FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Flight 93 - Overview
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7926

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:54 am    Post subject: Flight 93 - Overview Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with general evidence and discussion about Flight 93.

-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a great article from the Mirror, September 12, 2002, which presents very compelling evidence against the official story about Flight 93. (Thanks to Continuity for serendipitously leading me to find it when I tried to verify his uncited quote.)

The article ends with (what was perhaps a sidebar containing) a concise summary of the evidence, so I haven't bothered to highlight anything in the article or follow it with any comments. I think it speaks for itself.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&
Quote:
12 September 2002
WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?
RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site

THE unmarked military-style jet swooped down at high speed through the valley, twice circled the smouldering black scar where Flight 93 had careered into the ground just seconds earlier and then hurtled off over the horizon.

At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.

So when George Bush laid a wreath yesterday at the crash site in a remote valley outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, he was one of only a handful of people who know what really happened to the 40 innocents and four hijackers aboard the doomed United Airlines Boeing 757-200.

Those unimaginable final seconds as passengers showed courageous defiance apparently wrestling for control of the aircraft have become one of the defining images of the tragedy.

And "Let's roll" - ringleader Todd Beamer's no-nonsense call to arms - became a defining battle cry in America's war on terror.

But of the four aircraft taken on September 11, the exact fate of Flight 93 after its two-hour journey is proving difficult for US officials to explain.

What was the white jet doing there and why won't they admit to its presence? Why did other witnesses see smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell from the sky, indicating a possible explosion aboard?

Or - and this is proving to be the most uncomfortable question of all - in the moments before the airliner piled into the black, spongey earth at 575mph did an American fighter pilot have to do the unthinkable and shoot down a US civil airliner?

Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.

"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.

Ididn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.

"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.

"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

Mrs Mcelwain, who looks after special needs children, is further convinced the whole truth has yet to come out because of a phone call she had within hours from the wife of an air force friend of the family.

"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don't believe what happened on the plane brought it down.

"If they shot it down, or something else happened, everyone, especially the victims' families, have a right to know."

Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.

He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."

But did he see another plane? "Yes, there was another plane," Lee said. "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon."

Tom Spinelli, 28, was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said.

"It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."

India Lake also contributes to the view there was an explosion on board before the Newark-San Francisco flight came down. Debris rained down on the lake - a curious feat if, as the US government insists, there was no mid-air explosion and the plane was intact until it hit the ground.

"It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth," Tom said. "The authorities say it was blown here by the wind." But there was only a 10mph breeze and you were a mile and a half away? Tom raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: "Yeah, that's what they reckon."

Light debris was also found eight miles away in New Baltimore. A section of engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile -from the crash site. Theorists point out a Sidewinder heat-seeking missile attacks the hottest part of aircraft - the engine.

The authorities say the impact bounced it there. But the few pieces of surviving fuselage, local coroner Wallace Miller told us, were "no bigger than a carrier bag".

Nearly all the passengers were reduced to charcoal on impact and the largest piece of human tissue found was a section of spine eight inches long.

CURIOUSLY, military officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, although they were informed that it was a suspected hijack at 9.16am, 50 minutes before the plane came down.

At 9.35am they assumed it was heading for Washington DC after it changed course in a 180 degree turn and three F-16s - top speed 1,800mph - now patrolling over the capital were told to "protect the White House at all costs".

An anonymous flight controller said on the day that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of Flight 93 - Washington to Shanksville is seven to 10 minutes flying time.

A few minutes before the crash Bill Wright, piloting a single-engine Piper, could see Flight 93 three miles away, but was suddenly told to turn away and land immediately without explanation.

At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.

Also, according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage. What caused the smoke and explosion? Why the wind sounds?

The FBI's later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet was asked to descend from 34,000ft to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified. Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.

FURTHER verification that some kind of military aircraft was operating in the area is scientifically irrefutable.

At 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight - was picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles from Shanksville.

That Todd Beamer and others launched an assault on the hijackers there is no doubt. The brief extracts released from audio tapes indicate a fierce struggle going on at the cockpit door.

