How could they DO this to us? We trusted them!!
December 27, 2004 4:50 PM   Subscribe

Let's Roll !!! Does Donald Rumsfield contradicting the official US record harm America?
posted by Balisong (119 comments total)
 
[this is not so good]
posted by rev_crash_davis at 4:55 PM on December 27, 2004


or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon,
That means the US shot down the plane? Is everyone a comedian too?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:55 PM on December 27, 2004


I think it's been well-established that Rumsfeld is a guy who takes a lot of opportunities to talk off the cuff, and like anyone else, mis-speaks sometimes. Not every slip, though, is some kind of Freudian admission, or an exposure of some deep-cover conspiracy. Without some kind of legitimate evidence that hasn't been _thoroughly_ disproved in the past 3 years, I don't think there's any real reason to get worked up over this.

(And this is from someone who deeply dislikes the guy, and thinks he should have been removed a long time ago.)
posted by LairBob at 4:57 PM on December 27, 2004


Well, allright, sorry for the FFP, if you don't think it's worthy...

Just so long as this goes down on his permanent record...
posted by Balisong at 4:59 PM on December 27, 2004


Was this ever in doubt? Seriously, and do you think anyone would hesitate to shoot a passenger jet down again if it threatened Washington D.C.?
posted by mullingitover at 5:01 PM on December 27, 2004


I don't think the military would have been wrong to shoot down that plane, on that day, in those circumstances. I'm not even really sure if I would blame an administration for covering such a thing up. Because it's this administration -- one I hate with a burning passion that will not die (note to FBI: parking is really hard on my street; try just around the corner if it's after 6pm) -- the blame I already want to award them would be happy to be shoehorned into this one incident; but I don't think that would be right. They are so very secretive about so many things, but how exactly that plane failed to reach its destination is the least important as far as government is concerned. I don't mean to disregard the feelings of those who cared about someone on the plane.
posted by uosuaq at 5:03 PM on December 27, 2004


Okay, maybe this is an astounding leap into the unknown, but I'm guessing the poster here is probably a tad to the left of Rumsfeld...maybe a megatad...and yet the source for this "story" is Worldnetdaily.com?

Which is, let's be serious, not exactly the most credible news source on or off the Web.
posted by 1016 at 5:03 PM on December 27, 2004


Everyone knows the GOVERNMENT is a totaly perfect evil machine of satan and never makes a slip or verbal typo.
posted by HTuttle at 5:04 PM on December 27, 2004


I've always thought it was likely we shot down the plane, but now that World Net Daily is on the bandwagon I see that I was obviously mistaken.

One link to the lunatic fringe does not make a front page post.
posted by cedar at 5:05 PM on December 27, 2004


He seems to be saying that Al Qaeda shot down Flight 93. That would be pretty weird, huh? I don't think that confirms anything that anyone has been conjecturing.

Obviously, what none of us realized was that Flight 93 had been recaptured by the passengers from the terrorists; and that the wily Osama had with great forethought a SAM-equipped agent on the ground in Pennsylvania ready to take out the (in his view) errant flight so that the passengers could not heroically fly to Kabul (refueling in Germany) and crash the plane into a mosque in retaliation.

The US government has clearly been lying to us to avoid revealing just how resourceful Al Qaeda really was.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:06 PM on December 27, 2004


But why the cover-up if it's true? I think America would have accepted the fact that we needed to shoot down one of our own planes to protect Washington D.C., had the administration been up-front and honest about it.

And what do you tell the families of Flight 95 if it turns out the passengers gained control of the plane before it was shot down? Perhaps we'll never know, but it does speak volumes about this administration's policies and decision-making.

It makes me wonder what else they might be covering up with well-executed media campaigns to distract the sheeple from the truth.
posted by camworld at 5:08 PM on December 27, 2004


I've seen this in other places than Worldnet, and there's a transcript on CNN. Sorry, no link handy. But it's most likely he meant to say "brought down" and maybe even did say that, CNN transcription being what it is. From most accounts, including the 911 report, to assume that our military shot down the plane is to assume a level of competence and awareness that was not in fact present on that day in the high command.
posted by Slagman at 5:11 PM on December 27, 2004


"to assume that our military shot down the plane is to assume a level of competence and awareness that was not in fact present on that day in the high command."

Hmmm.... Good Point...

But what if the system took over where the director fails...

Isn't that what we are striving for?
posted by Balisong at 5:13 PM on December 27, 2004


But why the cover-up if it's true?

If it were true, then possibly then question to ask would be *why* al Quaida is resourceful and from where it gets its resources.

/tin-foil-hat off
posted by RockCorpse at 5:16 PM on December 27, 2004


The thought occurs to me that perhaps there should be a ConspiracyFilter.
posted by RockCorpse at 5:17 PM on December 27, 2004


It was a very telling slip, if not an admission, and there's nothing tinfoil hattish about talking about it. I have little doubt that that plane was shot down, but the "let's roll" story proved to be such a delicious bit of patriotic spin-doctoring, it's even been used subliminally in Army recruiting videos.

