Gitmo prosecutor: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11

[kpete]

Gitmo prosecutor: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11
Reuters
Published: Wednesday July 23, 2008
By Jim Loney

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba, July 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden's driver knew the target of the fourth hijacked jetliner in the Sept. 11 attacks, a prosecutor said on Tuesday in an attempt to draw a link between Salim Hamdan and the al Qaeda leadership in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial.

Hamdan's lawyer said in opening statements that the Yemeni, held for nearly seven years before his trial, was just a paid employee of the fugitive al Qaeda leader, a driver in the motor pool who never joined the militant group or plotted attacks on America.

But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

much more at:
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Was_Flight_93_shot_down_...

[seemslikeadream]

1. Now isn't that something?

Some of us have been saying that for a very long time now

[malaise]

18. Time to dig up threads in the dungeon

[Bolo Boffin]

55. And you've been wrong.

Flight 93 was not shot down, no matter what either you or Osama bin Laden think.

[yardwork]

65. Then why did the federal prosecutor say that it was shot down?

Did you read the OP?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Because he was quoting the driver.

I did read the OP. That's how I know that. Maybe you should read the OP as well.

[lala_rawraw]

67. I think the issue is

That if he is wrong on what happened to flight 93 (it was shot down), then how can anything he says be taken seriously? I mean this of both the defense and the prosecution. Think about it, the case is that this guy had insider knowledge, but if he had insider knowledge, then flight 93 was shot down. If that is true, then the Bush administration lied as did the Commission. If, however, he did not have insider knowledge - as this would indicate - then the rest of the case against should be taken with a grain of salt. See the position the Government now finds itself in? They cannot have it both ways and I think this was the point that people were making.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Who cares if bin Laden or al-Zawahiri thought it was shot down?

The insider knowledge Hamdan had was the target, selected by al-Qaeda, for Flight 93. That is something bin Laden and al-Zawahiri would have known.

[lala_rawraw]

70. But the point is

That we are talking about what the prosecution said, not what you think that bin Laden or Al-Z would have known. Is that not the point? Think on that for a few moments, let is sink in a bit. Not sure why you are reacting as you are, but really think about this. How can something that is not officially true be an indication of insider knowledge?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Let this sink in: the prosecution was quoting Hamdan, not making a statement of fact beyond that

For fuck's sake, read the OP article already.

Hamdan knew the target of 93. That was the insider information.

It doesn't matter that bin Laden or al-Zawahiri thought that 93 was shot down. The POINT is that they said it would have hit the dome, and THAT is something Hamdan could only know if he was an insider. THAT is evidence of his importance in the al-Qaeda circle.

bin Laden and al-Zawahiri's conspiracy theory about 93 is a distraction here.

[spag68]

59. I don't think it was a missile

I think the radio control unit screwed up. probably a defective part from one of the overpriced Raytheon contracts.

[nebenaube]

2. There you have it...

And we all knew it didn't we?

[Demeter]

3. Okay, So What?

Was he going to run out and blab to Musshariff? Call CNN?

The driver had as much to do with Osama as the car did--and maybe less.

Can we have an adult here, please?

[billyoc]

5. It's too late for that.

[MzNov]

4. That would explain the "white" missle that witnesses saw in the sky

in PA. The plane was blown to smithereens. They didn't find as much as a part of a seat.

These bastards will get away with the lies forever.

[thecrow]

73. Yeah the guy on the plane reported it to his mother right before

and then that went off the news real fast.
Cheney in charge.
Pfft

[Ian David]

6. Why would Bush cover-up the one thing they did right on 9/11? n/t

[MrModerate]

9. Because even if they had gotten their act together in time to interdict . . .

Flight 93, they wouldn't have had the moral courage to admit to shooting down civilians. And having said then that they didn't, they can't say now that they did.

Personally, I don't think it was shot down, but that's just me.