But nobody - official or otherwise - has categorically said the group got into the cockpit or that their actions led to the crash. Those final, agonising moments are mere presumption.

President Bush and his team have the whole story. So why aren't they telling the rest of us?

UA93: THE EVIDENCE

THE WITNESSES

At least SIX witnesses, including Susan Mcelwain saw a small military type plane flying around shortly BEFORE UA93 crashed. The FBI denies its existence

THE DEBRIS

The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away

THE MOBILE CALL

Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The superviser who took the call has been gagged by the FBI

THE F-16s

UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9.16am. At 9.35am three F-16s were ordered to "protect the White House at all costs" when it turned towards the capital. At 10.06am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10mins flying time from Washington

THE BLACK BOXS [sic]

Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed

THE SONIC BOOM

The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area but at 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an alternative view, which seems to show that Glenn Cramer was the supervisor of John Shaw, and that it was John Shaw who answered the call. Glenn Cramer reportedly read "off a transcript" that included the bit about the explosion and white smoke. John Shaw denied that either white smoke or an explosion was mentioned. Interestingly, so did Felt's younger brother, Gordon, after listening to the cockpit recordings courtesy of the FBI -- the same FBI which reportedly gagged Glenn Cramer, the only one to publicly mention the explosion and white smoke.

The Pittsburgh Pulp article (quoted in the page linked above -- or use this direct link) which mentions John Shaw's and Gorden Felt's denial of the explosion and white smoke bit, also renders the caller as David Felt, not Edward Felt.

I think some fact-checking is in order.

(Regardless of the truth about Felt's call, the other evidence presented in the Mirror article is more than enough to challenge the official story on Flight 93.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kathy



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Surfing The Waves

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Air Traffic Control Recording of 9/11 Flight 93
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm
Note: Transcript of recording courtesy of Joe Vialls

From CNN April 12, 2006
PDF document
he 31-minute tape is punctuated by the voices of people saying they didn't want to die, cries of "No, no, no!" and "Oh, God!" and hijackers barking commands and praising Allah.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm confused about this transcript. The comments such as "Please don't hurt me!' and "Oh God!"

Judging by the verbage, I would assume these are comments from the various passengers. If so, how did all those people get into the cockpit? You know, to get recorded by the cockpit voice recorder. It doesn't have transducers in the passenger compartment.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kathy wrote:
Air Traffic Control Recording of 9/11 Flight 93
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm
Note: Transcript of recording courtesy of Joe Vialls


This one's very interesting. I wonder where the tape came from. If anyone knows, please post. It would also be great to get more information, like what time was the conversation on the tape taking place, and is the rest of the tape (especially what follows this excerpt) available somewhere?

Anyway, right near the end of it, I hear the following:

Quote:
Female voice (presumably at Cleveland Center): Do you see any, uh...activity on your right side, smoke or anything like that?

American 1060: Negative, were searching...[pause]...Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, uh, -- oh, probably two oclock. It appears to be just a dark cloud, like a puff of black smoke.


You can hear this for yourself at http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.wma
(the part quoted above begins at 3:37)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I should have read the page more carefully; it explains the source.

Quote:
...AirDisaster.com has posted a sound file of air traffic control during the morning of 9/11. Specifically, Cleveland air traffic control had two brief contacts with United Airlines Flight 93, when the hijackers mistakenly broadcast messages meant only for the plane's passengers.

Since this recording wasn't received by me from the FAA or another government agency, I can't vouch for its authenticity. However, AirDisaster.com is a very reputable site, often used by the news media as a source of information on airplane accidents, crashes, etc. Some of its forums are moderated by a commercial pilot, a military pilot, and a maintenance inspector. I've chosen to post the sound file here because of AirDisaster.com's credibility and because if this tape is authentic--which I strongly believe it to be--it is extremely important.

This message accompanies AirDisaster.com's WAV file: "Please note that this tape is not chronologically accurate; periods of dead air (silence) have been removed for brevity."
...


I tried the "WAV file" link and indeed was able to download the WAV file from AirDisaster.com.