I have no problem with the plane being shot down -- doing so might have saved thousands of lives. I have a problem with this administration's compulsive inability to tell the truth.
posted by digaman at 5:28 PM on December 27, 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. -- quote of Rumsfeld from "story"

I don't see how anyone thinks that this was some sort of admission that the US shot down the plane. He was listing things Al-Qaeda did, not the United States (as noted by Ethereal Bligh but seemingly ignored by everyone else). How does this translate into "the U.S. shot down the plane in Pennsylvania"? As Slagman said, change the word "shot" to "brought" and the sentence makes perfect sense. This is not to say that the plane could not possibly have been shot down, but it is to say that this "slip" is not any sort of evidence for that conclusion whatsoever. I despise Rumsfeld and the Bush administration, but I also despise conspiracy theorists jumping on every crackpot theory and touting it as credible. It merely undermines the voice of the rational opposition to Bush's policies.
posted by rooftop secrets at 5:54 PM on December 27, 2004


I'm no fan of Rumsfeld or the current administration, but no matter how many times I parse that sentence, I still end up with the subject ... the person(s) who did all the things he listed ... as being "terrorists" and not the USA. Sorry. Poorly worded? Yes. An admission of guilt for having shot down Flight 93? Doesn't look like it to me.
posted by Orb at 6:02 PM on December 27, 2004


The 2 total papers I can find through Google News that are carrying this story are really fringy. Might want to wait until someone more reputable picks it up before running with this story as full-blown.
posted by kalessin at 6:15 PM on December 27, 2004


An honest mistake or revealing slip? Who knows? But remember Rummy's under a lot of pressure these days, even from his own party, so it very well could be a teeny-tiny Cry for Help. And an unconscious one at that.

/armchair psychiatrist
posted by zardoz at 6:37 PM on December 27, 2004


Rumsfeld admitting that the U.S. military shot down flight 93 is heart warming...
posted by fixedgear at 6:41 PM on December 27, 2004


Really? My temples are flaring...
posted by Balisong at 6:44 PM on December 27, 2004


Anybody who watched the 9/11 coverage LIVE knows that Flight 93 was shot down and that it wasn't Bush calling the shots during the crisis. I watched it live. There was the report of a woman who was on Flight 93 on her cell phone to relatives and saying "there is a puff of smoke on the wing and we're going down". (Struggles in the cockpit don't cause puffs of smoke on the wing). There was also the announcement that "Vice President Cheney supports the President in his difficult decision to shoot down hijacked passenger planes" (Clearly, the communication was intended to intimate that it was Bush who made that call, but the first word on the subject comes from Cheney??? They didn't have their communication crapola together in those early hours). Interestingly, that news bit was never repeated as the alternate story was put forward (which may have been happening concurrently, but had nothing to do with the plane going down in pieces that landed miles apart).

Am I the only person on the planet who saw this information live and understood it for what it was?

If you really want to fit yourself for a tin foil hat, be my guest, but one is not required to believe that the government did what it had to do in shooting down the plane. All you have to do is look at the timeline and the facts. Nobody would blame the government for doing so, but if they don't have to admit it (and make the passengers appear to be the heroes) so much the better, huh?
posted by spock at 6:45 PM on December 27, 2004


This is easily explainable: I thought... the cop... was... a... hooker.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:50 PM on December 27, 2004


D'oh!
posted by Smedleyman at 6:50 PM on December 27, 2004


Spock - Struggles in the cockpit don't cause puffs of smoke on the wing

Wrong.

Have you ever looked out at the wing during landing on a humid day? When the flaps are down there is a huge "smoke" trail following the wing. During large turns there is a very typical wingtip condensation trail. Fly into SFO sometime and you'll be all but guaranteed conditons to generate some really nice trails. I don't remember what the weather was on 9/11 in PA, but I'd suspect that on a fall morning the air could have been quite humid.

All sorts of iinteresting patterns of condensation can happen during heavy maneuvering.

So, it's quite plausible that a struggle for the controls could result in maneuvering that's severe enough to cause some major condensation trails that could easily be mistaken for smoke. I'm not doubting the accuracy of her observations, but there is also a very reasonable explanation.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 7:17 PM on December 27, 2004


Spock - as a general rule when you're asking yourself "am I the only sane person on the planet" the answer is probably "no."

Reminds me of a joke:
As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

posted by thedevildancedlightly at 7:27 PM on December 27, 2004


i'm with you, spock, and it was the right thing to do. Of course, they'll never ever admit it, which is why this Rumsfeld thing is so interesting.
posted by amberglow at 7:32 PM on December 27, 2004


Thye did release the black box recordings some time back, although not to the public at-large. Here's an article based around that and the ongoing phone calls, but it could all be misinformation.

Also note that one of the people that rushed the cabin was queer as a three dollar bill.
posted by destro at 7:41 PM on December 27, 2004


Spock--

During the first hours of coverage on 9/11/01 I heard Dan Rather report that a plane--a civilian airliner-- had been shot down in Pennslvania. That story quickly became "inoperative" as the day went on, for reasons not obvious at the time.

I have always been forced to give credence to evidence of flaming debris descending miles away from the Flight 93 crash site as indicating an explosion on the plane. Had the ship merely corkscrewed in, as conventional wisdom would have us believe, there would have been no flaming debris.

There are eyewitness reports of other aircraft in the vicinity of the crash and odd admissions of aircraft supposedly engaged in crash reconnaissance--before the crash was reported.
posted by rdone at 7:44 PM on December 27, 2004


Rdone - I hate to admit it, but at this point I'm not sure that we can trust any eyewitness testimony saying that there were or were not other planes around. It's one of those things where the images have been so over-played that nobody's memory is trustworthy anymore.

I don't have all of the links handy, but there was a great survey asking how many people watched the Challenger (yes, the first space shuttle to explode) accident live on TV. Something like 1/3 responded that they'd seen it live. The only problem was that it wasn't even broadcast live. Nobody saw it live, but plenty of people remembered it.

Just like the 500,000 Red Sox fans who were ALL in Busch Stadium in St. Louis for Game 4 (or at least that's what they're going to tell their friends).
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 7:56 PM on December 27, 2004


uhhh.... did anyone read the Rumsfeld quote carefully?

He wasn't saying that the military shot down the plane... he just misspoke in saying that the TERRORISTS shot down the plane, which they didn't, although they did cause it to crash.

