“looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir.”

[LARED]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_...


By 9:25, FAA’s Herndon Command Center and FAA headquarters knew the following. They knew two aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center. They knew American 77 was lost. They knew that a hijacker on board American 11 had said “we have some planes,” and concerns over the safety of other aircraft began to mount. A manager at the Herndon Command Center asked FAA headquarters if they wanted to order a “nationwide ground stop.” While executives at FAA headquarters discussed it, the Command Center went ahead and ordered one anyway at 9:25.

The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the Dulles terminal control facility, which urged its controllers to look for primary targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed” and notified Reagan Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service. The identity or aircraft type was unknown.

Reagan Airport controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C-130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to Washington Tower: “looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir.”


Hmmmm! A seasoned pilot identified it as a Boeing 757 -- attempted to follow the Boeing 757 -- then watched it crash into the Pentagon.

[NMDemDist2]

1. well that explains the military aircraft seen flying over the

Pentagon seconds after the impact

is there a problem with it being a 757?

[Finbar]

2. Not to be a smartass, but yeah so what's your point?

[LARED]

3. The point

is there is a contingent of folks that believe something other than flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. I thought that perhaps an expert eyewitness might have an impact.

If you a new to the 9/11 forum, grab a seat, pull up some threads, and enjoy some of the finest conspiracy theorist around town.

[Finbar]

4. Oh.. I got you... I don't make the connection. Yeah, I know the theories,

always seemed kinf of far fetched to me.

[RC]

7. And don't forget the popcorn.

[DulceDecorum]

12. ..which has kindly been supplied by the BTS & FAA

whose databases
demonstrate that those planes did NOT do
what we are told that they did.

In fact, the FAA is STILL claiming
that the two United Airlines planes
are STILL ALIVE
just like those darn indestructible hijackers
and their passports.

[MercutioATC]

15. Would you give it up with the FAA database issue already?

It's been explained to you dozens of times now. Unless the registration holder files paperwork, the registration still shows as active on the FAA database. The FAA isn't waranting that the plane is still intact, it's maintaining a records database of registration holders.

[DulceDecorum]

31. In YOUR world,

maybe.
But I live in the Land of Perfect, remember?

[MercutioATC]

33. Well, the FAA database resides in "my" world, not a "perfect" world.

So let's play by real world rules, shall we?

[DulceDecorum]

39. I do not

watch MTV,
so I cannot comment about the "Real World" or "Road Rules."
This may be the reason why
I think that the databases
are far more reliable than
the spoutings of Judith Miller and her ilk
who take dictation from the likes of Wayne Stroup.

One strategy turned out to be inserting psyop -- the term of art meaning psychological operations -- specialists into newsrooms. In February 2000, a Dutch journalist revealed that CNN and the Army had agreed to do precisely that in Atlanta.
Once you realize that managing perceptions is standard procedure, some news stories take on a different meaning. Last year, for example, a popular storyline about post-war resistance in Iraq was that only a few Saddam loyalists and dead-enders were involved. Meanwhile, the opposition was sending videotaped messages, saying things like, "We are not followers of Saddam Hussein. We are sons of Iraq." More recently, a central assumption has been that, whatever problems we now face, leaving without "winning" would be worse.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040617-023717-551...

Better the boring stats.

[oblivious]

5. "looks like"...like he's not sure? maybe? could be?

If he was sure the plane crashed into the Pentagon, you'd think he'd be precise.

"That aircraft just crashed into the Pentagon sir."

What's with the "looks like?" Weird, that.

And what does "attempted" mean? There's a difference between "attempting" to follow and actually following. It sounds like he was unable to follow the plane but thinks it may have crashed into the Pentagon.

Conclusion: Not very helpful.

[roper]

37. I agree.

We don't know what he saw exactly.

If he first saw a plane, and later the burning Pentagon, the conclusion that this plane had hit the Pentagon seems compelling... but is would still be a conclusion.

He did not say that he saw the plane hitting the Pentagon. So indeed, doubts remain.

[RC]

6. Attempting to follow a jet?

One of these?

http://www.taiwanairpower.org/c130h.html

Sure. And bu$h is a good president, everyone loves him.

[paulthompson]

8. what are the odds?

Here's what my timeline has on this. Note this is the exact same C-130 that is 17 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashes. Given there was a stop of all Washington area take offs just after 9:03, and a nationwide stop of all take offs around 9:26, then a nationwide order of all aircraft out of the sky at 9:45, isn't it odd this C-130 is lumbering along with no vital mission and empty cargo hold at 10:06?