How they got the tape, I don't know.

FWIW, the part of the tape which I quoted is also quoted (with the same minor errors reflected in the transcript Kathy posted a link to) in this 9/11/03 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article and on the website for the movie, "United 93". The latter page acknowledges the same AirDisaster.com source:

Quote:
The last minutes of the communictaion between flight United 93, Cleveland air-controllers and other planes where recorded and released by AirDisaster.com - an non-offical but a highly reputable site. The hijackers can be heard twice mistakenly transmitting messages intended for the passengers. Please note that this recording is not chronologically accurate because periods of silence have been originally removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kathy wrote:
Air Traffic Control Recording of 9/11 Flight 93
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm
Note: Transcript of recording courtesy of Joe Vialls

From CNN April 12, 2006
PDF document
he 31-minute tape is punctuated by the voices of people saying they didn't want to die, cries of "No, no, no!" and "Oh, God!" and hijackers barking commands and praising Allah.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf


Now that I compare these two, I see there is some overlap. Specifically:
  • 1:13 in the AirDisaster.com tape corresponds with 9:31:57am in the Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript
  • 1:41 corresponds with 9:33:20am
  • 2:03 corresponds with 9:39:11am

Also worth noting: According to the AirDisaster.com tape, there was some "screaming" heard by Cleveland and confirmed by United 797 ("Yes I did...we couldn't tell what it was either"), by American 1060 ("[We heard it] twice"), and by Executive 956 ("We did hear that - uh - yelling too"). Presumably this was the hijackers taking over the cockpit, and happened sometime between 0:14 (the end of the normal pilot contact from United 93) and 1:13 (the beginning of the foreign-accent contact from United 93).

(To reiterate AirDisaster.com's message: "Please note that this tape is not chronologically accurate; periods of dead air (silence) have been removed for brevity.")

And I wonder, the conversation at end of the AirDisaster.com tape, where American 1060 mentions seeing "a smoke puff now at about...probably two o'clock. It appears to be just a dark cloud, like a puff of black smoke", I wonder: What time is this? Is that smoke coming from United 93 in the air (how high?) -- in which case, what does/might it indicate? -- or is he seeing it rising from the site of United 93's crash?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some pictures from Pennsylvania indicating that some kind of plane crashed there: It still doesn't account for plane parts/ things from the plane being found far away from the crash site. I have not taken into account eyewitness statements.

Inconclusive what kind of plane this is from:



This looks like a commercial plane. A bit too large windows to be from a small jet. Looks staged.



This part looks like it from what we have been told is flight 93. Off course many planes look like this, and given that absolutely no pictures of human remains (not even bones) have been presented, we can only speculate as to what happened to them. Usually, after a plane crash you at least find some remains.



Voice recorder:


Data recorder:


They find identification and paper, but precious little human remains (that we know of):







Quick asessment about crash site based on known factors:

1) Some kind of airplane crashed in Pennsylavania judging fro the debris, the little that has been shown.
2) Debris was so scattered that something must have happend to the airplane in the air.
3) Someone watched what happened to the airplane from the air.
4) No pictures of human remains have been shown in pictures to prove that remains were found.
5) People are missing, so something must have happened to them.
6) If they admit to having shot down this plane, everyone would ask why they reached this one and not the others.
7) It was shot down or blown up for a purpose. The plane was in the middle of nowhere, and the procedure would be to follow it further until it reached some place where they would have to shoot it down.
8 ) Even thought the Flight 93 cockpit transcript mentions a bomb, this is probably just a threat from the highjackers, as I cannot see how they would get a bomb aboard. It would also be too risky if they wanted to "succede" in their objective. A bomb could have been placed on the plane before it took off, but not by the highjackers.

An alternative theory might be that Flight 93 was the only "real" highjacking taking place, carefully monitored by some agency to make sure it happened on that day when so much other as scheduled to take place. Being that it would not hit any buildings, it was shot down or had a bomb aborad to terminate the flight mid-air. That would make Flight 93 LIHOP and the rest MIHOP. This would thoruoghly confuse alternative investgators later, and it may be why they chose to make a film about the incident; it was safest and it had all the necessary stuff to make it look like a real highjacking that went wrong.