I think it's been pretty well established by the 9/11 commission that the military was caught almost entirely off guard that day.. shooting down the plane before it landed on Capitol Hill would certainly have been the right thing to do, but it didn't happen.

This is a total non-story.
posted by opek at 8:02 PM on December 27, 2004


I think the idea is that it's a Freudian slip. Still, there's enough evidence to contradict whatever Rumsfeld's inner psyche thinks happened.
posted by destro at 8:19 PM on December 27, 2004


I don't have all of the links handy, but there was a great survey asking how many people watched the Challenger (yes, the first space shuttle to explode) accident live on TV. Something like 1/3 responded that they'd seen it live. The only problem was that it wasn't even broadcast live. Nobody saw it live, but plenty of people remembered it. -thedevildancedlightly

I saw it live on a little station called CNN.

From: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/Media/Broadcasting/Television-1&id=h-2643 -

"In 1986 millions (including first lady Nancy Reagan) were watching CNN when the space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff. CNN had been the only network carrying the launch live."

Google is your friend.
posted by spock at 8:22 PM on December 27, 2004


Last thought I give to this non-story. Amberglow, you can believe in a conspiracy all you want. However, there's just not enough evidence to convince anybody of it right now. This doesn't change a damn thing. other than being conspiracy theory fodder and giving you a warm and tingly feeling down below.

If you present credible evidence that's new I'd be happy to listen to a 9/11 theory other than the one that's accepted by 99% of the world. Things change - we all thought the world was flat at one point, right? But, it'll take a lot more than one comment in passing that doesn't even say what people are insinuating it says.

On preview - spock, okay, sorry, I didn't have my facts exactly right. The whole point of that article is that CNN became a contender after the Challenger accident, which doesn't support "millions" of people happening to watch an upstart cable network at the time. If you google for false memories (and related) there are some good studies. Getting the details wrong doesn't void the underlying point that eyewitness memory is faulty and easily fooled.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:28 PM on December 27, 2004


Hi all, I couldn't resist commenting re: Scumsfeld,

In the spirit of the season I wrote the following ditty ribbing Rummy, to be sung to the tune of "The Little Drummer Boy." I wish I'd written it earlier in the season to record something, but it just didn't come to me until now. Oh well.


[SUNG TO THE TUNE OF "THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY"]

The Little Rummy Boy

"Rum," they told me,
"Go bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.
Osama's still free, so let's
Go get Saddam,
How many troops should we bring
To get the job done?"

Just enough to win the thing.
We'll show off our guns, it'll be fun,
The world'll be stunned.
So it was done.
__________

"Rum," they told me,
When we won, won, won, won,
Won the war but not the fight
Against terrorist scum.
No water, power or peace
For the population.

"Thank you for guarding the oil,"
Said Halliburton, Exxon, Chevron.
Run looters, run.
__________

Now McCain and Hagel say
I'm dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,
For letting our soldiers die
In the sun, sun, sun, sun.

Hell, Bush and Cheney say I'm still
Their #1 gun,

So if you try to challenge me,
You're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Come and get some,
Come and get some,
Come and get some . . .
posted by Liz_Camps at 8:38 PM on December 27, 2004


thedevildancedlightly: I can't speak for the precise number of people watching, but you do recall that the Challenger was to be the flight of the first civilian passenger, Krista McAuliffe, who was a teacher, right? Classrooms around the country were tuned in for that reason alone.

Your point was that people can have false memories, which they can, but that doesn't prove that all memories are false, does it (I mean other than your memory of that survey which proved your point).
posted by spock at 8:41 PM on December 27, 2004


I saw the Challenger explode live, but that's because CNN always played in my workplace. That launch was of interset because they were shooting that teacher into space, it was more than a routine launch.
posted by Slagman at 8:46 PM on December 27, 2004


what spock said.
posted by amberglow at 8:48 PM on December 27, 2004


After reading the transcript, it strikes me that Rumsfeld's comment was just a mangled sentence rather than a Freudian slip.

Yet, after all the heat that's been on him lately, it makes me smile to see him step in it once again.
posted by rks404 at 8:51 PM on December 27, 2004


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
posted by boredomjockey at 8:54 PM on December 27, 2004


Satanic terpsichoreans are notoriously unreliable eywitnesses, I'm told. But they are well known to be masters of the "Chewbacca defense".

Assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the craft in question was brought down by a missile fired by an F-16 from the North Dakota ANG "Happy Hooligans" (as has been reputed in tinfoil headgear circles), its demise in that manner would be no less praiseworthy than the "takedown-by-gallant-passengers" mode ostensibly accepted by 99% of the world.
As the recent election results show, Americans will buy a pleasant fiction over a grim reality any day.
posted by rdone at 8:56 PM on December 27, 2004


Drudge has it linked. They must be nervous.

I've always thought that it was completely obvious that that plane was shot down. The story made up afterwards was too perfect. The "let's roll" business was amended by the September Eleventh commission to "let's roll it", referring apparently to a stewardess dining-cart, and the use of the phrase on an army commercial pretty much solidified it for me.
posted by interrobang at 8:56 PM on December 27, 2004


spock + amberglow - You guys are a solid tag-team. I mangled the facts horribly on that one. I'm sorry. I is a anus. The whole Challenger thing is a horrible example. Ignore it. Who cares how many people saw the Challegner go down.

The point was just that eyewitness memory of incidents in particular is horrid, especially after time has passed. There are other far more articuate examples than I have available to me at the moment.

