Sorry if this has been general knowledge on this Board, but I just saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFuUGEZ39g8

Interesting "error" in his speach.

Saw it.

For more admissions see here:

http://truthseeker.us/clips.html

If a slip of the tongue in a public speech could be taken seriously as evidence, President Bush would have been indicted by now. It was poor choice of phrasing, something members of this administration are notorious for. These quotes don't prove anything.

I have been watching google video presentations from David Shayler ( the MI5 whistleblower, who revealed the UK government had paid an al-qaeda group £100,000 to assasinate Libya's leader Gadaffi )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

He says that flight 93 was supposed to fly into a seat of government in washington DC either capital hill or the whitehouse.

Anyhow, he supposes that the september 11th plan was to hit 3 aspects of american ( and by implication western democratic ) life
1. business & finance ( the World trade centre )
2. Military - department of defense ( the pentagon )
3. a seat of government ( whitehouse or other place like capital hill etc. )

With all three of those aspects in place, the government ( with many dead officials members of government etc.. ) would have been able to declare martial law with the full backing of the american people and the approval of most of the nations on earth, they would have been able to go into Iraq and Afganistan extremely quickly.

If you think about it the "war against terrorism" retoric would have made more sense if the government would have taken a devastating hit as well.

Anyhow he says what happend to 93 was a fighter jet pilot disobayed orders to not intervene, and took it down safely over a field with a missile. Which is what they were trained to do.
Apparently a senior military person says he knows who the pilot was but he is not speaking about it yet.

While all this is speculation, it has made me think for the first time of the politics of what would have happened if the fourth plane had hit it's target.

my guess is al-qaeda story sent to throw off investigation, even if someone

( a real member ) was paid, If I were govt, would not trust anyone but top

operative to do a clean job. They would also know they were dying

We really hate Rumsfeld over here

Misdirection in my opinion.

you say that if they hit all 3 target areas. But even just hitting the WTC, and the pentagon, the american public was so outraged that they just GAVE bush power to declare war. Needless to say, if the White House/Capitol hill was attack, people would be even MORE outraged, but again, we're in Iraq just because of 2/3 of the so called "attack" succeded.

This is exactly my point...

Most people in the world, myself included, could not name the world trade centre in new york if we saw it on a photo or diagram before 11th of September 2001. It may have been well know in America but it was just one of the American tall buildings to most of the human race.

The Pentagon as an organisation was well known as a noun but I wasn't sure that it was a building as well. In my city we have a famous building called the Octagon which is a gig venue, but I have never seen it from the sky and it could have 11 sides as far as I know. I saw Faith no more, Fun Lovin Criminals, AIR and Supergrass there so it is a cool building as far as I am concerned, and they serve beer so it also serves my spiritual needs..

Anyhow a direct hit on US government, would have finished the Job off. And I am convinced that the Shanksville event was a fighter jet blowing up the airliner which prevented the fourth and final part of the jigsaw an attack on American government at the whitehouse or capital hill, whatever the building is called where all your members of congress meet or whatever it is called.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be recorded that 2 million (TWO MILLION) people marched in London to protest against the Iraq/Afaganistan war (one thirtieth of the UK population). I visited Amsterdam in Holland that year and I could hardly walk due to the protesters with their banners. >>-->

The streets were completely blocked wih them.

The whole world was against an unwise USA led military action/retaliation, they were extremely vocal. They were praying and begging that there would be no military conflict.

My contention is, that if the 9-11 job was fully sucessful and some part of the USA government was killed in a fouth aircrash in Washington DC, then all those protests would have been small.
I think that that was the plan..

but one consiensious and brave US fighter pilot shot United 93 down over shanksville and ruined the plot, despite the efforts to keep them away and instructions for them to avoid engagement.
Maybe the reason this pilot was able to do this was because this flight was delayed by 41 minutes at take off. This could have put the timing out on the masterplan, giving the fighter pilot enough time to catch the airliner, when the plan was that he shouldn't have been able to.

So you are saying that Tony Blair was in on this with Bush...? Well...i find that odd but hey it's your conclusion and i respect that. I belive that if there was another crash, especially on capitol hill, hell Iraq right now would be a crater.

Oh yes, Blair lost all his credibility in one go with this. He aged 10 years at this time, some of the most publicly respected cabinet members "Robin Cook* and Claire Short" resigned. He soured relations with some other nations. And became a national hate figure over night.

The British public were very circumspect over his reasons for cosying up to Bush, members of parliament tried to get debates going but they were managed out of the way by the whips ( government fixers ) And few people believed the reasons for war or the evidence of WMD.

It is still confusing as to why Blair supported Bush so closely.