9.36 a.m. The national airport instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. (Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01) Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02, Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01) The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, claims he took off around 9:30, planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: "When air traffic control asked me if we had him (Flight 77) in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything." O'Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that." (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02)

9:38 a.m. A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 flies a short distance from Flight 77 as it crashes. This curious C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02, Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01) A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:
1) Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a "second plane that seemed to be chasing the first (pass) over at a slightly different angle." (Daily Press, 9/15/01)
2) Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130, two others aren't certain. (Daily Press, 9/15/01) Wheelhouse "believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon." As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west. (Daily Press, 9/14/01)
3) USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, "I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies." (USA Today, 9/17/01)
4) USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane. (eWeek, 9/13/01)
5) Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane. (Sacramento Bee, 9/15/01)
6) An unnamed worker at Arlington national cemetery "said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/01)
7) John O'Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. "The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head.... Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround." (New York Law Journal, 9/12/01)
The pilot of the C-130, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, is later interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He claims that just before the explosion, "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out," implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, "I could see the outline of the Pentagon," again implying he is not nearby. He then asks "the controller whether (I) should set up a low orbit around the building," but he is told "to get out of the area as quickly as possible. 'I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume.'" (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02)

(From a longer 10:06 entry): The FBI also says there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles away, but that plane wasn't armed and had no role in the crash. (Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/16/01) Note that this is the same C-130 that flies very close to Flight 77 right as that planes crashes into the Pentagon (see 9:38 a.m.).

[LARED]

9. What are the odds

of what? I don't get your point.

[oblivious]

10. The omnipresence of that C130 and Lt Col Steve O'Brien

What are the odds that the same C130 and pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, would have been 17 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashed, and also followed and seen American flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Some people would say unbelievable, but not me.

[LARED]

11. Not that unbelievable

Flight 77 crashed at about 9:37 give or take a few minutes depending on what you believe. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06. So there is about 30 minutes between the crashes.

The distance from DC to 17 miles from the crash site in Shanksville, PA is about 150 miles.

A C-130 traveling for 30 minutes can cover 150 miles with no problem.

[SKYDRIFTER]

75. C-130

I'm convinced that a C-130 might have been involved, but it was scattering small plane parts over the Pentagon & the Shanksville site.

[roper]

38. Can you read?

I cite "the point":

"...isn't it odd this C-130 is lumbering along with no vital mission and empty cargo hold at 10:06?"

[LARED]

42. Why yes, I read all the time. Do you?

My point is the 9-11 commision report and the information he provided are essentially the same.

This point:

isn't it odd this C-130 is lumbering along with no vital mission and empty cargo hold at 10:06?"

Makes no sense. This information is not in the report nor is it in the information provided. So what is the point?

[SKYDRIFTER]

76. MISSION

The C-130 story is flaky, because of the known WTC strikes. Even Guard pilots flying a training mission would be glued to a TV; awaiting a possible mission. By then, the "no takeoffs" order had been given to the civilian aircraft, the "Land-Now" order had also been given. Did that apply to military aircraft? Doubtful, but it would give pause to a planned flight.

The key question is why a C-130 could be launched & not a fighter.

Then, the airspace is so tight in the Pentagon area, that it's doubtful that a C-130 would be getting creative, versus FAA asking airline flights to look for the target. It would take a while to get the civilian aircraft on the ground. Why have a C-130 screwing around, amidst the chaos.

I'm curious whether or not it was a civilian C-130.

[medienanalyse]

13. additional oddities

1) while not even one of the fighters of Andrews AFB was scramble to intercept, a lame C-130 got launched?

2) the order not to start any (ANY) aircraft at that time in this region was about half an hour ago. The complete shut down followed immediately. But the C-130 got an exception for its cargo?

3) it was NOT a C-130. It "looked like" - a small but important difference. Another eyewitness described it as one of the rare EC-130, part of the Commando Solo unit for electronic warfare.

4) one and the same lame duck at two different spots of this day? Remember that no Stacey nor any other ATC dared to mention the C-130, but they talked about AA1060, the NetJet executive 965, we know about a small white jet, about circling F-16.
But miraculously the C-130 are very seldomly reported and talked about.

5) In the commissions hearings we heard about another C-130 crossing the ways of our planes, it slipped out in the interrogation of one of the officials describing the dots on the RADARtape which was miraculously damaged so much ...

Altogether we have 3 (three) different C-130 in an airspace which should be empty except of the scrambled fighters. Giveb the possibilities of remote control and electronic warfare these C-130 (which might have been EC130) play an important role.

It is all in our book "Fakten, Fälschungen und die unterdrückten Beweise" (facts, forgeries and the oppressed evidence of 9/11)
www.medienanalyse-international.de/fakten.html

[oblivious]

14. Good points. Is your book available in English?

If they thought it important enough to send the C-130 back and forth watching two airliners, you'd think that someone with reasonable intelligence would send up a speedier jet or two from Andrews to help out. It's so obvious, you want to cry. Now they're all saying, come on, we're just completely incompetent, that's all. Sorry, no one's that incompetent.

[MercutioATC]

16. An issue with #2 in your list.

CIVILIAN aircraft were grounded. Military flights were not. There's nothing mysterious about a military plane being launched after the FAA closed U.S. airspace.

[medienanalyse]

17. Maybe you can find the order and post it here

the order which differs between civilian and military aircraft ? As I recall it both were ordered down. And it is not the main issue: the main one is about Abdrews AFB, its fighters in general which would be much faster than a C-130 and especially its mission "QRA" - quick reaction alert, that is the air policing status which Andrews has.

They did not scramble.

But EC-130 were all around.

That is all.

[MercutioATC]

18. I doubt I could, but is WAS only civilian aircraft that were grounded.

I understand your issue, I was just commenting that military aircraft weren't grounded.