[smoogatz]

25. My understanding is that there was a debris trail several miles long

That would have been consistent with the skin of the plane being pierced while it was pressurized. Nothing in the official "let's roll" narrative suggests that shots were fired or the skin of the plane was otherwise pierced--so, on its face the "let's roll" story appears to be bullshit. Eyewitness accounts that report fighter plane activity and even missiles being fired would support the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down. I thought so from the beginning--the whole "let's roll" thing smacked too much of the usual Bushco heroic mythologizing bullshit to me. Also, Rumsfeld himself slipped at one point and said 93 had been shot down: I took him at his word.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

34. Yes, I remember Rummy saying that plane was shot down. ...n/t

[Xithras]

36. 93 probably disintegrated over a long distance.

It's clear that the passengers did stage some kind of revolt, but there's no evidence that they ever breached the cockpit. We do know from the flight recorders that the hijacker/pilot threw the plane into a violent series of rolls and pitches to try and throw the passengers off their feet, and that the cokpit recorders captured the sounds of a violent crash and shattering glass. We also know that most of the extended debris field contained cargo from the hold, and that it contained no bodies. In all probability, the pilot simply damaged the plane while throwing it around violently, and the debris field simply represents the area where the cargo was raining out before it was crashed. Several miles of debris, raining down from an aircraft at high speed, only represents a handful of seconds of disintegration. According to the voice and data logs, the entire period from the passenger revolt to the crash took only about two minutes.

[smoogatz]

49. That whole theory is predicated on the dubious "fact" that a passenger

revolt took place. The stream of debris and the pitching and rolling recorded on the black box would more likely have been the result of damage to Flight 93 caused by a missile attack than the highly constructed narrative of a terrorist pilot trying to throw passenger revolters off their feet. The black box tapes could easily have been faked, too--who's to say whether the chain of custody was all it should have been?

[Bolo Boffin]

53. The only thing that got "miles" away was scraps of paper and insulation

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. Why are you still spreading disinformation, bolo? You have no shame, do you?

"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."

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


You've been caught and called out on your bullshit before... why do continue to spread it?

[jberryhill]

108. Because it's a Six Mile Drive - Not as the crow flies

...or more pointedly as debris flies:

The six mile figure came from someone using Mapquest.



Ghost, I have two serious questions:

1. What sort of heavy debris from an airplane will float on a lake?

2. If I set something afloat on the west side of a lake, and the wind is blowing east, then where will the debris go?

You seriously believe that something other than lightweight scraps of debris were floating on the surface of a lake?

[Ghost in the Machine]

109. I'm aware of the distance to the lake...

The reports I read about it stated that there were pieces of burnt plastic that washed ashore, and something they thought was a piece of human rib bone.

I also read about the Indian Lake Marina employee who said debris was "raining down like confetti" *over* the marina.

Here's a serious question back at you: Why did you ignore the part that said: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains." ???

Clothes & books aren't "lightweight scraps of paper & insulation", are they? What are your thoughts on these items?

[jberryhill]

111. My thoughts are these....

Someone found pieces of burnt plastic that washed ashore, and something they thought was a piece of human rib bone.

"something they thought was a piece of human rib bone" - what was it? You know how much junk there is floating around any lake of decent size in the first place? Does this sentence mean they found out it was something else, but the fact that this cadre of country coroners "thought" it was a piece of human rib bone make a better story? I'll admit, if I see a piece of bone out in the country somewhere, I'd be hard pressed to determine whether it was human or not. I wonder what looked human about a piece of bone that looked like a rib.

News flash from Indian Lake - every piece of normal trash in the lake suddenly looks suspicious because a plane crashed nearby.

I also read about the Indian Lake Marina employee who said debris was "raining down like confetti" *over* the marina.

If "confetti" is not in your mind suggestive of "lightweight scraps of paper", then I don't really know what to say at that point.

"Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains." ???

The point at issue is what from the crash was found "miles away" and where. I can walk around any field or roadside anywhere and find clothing, books, papers, and what appear to be human remains (especially if there is a KFC anywhere nearby). But what is the distance in miles from "inside Shanskville" to "outside Shanksville". Or were these residents and workers from outside Shanksville who found these things in Shanksville? I'll bet a lot of folks from the surrounding area visited Shanksville that day, but this sentence doesn't say where they found any of those items.

But what's really interesting about this list of clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains is the notable absence of pieces of an airplane.

