Was it a moment of unscripted, unplanned candor, where Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld forgot the “official version” of the 9/11 story and told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for one brief stunning moment? It was a few words caught on videotape that even the most ardent conspiracy theorist couldn’t have scripted, the political equivalent of Perry Mason getting the suspect (who usually wasn’t the one charged to begin with) to confess to murder on the witness stand, except that on the Perry Mason Show, they always hauled off the confessor in handcuffs.
It happened during Rumsfeld’s surprise visit with troops in Iraq during Christmas of 2004 when he made the Freudian slip comment "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania", but a video clip showing the excerpt from his speech to troops, coupled with Vice President Cheney’s ominous comments on Meet the Press just five days after 9/11, news reports of other aircraft seen in the area where United Airlines Flight 93 “crashed,” and the recent movies about Flight 93, have raised new questions about what really happened that day in rural Pennsylvania.
This is what Rumsfeld said when addressing troops on the Friday before Christmas, 2004:
"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
Just a few days after 9/11, on September 16, 2001, Cheney had this to say in response to Tim Russert’s questions about the administration’s policy concerning hijacked planes:
Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft." Russert: "And you decided?" Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time. It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate." Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airliner was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?" Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? "... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
The synopsis for the recent movie “United 93” describes the events this way:
On September 11, 2001, America witnessed three terrorist attacks when three planes were hijacked and destroyed the pentagon and the two world trade centers. However, one plane in the mist of the hijacking never reached its target. Instead the passengers fought back to save thousands of lives even if it meant they too, would die. This is their story. The story of flight 93.
That brings us to the next question: since the administration clearly knew about that Flight 93 had been hijacked almost an hour before it went down, would they follow the policy that Cheney said just five days later was the official policy of the administration, or would they sit back and do nothing, as they claimed to have done later?
Or did they just sit back and do nothing? Several witnesses interviewed after the crash reported seeing an “unmarked military-style plane” near the scene at the time of the crash, and the September 14, 2001 Bergen County, N.J. Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site. The Record article said that: "In separate interviews, five residents who live and work less than four miles from the crash site said they saw a second plane flying erratically within minutes of the crash of the Boeing 757 that took off from Newark two hours earlier Tuesday morning."
That same day, the newspaper said that FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later recanted his comments, saying he had misspoken, and that no military planes had been nearby.
Why, after nearly five years, do so many unanswered questions remain?
Why didn’t the administration follow up on the detailed eyewitness reports that say another plane was nearby when Fight 93 went down, and on reports that debris was scattered for over eight miles, contradicting the theory of a crash on impact with the ground?
Why were three F-16’s ordered to “protect the White House at all costs” twenty minutes after it was determined that the plane was hijacked, and just thirty minutes before Flight 93 went down?
Why did a passenger named Edward Felt make an emergency call from the plane just before it went down, telling of an explosion and seeing white smoke trailing from the plane?
“You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?”
“We decided to do it.”
"Shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).