[DulceDecorum]

19. TIME says mil aircraft WERE grounded.

At 9:25, Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. THE ORDER, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, APPLIED TO virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff — CIVILIAN, MILITARY, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT. The Herndon command center coordinated the phone call to all major FAA sites, the airline reps in the room contacted all airlines, and so-called NOTAMS —notices to airmen — were also sent out. The FAA had stopped the world.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,0...

[DulceDecorum]

20. 9/11/01: Where was George?

The panic motif runs through the rest of the President's actions that day. While the presidential motorcade did finally head for the airport, Bush is alleged to have spoken on the phone to Cheney and ordered all flights nationwide grounded. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has also tried to take credit for the order, but according to Slate, this too is false, though "FAA officials had begged to maintain the fiction." In fact, according to USA Today, it was FAA administrator Ben Sliney who issued the order. AMAZINGLY AIR FORCE ONE TOOK OFF WITH NO MILITARY PROTECTION. It remained unprotected in the sky for more than an hour, though Florida is filled with Air Force bases just minutes away with planes that are supposed to be on twenty-four-hour alert.

Bush's aides later offered, and retracted, the excuse that he spent the day flying around the country because of threats to Air Force One believed to have been received at the White House. What nobody has ever explained is this: If you think Air Force One is to be attacked, why go up in Air Force One?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/9_11_Wher...

With no military protection?
I wonder why...
How many mil jets were there to protect the entire US on that day?

[MercutioATC]

21. Ok, I'll try to find the order. I SAW plenty of fighters in the sky

in the few days following 9/11 (which were especially conspicuous because they were the only planes flying). I know that they weren't grounded (Why would we ground military planes during a time of national emergency?) mostly because the FAA doesn't HAVE the power to ground the military.

I'll look when I go back to work on Saturday...it might take some time.

[Abe Linkman]

22. While you're at it - did you see any planes protecting AF1? Oh.

Think maybe that was because there was no need to protect AF1? Just like there was nothing to fear with allowing bush to remain in a school classroom? They knew enough about the planned "Shock and Awe" to know that the boy wonder was perfectly safe that day.

No, I realize you don't "believe" that, because you KNOW how powerful those cavepeople are. And, that's what's so scary.

[MercutioATC]

24. A1 didn't fly through my airspace that day...

...and I was at the FAA's Tech Center, as I said before.

I'm really not understanding your segues...what does this have to do with military planes being grounded or not?

[gbwarming]

23. This? ATCSCC ADVZY 031 DCC 09/11/01 GROUND STOP ALL DEPARTURES

ATCSCC ADVZY 031 DCC 09/11/01 GROUND STOP ALL DEPARTURES
DESTINATION AIRPORT: ALL
FACILITIES INCLUDED: ALL
EXPECT UPDATE: 1500Z
REASON: DUE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY, GROUND STOP ALL
DEPARTURES REGARDLESS OF DESTINATION.......REPEAT
GROUND STOP ALL DEPARTURES
111330 - 111600
01/09/11 13:29 FSB.//wkstn24
---------------------------------
Found here: http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/text/faa.tx...

The time on this order is 1329Z or 9:29am eastern. The C-130 pilot says he took off about 9:30. Even if(!) this order applied to military operations it seems likely that by the time if propogated he would have been off the ground. Not until 11:06 are all aircraft "urged to land shortly".

[MercutioATC]

25. That looks like the order. Like I said, we don't have the power to

ground the military, though...

If they want to do something and not involve us, they just use military control (not that we'd refuse them service, anyway).

In my airspace, we work the refueling training exercises. The flight plan clearly states "ZOB Control" (ZOB=Cleveland Center). There are occasionally other military missions that we DON'T work. They have "Huntress Control" (Huntress is the military command in our area) in the flight plan.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no way for the FAA to ground the military.

[DulceDecorum]

26. The White House

was consulted by the FAA,
at least according to the TIME article,
and the White House agreed to,
if not outright ORDERED,
the ground stop of ALL aircraft
- INCLUDING military and law enforcement aircraft.

The Washington Post has this nice story about Cheney and Mineta
sitting up there chewing the fat
until AFTER the Pentagon was hit - by something.

Bush was in Goat-Story-Land,
and we are not quite sure of the exact whereabouts of
his Poppy and his Mommy-with-the-beautiful-mind.
They are alleged to have spent the night at the White House,
playing with Junior's toys.

In any case,
the trail for the order of the national ground stop of ALL aircraft
- INCLUDING military and law enforcement aircraft -
appears to lead straight back to a certain residence on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[MercutioATC]

27. Well, the military kept flying.

So sue them...

[DulceDecorum]

29. How?

There are people
with loved ones
in Abu Garaib
who are waiting
for you to tell them how.

[MercutioATC]

30. It's based on aerodynamic principles...

...something about lift, thrust, and drag...

[DulceDecorum]

34. Flying's easy. Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.

I was talking about suing.

[MercutioATC]

35. Suing for what?

I'm missing something here. Who's suing because military planes did or didn't fly when civilian planes were all grounded?

[DulceDecorum]

40. You said

that the US military WAS flying around on September 11.
So we want to know why they did NOTHING worthwhile.