So this shootdown which causes a "debris trail for miles" was a very special weapon. It was one which somehow impacts with an aircraft, empties selected contents of the aircraft, but leaves the airframe and aircraft parts remarkably intact, so that the "debris trail" consists of stuff you can find anywhere.

If I believed that the government was hiding a shoot down of a civilian aircraft, I'd take my next vacation in Shanksville and go door to door interviewing people about what specifically they found, and where they found it. Professional truthers, of course, don't do that sort of survey because it involves the actual application of an investigative method.

[Ghost in the Machine]

112. Do you think that all planes that are 'shot down' explode in midair?

"So this shootdown which causes a "debris trail for miles" was a very special weapon. It was one which somehow impacts with an aircraft, empties selected contents of the aircraft, but leaves the airframe and aircraft parts remarkably intact, so that the "debris trail" consists of stuff you can find anywhere."


Is it not possible for a plane to be hit where it punctures the body, causing some objects to be sucked out of the hole?

We could even argue that a window somehow got knocked out, or possibly even the door got opened a little bit.... and some stuff got sucked out..

[jberryhill]

113. "and some stuff got sucked out.."

So this partial damage, sucking out "some stuff" managed to spread it for "miles", causing it to "rain like confetti over the marina" and everybody from in and around Shanksville found it all over the place?

Took the clothing right off of folks...

However, that movie version of cabin decompression - like in Goldfinger, with James Bond hanging on for dear life with his feet pointing toward a broken window - is the "movie version" of airplane cabin decompression.

Normal atmospheric pressure is around 14 psi. Airline cabins are not like some kind of high-pressure container that will pop when you poke it with something. The point is to maintain something around normal pressure at sea level, so there's enough oxygen to breathe.

At 35,000 feet, we are talking about a pressure difference of about 8 PSI between the inside and outside of the cabin.

But if the plane is flying at low altitude, it is not "pressurized" relative to the surrounding atmosphere.

Happy trails....

[Ghost in the Machine]

114. Try rolling your window down going 500mph....

It's not so much about cabin pressure as it is wind velocity if the body of the plane had been compromised.

The debris that was "raining down like confetti" was from the explosion after the plane crashed. Why would clothes have to be "taken right off the people"?? Do you think no one in aviation history has ever sat with a jacket or sweater on their lap, in the seat with them or in the overhead baggage area?

Also don't forget the one passenger calling from the bathroom who reported hearing an explosion and seeing some smoke... then they lost contact with him. Was he seeing and hearing things?

I'm still on the fence about a shootdown, myself... I'm just not convinced one way or the other yet... there's still too many unanswered questions for me to decide. All we know for sure is that a plane went down in a field in Pa.... we don't know 100% how or why...

[jberryhill]

120. The passenger in the bathroom...

Also don't forget the one passenger calling from the bathroom who reported hearing an explosion and seeing some smoke... then they lost contact with him. Was he seeing and hearing things?

I just doubt a missile strike on an airliner is going to leave anyone inside with much to say on the telephone.

The plane was, however, pushed beyond it's operating envelope, so any number of things may have been going on.

Do you think no one in aviation history has ever sat with a jacket or sweater on their lap, in the seat with them or in the overhead baggage area?

Me? I normally fly naked. It makes the TSA check at the airport a cinch. But how much stuff spread for "miles" are we talking about? My jacket is not that big.

But somebody finding a jacket somewhere in western Pennsylvania does not scream "airplane debris" to me in the first place. This is the most exciting event which has happened anywhere near Shanksville since the formation of anthracite coal millions of years ago. I am convinced that anybody who found a piece of everyday flotsam was excited about the "airplane debris" they found, and more than happy to get their name in the paper for finding it.

But just because someone found a piece of clothing somewhere near Shanksville on 9/11 doesn't mean it came from this flight.

And I'll digress on a silly hobby of mine. In the spring, when people do start driving with their windows open and their convertible tops down, you'll find a remarkable number and variety of hats by the side of the road. I collect them. I don't know why. I have two Hefty bags full of hats in my basement that I've picked up from the side of the road. The good ones I run through a hot washer and wear them myself. But if I didn't limit myself to hats, I know I'd have a pretty large wardrobe of clothing you can just find lying around outside.