There is still the cell phone issue and the Cleveland issue (if it is credible) to take into account.

On the other hand, my brain might have short circuted from the heat here in Norway... Wink

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401315&in_page_id=1770

Quote:

Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book
by ROWLAND MORGAN 12:27pm 19th August 2006

The heart-thumping moment came when when passengers on board one of the hijacked 9/11 jets fought back against the ruthless fanatics hellbent on crashing the plane into the heart of America.

Jumping out of their seats to a rallying cry of Lets roll!, they charged towards the front of the Boeing 757 and began smashing down the cockpit door to reach the hijackers at the controls.

Amid the desperate commotion, the plane rolled violently from right to left and pitched up and down as the rogue pilots tried to throw the passengers beyond the door off balance. As the struggle continued, the cockpit voice recorder captured the hijackers urgently discussing whether to ditch the plane. Is that it? Shall we finish it off? asked one of the fanatics.

No, not yet. When they all come, we finish it off, was the reply. Minutes later, at10.03am, with the same voices shouting in Arabic, Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, the plane headed down, banked hard right and rolled on to its back. It smashed into an empty field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at its top speed of 580mph and exploded into a massive fireball.

Evidence suggests a sinister twist

The flames set nearby woods on fire as the impact sprayed body parts and other debris into the trees and up into the sky, to float to earth as far as eight miles away.

This, then, is the legend of United Airways Flight 93, one that has been vigorously promoted in a stream of books and films, most recently in the 9.6 million Hollywood movie United 93. It is the story of how 33 innocent passengers and seven crew gave their lives to save countless others as their plane flew kamikaze-style towards the White House or the Capitol in Washington.

To a nation still reeling from the attacks on New Yorks World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that same September morning, these were men and women every bit as heroic as those who had fought at the Alamo.

Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe.

Instead, the real story is mired in cynical manipulation and warmongering propaganda. I am convinced there is evidence to suggest a wholly sinister twist to the tale that already holds pride of place in American folklore. For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.

Today, with the approach of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, some will still say that such speculation only serves to lend comfort to terrorists and does a disservice to the dead.

Others, however, will feel there are too many disquieting circumstances and unanswered questions to simply ignore.

But let us examine the evidence so that you can come to your own conclusion. The massive impact caused the entire plane to disappear 30ft deep into the earth, telescoping down on itself and crushing everyone and everything inside the fuselage beyond recognition.

Why did the engines go missing?

However, the absence of any significant debris including tailplane and wings bewildered witnesses, relatives and, more importantly, some crash experts.

They found it hard to believe that an airliner up to 155ft long, with two engines each weighing more than six tons, could have penetrated the ground so completely as to utterly disappear. Had it, in reality, been blown to pieces in mid-air?

Certainly it is unclear how a single piece of fuselage the size of a dining room table could have been recovered from a marina in Indian Lake, a couple of miles away from the crash site unless it fell from the sky during an aerial break-up.

But a bigger mystery is why the engines went missing.

Considering their weight, they should have plunged deep into the earth along with the rest of the airliner.

Yet they werent in the crater and only a one-ton segment of an engine was ever recovered, again more than a mile from the crash site. The FBI said, unconvincingly, that it had bounced there.

The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light.

Witnesses said nothing was left at the crash site, yet the FBI belatedly claimed to have made two sensational discoveries a red bandana and a passport allegedly belonging to the hijackers.

Very conveniently, these turned up as prosecution evidence earlier this year at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the socalled 20th hijacker and only terrorist to be convicted over the 9/11 atrocities.

If flight 93 was shot down, there must have been a fighter jet in the skies to unleash a guided missile.

The U.S. government has admitted that two F-15s were flying above New York City before 9am on September 11 and three F-16s were patrolling over Washington by 9.40am. They could have reached Shanksville in minutes.

According to investigative writer David Ray Griffin, several witnesses saw two F-16s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down.

Twelve eyewitnesses state seeing another jet nearby.