You then suggested we sue them.
We asked you for instructions on procedure.

Now you appear to be having a Reagan moment.
Time for your nap, sir.
Please stay away from the pretzels.

[Abe Linkman]

41. Purple Haze

MANY things don't seem the same.

[DulceDecorum]

28. The C-130 pilot

may or may not have been using a clock
similar to those found all over the ATC and Pentagon walls.
You know, the ones that don't tell the correct time.

MercutioATC has assured us
that punctuality is not something
that he or his fellow ATCs are overly concerned with.

"So the plane was in the air,
or on the ground awaiting takeoff,
so what?"

Unless the C-130 computer monitor
was synchronized with the ATC official clocks
and the pilot was in the mood to comply with those pesky FAA orders,
it means nothing.
As it is, the pilot was up in the air
and this clearly demonstrates that
MercutioATC is probably telling the truth
when he indicates that the ATC guys
are as every bit as responsible as the Keystone Kops.

[MercutioATC]

32. What a gross misrepresentation of what I said!

I made a simple statement: I didn't see a "smoking gun" in the 6-minute-slow wall clocks in the Pentagon because we have a bunch of them in areas of our facility where time isn't "ATC critical" and they rarely agree with official time. Our official time is displayed on our monitors, so it doesn't effect ATC operations at all.

You've never seen a wall clock that didn't tell the correct time?

[Abe Linkman]

36. But, you DID say they had foreknowledge & ignored it.

You aren't trying to back off from THAT now, are you? You remember posting that, right? I think that's an accurate quote, but we can check them if you disagree.

That's a very strong indictment, isn't it? "They had foreknowledge of the coming attacks, and they intentionally ignored it."

Do you think those clocks in the Pentagon & the Helo pad building were accurate? Does it make any difference, if they aren't? Are you a military ATCer?

[MercutioATC]

43. Abe, that has NOTHING to do with DD's claims of what I said...

Would you please tone down your agenda long enough for two people to deal with a completely separate issue?

[John Doe II]

44. Just to come back to subject

The prove LARED gave with the C-130 pilot as an eyewitness is certainly not a prove. As it was pointed out this guy is highly dubious. Moreover the FBI longtime denied the existence of a nearby C-130 (in the case of Pentagon and Shanksville) and how lukcy he was to have witnessed both crashs!
There is an article quoting him several times. There it's obvious he didn't see the crash as he was asked to leave immediately. (See below). So to draw a conclusion: This eyewitness is everything but reliable. And just to have an idea about the variety and contradictions of eyewitnesses of the Pentagon attack look at this:
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html



Minneapolis Star-Tribune September 11, 2002:
Excerpt:
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.
"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.
"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement _ by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.
"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."
O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft _ in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.
"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon."
O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."
He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect _ a really bad day for airplanes."
He finally landed at the Youngstown, Ohio, airport. "For awhile there, almost every night, I found myself stone awake at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Took awhile to get over it."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/minnea...

[k-robjoe]

45. Here´s a quote

I can´t vouch for, but it sounds very reasonable :

“I was speaking with a former U.S. Marine this week, who did three years at the Pentagon from 1980 to 1983. He had on occasion, also stood at attention at the door of Marine One when Reagan would debark or embark. (...) He looked around for a moment to make sure no one else was listening, and said "There is no way a plane of any kind hit the Pentagon unless it was on purpose." He explained that the Pentagon has radar and heat guided anti-aircraft missle system batteries on top and around the complex, and that the area surrounding the Pentagon is a "no-fly" zone."

[Abe Linkman]

46. And that is why the "training exercises were planned for 9-11"

To give the real perps and their apologists (three or four of whom we all know very well here on DU) plausible deniability. They can & will say that your quote may well be accurate...BUT - see, there was this long-planned training exercise...SO the people who man the anti-aircraft missle systems on top and around the Pentagon were told or led to believe that an exercise was going on - so don't shoot down any F-16s headed for the building.

The plans for 9-11 were long in the making.
The planned "training exercises" were also long in the making...like maybe simultaneously, as part of the conspiracy plan.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

72. About those 4,500 planes...

DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB, Ariz. - Noseless, wingless, doorless aircraft wait silently in the desert "boneyard," their dreams of flying again slowly disappearing like their parts.
They endure the indignity of rubbernecking tourists, mechanics who strip away their metal and animals who nest in them. Such is the life of some of the 4,500 planes at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
The aircraft may not enjoy baking in the stifling heat, but visitors love to see them, said Lt. Daniel King, an AMARC spokesman. About 40 people a day tour the facility.
"There's such a wide variety of aircraft stored out here, it's believable," King said.
The B-1 bomber is the latest addition. The facility will store 24 B-1s, some from Dyess AFB in Abilene.
They join endless rows of planes.
AMARC is home to Vietnam-era fighters, B-52 bombers, helicopters and a Navy cargo plane that was stuck in ice almost 20 years. FBI agents use commercial jets in one area for training. King cannot take visitors near those planes.
"They're a little secretive about it," he said.
http://web.reporter-news.com/1998/2002/local/boneyard10...