[Ghost in the Machine]

123. I can fully understand where you're coming from about people finding "debris"...

"And I'll digress on a silly hobby of mine. In the spring, when people do start driving with their windows open and their convertible tops down, you'll find a remarkable number and variety of hats by the side of the road. I collect them. I don't know why. I have two Hefty bags full of hats in my basement that I've picked up from the side of the road. The good ones I run through a hot washer and wear them myself. But if I didn't limit myself to hats, I know I'd have a pretty large wardrobe of clothing you can just find lying around outside."


Where I live, I find a lot of boat cushions and life jackets.... not to mention a couple of discarded meth lab materials



**makes mental note: never fly with jberryhill!**

[jberryhill]

124. "never fly with jberryhill"

Oh, I dunno. All this talk about things being sucked out of holes in airplanes has gotten me to thinking I really ought to fly naked...

I'll have a hat though. I can hear the pre-flight talk....

"In the event that sucking starts, please remove your clothes. Should we land in water, Ghost In the Machine will pass out floating cushions and life jackets."

Anyway, I did find a previously unseen video of what happened at Indian Lake:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-63742170495067...

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Is he on this again?

There was debris found six miles away in New Baltimore (I think is the name of the town). This was only scraps of paper and insulation which blew there on the wind.

There was also the mistake you're talking about, the six miles around the actual lake. Some did make this mistake. Small shards of stuff were found in the actual lake, no large items. The kind of stuff found in the lake was shown on the first BBC special by residents of the area.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Except the debris trail....

doesn't lead UP to the crash site (as one would expect if it had been shot down) but leads away from the crash site (as one would expect if it simply crashed).

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. Debris trail

carried their by the fire updraft. All lighweight paper, isulation, ect.

[stray cat]

39. Military planes went to the wrong location - that should be on radar

[dflprincess]

20. Because the saga of heroic passengers taking the plane down

makes a much better story to rally the public with.

[wildbilln864]

23. ding, ding, ding.....

we have a winner!

[daleo]

45. The "let's roll" myth was seen to be more useful

Plus, "let's roll" eliminates any legal liability. Shooting down a civilian airliner would open up the government to lawsuits.

[MrModerate]

7. I think they're just trying to boost the chatter by saying something ridiculous . . .

So we'll all get in a lather and they can paint us as lunatics.

Later on, this Stone guy will say he "misspoke."

[Solly Mack]

8. IBTMTT911F

snicker

[cloudbase]

10. They've got to stick with the

"let's roll" story, just as they did with Lynch and Tillman.

[wildbilln864]

11. k&r! nt

[exothermic]

12. Here is why that allegation is complete bullshit:

If Bushco (Cheney et al) HAD ordered it shot down they would have trumpeted it louder than Krakatoa...as a heartbreaking but heroic act of Protecting America.

[Ian David]

14. Exactly. n/t

[smoogatz]

16. My recollection is that Cheney claims that he DID order the shootdown

but that flight 93 crashed before the order could be carried out--best of both worlds.

[malaise]

19. Yep I saw that on PBS n/t

[seemslikeadream]

21. Are you kidding?

georgie and dickie admitting to killing all those passengers

[Bolo Boffin]

52. No, he's not.

They admitted to giving the order to do so. Why wouldn't they admit to it actually having happened?

As if they could cover it up if it had! Are you fucking kidding?

[dysfunctional press]

41. you forgot the sarcasm smilie.

at least i HOPE you did.

[frylock]

42. let's roll is a far more compelling and heroic tale..

that plane was shot down.

[bhikkhu]

64. Unless they are really cowards

and a much easier story was at hand.

[Sanity Claws]

13. Rumsfeld said that too

I don't have the cite available but he said the same thing a couple years after 9/11.

[wildbilln864]

15. It's fifty miles out....

It's thirty miles out! It's ten miles out sir. Do the orders still stand?

[unblock]

17. i'm cynical enough to believe it was shot down, but i'm also cynical enough to believe ...

that the prosecutor would say just about anything to make his case.

i'm also cynical enough to believe that so-called witnesses or even the tortured prisoner himself would make up and say anything.


damn! it's hard to know what to believe when you've got cynicism on top of cynicism!