And, no, not all memories are false. But eyewitness testimony of "another plane" and whatnot has to be taken with a grain of salt. When there's real concrete evidence (don't post links, I've read all of the conspriacy sites) I'll believe it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:59 PM on December 27, 2004


destro: how is it of note that the guy who "rushed the cabin was as queer as a three dollar bill?"

just askin'.
posted by moonbird at 9:00 PM on December 27, 2004


Which one was responsible for the secondary debris field again? The high humidity or the false memories?
posted by spock at 9:02 PM on December 27, 2004


I liked knowing about Bingham, when it happened, moon, especially since it was verboten to mention it on tv at the time. (Mychal Judge too) : >
posted by amberglow at 9:04 PM on December 27, 2004


As most seem to agree, it's not that the plane may have been brought down by our own forces that is the problem, but rather that the administration may have found it necessary to cover up the story. It reflects a suspicion and distrust of the American people as a whole that is disconcerting.

Even if Bush and company have been completely honest about the terrorist attacks, there have been plenty of other instances where they have withheld important information from the public. The records of Cheney's energy task force, details about the treatment of prisoners in Cuba, an inability to account for the massive "failures of intelligence" that led us into the current Gulf war, and inexplicable lack of press conferences by the President; all suggest a government that is profoundly secretive, if not altogether paranoid.

That's the real issue, not a possible slip of the tongue or the fate of an airplane that crashed three years ago (though I certainly don't wish to diminish that tragic loss).
posted by aladfar at 9:13 PM on December 27, 2004


devil: I watched the challenger blow up live. Our school had gathered us all in an auditorium to watch the launch, because of the teacher in space bit. All of our classes had been working in various space-related exercises during the lead-up. Feel free to babble on about unreliable eyewitnesses if you'd like, but that was by far one of the most fucked up days of my youth.

As far as the theory that US forces shot down flight 93... I buy it. It's the only 9/11 conspiracy I really buy, and it doesn't even get me upset.

I mean, I can rationalize shooting the fucker down. Then after learning that the passengers were trying to take over, I can rationalize not mentioning that it got shot down. There's a lot of people who wouldn't take kindly to that sort of error, as understandable as it is.

Unfortunately, I think I'll find out what happened at about the same time that I read a full accounting of the JFK assassination, while on a tour of recovered alien UFOs.
posted by mosch at 9:13 PM on December 27, 2004


I think we'll find out the truth about that plane before we find out about Cheney's task force.
posted by amberglow at 9:15 PM on December 27, 2004


spock - it was the Klingons. Honestly, I have no f'ing clue. I'm not an aviation disaster expert. I could concieve of a bunch of lunatics in the midst of a fistfight pulling hard enough on the stick to tear the plane apart. But, one observation that can't be easily explained does not support an alternative conclusion that has just as many problems.

I've read the flight93crash.com site. I'm not convinced. There would have to be somebody out there who pulled the trigger in the jet and didn't say anything to anybody after that. Taking 6 minutes to scramble fighters is actually pretty fast in the post Cold War era when we stopped having all of our nuclear fleet on Ready-5 status.

A bomb somewhere on the plane would be just as convincing of an explanation as fighters shooting the plane down. That would account for pieces of the plane scattered over PA, the cell-phone conversations claiming that a hijacker had a bomb, etc. In fact, it's probably a little easier to explain things that way since you don't have to account for the lack of any eyewitnesses seeing a missle being fired, or the lack of a fighter pilot owning up. Etc. There are lots of good explanations for pretty much everything. We could go through point-by-point, but I'd rather not. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I am open to being convinced, but the easiest possible explanation (there was not a giant conspiracy followed by a massive coverup) still seems to fit.

Who knows. There are plenty of things that go unexplained every day. But one unexplained observation does a weak conspiracy make.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:15 PM on December 27, 2004


mosch - I screwed up the Challenger thing. I know. Sorry about your childhood.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:16 PM on December 27, 2004


mosch - Also, if you want to talk about "babbling on", see this thread on MeFi about eyewitness observations sucking.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:22 PM on December 27, 2004


You realize that the o-ring theory regarding the Challenger disaster was all just a coverup. Turns out a struggle over the steering wheel in the cockpit caused the whole thing.
posted by spock at 9:36 PM on December 27, 2004


I thought it was that Reagan rushed NASA or that they were cutting corners and not being careful enough?
posted by amberglow at 9:42 PM on December 27, 2004


I read about that story too; I don't think it was Challenger - it was some kind of ubiquitous event people claimed to have seen live, though.
posted by abcde at 9:50 PM on December 27, 2004


Boredomjockey, cigars are ALWAYS penises. Take a college lit course.

I still contend that 9/11 never happened. It's all a simulation. Baudrillard is rolling in his grave. And if he's not dead, he's doing something else probably.
posted by NoamChomskyStoleMyFace at 9:50 PM on December 27, 2004


NoamChomskeyAteMyBalls - It's more than just a simulation. We're actually all just brains in buckets. It's like The Matrix except Regan and Bush are the ones controlling the inputs to our brains.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:01 PM on December 27, 2004


spock - I knew we shouldn't have let those damn dirty humans in the cockpit.

If we're going on tangents, have you seen Tufte's analysis of the slides that led to the Challenger launch? It's a fascinating insight into how incompent information design (and not conspiracy, *ahem*) can lead to public tragedy. He concludes that it was O-rings and that all of the data to show that the O-rings would fail was available but just displayed poorly and nobody really got the message. Obviously there's more to the story than just a bad slide or two, but it's an interesting story.

IIRC (and apparently my memory sucks about Challenger-related facts), it's in his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. I'm sure there's been a MeFi thread about his work.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:06 PM on December 27, 2004


spock - If your trump card evidence is the large debris field, your conspiracy theory has big problems.

