Report: Bush thought United Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11

By David Edwards
Thursday, October 28th, 2010

The first details about former President George W. Bush's new book have begun to leak out.

According to a report at Matt Drudge's website, The Drudge Report, the new book Decision Points talks about topics including alcoholism, his order to shoot down planes on 9/11, Katrina and the financial crisis.

According to Drudge, the book begins, "It was a simple question, 'Can you remember the last day you didn't have a drink?'"

The book also discusses the events of Sept. 11, 2001. That morning, Bush says he made the order to shoot down hijacked planes.

At 10:03 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, United Flight 93 slammed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Most believe it was brought down when passengers tried to overtake the hijackers.

Bush writes that at first he believed Flight 93 had been shot down by the US military, according to Drudge's filing.

Time and time again, Bush returned to his faith to help govern, the book allegedly says. Bush described his struggle with deciding how to handle the stem cell ban after receiving a letter from Nancy Reagan describing a "wrenching family journey," according to the report.

"I did feel a responsibility to voice my pro-life convictions and lead the country toward what Pope John Paul II called a culture of life," Bush purportedly wrote.

The former president also talks about a July 2001 meeting with Pope John Paul II where he prayed for ABC News' Peter Jennings, who was struggling with cancer at the time. Jennings later died.

Bush is planning a media tour to promote Decision Points. An interview with NBC's Matt Lauer is set to air Nov. 8., and an interview with Oprah Winfrey will be broadcast Nov. 9.

Drudge frequently obtains pre-release copies of politically-themed books.

In May, Bush described some of the elements to be outlined in the book, as reported by AP:

Bush said "Decision Points," due for release in November, opens with the scene and him questioning whether he loved booze more than his wife, Laura. He said he realized he had an addictive personality and quit drinking cold turkey.

He said he hopes the book will be a tool for historians evaluating his presidency.

"I don't think you can come to a definitive conclusion about a presidency until the passage of time," Bush said. "I want to put you in my position."

"The sad thing is you don't get do-overs," Bush told the assembled crowd. "You've got to make the calls. I got some right. I got some wrong."

A recent report in the Financial Times said Bush pushed back publication of his book from September to November in an effort to help Republicans in the midterm elections.

"George W. Bush pushed back publication of his memoirs, 'Decision Points,' out of fear that a public reminder of his presidential legacy would hurt Republicans heading into November's midterm elections, Bush's friends tell the Financial Times," Huffington Post reported in August.

The Financial Times reported "that Bush refused to allow publication in September, which would have been a better time to unveil his book from a sales perspective. Instead, it's slated to hit stores on Nov. 9, one week after Election Day. Bush isn't scheduled to give any interviews for the book tour until Nov. 8."

Random House, Bush's publisher, said it was their decision to delay publication of the book, saying, "From a media perspective the period leading up to the midterm elections is a very noisy and crowded space and we believe the president's book will be better served by being launched following that time."


Is nothing New.

sometimes I like being refreshed with information............

..............that I may have run across a long time ago, but now I can see it in a different light.
Thanks for this.

"Repeat the message"

A firm marketing tool is to continue to "repeat the message".
Richard Gage does it. Jon Gold does it. The BuildingWhat? campaign does it. Classroom teachers do it. Coke and Pepsi do it.


Thanks for pointing that out.

If it's done with lies

then it also needs to be done with truth. We might wish we didn't have to repeat points so much; but it seems to be necessary in view of how basic it is to the approach of government propagandists. Repeat, repeat, repeat. 'Catapulting the propaganda' was how Rumsfeld once put it.

And if some canard has faded from public consciousness, it can always be taken off the shelf and polished off and presented anew.

At the same time, though, when it comes to making our points, it doesn't hurt for us to be aware of just how long certain information has been out there--To know that it isn't 'new,' even as we continue to bring it to people's attention.


I'll go to my grave contending that we do not need to use our time looking for new info but rather use it to develop new and better ways of making our already conclusive info interesting, engaging and motivating to more and more people. thank you for pointing this out.

We can do both, can't we?

Everyone has different interests and talents to contribute.

Some of us love to educate the public.

Some of us love to do research.

Some of us love to make films, post stuff online, etc.

Everyone should do what they are most drawn to doing (in a positive way, of course).

We do need to expand and extend our educational outreach approaches and techniques, however. This is a never ending process.

Understanding and addressing the evolving psychological realities regarding 9/11 truth (both inside and outside the movement) are very important in how we evolve our public outreach activities and internal movement dynamic.

We are moving toward the tipping point, brothers and sisters, now is the time to fasten our seat belts, promote the best information we have as compassionately as we can and begin to contemplate what comes after 9/11 truth finally breaks through the wall and goes mainstream.

The truth shall set us free (with freedom comes responsibility).

Love is the only way forward ( yes, we can love our adversaries while we prevent them from doing more harm).