[Orrex]

22. Chuck Norris was not aware of any order to shoot down the plane.

[Political Heretic]

24. *snort*

[Ian David]

27. ROFL!!! n/t

[annabanana]

26. And that information was obtained from Hamdan...how?

If they got it by using "enhanced interrogation techniques".. it is LESS than worthless.

[Diane_nyc]

89. Right. Hamdan's "confession" of "inside knowledge" is not credible. ...

... including the stuff about what the Al Qaeda folks are alleged to have said about Flight 93.

So, why does anyone here think this is evidence of anything at all?

Whatever you think did or didn't happen to Flight 93, Hamdan's alleged statement proves nothing.

[Pavulon]

28. Chuck N. would have had to confirm that ordinance

used from an aircraft or other battery.

We loose shit but AIM-9's may be missed.

[dsotm-wywh]

29. Nope, don't think so

I went to the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, PA in 2004 and it was run by locals who donated their time. They were more than willing to share their stories of that day and not one story mentioned anything about military jets or shooting it down - and these are people who saw the plane literally seconds before it crashed.

That's what the conspiracy people never want to believe - eyewitness accounts of everything that happened that day. These people have no reason to lie.

[orleans]

30. k&r n/t

[mitchum]

31. Do you mean THE US MILITARY SHOT DOWN A PLANE FILLED WITH AMERICAN CITIZENS?

they sure did

[Pavulon]

32. I bet the the F16 pilot now flies for American Airlines...

hello this is your captian..Chuck Norris..

[vincent_vega_lives]

129. Who ts they exactly?

Who launched the missile?

Who was his or her wingman?

Who was their squadron leader that gave the order?

Who determined the shootdown criteria and when?

Who were the many ground station and/or AWACS operators that would have heard the order over the radio? (FOX TWO).

who were their supervisors?

Who were the ordinance personnel who accounted for the expended missiles?

Who covered up the missile debris found in Shanksville?

who covered up the fact no fighter aircraft were seen or heard in the area when Flight 93 went down?

[bleever]

33. Reuters!

K&R.

[kpete]

37. my thoughts

exactly!!!

peace to you bleever, kp

[bleever]

76. bump

of fists, in a non-terroristic way, kp.

[yurbud]

35. this is one conspiracy that is semi-justifiable. I wouldn't want to be known as the pilot who

shot down an airliner full of people.

[stray cat]

38. Or maybe Stone is an idiot and mis-spoke.....

[MercutioATC]

40. I don't believe UAL93 was shot down...and I'm an air traffic controller.

(an air traffic controller who worked with and spoke to the controller who was working the airspace where UAL93 went down)


I'm not saying that I believe every element of the official 9/11 explanation, but I don't see enough to convince me that UAL93 did anything other than crash...possibly with a partial breakup in the air.

[defendandprotect]

56. Well, the debris was spread out over a three mine trail . . . how does that happen

if a plane simply plunges to the ground?

Meanwhile, the strange large hole in the ground --- with no debris whatsoever ---

is showing up on satellite photos taken long before the "crash."

Also, there was at least one witness who saw a MISSILE in flight --

AND, you have Rumseld who said it was shot down with a missile ---

and the Bush, etal saying they gave to go ahead.


What more is it that you need -- jam on your bread?

[MercutioATC]

61. Hey, I'm giving my personal opinion. Planes have structural limitations...

...if those limitations are exceeded, they can come apart (which would account for the debris field).

I haven't seen the "satellite hole" argument, but if the hole was there before the crash and there was no debris in it, I don't see how it means much.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable...and many overzealous (or downright charlatan) documenters misrepresent statements.

Rumsfeld did say the words "shot down"..."missile" was never stated.


There is the "official" explanation and there are any number of conspiracy theories. The truth lies somewhere between. No, I don't believe the entire truth was presented by the government, but I believe that's because they were caught with their pants down and they're trying to deny it. I work for the government...the people who make the decisions simply aren't capable of executing a plan this complex. If anything, they're covering up incompetence, not attempting to hide some vast conspiracy.

[defendandprotect]

99. And what were the "stresses" on the plane . . . which made it

explode over a three mile area?