Its unfortunately well proven that large inputs on flight controls can cause control surfaces to break off the aircraft. Additionally, futzing with the throttles in unexpected ways can cause engine stall-out, which can be quite dramatic (flames, smoke, loud bang, etc)

So lets see, wild oscillation of the rudder, unexpected throttle movements, sounds like a struggle for control in the cockpit as much as an air to air missile.

I really don't know what happened that day. I don't think it would have been the incorrect action to shot down the plane to save people on the ground. However, with the amount of evidence there seems to be pointing to the official explanation, I get the impression that people are pursing the alternate theories more for political reasons than forensic ones, and in my mind, thats makes them even more suspect than this compulsively lying administration.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 10:16 PM on December 27, 2004


Just ran across a great gallery of lift-induced condensation (the "smoke" on the wings) including on a commercial airliner.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:25 PM on December 27, 2004


Wait, devil, can I change my name to that?

And it was a joke. I dislike Mr. B.
posted by NoamChomskyStoleMyFace at 10:31 PM on December 27, 2004


NoamChomsky... - I'd sign a petition to allow you to change your name. ;)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:56 PM on December 27, 2004


Which is, let's be serious, not exactly the most credible news source on or off the Web.

This was covered on NPR the day after the speech. Heard the audio of Rummy saying it, then thinking "Was it a slip of the tounge - the truth was told or did he mis-speak".

If Rummy was speaking the truth - Another "lie" by government to the citizens. As lies go I'd be happy if this was as bad as it got.

If Rummy just mis-spoke - More fuel for the "your government has lied to you" group.

Either way, the people on the plane are dead. The pilots of that plane didn't reach their target.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:15 AM on December 28, 2004


Never mind contradicting anything, Donald Rumsfeld's mere existence harms the USA.
posted by kaemaril at 7:37 AM on December 28, 2004


Rumsfeld is a great man.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:09 AM on December 28, 2004


On preview - spock, okay, sorry, I didn't have my facts exactly right. The whole point of that article is that CNN became a contender after the Challenger accident, which doesn't support "millions" of people happening to watch an upstart cable network at the time. If you google for false memories (and related) there are some good studies. Getting the details wrong doesn't void the underlying point that eyewitness memory is faulty and easily fooled.

Our entire elementary school watched it live, as we did all shuttle launches, which were still something sort of special back then. I am pretty sure that every other elementary school in our district was also watching it. That's just one district in Texas, though...
posted by kaseijin at 8:16 AM on December 28, 2004


On preview, what Mosch said.
posted by kaseijin at 8:18 AM on December 28, 2004


Wow. Who knew the Washington Times did comedy editorials?
posted by kaemaril at 8:27 AM on December 28, 2004


Who knew you were such a policy luminary?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 AM on December 28, 2004


I remember hearing a press conference with Rumsfeld (I think) shortly after 9/11. It was one of the most brazen things I'd ever heard come out of an official's mouth.

He said, "we are going to lie to you."

Am I the only one who heard that? Since that day, I haven't been surprised by any "news" of cover-ups, deceit, fraud, etc. He said this was going to happen and it's possible that's the only truth the administration has uttered since.

(There should be a Godwin equivalent of invoking the Ben Franklin quote re. liberty & safety)
posted by RockCorpse at 8:40 AM on December 28, 2004


(Security, even.)
posted by RockCorpse at 8:42 AM on December 28, 2004


In foreign policy, lies, at least lies of omission are necessary and appropriate.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 AM on December 28, 2004


That WaTimes piece posted by ParisParamus is based on a completely false premise. Bush can no more ask for Rumsfeld's resignation than he can Cheney's. Or, to put it another way, Steve Ballmer would have about as much success asking for Bill Gates's resignation.

Rumsfeld is one of the principal architects/shakers and movers of the Administration's power structure and long-term vision. He's probably more critical to the plan's execution than the Bush himself is. Bush continues to be an empty vessel that appeals to NASCAR dads and Religious Right fruitcakes, but the real power in the administration lies in the elsewhere.
posted by psmealey at 8:47 AM on December 28, 2004


PSMealey: thanks to people like you, we can be assured of never again having a liberal wacko in the White House; I owe you big time.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:50 AM on December 28, 2004


ParisParamus: Nobody. But then again, I've not had the Washington Post write a glowing editorial about my good points whilst overlooking my cute little flaws. Hey, who knew not personally signing 1000+ letters of condolences could be such a downer? I blame the families, personally, for making a fuss over nothing.
posted by kaemaril at 8:59 AM on December 28, 2004


*getting dizzy from all the derails*
posted by stevis at 9:06 AM on December 28, 2004


Actually, I blame the MSM for being assholes. MAy their relevancy continue to diminish.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:07 AM on December 28, 2004


It's a truism that if a given country's foreign policy is predicated on lies, then yes, lies are of course necessary.

Which is understandable if you really believe the ends justify the means.
posted by RockCorpse at 9:07 AM on December 28, 2004


Sure RockCorpse. Be a freak, if you like. Foreign policy, war and imtelligence gathering all require secrecy, and secrecy is, in effect, lies by omission. And sometimes, disinformation(=active deceit). I'm much more comfortable with that than the Hell that would prevail if your twisted outlook was implemented.

Is Chomsky dead yet? I wish he would hurry up!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:19 AM on December 28, 2004


Wow...calling me a "freak" and "twisted"? What exactly do my personal characteristcs have to do with this?

A little insecure, there? Is your tiny little penis afraid that if you don't stick it in somebody over, they'll stick it in you first? Well, you go ahead and do whatever you like to make yourself right at home here on this planet. After all, you have God's blessing, right?

And when the soldiers come home you go ahead and explain to them your enlightened views on foreign policy, war and lies.

The goddamned"imtelligence" was even lies.