In a distant corner of the Boneyard, the littered wreckage of several assorted planes is the bleakest sight. The FBI uses the carcasses to rehearse airplane hostage rescues, shooting up the aircraft in the process.
No problem, really. When the agents are done, damage repair crews use the battered aircraft to test their skills at patching planes shot up in war zones.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2003/01/06...

355th Wing
The 355th Wing falls under 12th Air Force, headquartered at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Air Combat Command, headquartered at Langley Air Force Base, Va.
The mission of the wing is to provide the world’s best combat Air Forces... delivering rapid, decisive, and sustainable airpower ... anytime, anywhere.
Agencies falling under the auspices of the 355th Wing include the Staff Judge Advocate, Manpower, Chaplain, Public Affairs, Historian, Military Equal Opportunity, Safety and the Treaty Compliance office.

41st and 43d Electronic Combat Squadrons
The 41st Electronic Combat Squadron was activated at D-M in July 1980 and the 43rd Electronic Combat Squadron was activated at D-M April 1, 1992.
Accomplishing the Compass Call mission, both squadrons are vital members of the electronic warfare capabilities of the Air Force and are poised for immediate deployment to specific theater contingencies. The unit’s combat mission is to support tactical air and ground and naval operations by confusing the enemy’s defenses and disrupting its command and control capabilities.
<snip>
Both squadrons operate and maintain the EC-130H aircraft, a specially configured version of the Air Force’s proven C-130 transport. To execute its unique operations, the aircraft were modified with electronic countermeasures systems, specialized jamming equipment, aerial refueling capability, as well as upgraded engines and avionics. Modifications made to the aircraft vary between the two squadrons, to help each squadron meet its specific mission-oriented needs.
Since coming to D-M, the 41st and 43rd ECS have played a vital role during several successful contingency and combat operations. These activities include Operations Southern Watch, Just Cause, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Uphold Democracy, Deny Flight, Vigilant Warrior, Provide Comfort, Decisive Edge, Deliberate Force, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AFMC)
AMARC is also the elimination site for heavy bombers under the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. They also support specialized training efforts of the FBI, and other DOD agencies.
http://www.militarynewcomers.com/DMAFB02/Resources/Miss...

September 19, 2000
CIA, FBI and Pentagon team to fight terrorism
At that point, the deputy director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division spoke up and said: "Madam Attorney General, I'm from the CIA. I assure you the agency is fully aware of this intelligence." What Reno didn't realize was that her No. 2 official for counterterrorism was in fact a CIA agent, and that over in Langley, Va., the CIA's No. 2 official for counterterrorism was an FBI agent. The two rival outfits had already swallowed their pride, ingested the message of agency cooperation that had been tossed at them for years by Congress, and allowed previously hostile agents into their midst.
<snip>
The scope of the Ames scandal, however, irretrievably changed the dynamic between the two agencies. "The fallout from the Ames case was the key catalyst to change. It became our Tailhook scandal, because afterward nobody could argue against reform," said a senior CIA counterintelligence expert, noting that a number of the post-Ames reforms called for placing senior FBI officials inside CIA headquarters at Langley. "I mean prior to Ames, the idea of having an FBI official inside CIA headquarters running counterespionage would have been heresy! And for the first few years, it was definitely a shotgun marriage."
With congressional outrage over Ames hanging over the White House's head, then-National Security Council official George Tenet penned in 1994 Presidential Decision Directive 24, a document that instituted the post-Ames reforms. The directive placed a senior FBI official in charge of counterespionage-the spy vs. spy operations-inside CIA headquarters in Langley, and established a National Counterintelligence Center at the CIA-run by an FBI official-to take on the broader mission of protecting American secrets and assets. Tenet went to the CIA in 1995 as deputy director, where both he and Director John Deutch were reform-minded leaders. Later, when Tenet became director of the CIA himself, he helped ensure that not only the letter but also the spirit of the post-Ames reforms would be embraced.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0900/091900nj.htm

And you were wondering why Tenet hightailed it outa there.
Wonder how Mueller is doing......

[DulceDecorum]

73. Where they go.

The majority of the aircraft that arrive at AMARC are delivered by flight. In some cases aircraft may not be capable of flight and are delivered by overland transport. In this case AMARC have the capability to deploy a team of specialists to assist in the disassembly and transportation of the aircraft to AMARC.
http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARCProcesses.asp

[spooked911]

81. Any chance of getting an English translation of your book?

I'm very intrigued.

[paulthompson]

48. Guess what?

In previous reports the C-130 pilot didn't actually see Flight 93 before it crashed. He just saw smoke rising from the ground. But wait! His memory has cleared some:


Lehman said a C-130 Air Force cargo plane observed Flight 93 "gyrating, with the passengers struggling to get control of it."

"It was waving its wings and there was clearly a struggle in the cockpit," Lehman said. "And also they saw it go out of control ... into the ground. So it was a magnificent performance. It's not just speculation, but we have it in great detail from the participants."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1...

Boy, he's a really reliable witness, isn't he? The amazing C-130.

[LARED]

49. This is what the 9-11 report has to say

At 9:53, FAA headquarters informed Command Center that the Deputy Director for Air Traffic Services was talking to Deputy Administrator Monte Belger about scrambling aircraft. Then Command Center informed headquarters they lost track of United 93 over the Pittsburgh area.