On the other hand, this requires YOU ignoring what Rumsfeld said about the plane having

been shot down with a "MISSILE." Unless you think they did it with bullets?

The "HOLE" was supposedly made by the plane crash . . .

however, satellite photos show that it has long existed -- just as it is.


So . . . you're arguments based on IGNORING information by officials is that the plane

spewed debris over a three mile island and when nothing was left it -- that "nothing"

slammed into a hole in the ground that was already there --- and left no further debris?




Witnesses are questionable which is why the 9/11 truth seekers have pegged those who

were out there lying immediately to move the story in the directions they wanted it moved ---

i.e., "fire brought down a steel frame building" -- which never happened before or since!

[JDPriestly]

43. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Hamdan either overheard

something about the plan for 9/11 or guessed something or simply made something up to please his interrogators. It makes no difference.

My question is: Who made the statement, "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane"? Was it the prosecutor or Hamdan? If it was Hamdan, how in the world could he have known whether the plane was shot down. Did he just assume that because that was the rumor in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Did he hear that from the same source he heard about where the fourth plane was headed? This statement, without further, is very confusing. Who said what?

[frylock]

47. "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said...

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Stone was quoting Hamdan. n/t

[frylock]

62. yarp..

my bad.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Not really, that's a craptacular headline from Raw Story. n/t

[SidDithers]

85. I expect no less from Raw Story...nt

Sid

[daleo]

44. I expect there will be a retraction

But the truth will slip out, won't it?

[truebrit71]

46. Of course they shot it down...of all of the lies told to us about that day...

..THIS lie is the one that needn't have been told...

The debris was spread over a six mile area...there is only one explanation for that...

[exothermic]

91. Amazing how that area grows about a mile every time the tale gets repeated.

[JeanGrey]

48. Well then if Bin Laden's driver said it, of course it must

be true, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. The lawyer is quoting what Hamdan heard either bin Laden or al-Zawahiri say, for crying out loud!!

Jesus Christ, already. Like bin Laden or al-Zawahiri knew!

Get a grip.

[defendandprotect]

57. The lawyer is QUOTING a prisoner who was likely tortured . . .

and saying what they want him to say ---

[Bolo Boffin]

58. ??? They tortured him to say that Flight 93 was shot down????!!!?

Would you like to try again on that one?

[Diane_nyc]

87. He was tortured to reveal his "inside knowledge." ...

... Hence ALL his alleged "inside knowledge" (including his statement about what the Al Qaeda folks are alleged to have said about Flight 93) is suspect.

[defendandprotect]

97. ...how about his connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 . . . . did you notice that...???

[Bolo Boffin]

101. bin Laden has done that well enough himself. n/t

[defendandprotect]

104. In fact, Bin Laden immediately denied any involvement in 9/11 . . .

and the fake videos, etal we've seen since makes clear that the administration is DESPERATDE to

link him to it ---

that's what all the TORTURE is about ---

[Ghost in the Machine]

60. Yes, he's quoting the driver about what the target was.. not about shooting it down

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.

[jberryhill]

77. But you have to give kpete credit

...for strategically cutting off his quote of the article.

What makes the article hard to read is that Stone was quoting something Hamdan allegedly quoted someone else as having said.

[eomer]

80. kpete (who is a she, btw) complied with the 4 paragraph rule.

Your implication of a strategy (or an agenda) in the excerpting process is a bit speculative.

Also, what makes the article hard to read is actually that the article is hard to read. Here's the part that is relevant to the shootdown question:

But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.

The part "later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan" appears from the full context to be referring to the target and not to the shootdown. It's also only logical that it would be referring to the target and not the shootdown since Hamdan may have had a way of knowing the former but it is difficult to see how he could have known the latter. But the clumsy wording and structure of the article leaves it debatable, unfortunately, even though it seems pretty clear to me what was intended.

[eomer]

79. Exactly. The part about 93 being shot down was not a quote of Hamdan.

That would make no sense. How could he have known such a fact? As you say, it is the part about the dome being the target that was a quote of Hamdan. The other part about the plane being shot down had to have come from someone or somewhere else.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Yes, it was. Jesus Christ! It's Hamdan quoting bin Laden.