Wake up.
posted by RockCorpse at 10:14 AM on December 28, 2004


You are,/i> a politcal freak; member of a minority that, in the United States, is getting smaller by the day; part of the Left, which is being left behind. You live in a world of nostalgia-colored glasses. this article describes you well

(NY Sun; Log in required, but so what?!)

posted by ParisParamus at 10:25 AM on December 28, 2004


Dude, you are *so* wrong. You know nothing about me.

I'll be waiting for you and your troops when you invade Toronto. I'll be happy to show you around. You and that harpy Ann Coulter. We'll show you a real good time.

BTW, love your profile...all that stuff about intellectual dishonesty. Classic. You're a real, smart guy. Keep up the honesty! It's working!

Would it be too hard to debate without the ad hominem?
posted by RockCorpse at 11:07 AM on December 28, 2004


PP without ad hominems is like a balloon with no air in it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:14 AM on December 28, 2004


Oh, wait, you're a lawyer. Maybe ad hominem is all you can do.
posted by RockCorpse at 11:15 AM on December 28, 2004


Limp & tiny?
posted by RockCorpse at 11:15 AM on December 28, 2004


destro: how is it of note that the guy who "rushed the cabin was as queer as a three dollar bill?"

I wonder how the Bush administration think about one of their heros engaging in teh buttsecks. Gay rights groups could have taken that to the bank when all of the marriage stuff was happening. too late.
posted by destro at 11:49 AM on December 28, 2004


I wonder how the Bush administration think about one of their heros engaging in teh buttsecks.

Mehlman came out?
posted by m@ at 11:59 AM on December 28, 2004


Coulter? Don't like her--really annoying voice. I prefer Laura Ingraham(sp?)
posted by ParisParamus at 12:01 PM on December 28, 2004


do you even know what ad hominem is? I am calling your views, and by extension, you, hopelessly liberal. This is a discussion about politics. Therefore there is no ad hominem attack taking place. YOU ARE LIBERAL.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:07 PM on December 28, 2004


Clearly, you don't know what ad hominem is. That's precisely what ad hominem is. If this is (was) a discussion about politics. My views, personal "freakishness" and therefore "undesireable nature" have nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. Hopelessly liberal? What does that have to do with Rumsfeld?

How can it be any plainer? It doesn't fucking matter if somebody is a liberal or not. It doesn't mean everything they say is wrong, or even in opposition to you.

Congratulations on threadjacking this from Rumsfeld to now being about me. Or you, rather.

Oh, and YELLING INDOORS IS UNNECESSARY, LITTLE BOY!!! Use your inside voice.
posted by RockCorpse at 12:26 PM on December 28, 2004


sorry, but the whole ad hominem "shield" is so pathetic. I'm not a major user of majuscules. Also, get a grip, and consider I'm using a bit of exaggeration. Which is perfectly appropriate when someone--the Sec. of Defense--is being demonized; if you use no nuance, I can respond in kind.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:30 PM on December 28, 2004


You mean, in unkind.
posted by RockCorpse at 12:33 PM on December 28, 2004


Don't mention it, Paris. I'd not be very happy to have a wacko of any stripe in the White House either, on this we agree. Now a fiscally responsible liberal? I'd take that any day of the week.

But "challenging the intellectually dishonest?" Please. So unable to think critically of anyone in this administration, you are as locked into your blinders as any of the so-called Bushitler crowd that you claim to detest so much. Cast out the mote of thine eye, hypocrite.
posted by psmealey at 12:37 PM on December 28, 2004


Besides, demonizing Rumfeld? Boo-fucking-hoo. All someone has to do is quote of him saying, "we are going to lie to you" and *bam* - they're a weak-kneed, bleeding-heart liberal.

Seriously, come visit.

(And your "nuance" is about as subtle as a daisy-cutter.)
posted by RockCorpse at 12:41 PM on December 28, 2004


No blinders, ps.

I voted for Bush more because I thought Kerry was/is dangerous than because I like Bush (lets say, for the moment, 40-60%). If I sound "blinded" here, it's because there's 50 "Bush is horrible" comments for every one "Bush is pretty good" comment. If the ratio was closer, you'd see a softer, more nuanced PP. But this way, at least I get some counterpoint out in a way that draws attention.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:45 PM on December 28, 2004


RockCorpse, everything has to be taken in context. The average person reading that quote has also read the administration bashed endlessly for years, now. This is not NeutralFilter; its Metafilter. Now, you could argue that hyperbole and stridency on my part is self-defeating, but, at least at this juncture, I thought it not.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:49 PM on December 28, 2004


Ah, yes, where would the political machine of the Republican Party be without Paris to defend their fragile honour?

Let's play the new-aunts game!
"Despite all evidence to the contrary, I am actually a subtle thinker who is not blinded by my ideology, unlike every other person in the world.
If I seem to be reactionary and obnoxious, and if my views seem to be informed largely by (apparently intentional) misreadings of straightforward information, this is because you are projecting your liberal bias. If my discourse is insulting, simpleminded, or uncouth, it is because these are the steps I have to take to make myself understood. All perceived flaws in my shining intellect are the result of failures in your own thinking. My worldview is unassailable, and all serious people share my views. In short, there is nothing wrong with me, just you."

Identify the sterling jewel of western intellectual life associated with the above:
A) ParisParamus
B) George W. Bush
C) All of the above
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:06 PM on December 28, 2004


Pas moi, alors....
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on December 28, 2004


Sterling jewel? Isn't that a mixed metaphor? Don't you mean "shinning" jewel?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:16 PM on December 28, 2004


Uh, I'm going to plead the Shakespeare defense.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:20 PM on December 28, 2004


But this way, at least I get some counterpoint out in a way that draws attention.