They claim they saw an F-16 move closer in and fire what were probably two Sidewinder missiles, one of them catching at least one of the Boeings huge engines, after which the plane dropped like a stone.

Someone else heard a loud bang and saw the airliner plummet. A Vietnam War veteran said he heard a missile, a sound he knew well. It is debatable how seriously we should take these reports. But there are numerous and highly credible witness accounts of a mysterious white jet being seen after Flight 93 went down.

Jim Brant, owner of the Indian Lake marina where debris was found, said he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. He looked up and noticed a white plane circling the wreckage. It reminded me of a fighter jet, he said.

Another resident, Tom Spinelli, said: I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.

He said it had high tail wings and no markings on it. John Feegle, another witness, said: It didnt look like a commercial plane. It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around, and it was gone.

Dennis Decker and his friend Rick Chaney were also close to the impact site. As soon as we looked up we saw a mid-sized jet flying low and fast, said Decker.

It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. Decker and Chaney described the jet as white with no markings. Decker added: It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, Id find out who was driving that plane.

A total of 12 eyewitnesses are on record as having seen the white jet. One witness, Susan McElwain, complained that the FBI told her there was no plane and did not note down her account.

However, amid the growing furore over the sightings, the FBI was forced to offer an explanation, which again many found unconvincing.

It claimed the jet was a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 that was asked to descend to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified.

The militarys role in 9/11 is a mystery.

One commentator pointed out: The reason why this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on September 11, all non-military aircraft in U.S. airspace had received orders more than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport.

Second, such was the density of emergency phone calls from people on the ground in the Shanksville area as to the location of the crash site, that aerial co-ordinates would have been completely unnecessary.

Third, with F-16s supposedly in the vicinity, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time when no one knew for sure whether there might be any more hijacked aircraft still in the sky, the military would ask a civilian aircraft that just happened to be in the area for help.

The militarys role in 9/11 is shrouded in confusion, ambiguity and inconsistency.

A news report on September 20, 2001, said: Americas defence establishment has disclosed that it ordered its fighter jets to intercept all the passenger aircraft hijacked in last weeks attacks on New York and Washington.

The report also stated that military intelligence was aware of the hijackings before any of the aircraft had hit their targets.

Three years later, however, the military said it hadnt heard about Flight 93 until after the plane had crashed a line accepted by the official 9/11 Commission, which published its findings in July 2004.

The official inquiry said the Federal Aviation Authority responsible for the security and safety of U.S. civilian aviation had been incompetent in failing to alert the U.S. Air Force.

But the FAA had already acted quickly in ordering more than 4,000 aircraft to land at the nearest airstrip to avoid any more hijacks. And the military would have learned of Flight 93s hijack via teleconferences set up by the FAA, the White House and the U.S. Defence Department as events began to unfold on September 11. Richard Clarke, who ran the White House video conference, stated that at 9.27am, the FAA informed both Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Chief of Defence Staff, of a number of potential hijacks including United 93 over Pennsylvania. Therefore, more than 25 minutes before Flight 93 went down, both Rumsfeld and Myers knew all about it. No wonder the militarys claim to have learned about Flight 93 only after it crashed is dismissed by many as a bare-faced lie.

The FBI was in charge of the investigation.

In other air crashes, information from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder the black box recorders were dealt with in an open manner, with crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board discussing the progress of their inquiries with reporters. But in the case of Flight 93, the Transportation Safety Board was not in charge of the investigation the FBI was.

The black box recorders were reportedly found buried 25ft deep inside the crater. But a threeminute discrepancy in the crash time led to suspicions of foul play.

Seismic records, consolidated from four seismology stations in the region, originally pegged the impact time at 10.06am. It was only later that the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission decreed that the correct impact time to have been at 10.03am.

But Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events, was puzzled.

He complained: The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10.06am and five seconds plus or minus two seconds. I dont know where the 10.03 time comes from. So there were two crash times.

Sceptics note that a lot could happen in three minutes minutes that could be removed from the end of a flight-deck recording to delete evidence of an attack by U.S. jets.