The only reason you think "it had to come from someone or somewhere else" is your confirmation bias talking? Why couldn't bin Laden have an opinion about 93 being shot down?

[eomer]

86. Funny, I think it is YOUR confirmation bias that is messing YOU up.

It works both ways, right? Invoking it is really just a distraction from the facts and logic.

The text of the article is ambiguous and therefore different readers can have a different take on what it means.

Neither my interpretation nor yours is inconsistent with the article -- you can see how the author may have meant either one if you look just at the article alone. If you go beyond the article to try to figure out which interpretation is more likely then it seems to me fairly unlikely and illogical to think that the prosecutor would have quoted Hamdan's quote of bin Laden's idle speculation. That would be a pretty wildly unsubstantiated thing for the prosecutor to just throw out like that like it is a known fact.

Edit to add: I will concede that the prosecutors in this case are likely to be totally full of shit and throwing around all sorts of things like as if they are known facts when they are merely wildly speculative or even known to be false. So I don't really consider this to be much in the way of evidence that flight 93 was shot down. It is more of a curiosity if you ask me.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. The prosecutor is "throwing it out there" why? To show Hamdan knew about the plot.

There is no "throwing it out there." The statement is being introduced as evidence of Hamdan knowing about the plot. It is not being used as evidence that the plane was actually shot down.

[Diane_nyc]

92. Alas, the Raw Story article is unclear on the ultimate alleged source of the shootdown remark ....

Most likely you're correct that the remark about Flight 93 being shot down is Stone quoting Hamdan allegedly quoting bin Laden or al-Zawahiri or some other Al Qaeda muckymuck, but the Raw Story article, unfortunately, doesn't make it clear exactly who that particular remark about Flight 93 is alleged to have ultimately come from. About that particular remark, the article just says:

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. There is no most likely about it. I am correct. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. No, you're *not* correct... you're mistaken...

but that's never stopped you before. Your little "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit game was old a long time ago.. give it up already.

[Diane_nyc]

126. Not necessarily ....

Boloboffin wrote here that the Flight 93 shootdown remark is "Hamdan quoting bin Laden." But that's not at all clear from the article.

The shootdown aspect of the Flight 93 remark could have been just Timothy Stone's paraphrase of some speculation by Hamdan himself, for example.

It is specifically alleged only that the destination aspect of the Flight 93 remark ("the dome") is something that Hamdan overheard. Where the rest of the remark is alleged to have came from is unclear from the wording of the article.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. Actually, from the article it is quite clear where the quote came from.

Earlier I said bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. I made a mistake in focusing down on bin Laden, because the article, the actual OP article makes it clear who Stone is quoting:

But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

So it was Stone quoting Hamdan quoting al-Zawahiri. All of that is al-Zawahiri's claim.

Quit your bullshiting, Diane.

[eomer]

133. He was quoting Hamdan on the part "it would've hit the dome".

Not on the part "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane".

There are clearly two claims in that one sentence:

1. That it was shot down
   
2. That it was going to hit the dome

The latter is the one that is Bin Laden's deputy's claim.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. :eyes: n/t

[Orrex]

51. Chuck Norris anticipates another visit to the Dungeon

[Orrex]

75. Chuck Norris isn't tired of being right all the time.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

68. Some good commentary on this one:

From Raw poster Digger2000:

Let's not kid ourselves. This is a lynch mob in uniform and will result in judicial murder of a low level flunky. Does anyone believe the driver knew anything. Does Bush's driver know anything? Does Cheney's driver? Did Hitler's? Did Stalin's? Did Mao's? Did Pol Pots? Did Samuel Taylor's. Of course not. And even if he "knew" something it isn't what you "know" it's what you did. He drove. Big deal. The only war crime here is the trial itself.


From Raw poster Yvonne:

We were told, based upon an alleged phone call from a passenger on Flight 93, that they were planning to take down the 4 or 5 alleged terrorists. Obviously, they felt it was possible simply because the terrorists were so outnumbered and only armed with boxcutters. And then we were told the plane "crashed" in a field. Now we learn the plane was indeed shot down. I can't help but wonder: was it shot down to keep it from hitting its target or was it really to make sure no witnesses survived.