There you have it, folks. Drawing attention is SO much fun, isn't it? I thought Paris was supposed to chill out after the whole election thing. How can you possible take your comments seriously, PP? You've just crapped all over this thread. You're not gaining anyone's respect or helping to provide any kind of balance by behaving in this manner.

Sterling jewel? Isn't that a mixed metaphor? Don't you mean "shinning" jewel?

Sterling
adj.

1. Consisting of or relating to sterling or British money.
2. Made of sterling silver: a sterling teaspoon.
3. Of the highest quality: a person of sterling character.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2004


Drawing attention to a point of view one has is fun (or rewarding). I'm sorry if I haven't perfected drawing attention to a point of view while remaining invisible.

Glad to know you have a cloaking device on right now.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:26 PM on December 28, 2004


Drawing attention to a point of view one has is fun (or rewarding). I'm sorry if I haven't perfected drawing attention to a point of view while remaining invisible.

I'm sure this is all very fun for you. Being "invisible" is obviously not the issue - replace that word with "civil" or "rational" and you're closer to the mark.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:28 PM on December 28, 2004


I don't distinguish between insults, vulgar or otherwise, hurled in a thread, and hyperbole used to respond to those insults.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:31 PM on December 28, 2004


[Long-time MF reader, first-time commenter. Yes, I know it's too long and American attention spans are shorter than a gnat's ...]

My 2 cents: SecDef said the terra-ists shot down UA93. He meant 'brought down.' Slip of tongue from a stressed fascist toady doth not a conspiracy make. Shot down? Spiraled down out of control? Swatted by the hand of the great invisible cloud being? I don't much care. I do find it interesting how the culture focuses like a laser beam on language and not on ... well, reality. Moving on ...

RE: the last few posts ... well, good lord! We Americans have SO much growing up and calming down to do. Here, for God's sake, let's chew on all of this as a distraction ...

Regarding the 757's wingtip vortices: United 93 was a five-year-old Boeing 757-222. Discussion of the 757's history of, shall we say, possibly unique wake vortices can be found in an e-mail by scientist Robert Dorsett, in a discussion on the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assocation site, and, in a little more 'civilian'-friendly way, in an Airliners.net forum. Aircraft following 757s are always warned of the presence of a Seven-Five and given the 'Caution, wake turbulence!' heads-up. The upshot: unusual control movements in the 757 while in humid weather conditions aloft could indeed make passengers see 'puffs of white smoke' or whatever on the tips of the wings. As someone pointed out earlier, it happens all the time on approach over the bay to runways 28L and 28R at SFO and, in that context, it's a beautiful sight.

In-flight structural breakup causing explosive fireballs and widely scattered debris fields are not at all uncommon:

  • First up, Northwest Airlines Flight 705, a Boeing 720-051B, encountered severe turbulence after departure from MIA on 12-Feb-63 during a thunderstorm and broke up in flight at flight level 17500. Explosive decompression resulting from structural breakup produced a loud explosion and ground tremor and a ball of flame in the air. The extreme aerodynamic forces which built up due to the plane's upset 'exceeded the aircraft's design tolerances.' The debris was subsequently scattered over the Everglades in an area 25 kilometres long and two kilometres wide.

  • BOAC (now British Airways) Flight 911, a Boeing 707-436, outbound from Tokyo Haneda for Hong Kong Kai Tak on 5-Mar-66, flew near Mt. Fuji at FL17000 for sightseeing purposes and encountered severe turbulence due to mountain rotor winds coming off of Fuji which slammed into the aircraft and broke the tailfin over onto its side. The aircraft then broke up in flight with explosive decompression and wreckage was scattered over an area 16 kilometres long and two kilometres wide.

  • Braniff International Airways Flight 250, a BAC-111-203AE, encountered severe turbulence on the leading edge of a gust-front thunderstorm on 6-Aug-66. Winds estimated at 140-155 km/h slammed into the jet at FL4,000 from below and to the rear, separating the tail plane and starboard wing. Fuel vapor from the ruptured wing exploded and the remains of the jet corkscrewed into the ground near Falls City, NE. Wreckage was spread over most of a square mile. Interestingly, one of the crash investigators was Dr. Fujita, who would develop the Fujita Scale to measure the force of winds in tornadoes. His investigation revealed that BI250 penetrated the gust front at a point where roll shear was happening, much like BOAC911 had.

  • A Delta Air Lines DC-9-14 training flight, operated by a crew of four on 30-May-72 at Greater Southwest International Airport between Dallas and Fort Worth, was practicing touch-and-go procedures and following a American Airlines DC-10 training flight doing the same thing when it encountered wake turbulence from the DC-10 and crashed along runway 17, killing all four crewmembers. Subsequently, the study of wingtip vortices generated by heavy aircraft produced useful findings and lead to increased separations between the heavies and those following as well as warnings to pilots of following aircraft. If you've ever flown United and listened to Channel 9 when the captain chose to make ATC transmissions available, you may have heard ATC issue the warning, 'Caution, wake turbulence.' It's pretty standard now, and the findings from accidents such as this one contributed to the increased safety margins we enjoy today.


  • There has been speculation that the same kind of rotor forces may have been at play in the crash of United Flight 585, a Boeing 737-291 operating between Denver Stapleton and Colorado Springs on 3-Mar-91. However, the NTSB issued a probable cause finding of 'loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide.' It also issued the same probable cause finding in the infamous crash of USAir Flight 427, a Boeing 737-300 which nosedived into the ground at Aliquippa, PA, while on approach to PIT. Boeing itself implicated wake vortices in that crash.

    So, let's talk commercial aviation, shall we? Hell, let's talk about the peccadilloes of beagles or the crappy weather outside. I am SO sick of the filthy flood-tide of red/blue, lib/con, god/devil juvenile crap ...
    posted by AirBeagle at 1:38 PM on December 28, 2004


    PissOnYourParade: "Its unfortunately well proven that large inputs on flight controls can cause control surfaces to break off the aircraft."

