Wasn't there a tape of a cel phone call from that flight?

 

http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickabi...partnerID=2004

 

Heres something about those phone calls

"Mark Bingham, 31, of San Francisco owned a public relations firm, the Bingham Group. He called his mother, Alice Hoglan, 15 minutes before the plane crashed and told her that the plane had been taken over by three men who claimed to have a bomb. Hoglan said her son told her that some passengers planned to try to regain control of the plane. "He said, 'I love you very, very much, ' " Hoglan said. "

"Thomas E. Burnett Jr., 38, of San Ramon, California, was a senior vice president and chief operating officer of Thoratec Corp., a medical research and development company, and the father of three. He made four calls to his wife, Deena, from the plane. Deena Burnett said that her husband told her that one passenger had been stabbed and that "a group of us are going to do something." He also told her that the people on board knew about the attack on the World Trade Center, apparently through other phone calls. "

Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked, Joanne Makely, Glick's mother-in-law, told CNN. Glick said that one of the hijackers "had a red box he said was a bomb, and one had a knife of some nature," Makely said. Glick asked Makely if the reports about the attacks on the World Trade Center were true, and she told him they were. He left the phone for a while, returning to say, "The men voted to attack the terrorists," Makely said.




http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...3.victims.html


Here's another one
http://www.flight93crash.com/

 

He makes it sound like it was the terrorists that shot down the plane. I vote for slip of the tongue.

"or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon,"

 

Maybe I'm not following something, or my memory of 9/11 is vague or something, but IF the plane was on final glide path towards DC, don't y'all think it prudent to shoot it down, given that 3 had already crashed into massively populated areas?

What would have been the fallout, say, if there were jet fighters that essentially 'escorted' Flight 93 to Washington DC?

I must be missing what you all are saying.

 

I wouldn't have cried out against shooting that plane down. "The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few" in that case.

But getting back to the topic that is a pretty scary slip of the tounge. That really gives good ammo to anyone who believes there is a cover up.

 

I don't know if it's all that detrimental. A slip of the tongue is what internet rumor mill is all about, it's not something a major political party nor pundits could sell the American people on in trying to sic them against the administration.

It is scary in that Donald is really starting to show himself to be not holding up to the rigors that well.

 

He's lost a step or two thats for sure.

 

The only people that know for sure are the people who were there.

 

What's that have to do with anything? We're not dumb. At least I'm not trying to say what happened. Of course we have no idea, will never know, and most likely don't want to know.

The point of the argument, as I saw it, was discussing the perceived diminishing relevancy and efficacy of Mr Rumsfeld.

The Jet went down. How it went down is of little concern in the big picture. If the terrorists on Flight 93 would have succeeded, there would have been a much higher body count. If they went down by crafty pilot or passengers or they went down by a fighter pilot pulling the trigger, it's very, very sad. Something I'll never get over, but it's something that the person(s) who 'rolled' should be honored to the highest.

 

Who said you were dumb? How does that not have anything to do with it? It's true, if we knew what really happened we wouldn't be sitting here debating the topic. We don't know what really happened, and unless someone opens thier mouth that really does know something, we will never know. So please, beat the horse some more. Btw the point of the thread wasn't to discuss the incompetance of the secretary, it was to converse about him saying that flight 93 was "shot down". It isn't of little concern either, I'm sure the general concences is that It would have been prudent to take the plane down, a cover up on the other hand(IF there was one, big IF there) is just plain wrong, but really, who wants to make that decision anyway

 

See the forest!!!!

I don't know. What you said sounded like something my wife might say. Sorry.

 

It's cool, I think we misunderstand each other alot around here