And think about how people that have questioned the official version have been treated. We questioned the fact that there was little or no wreckage debris in the field where the plane crashed--just a big hole in the ground--that the "official" version provided more questions than answers.

Now, in light of this latest story, why don't we again turn our attention to the Pentagon--where's the plane debris, or the steel engines, or the wings, or the tail, or bodies, or baggage--or any of the 100 tons that make up a plane of that size. "If there's a 100 ton plane in the air, there's going to be 100 tons of debris on the ground." WHERE'S DE PLANE!!

Check out this article: "Pentagon: Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

"When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

"Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?"

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/nu .../ erreurs_en.htm

Again, I say--WHERE'S DE PLANE!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. I expect they guys are patsies that the US Govt wants to keep quiet

[Land Shark]

78. 24 recs, but now that moved to this forum, DU says "you can't recommend threads in this forum" but..

then, it seems, we must pray that there is no truth ever spoken and no good threads worthy of attention in this september 11 forum for they will, as a class, not see the DU light of day, not in the Greatest page, that's for sure. Are we on lockdown yet? Geez. Fear of being branded a conspiracy mongering site is no reason to suppress the truth.

Our country is based on the principle that more speech is the corrective to incorrect speech. But not DU?

On edit: true "conspiracy theories" seem to be child's play in terms of shooting them down (or are so considered) so what's the fear with open discussion when one side has such huge anvils of "conspiracy theorist" to drop on the other side?

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Awww.

Relief can be found here.

[biermeister]

83. In case you missed this

http://ishotdown93.blogspot.com /

I found it interesting

[Bolo Boffin]

84. More 9/11 CT slash fanfic? Thanks, but I'm not interested.

[Twist_U_Up]

107. Thanks for this link.

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. I didn't miss it

find it a little suspect.

[Realityhack]

88. My issue with this...

I would not be surprised if the government did issue a shoot down order on Sept. 11th. It might be quite called for under the circumstances.

I would not be surprised if they didn't want to admit to such an act because it would be controversial.

However, given the evidence we have it seems somewhat unlikely that the aircraft was actually shot down. I will admit their is some possibility, there are all kinds of ways a jetliner could react to an attempt to shoot it down, but it seems unlikely based on what evidence we have.

--- ON EDIT ---
This prisoners word is hardly a definitive confirmation. I do not see how that information would be in his possessions.

[spooked911]

93. Shootdown meme is disinfo-- the crash site was faked

there's just no doubt the crash site was faked

[SDuderstadt]

94. And, of course, none of the adjoining property owners....

saw it being faked. How do you account for that?

[Orrex]

95. Obviously, they're all government employees and sworn to secrecy re: the faked crash

It's so simple--how could it possibly be crazy?

[SDuderstadt]

96. Please don't give Spooked ideas....

he/she cannot rationally process the ones he/she already possesses.

[spooked911]

118. hee hee hee

you so funny

[spooked911]

119. what was their specific job there?

probably to walk around and pick up bits of metal and random debris from whatever was blown up there

[Orrex]

122. On the contrary

I'm sure that their job was to go in and pick up the entire intact fuselage of a jet that had crashed at speed into the ground, more or less unscathed. That's why there are so many, see, because those intact fuselages are so damned heavy.

[spooked911]

117. they didn't see the plane go into the ground either

no one witnessed the plane go into the ground. the guy who lived closest was out of town.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. These people would beg to differ.

[Orrex]

110. Co-conspirators, every last one of them

I live in western PA. Trust me--Somerset County is just lousy with secret government operatives.

[spooked911]

116. have you talked to all of them?

do you know what they think or what they saw?

most of them saw a bunch of debris, I'm sure. Proves nothing.

[Realityhack]

106. asertation without any evidence. n/t

[spooked911]

115. evidence

http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/2007/02/final-nail-in-...

[Realityhack]

125. oh my. That's your 'evidence' huh.

I don't think you understand the concept of what I meant by evidence at all.

[vincent_vega_lives]

130. Nope never seen this here.

Never hashed it over and over.

Obviously made you think. (not)

[vincent_vega_lives]

132. ALL of the 1st responders at the site disagree with you. (n/t)