    Yes indeed. However, it should be pointed out that the sort of damage and patterns of destruction on pieces of hardware ripped off because they got hung out at too high a speed is very, very different from the sort of damage and destruction caused by a missile strike, and also very different from the results of an engine fire or explosion.

    Bits torn off at speed from wild maneuvers or improper control input would basically only show materials failure from stresses at points of attachment. Engine blowouts have their own specific patterns of damage.

    Missile strikes make recognizable (to experts) fragment damage and generally leave small bits of the missile itself embedded in the airframe, and sometimes leave recognizable fuel and explosive chemical residue, if the blast is close enough (the majority of air-to-air missiles carry proximity detonators and don't always actually hit the target directly).

    I think we can be nearly 100% positive the FAA (and therefore the government) knows exactly what happened, just from the forensic evidence recovered from the crash sites. Whether the official report discloses that information is anyone's (not within the Need To Know group) guess.

    I'd offer my personal opinion that a strong leadership would be able to tell us the truth if in fact the Air Force shot down Flight 93; as mentioned by several above, it would be a horrible and sad, but under the circumstances reasonable thing to do. Strong leaders would admit the truth of such an act even if it meant their removal from power - because as awful as giving that order would be, they would believe it was the right thing to do, and in this case it's easy to demonstrate justification. I think that America would understand and support the decision, of course with heavy hearts.

    On preview: great post, AirBeagle! Good stuff.
    posted by zoogleplex at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2004


    Drawing attention to a point of view one has is fun (or rewarding). I'm sorry if I haven't perfected drawing attention to a point of view while remaining invisible.

    Again, you have implicitly deflected responsibility for your actions onto those around you, and again in the next quote:

    I don't distinguish between insults, vulgar or otherwise, hurled in a thread, and hyperbole used to respond to those insults.

    One gets the impression that you can't distinguish between very many things at all, PP, and that is why you are so, so tedious. Some other "disruptive" mefiosos (like quonsar) at least have the wit to back up their stridency, but I can't remember the last time you made me laugh.
    There's no doubt MeFi could benefit from the input of a wider swath of the political spectrum. I'd love to see a smart, clever conservative (or "moderate" as you style yourself these days) knock some folks off their high horses. You are not that guy. In some threads you are barely intelligible.
    Just a suggestion: I'd like to see a lot more of this Paris and a lot less of the Paris who posted in this current thread.
    posted by sonofsamiam at 2:20 PM on December 28, 2004


    sonofsamiam: it's strictly a context thing. Both PPs exist simultaneously. But, just for you, I'll do my best to ignore the Hate Bush and Co. threads, and comment in the ones which bring out my progressive, anti-consumer beliefs.

    By the way, I plan to join the Park Slope Food Coop some time in the next few weeks--astonishing?
    posted by ParisParamus at 2:38 PM on December 28, 2004


    (make that anti-glutton-consumption; not anti-consumer)
    posted by ParisParamus at 2:55 PM on December 28, 2004


    AirBeagle, waaaaay impressive first comment. Thanks.
    posted by dabitch at 2:56 PM on December 28, 2004


    My observations about Airbus were only unclear if you assume a kind of deranged, insane outlook to things--not true.
    posted by ParisParamus at 2:57 PM on December 28, 2004


    just for you, I'll do my best to ignore the Hate Bush and Co. threads, and comment in the ones which bring out my progressive, anti-consumer beliefs.

    Oh, come off it. It's this very tendency of yours that is so irksome; I'm talking about the level of your discourse and you think I'm upset about your (weak and boring) defenses of Bush.
    You are either being willfully obtuse, or you have so little capability for introspection that you literally cannot comprehend criticism.

    My observations about Airbus were only unclear if you assume a kind of deranged, insane outlook to things--not true.

    This sentence no parse.
    posted by sonofsamiam at 3:02 PM on December 28, 2004


    you have so little capability for introspection...
    This sentence, neither.
    posted by sonofsamiam at 3:08 PM on December 28, 2004


    Guys, can we stop feeding the troll, please!
    posted by fingerbang at 4:25 PM on December 28, 2004


    The part of the theory that I heard went that Cheney gave the order to shoot down the plane, but later on he and Bush agreed on a story whereby he had supposedly asked Bush for permission before doing so. And this is why they had to appear in front of the 9/11 commission together - it was so they could keep their stories straight and not be pinned separately into saying something they hadn't carefully agreed upon beforehand.

    Made sense to me.
    posted by beth at 8:01 PM on December 28, 2004


    Yeah, they're all fucking criminals. I'm looking forward to Bush being the first president to go to jail.

    And I mean beyond that time he was in jail and couldn't show up for his military service.
    posted by interrobang at 8:40 PM on December 28, 2004


    It is not his first conspirationist style lapsus. In an interview with "Parade" he said :

    "we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this [pentagon] building.. "

    Source : Dod News
    posted by BastilleWanderer at 9:41 AM on December 29, 2004


    The part of the theory that I heard went that Cheney gave the order to shoot down the plane, but later on he and Bush agreed on a story whereby he had supposedly asked Bush for permission before doing so.

    This is what I think happened, based on reading the 9/11 report, and this is all they're covering up. The "let's roll" version of events makes a great story, and was just the patriotic pick-me-up the country needed at the time. And, if you'll recal the bogus "the White House was a target" story, using 9/11 for propaganda has going on since day 1.
    posted by kirkaracha at 4:09 PM on December 29, 2004


    « Older Quantum Darwinism   |   Bell Curve for Doctors Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments