... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!

[John Doe II]

In several articles I’ve already analysed the innumerous contradictions of what happened aboard UA 93. This article now will analyse in detail all accounts of all eyewitnesses (whose statements are available in print) in Shanksville on 911 and will prove that the official explanation of what happened to UA 93 in its last minutes (also presented in the “Commission Report” of the Independent Commission) is full of omissions, contradictions and lies.




For better understanding of the text here is a map of the region that allows zooming in etc:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&mapdata=GMCh...


I. Something from the northwest:
Here the witnesses that I was able to locate:
Boswell: (about 8 miles away) Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry. They noticed the plane at 2000 feet.
(New York Times, 9/14/01; Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)

Hooversville: (about 5 miles) Laura Temyer. She heard (but didn’t see) the plane.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Stoystown: (about 4 miles)
Terry Butler saw the plane at about 500 feet.
Bob Blair.
Linda Shepley saw the plane at 2,500 feet.
Rob Kimmel saw the plane at 100 or 200 feet flying southeast.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b; New York Times, 9/14/01; Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
(Daily American, 9/12/01)
(Washington Post, 9/14/01 d)
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Lambertsville: (about two miles) Anita McBride heard and Eric Peterson saw the plane at “maybe 300 feet”.
(Cox, 9/12/01 b; Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01)
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xm...
(Plain Dealer, 9/12/01 b; Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/11/01; US News & World Report, 10/29/01)

Lambertsville Road: Paula Pluta (one mile) saw the plane through her window.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html
(New York Times, 9/14/01; New York Times, 9/12/01; AP, 9/12/01)

Shanksville: Charles Rhodes heard (being less than a quarter of a mile away) and Kelly Neverknight (Stony Creek Township of Shanksville).
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01)
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

Lambertsville Road: Tom Fritz (quarter of a mile) and Nevin Lambert (less than half a mile) saw the plane.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...
(Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/04)

Rollock Inc. scrap yard: (300 yards) Lee Purbaugh saw the plane at an altitude of 40 or 50 feet till it crashed. His coworker Tim Lensbouer only heard the plane.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b; Independent, 8/13/02)
Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen...


Conclusion: All eyewitnesses who saw the plane (and who I was able to locate) are northwest and west of the crash site. They all clearly agree in their observation that a descending airplane is coming in from northwest. This also corresponds to the official flight path presented by the Commission Report.

(The accounts of Charles Sturtz and two unnamed witnesses have been presented in the medias without any hint of their exact location. Their observation corresponds with the accounts of the eyewitnesses already mentioned.)


Contradiction: The Commission Report clearly states that UA 93 nosedived with 580 mph into the ground.
The final decision to crash the plane was taken by the hijackers at 10:02:23. The plane "headed down" "The control wheel was turned hard to the right" and it crashed with 580 mph at 10:03:11 (CR, 14, 30).
So we the Commission draws the image of a plane that during 48 seconds flys headdown at maximum speed into the ground.
But there is not a single eyewitnesses who actually sees this kind of nosediving. On the contrary many eyewitnesses observe a behaviour of the airplane that is very bizarre:

Terry Butler: (Stoystown) "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." He said the plane banked to the right and appeared to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continued to turn to the right and then veered behind a ridge, "like somebody grabbed the wheel."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

Linda Shepley (Stoystown): “She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left , at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.”

Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry (Boswell): “Both men said the aircraft then dipped sharply to the left, then to the right ”.
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

Tim Thornsberg (nearby strip mine): “It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds … and then it kind of stalled and a nose dive over the trees.”
(WPXI Channel 11, 9/13/01)

Tom Fritz (Lambertsville Road): "When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden, like a stone".
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

Lee Purbaugh (300 yards): I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly , it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground.”
(Independent, 8/13/02)


What all theses eyewitnesses saw is clearly not the nosediving described by the Commission

(Concerning the doubts that the Commission actually listened to the same Cockpit Voice Recordings as the family members see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


The eyewitness’ reports don’t support the officially claimed speed of 580 mph neither. Surprisingly the first official statements concerning the speed of UA 93 at the moment of the crash differ enormously from the Commission Report. Unfortunately once and again the Report simply ignores this difference.
While the estimation “by the National Transportation Safety Board and other experts” is “over 200 mph” (Delaware News Journal, 9/16/01). (This is basically a third of the speed given by the CR!) Another estimation of “law enforcement authorities” is that the speed might have approached 300 mph" (New York Times, 9/14/01). This would still be only half of the speed claimed by the CR!