Within seconds, Command Center received a visual report from another aircraft, and informed headquarters that the aircraft was 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. United 93 was spotted by another aircraft, and, at 10:01, Command Center advised FAA headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 “waving his wings.” The aircraft had witnessed the radical gyrations in what we believe was the hijackers’ effort to defeat the passenger assault.

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington, DC. The precise crash time has been the subject
of some dispute. The 10:03:11 time is supported by evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data.

Five minutes later, Command Center forwarded this update to headquarters:

Command Center: O.K. Uh, there is now on that United 93.

FAA Headquarters: Yes.

Command Center: There is a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you, fifteen miles south of Johnstown.

FAA Headquarters: From the airplane or from the ground?

Command Center: Uh, they’re speculating it’s from the aircraft.
FAA Headquarters: Okay.

Command Center: Uh, who, it hit the ground. That’s what they’re speculating,that’s speculation only.

The aircraft that spotted the “black smoke” was the same unarmed Air National Guard
cargo plane that had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon 26 minutes earlier. It had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went down.

At 10:17, Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor did any manager at FAA
headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.

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

So it appears there were two C-130 cargo planes that were near the crash site. One just before and one just after the crash

[John Doe II]

50. Crash time of Flight 93: 10:03 or 10:06?

I'm rather surprised to find in the above quoted report of the Independent Commission the following statement concerning the crash time of Flight 93:
"United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington, DC. The precise crash time has been the subject
of some dispute. The 10:03:11 time is supported by evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data."
No word about the seismic data that clearly indicates 10:06:55!
How can the flight data recorder be reliable if it has been made public? Moreover it's well known that the recordings end at 10:02. So to ask with the Philadelphia Inquirer: what happened during this three minutes? The crash time is a very important issue. If it would be clear the plane crashed at 10:06:55 this would imlpy tough questions concerning the authencity of the flight data recordings.
So why the hell does the Committee touch this issue just in two sentences and does not explain how it could be possible that seismic datas are wrong by almost four minutes?

[LARED]

55. Ok

The crash time is a very important issue. If it would be clear the plane crashed at 10:06:55 this would imlpy tough questions concerning the authencity of the flight data recordings.

Perhaps the authencity of the flight data recorders is not in question?

I not trying to dimiss an interesting question. But the only reference I found to the seismic time was one white paper. Perhaps they were wrong.

BTW the fight crashed at 10:06:05 per the seismic report, not 10:06:55 as you state. Simple mistakes happens all the time.

[SKYDRIFTER]

74. FLIGHT 93 RECORDER - IMPOSSIBLE

A bullet wouldn't make it past 10 feet underground.There's no way the flight recorders could have reached the depth of 25 feet - let alone be in operating condition.

There's the rub!

[k-robjoe]

51. two c-130 cargo planes?

I got the part that said "United 93 was spotted by another aircraft", but I didn´t really get how you concluded that this was a second c-130?

And it doesn´t change the fact that the pilot of the C-130 that came directly from the Pentagon seems to be changing his story when needed. Or does it?

Anyway, there is an interesting thing up at http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.ph...

"LetsRoll has discovered the name of the pilot (that shot down flight 93) as well as all other pertinent information regarding this incident."

I don´t know if they got it right, but they better be sure, since they are naming him...

[Abe Linkman]

52. Problem with the person who "outed" Major Gibney

I don't doubt that Gibney shot down FL 93; but Mr. Jayhan's article makes me wonder something about HIM. Near the end of the article he talks about hoping Major Gibney will shoot down a plane if pres. bush is in it.

That smacks of what you find in letters to the editor of newspapers:
progressive ideas that can be easily dismissed, because the author comes across as "crazy" or too extreme.

Which leads me to wonder if maybe the author is a disinformation agent, whose agenda is to get out in front of the news -- knowing that this information would likely get out anyhow, they undermine it by having it released in an article by someone who can be dismissed as a kook, or worse: a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Nearly everyone here at DU (except for the Big Three Apologists) knows that FL 93 was shot down by a missile. It's just unfortunate that the name of the gentleman who fired the missile had to be made public in an article like that one.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Does this mean you question the missile pod on Flight 175, Abe?

Because Mr. Jayhan is the originator and prime proponent of that theory. Others have adopted it, to be sure - but the pod meme started with him.

And if you suspect him of disinfo, what would that make the pod meme?

PS: Anybody seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? About a third of the way through, there's a shot of a large aircraft landing. The camera is below the plane, and there's no longer any doubt in my mind that the normal structure of the plane accounts for the weird video artifact that Jayhan is claiming to be a missile pod. Flight 175, sans flamethrowing missile pod, crashed into the South Tower.

[Abe Linkman]

63. No. Why? Did you take that stuff about disnfo agent personally?

I wasn't questioning the factual part of the article. I was only pointing out the need for caution whenever one is dealing with people one suspects might have a hidden agenda.

[SKYDRIFTER]

78. Jayhan

I've gone toe-to-toe with Jayhan; I disregard anything that comes from him - unless otherwise confirmed!

He even admitted being schooled in psyops. (He later denied it, until I reposted his own message.)