The FBI kept the contents of the voice recorder secret until it was forced by bereaved relatives to play the tape under heavy security at a hotel in April 2002.

The family members later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9.58am, with a final rushing sound at 10.03am, when the tape fell silent. Could the rushing sound have been made by the plane being holed? And what of the moment when the plane hit the ground?

There is no sound of the impact, said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother Lou had been on Flight 93. There is a further twist. In 2006, when the judge at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui ordered a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, it ended with the sound of the hijackers shouting praises to Allah.

Just where had those praises been in 2002 when the tape was first played to relatives? For many, their sudden appearance confirmed suspicions of tape tampering.

At first, the FBI was keen to show it was keeping an open mind over the fate of Flight 93.

Within days of the crash, Reuters reported from Shanksville: Federal investigators said they could not rule out the possibility that the United Airlines jetliner that crashed in rural western Pennsylvania during this weeks attacks on New York and the Pentagon was shot down. We have not ruled out that, FBI agent Bill Crowley told a news conference when asked about reports that a U.S. fighter jet may have fired on the hijacked Boeing 757. We havent ruled out anything yet.

Why did Crowley later retract his statement and on the same day as the U.S. Air Force issued its official denial of any involvement?

At the crux of the legend of Flight 93 are the phones calls passengers are said to have made to their loved ones after the hijackers took control.

These are said to have alerted the passengers to the fact that they were victims of no ordinary hijacking, but a co-ordinated mission by fanatics to strike at the heart of America in New York and Washington. At the same time, a number of passengers allegedly told relatives of their resolve to fight back. Interestingly, phone contact from passengers on the two hijacked planes that hit the Twin Towers and a third jet which crashed into the Pentagon that same morning was scarce to non-existent.

Yet officially there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, with callers using either mobile phones or GTE Airfones fitted into the backs of the aircraft seats.

The use of mobile phones is suspect anyway because telecommunications experts say that given the technology of 2001 calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best. Just as baffling, the FBI insisted there were 13 mobile phone calls of which there were no billing records yet reduced this number to just two at the trial this year of Zacarias Moussaoui when the evidence risked being exposed to the harsh light of law.

Why had the FBI failed to put the record straight over the previous four-and-a-half years?

One answer is that it suited the heroism legend to keep silent as the Pentagon banged the drum for war in Iraq.

Mrs Beamer only learned of her husbands final call four days later.

The 9/11 Commission claimed that five of the calls described the intent of the passengers and crew to revolt against the hijackers. One caller, the Commission said, ended her message with the words: Everyones running up to first class. Ive got to go. Bye. But all this begs the question: why did the hijackers allow such a free-for-all of phone calls as they attempted to terrify their hostages?

After all, the hijackers would have realised that experts would have been able to locate the lost aircraft if people were using their mobles.

The most intriguing of the calls is the one said to have been made by Flight 93s most famous passenger Todd Beamer, whose Lets roll! phrase became a byword for the victims heroism and patriotism.

Beamers call was said to have been taken by a telephone supervisor working for the Verizon Corporation, owners of GTE Airfones, the gadgets on the airplane seats.

At the time, Verizon had a contract worth 750million for installing a high-security telecoms package across U.S. government departments, including the Pentagon.

One of its supervisors, Lisa Jefferson, an evangelical Christian like Beamer himself, retains a vivid recollection of her 15-minute conversation with him.

After discovering that she shared her first name with Beamers wife, they apparently talked about his two little boys and the new baby on the way, Beamers fear that he might not make it home, and his faith.

Faced with the awful prospect of dying on board Flight 93, Beamer supposedly recited the Lords Prayer and Psalm 23 with Mrs Jefferson. He also asked her to promise to call his wife. Mrs Jefferson received a Verizon Excellence Award from her bosses for her handling of the call. To some this may have seemed inappropriate.

She had not taken a recording of it, contrary to convention. She had not gone through the routine questions in her distress-call manual. She had not connected this agitated man to his wife waiting anxiously at home. Nor had she informed his wife subsequently of the call as promised.