Do folks here think it crashed or was shot down?

Wayne Madsen told me it was shot down @ a bunch of folks from the NSA have proof & will come forward to verify this when the "time is right"

It's hard to say..

since it obviously plunged down into and UNDER the ground, leaving very little in the way of wreckage..

Some would argue

Some would argue that the 'little in the way of wreckage' is more consistent with shoot-down than with crash.

If it was shot down

That means the FDR must have been faked (in hardware or after the data extraction). I certainly don't think that's impossible, and I say this as an IT guy...but, it's very difficult to accomplish. The difficult part isn't altering data, but to make the altered data look believable to aviation experts.

Time will tell. There seems to be some precedent.

Wayne Madsen is a bit of a tabloid journo if you ask me... but hey.. who knows.

FDR fakery

If there was FDR fakery for 93, then could the flyover FDR data also be fake? (I think remember pilots for 911 truth decoding the AA77 FDR and saying that as there had not been a recalibration done on descending below 10000 feet then the altitude was out at 'impact' and readjusting for non recalibration implies a flyover- i think there was an AA77 wreck at the pentagon btw, just thinking about how the fab 5 frames misled , poss AA77 FDR recalibration / non-recalibration has misled via FDR fakery)

I have my doubts

about the FDR (in both cases, i.e AA 77 and UA 93) but I don't have clear evidence FDR data was faked either. Currently, work is being done by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt on the FDR data. This work will be published at some point in the future. It appears errors were made in earlier decodings and critical information was therefore unavailable.

I remain interested in the FDR, but the subject matter is complex, to say the least.

That man should be behind bars!

Not publishing his memoirs, and poking around on his ranch in Texas, riding his ATV, walking his dog..


"The former president also talks about a July 2001 meeting with Pope John Paul II where he prayed for ABC News' Peter Jennings, who was struggling with cancer at the time. Jennings later died."

I'm not sure there's anything Satan could have done for Peter Jennings.

Prove it!

From the article...."That morning, Bush says he made the order to shoot down hijacked planes."

I'm looking forward to see when he claims he gave this order.

From the article...."At 10:03 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, United Flight 93 slammed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania."

This means he will claim he gave the order before 10:03

From the Article..."Bush writes that at first he believed Flight 93 had been shot down by the US military, according to Drudge's filing."

If the military shot down flight 93 then they did what they had to do. So for the 9-11 truth movement to claim flight 93 was shot down, they are in effect claiming the military did it's job on 9-11. Why would the 9-11 truth movement make that a talking point?

They lied about what they did on 9-11.

Bush is spinning. He will claim he gave the shoot down order before 10:03. I have a very very simple response. Prove it! He can't.

He and Cheney tried to tell the 9-11 commission that he passed the order to Cheney just before Cheney stepped into the "bunker" around 10:00. They have phone records....but not for that call.....

"But according to according to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." Both Cheney and the president testified to the commission that the phone call took place. When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report."

How come he isn't telling the Secretary of Defense to authorize shoot down of planes?

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shoot down authority was not discussed." 911 commission

"At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shoot down authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31." --911 commission

"The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shoot down of aircraft if necessary." 911 commission

"Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shoot down authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004)."

People saw that plane go down in shanksville. No one saw a fighter shoot it down. Hard to shoot planes down when there is a stand down.

Why wouldn't Bush cover his tracks better?

Same thing with his lack of curiosity in the classroom. What was the benefit of arousing so much suspicion?


Bush could have given a shoot down order and then the blame could have been attributed to NORAD's failure to get there in time. After all as some have speculated, the war games were intended to hamper NORAD response.

The story could have been that NORAD didn't want to shoot down a civilian airliner. They tracked the plane and when it crashed the dilemma was solved.

There are a number of possible scenarios that are less suspicious than Bush lying about giving a shoot down order.

FDR faked--and/or just missing the last three minutes

We have to remember that although the current, "official" time for Flight 93's crash is 10:03, the real time of the crash was 10:06. Prof. Griffin explains this in his books, esp. Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

EDIT: This was meant in reply to SnowCrash's post mentioning the FDR.

Picture Credit

I've never seen this picture attached to the RawStory link. Anyone know the source? Thanks.

Is that photo

the real crash scene, or a set used in the Flight 93 movie?

Real crash scene or shot from film?

I was wondering the same thing.

Bush also said he saw the first plane hit the first tower

and maybe he did. Or maybe he didn't. Maybe the passengers fought the hijackers , maybe they didn't. Maybe the plane was shot down , maybe it just shattered on impact. Maybe the passengers complicated the plan and the plan had to be changed. Maybe the remote control system failed. Maybe someone else gave the shoot down order and bush is covering for them. Maybe the US govt cannot admit it was shot down from a liability standpoint. We need a new investigation. Maybe we'll get one someday. Maybe we won't.