My advice is to treat him with great caution.

[Frederik]

79. That Mr Jayhan

is disseminating and indeed started this hopeless "pod" theory is yet another reason to suspect him of being a disinfo agent.

[spooked911]

80. I actually think there may be something to the POD idea

-- in certain videos and photos it does look very real-- but Jayhan walks way out on a limb with it. He simply takes everything too far. Why, I don't know, but I don't entirely trust him.

[Frederik]

83. I've looked at all these

pictures and I just don't see the pod that's supposed to be there! So, I'm inclined to be sceptical to that particular theory.

[spooked911]

84. What convinced me was the following clip that showed that the "pod" made

its own mark or little explosion as the plane entered the building:

http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/ua175-10.swf

Hopefully you can play the little movie-- you need shockwave.

[LARED]

53. I combined the two sources

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1...

Lehman said a C-130 Air Force cargo plane observed Flight 93 "gyrating, with the passengers struggling to get control of it."

with the 9-11 report assuming when the 9/11 report referred to an aircraft; United 93 was spotted by another aircraft, and, at 10:01, Command Center advised FAA headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 “waving his wings.” The aircraft had witnessed the radical gyrations in what we believe was the hijackers’ effort to defeat the passenger assault.

Was the other craft a C-130? Assuming that both accounts are accurate, one would have to assume that it was. If Lehman was mistaken, how does it change the story in a significant way? If he was lying, to what ends would it be to contradict the 9/11 report. A report that is based on sworn testimony.


What is very clear is that the C-130H cargo plane that saw flt 77 crash is the same one that saw the aftermath of flight 93's crash. The time line for the known C-130H works out very well. The plane easily could have reached the area where flight 93 crashed.

Another thing you should keep in mind is that it is not at all unusual to have C-130 cargo planes is the sky over the south Jersey/Penn/Washington area. I used to live about 20 miles from McGuire Air force base in NJ and saw at least two dozen C-130's a week; sometimes per day. Where I live now I see at least one or two a week. Seeing military cargo planes is part of life in this region.

Having two C-130's close enough to get sent to investigate, or just happen to be in the area would not surprise anyone in this region.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Coincidences just happen...unless they conflict w/"Cavepeople" fairy tale

I'm not surprised that an apologist for the "Cavepeople" tells us that something is merely a coincidence...to explain away what might otherwise
be suspicious.

[LARED]

56. This place definitely needs

a broken record smiley icon.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Would this one do?

Or how about this one?

[LARED]

62. I vote for

[k-robjoe]

57. Message withdrawn. (missed the point)

[k-robjoe]

60. OK , that´s how it seems

But this must be a huge lie that has been fed to the comission.
I mean, you´ve read about how flight 93 started to disintegrate while still in the air, right? ( The debris coming down over that lake.) So you too know that this must be a lie? The testimony from this pilot in the second c-130.

[LARED]

61. What's the huge lie?

You lost me there.

As for the disintegration of flight 93. Is there reliable information it disintegrated? If it did does that mean it was a bomb, shot down, or did it break apart due to flight conditions. Did it happen at all?


On September 11, 2001, his computers found the seismic record of United Airlines Flight 93 smashing into the ground in Pennsylvania. The signal was what you would expect if a fully loaded and intact jetliner hit the ground, as opposed to a bunch of many smaller aeroplane pieces. So his seismic analysis showed that Flight 93 was not blown up by a missile or bomb, but hit the ground in one piece.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s841976.htm

[k-robjoe]

64. Disintegrated

was not the right word. It didn´t break up into pieces.(Exept, possibly, for one of the engines.) This is what I was referring to :

"John Fleegle, Jim Brant and Carol Delasko were about two-and-a-half miles from what would soon become the Flight 93 crash site. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, they "heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom ..."

Delasko, "... said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. 'It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake.'"

This is probably the single most important observation. Within a second or two after Flight 93 passed over the Indian Lake Marina where Delasko, Brant and Fleegle stood, debris from the stricken plane began to fall into the lake. Lots of debris. Some of it on fire. And it was deposited in a compact area rather than as a continuous trail for some period of time. (...)

Also adding to the evidence is the fact that a 1,000-pound section of an engine fan was found 6,000 feet from the crash site. So, an external explosive event occurred that separated 1,000 pounds of engine, opened up a hole in the passenger cabin and cargo hold. The power of the explosion – or, more likely, the disintegration of the engine – sucked things out of the fuselage, through the jet engine – shredding seats, passengers and cargo.(...)

When all the evidence is lined up, it is highly consistent with a heat-seeking missile striking Flight 93, probably around 10:05:30. The evidence strongly infers that the terrorists did not fly that jet into the ground, at least not without help from an external event. The evidence becomes compelling when the federal government's factually false propaganda is factored in."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...

Yes, I believe we have been fed lies on this.

[LARED]

65. There is a lot of BS in that article

World Net Daily is not exactly a reputable source. Let me show you

Delasko, "... said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. 'It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake.'"

This is probably the single most important observation. Within a second or two after Flight 93 passed over the Indian Lake Marina where Delasko, Brant and Fleegle stood, debris from the stricken plane began to fall into the lake. Lots of debris. Some of it on fire. And it was deposited in a compact area rather than as a continuous trail for some period of time. (...)