Mrs Beamer only learned of her husbands final call four days later, when a representative of United Airlines got in touch.

She says the United Airlines representative told her: The FBI had been keeping the information private until theyve had the opportunity to review the material. But now theyve released it, I have a written summary of the call.

But later Mrs Beamer learned that the FBI had not kept the call so secret after all. Her husbands boss at his computer company had already spun the story of Beamer the hero aboard Flight 93 before anyone else knew of his phone call.

As for Lisa Jeffersons evidence, it was single-sourced, unsubstantiated hearsay of which there was no record. For spooks inside a sprawling empire of wires like Verizon, rigging up a phone call to Lisa Jeffersons headset would have been simple.

Lets roll! became the war on terrors recruitment slogan.

She had no idea what Beamers voice sounded like, and she would never hear it again to judge whether he had actually been speaking to her. This year, Lisa Jefferson published a book entitled Called the story of seeing her life transformed, simply by answering Todd Beamers call.

The blurb added: Jefferson sends a stirring challenge to all of us whether it comes during quiet obscurity or international adversity, we must be prepared to answer Gods call.

Evangelical Christians throughout America rallied to that call. But one puzzle remains: Todd Beamers wife later said she had never before heard of his reciting the Lords Prayer in pressure situations. Nor, she added, was Psalm 23 something he often recited.

Todd Beamer's Lets roll! phrase became the war on terrors recruitment slogan.

President Bush had launched the legend in a speech on September 20, 2001 as he declared his unprecedented war on terror. Beamers story of selfless patriotism, according to the President, was a defining moment in American history. Alongside President Bush on this occasion was Todd Beamers wife Lisa.

Nobody, of course, would begrudge Mrs Beamer her celebrity, given her tragic circumstances. But her presence undoubtedly helped President Bushs cause.

The President again invoked her evangelical Christian husbands courage in another speech a month later.

We will no doubt face new challenges, said the man widely regarded as having taken office fully intending to attack Iraq. But we have our marching orders. My fellow Americans lets roll!

Such a phrase couldnt fail to chime with the Presidents gung-ho admirers nor with the 40 million evangelical Christians in the so-called red states where the Bush regime had its most fervent support.

Later U.S. Navy personnel would spell out the words 9/11 LETS ROLL by forming themselves on the deck of a warship bound for Iraq.

Lisa Beamer, always a staunch ally of the White House and its war on terror, had herself photographed unveiling a Lets Roll logo on the side of a U.S. Air Force F-16.

She even sought to have Lets Roll trademarked and signed a six-figure book deal which, along with her seven-figure compensation cheque, made her a rich woman. And in August 2002, just in time for the first 9/11 anniversary, she published her memoir entitled predictably Lets Roll!

The front cover showed the author with the Stars and Stripes and the publisher issued a staggering one million copies in hardback.

Secrecy is the first instinct of any war.

Truly, the Lets Roll slogan had become a call to arms just at a time the White House needed it most.

Bush administration not admit its guilt? It could surely have argued that the poor souls lost in the airliner were a tragic but necessary sacrifice in order to prevent horror and destruction on a larger scale in at the Capitol Washington.

Air Force scrambles had been frequent enough in the past. One report said there had been 129 within the U.S. during 2000.

But secrecy is the first instinct of any war department, especially amid reports flooding in of a passenger revolt on the plane.

Any admission of a shooting down must have been ruled out politically because those brave passengers just might have retrieved the controls from fanatical hijackers.

For the U.S. military to have snatched victory from their grasp was unthinkable.

There are countless theories and areas of evidence to examine. There is even a theory that the plane could have blown up because of a bomb on board.

Air traffic controllers on the ground reportedly heard an anonymous voice in the cockpit announce: Ladies and gentleman. Here is the captain. Please sit down and keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit.

But if Flight 93 had been blown up by a bomb at cruising altitude, its debris area would have covered at least 20 miles, as in the Lockerbie crash.

The 9/11 Commission speculated that the rogue pilot jolted the plane violently in the minutes before the impact to disrupt a passenger revolt.

