

I look at the time on my PC and it says 11:55 am. I look at the clock on my wall and it says 12:00 !!!!! How do you account for those missing 5 minutes?

Actually if you look at the reference timeline, check out the 9:56 time Bush is supposed to have left the school. Then look at all the other newspapers and their recording of the time Bush left the school. They range from 9:55 to 9:57!!! How do you account for those missing 2 minutes? In fact, there are varying times for practically every event with discrepancies of usually a few minutes that can be explained by people reporting the time based of inaccurate time pieces!

Seriously, a 3 minute time discrepancy isnt unusual.

After the Pentagon attack, also ABCNews at that time reported that fighter jets were on their way to flight 93 with the orders to possibly shoot it down. (reference).

Any luck yet on the evidence of a missle strike? Or any exsplosives whatsoever? Or were they throwing massive rocks at the plane?

I dont want to go into details...but that version of events is one of many and again youd have to prove that the pilots are liars when they say they were never given orders to shoot down the airliner.

As I said the only reason this may be of an event would be in the case where no presidential authorisation was given and it was action taken by the military (considering the Pentagon had only just been hit). At the time it would of been career suicide (if not criminal) but hindsight shows us it was the right call if it was made.

Actually once the nature of the attack became known, as it was after 9:03 am 11th of September 2001, no one sane would have disagreed with shooting down flights positively identifed as being hijacked. There would be no cause for fearing for your career. Bush and Cheney were talking about how they were willing to shoot down the plane to talk up their determination/resolve against terrorism or whatever as it was.

In our world time doesn't go backwards. 3rd flight crashed before the 4th. If there was no presidential order then what makes you think there was one for the third?

If there was a presidential order given to shoot the 4th plane down why did it take so long to issue after the 3rd plane hit? They knew it was a terrorist attack after the second plane. 35 minutes between the 2nd and 3rd. No order given, no shoot down. Oh, but the 3rd plane - which caused the least devastation - that was the difference between a shoot down order and there not being one? Bollocks to be honest.

Why was the President reading a story about a goat to kids and hanging on in a school for a photo-op instead of being taken away by secret service

Well, I had an answer for this that involved Airforce One, Harrison Ford and that immortal line "Get off my plane!!!"

But then you gave me a better one....

Not sure how you read things, but he didn't seem discomforted at all in replying to the reporter and was just pointing out how easy it is to control things without actually having to be at the center. "

I mean, why didnt Koffi Annan fly straight to New York or better yet Asia and start helping to fill sandbags? Why did he stay on to ski?

Or do you just take what your told and happly forget about the discrepencies?

Well you certainly seem to. But then, we wouldnt have conspiracy theories otherwise.

pete

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

There's more flight 93 analysis than you could shake a stick at here: http://www.flight93crash.com

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

I look at the time on my PC and it says 11:55 am. I look at the clock on my wall and it says 12:00 !!!!! How do you account for those missing 5 minutes?

So you are comparing your computer/clock to a black box and sesimic recording station, both of which probably have a much more preciese clock then you.

Or can you point out where blackboxes just store any old time.

Actually I had a rummage around and both the station and black boxes are required to have exact times based off an atomic clock. Lots of documentation and guidelines on it. I can post linkys if you want.

Any luck yet on the evidence of a missle strike? Or any exsplosives whatsoever? Or were they throwing massive rocks at the plane?

Thats already been covered.

If there was a presidential order given to shoot the 4th plane down why did it take so long to issue after the 3rd plane hit?

Exactly. I am wondering that myself. Most likely because Bush is a tard. He should stopped reading the childrens book and moved his ass.

Oh and the third plane his the pentagon. Nothing wakes the military up more then getting slapped.

I mean, why didnt Koffi Annan fly straight to New York or better yet Asia and start helping to fill sandbags? Why did he stay on to ski?

How about staying on topic or for that matter on the right thread. Kofi didn't stay on to Ski, he just stayed where he was. Come on show me where Kofi went off and ski'ed after being told about the disaster and started working.

Anyway, SOP for secret service in the event of an attack is to get heads of state to safety. They demonstrated this with Cheny, but Bush was allowed wander around in a school. While the US was under attack, and with the knowledge that the event was known about well in advance.

halkar

Here is another one, Building 7 ,
just gets better doesn't it.