I did an extensive Nexis Lexus search and everything above is correct except for one small detail. In none of the articles is it indicated that within a second or two debris started to fall.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

September 14, 2001 Friday SOONER EDITION


Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash.


It seems WND is making up stuff


Also adding to the evidence is the fact that a 1,000-pound section of an engine fan was found 6,000 feet from the crash site. So, an external explosive event occurred that separated 1,000 pounds of engine,

No where in any article I found does it state an engine fan was found 6000 feet away. It just says it was found.

Every article does say the FBI checked for evidence of a bomb but none was found. They checked because it was thought that there may have been a bomb on board.

From Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

September 25, 2001 Tuesday SOONER EDITION


The heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section of engine fan.

The jetliner exploded in a fireball, witnesses said -- but not a fireball caused by a bomb, according to Crowley.

"The conclusion of the investigation is that no explosives were used on board the plane," Crowley said yesterday. He would not elaborate further.

At least two passengers aboard Flight 93 made calls from the plane after it was hijacked and said they believed one of the hijackers was carrying a bomb.

Many articles I found did indicate debris was found quite a distance away from the crash site. But every description indicated items that easily could have been carried on air currents.

The administration has already started they would have shot down flight 93 if possible and they they did not need to. I recall no shock or outrage when that was revealed. Nor should there be any. So if they really did shoot down flight 93 it seems there would be no need to cover it up.

I'll tell you another thing. Even if debris was found in places that can't be explained easily there is a possibility you may not have considered.

A few years ago I watch a documentary about the crash that happened in South America. When the rescue teams arrived they found a debris field that stretched over 6 miles. They determined that the plane malfunctioned and was subjected to forces beyond its ability of remain intact. The engines came off and then the wings a few minutes before the impact.

It is certainly possible that the flight 93 may have experienced a similar situation. Perhaps not a dramatic as the case I described but perhaps an engine sheared off because of flight dynamics.

At any rate I suggest you avoid World Net Daily.

[k-robjoe]

66. Your caution about World Net Daily may be in place

But the two things from this article that you "brand" as "making up things"...

Are we speaking of the same witnesses? Do you know that they spoke with the same person? It is, mildly put, ironic to see how you "brand" this as "making up things", thinking about what you "swallow down" when it comes to things that fit with your view.

When it comes to the second piece of "misinformation" ( Where the piece of engine was found ) :

"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."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

From the same article :

"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."

[LARED]

67. same witnesses

Are we speaking of the same witnesses? Do you know that they spoke with the same person?

Yes, I did not post all the references I found. Althought I don't know if they spoke to the same person. The important thing is that none of the witnesses from the WND article said anything in the other references about debris stating to fall in a second or two. The reference I did post indicated it was a few minutes after the impact.

"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."

Well I won't mention that the MIrror is not exactly the paper of record in the UK unless of course you think the Globe is a reliable news source here in the US.

The article states this about the engine fan with no source at all so it could be from anywhere.

At any rate I still don't understand the issue the CT crowd has. The administration has stated that they would have shot flt 93 down. So what is the point of all the speculation?

[Abe Linkman]

68. Shoot down of FL93 was planned & a vital part of 9-11 Conspiracy Fact.

The only "issues" most people have about the shoot down of FL 93 relate to minor facts (time, memory of eyewitnesses and so forth).

[k-robjoe]

69. Well

It may be of minor importance to you, if it was shot down or not.

I´m thinking that it seems that they must have known when they shot it down, that the passengers were trying to take control over the plane. And so it gets quite a bit of importance.

About the debris : the important thing is that it came down, and where it came down, unless you are saying that it didn´t come from the plane whilst it was in the air, but was carried with the wind, after the crash.

When it comes to where the truth about 911 can be found, it seems that you go to all the "right" sources, yet what you come up with seems like anything but the truth. ( On the big picture that is. When it comes to when that debris came down, it seems you´re right. )

[LARED]

70. the debris and right sources

I'm saying I do know that some of (possibly all) the debris came from the impact and that some of it became wind borne. I do not know if any debris came off in flight. It is certainly possible.

So far there is nothing convincing that the engine fan actually was 6000' away from the impact site.

Regarding the "right sources." Those sources name names, and typically when read, provide the context of the statement. The ones you are relying one either pull statements out of context, string together statements to imply a different meaning than was intended, or just put up statements that can not be verified. They also rarely names names for the more outrageous claims they print. Those are "wrong sources" or at least suspect sources.

Some call it sophistry.

[k-robjoe]

71. I read all kind of sources

and then try to put things together. ( Like the reports of the sound of gushing wind up in the plane. Put that together with the reports from down on the ground. Put that together with the lies told about what aircrafts were in the vicinity. )


"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.""

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=... ...


"By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks."
http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

"Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. "It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake," she said."

http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

[SKYDRIFTER]

77. MISSILE AT SHANKSVILLE?

The one picture is clearly that of an ordnance blast.

Was it a missile that people heard, not an aircraft?

[spooked911]

82. The bottom line is it looks like we can't really trust this C-130 pilot

one bit.