Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You would have no way of knowing this, since you have been a contributing member of city-data for only 19 minutes. But this is the history forum, and traditionally, we try to back up our statements with a bit more explanation and authentication than that.
Some things that happen are NOT a result of a conspiracy. There were way too many cell phone calls from that airplane for it to have been shot out of the sky by a missile. Too many passengers told too many people that they were taking control of the airplane too far ahead of time for conspiracy theories to make sense.
Some things that happen are NOT a result of a conspiracy. There were way too many cell phone calls from that airplane for it to have been shot out of the sky by a missile. Too many passengers told too many people that they were taking control of the airplane too far ahead of time for conspiracy theories to make sense.
There is no solid evidence that there were ANY cellphone calls from that plane from any passengers. Only two cell phone calls can be verified, and only those two, both from crew, were referenced in the FBI 2006 report. . Many unverifiable statements from people alleging that they received calls. It would have been easy to persuade family members to say they received such calls, given the enthusiasm already shown in this thread for Americans, including participants in this very history forum, to desire that such a story gain traction. Americans were so desperate that day for heroics, they would have bought it at any price.
The problem with this "theory" is that why wouldn't the government own up to it. There have been mutliple statements made by people from Bush and Cheney to Rice and Rumsfeld that the order had been given and confirmed that if the plane continued to fail to repsond they would have ordered it shot down.
Additionally, they have interviewed the pilot who was the closest to the plane and revealed that the plane was only armed with limited machine gun ammo and no missiles. He would have had to ram the jet to bring it down and has stated that he was prepared to do so.
Since the government and people in charge on that day freely admit they would have ordered the plane brought down and the pilot admits he would have done it if ordered, why cover up what actually happened? This theory is predicated on the government wanting to hide the fact that they shot down a civilian airliner, however, they openly admit they would have if they had to. What's the point of a cover up?
The problem with this "theory" is that why wouldn't the government own up to it. There have been mutliple statements made by people from Bush and Cheney to Rice and Rumsfeld that the order had been given and confirmed that if the plane continued to fail to repsond they would have ordered it shot down.
Additionally, they have interviewed the pilot who was the closest to the plane and revealed that the plane was only armed with limited machine gun ammo and no missiles. He would have had to ram the jet to bring it down and has stated that he was prepared to do so.
Since the government and people in charge on that day freely admit they would have ordered the plane brought down and the pilot admits he would have done it if ordered, why cover up what actually happened? This theory is predicated on the government wanting to hide the fact that they shot down a civilian airliner, however, they openly admit they would have if they had to. What's the point of a cover up?
If it happened they might not want to deal with the legal (lawsuits) problems.
Saying now that they would have shot it down isn't the same as saying then that they did shoot it down. They've had time to see the big picture. Back then it was shoot first, lie, and see what happens.
If the plane was shot down, the government may have lied because it didn't have time to realize telling the truth may have been harmless (if it was harmless - see above). In hindsight the government may have told the truth but things were changing so fast they may have erred on the side of caution.
Future shoot downs are authorized perhaps because the legal scenerios have been worked out (the government may have given itself the immunity it may not have had in 2001).
Announcing acceptability of future shoot downs might deter terrorists. If they know they'd get shot down before they accomplish their mission, they might think it is worth it even if it results in the destruction of a commercial jet (but not a target like the white house).
So, to answer the original poster's question, sure it is possible. Anything is possible. And all the scenarios mentioned are reasonable.
Wasn't there an incident in WWII that resulted in allied bombers knowingly bombing an allied ship (or a German ship with allied prisoners on it) because to not do so would have confirmed to the Germans that the Allies had cracked the German code? (Or something like that?) The allies had to shoot their own guys otherwise the Germans would have known their code was broken. I forgot the details - some History Channel thing I saw.
Is it possible that united flight 93 was shot down by american jets in penna on 9/11 ?
No.
Since Bush hasn't denied that he ordered the shooting down of any hijacked airliners, why would the government lie about failing to do that which it publicly stated it intended to do?
America's entire official history seems to be a concoction of Pastor Weems feel-good stories that people like much better.
How about "Five million well-trained and fully-equipped Al Qaida troops were lying just offshore in landing craft, ready to occupy America and make all our wimmenfolk cover their faces and speak Arabic, but they were stopped in the kick of time by our brave troops in Iraq who defended our freedom.
How about "There was nothing suspicious about the crash of Senator Paul Wellstone's plane (who voted against all MidEast wars), and it does not warrant further investigation."
Hey I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are and in this instance I say let sleeping dogs lie
Yes in this one instance I say let sleeping dogs lie...what's the point at this point
My original response was based on the government's handling of this at the time it happened: to keep it secret or not.
Then, as well as now, I would prefer for it not to be kept a secret unless it's release would cause me (the US) harm - which I don't think is the case as are military secrets for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