This in turn led to claims that he might have succeeded in tearing a wing off, or otherwise wrecking the aircraft in mid-air, causing it to crash.

Boeing has refused to discuss this possibility. Such movements, however, could easily have been caused by the pilot attempting to avoid an approaching heatseeking missile homing in on its engines.

EYEWITNESS reports differed from the official story. Along the planes route, people confirmed that the Boeing came in from the north-west, but they said it was not nose-diving. Instead it was flying low.

Bob Blair and Linda Shepley saw the plane when it dropped to 2,500ft. Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry noticed it at 2,000ft. Terry Butler saw it at about 500ft. Eric Peterson saw the plane at maybe 300ft.

Lee Purbaugh, a scrap metal worker, was the closest. He told reporters: I heard this real loud noise coming over my head. I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me.

It was coming down at 45 degrees and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke.

Purbaughs account was perhaps the nearest of all the witness testimony to the official version of the story. Except for one important element.

Not once did Purbaugh mention the plane being upside down, as the 9/11 Commission, the FBI and the Pentagon all maintained it was.

With such a huge airplane roaring over his head, he could hardly have failed to notice which way up it was.

To some, this cast doubt on the credibility of his reported evidence. To others, it was merely another piece of the Flight 93 jigsaw that failed to fit.

ADAPTED from Flight 93: What Really Happened On The Heroic 9/11 Lets Roll Flight by Rowland Morgan, published by Constable & Robinson on August 24 at 7.99. Rowland Morgan 2006 To order a copy (p&p free), call 0870 161 0870.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:06 pm    Post subject: 10:06 vs. 10:03 crash time for Flight 93 Reply with quote

heiho -- great find.

Here's an aspect of the story I didn't know about before -- the apparent discrepancy between the seismic record of Flight 93's crash (10:06am) and the official account (10:03am). If the seismic data is true and reliable, this would seem to be clear evidence of a cover-up.

Quote:
Seismic records, consolidated from four seismology stations in the region, originally pegged the impact time at 10.06am. It was only later that the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission decreed that the correct impact time to have been at 10.03am.

But Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events, was puzzled.

He complained: The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10.06am and five seconds plus or minus two seconds. I dont know where the 10.03 time comes from. So there were two crash times.

Sceptics note that a lot could happen in three minutes minutes that could be removed from the end of a flight-deck recording to delete evidence of an attack by U.S. jets.

The FBI kept the contents of the voice recorder secret until it was forced by bereaved relatives to play the tape under heavy security at a hotel in April 2002.

The family members later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9.58am, with a final rushing sound at 10.03am, when the tape fell silent. Could the rushing sound have been made by the plane being holed? And what of the moment when the plane hit the ground?

There is no sound of the impact, said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother Lou had been on Flight 93. There is a further twist. In 2006, when the judge at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui ordered a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, it ended with the sound of the hijackers shouting praises to Allah.

Just where had those praises been in 2002 when the tape was first played to relatives? For many, their sudden appearance confirmed suspicions of tape tampering. [I'd like to see this confirmed, if true. Perhaps it is in the book, I don't know.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos wrote:
1) Some kind of airplane crashed in Pennsylvania judging fro the debris, the little that has been shown.

If indeed those photos are genuine. I am attempting to follow up on a report from workers at the strip mine company itself that the pit "had been filled in" a few months prior to 9/11. If this is true, it would have been the perfect opportunity to "provide" the debris shown in those photos, in real time, right in front of the aghast witnesses.

IMO, the entire "shoot down" story about Flight 93 is a red herring to distract from the fact that the evidence - other than those photos of airplane debris of questionable origin - shows that no plane at all crashed near Shanksville that morning. Keep everyone arguing the semantics of "how the plane came down" and maybe no one will notice there was no plane in the first place. The worst-case scenario the government has to endure is the shooting down a commercial airliner, all the while having the root script of it's "story" reinforced by the accusation.

I feel the entire "hero story" was to provide the classic Hollywood-like backdrop necesasary to whip up public war fever in prep for the Afhganistan and eventual Iraq aggression by the U.S. military.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.