*Robin Cook died shortly afterwards of a heart attack at 59 years of age!
He was a dangerous man. Very very clever, persuasive and highly respected but he was short and ugly with a strange voice, not leader material. Any speech he made however, had an enormous amount of gravitas, he was highly respected from all parts of the political spectrum and he became vocal with his lone anti-war stance which ended his government career.
Believe me the hawks would have been very happy to see him gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook

i think soon they will admit shooting down 93, but it will be a lie. it will seem as if they are finally telling us the truth, if you smash your car, you go and leave it in a car park and say it was stolen. you are telling a lie, but your wife thinks your ok and the insurance company pays. the only problem with the shoot down story will be that there still isn't much plane there. the lockerbie disaster in scotland saw a 747 blow up in mid air and they reconstructed most of it. the whole cockpit was found intact.

when they release this 93 shootdown info everyone will say 'see they finally told us the truth, they just didn't want to admit to killing americans' and it will feel like they have finally come clean. DON'T BELIEVE IT, it's just another lie.

I don't think that they will admit to anything. If they admit to anything major like that it will throw doubt on the whole day and lead 100% of the public who were previously supporting the government into doubts about the whole story.

It is perfectly feasable that small innacuracies could be admitted, due to the amount of persons involved and the stress of the situation on the day. But not a major point like this.

---------------

As for comparisons between lockerbie and shanksville there are major differences.
Lockerbie was the result of a small bomb inside the aircraft. The aircraft rained down on the town of lockerbie in large pieces causing death and destruction to the people in their houses below.

Shankville was (in my view) the result of a powerful and modern missile blowing the aircraft into pieces at high altitude, which resulted in the parts being spread over several miles.

If it was proved that the crater was made by a second missile as a cover story, for the flight being crashed into the ground then the US government becomes culpable to a massive mess of a coverup, with possible pre planning, therfore fore-knowledge!
That is why they will never admit to a shooting down of UA 73.

but they will admit to it as a good thing - saving lives blah blah,and we weren't ready for the truth. and they will say that it should shut the tin foilies up. as if they win. i suspect soon they will release photos of a big fire in wtc7 basement, and photos of people using cutter charges to break up the scrap at wtc. they will say they used thermite. because everybody is so obsessed with thermite , with these three admissions they will wipe out 80% of the truth movement.

it is time for people to start thinking for themselves. the large truth groups are leading us down the garden paths that are chosen for us. when we are all there they will round us up and bam!!!!.

INVESTIGATE THE PLANES. if 93 was shot down, where is it?. if they recovered 90% of it [gravy said so] where the fukkk is it??.

He may be Bush's poodle, but he's a smart, gifted, eloquent poodle. I much enjoyed seeing the various snippets of Parliament votes, with each speaker getting up, having his word, usually very witty and caustic, and sitting down, so unlike the "Potempkin Village" atmosphere of the Bush Administration, with planted "journalists" and carefully selected audiences, all manipulated as if they are on some sort of Hollywood show, with "laughter" and "cheer" prompting.

But Blair cannot be excused for his Iraq policy, that will be his legacy, no matter what his other successes. Confusing yes, but to borrow Michael Moore's hypothesis, presented in Fahrenheit 911, where he compares the amount the prez is paid ($200K USD) vs. the amount he is funded by big oil, and especially his Saudi connections, to the tune of nearly a Billion USD, he poses the question "Who is Bush's Daddy??". The American people, or the turbaned Arab gent he holds hands with and kisses as he walks around his dude ranch?

We'll see with Blair too, with whom he cozies up with, after retiring from politics. A nice cush job with BP? Carlisle group? Let them eat cake!!

Anyway, with UA93 and "let's roll", one wonders if that were another Hollywood "made for TV" event, to entertain the citizenry, like the faked out Jessica Lynch deal, the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan with the pro-football star, or Saddam in his hole. There might be more to that story..

Right, we aren't at the "thought-crime" or "minority report" point yet, Bush with his "it'd be easier if I were dictator..

But - it does give some insight. Interesting, very very interesting, that Rumsfeld is speaking of all these crimes - crashing the planes into WTC, Pentagon, and right in line with that, the people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania. Interesting - freudian slip, is he combining in his mind the acts of terrorists with the acts of what could only be a U.S. jet pilot, doing his duty?

I don't know sounds rather accurate if you ask me.....except the part that would require a plane!

..I dunno. He might have done that purposefully to seed the Flight93-Shot-Down theory, to cover up the fact that Flight 93 never crashed, and landed in Cleveland.

Yeah but something hit the ground in Shanksville creating a huge explosion and leaving a 20' crater to prove it.

Sorry, slip of tongue. I meant to say 'Maybe he's trying to cover up the fact that Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville.'

As for what hit Shanksville, there was a Vietnam veteran who heard a missile.