The questions concerning the airplanes behaviour are:
Why is the plane wobbling left and right?
Why is it trying to gain altitude?
Why drops it all of a sudden, like a stone?
Why do none of the eyewitness’ reports correspond to the official explanation?
Why is this strange flight behaviour of the plane never explained?


Omission: Several eyewitnesses agree that the airplane made strange sounds.

Laura Temyer (several miles away, Hooversville): "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny . I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Michael Merringer (about two miles): “I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang”.
(AP, 9/12/01; Cleveland Newschannel, 9/12/01)

An unnamed witness: “He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.”
(Cleveland Newschannel, 9/12/01)

Another unnamed witness: “She saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed.”
(Cleveland Newschannel, 9/12/01)

Witnesses very close to the crash site also mention very strange sounds.
Lee Purbaugh (300 yards): “There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound”.
(Independent, 8/13/02)

Charles Sturtz (half a mile): “ It was really roaring, you know . Like it was trying to go somewhere, I guess.”
(WPXI Channel 11, 9/13/01)

Tom Fritz (Lambertsville Road, quarter of mile): He heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. "It was sort of whistling”.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

Neither the bangs, the engine sounding funny, nor the sound that wasn’t quite right have been officially explained. The Commission Report doesn’t mention them.
Why did the plane coming from northwest make such strange sounds?


II. Something from the east:
While all the eyewitnesses of the last minutes of UA 93 that we can manage to locate have been in the west or northwest of the crash site all witnesses that have been in the east of the crash site (especially at Indian Lake) also see an airplane but this airplane is clearly not a commercial airplane:

Jim Brant (Indian Lake, 1 ½ miles):
The owner of Indian Lake Marina.
“Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina, said he rushed outside Tuesday morning when he heard the roar of jet engines overhead , then saw a fireball rise into the air."
(AP, 9/13/01 c)

Minutes later he sees the plane:
“Mr. Brant and two of his employees arrived at the site in minutes , hoping to help survivors. He said he noticed a white plane, perhaps a jet, circling the wreckage. ‘It reminded me of a fighter jet,’ he said. ”
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

He said it stayed there for one or two minutes before leaving.
(…) the plane had no markings on it, either civilian or military.
(Pittsburgh Channel, 9/12/01 c)

Remark: Although Brant only saw the white jet when he was at the crash site himself “in minutes” the fact that “he heard the roar of jet engines overhead” (before the crash) and he couldn’t have heard the descending airplane from the northwest as he was east of the crash site the only conclusion is that he heard the white jet before the crash.
The only alternative might be to imagine a third airplane.

Tom Spinelli (Indian Lake, 1 ½ miles):
Technician at Indian Lake Marina.
"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."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

“He said that it had high back wings.
(…) the plane had no markings on it, either civilian or military.”
(Pittsburgh Channel, 9/12/01 c)

John Feegle (Indian Lake, 1 ½ miles):
Service manager at Indian Lake Marina.
“' Then we heard a loud roar ," he said.
As the workers ran outside, they saw the plane go down beyond the lake in a large plume of fire and smoke. Feegle and his coworkers jumped into a truck and rushed to the site.”
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

"It didn't look like a commercial plane," Feegle said. "It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around, and it was gone. "
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)

“The aircraft appeared to have an unusually tall vertical stabilizer”
(Capley Service, 9/13/01)

Besides theses three observations from witnesses located at Indian Lake, 1 ½ miles east from the crash site, there is an account of two witnesses being north, northeast of the crash site:

Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney (Buckstown Road, 1 mile):
“Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an explosion and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge.
" As soon as we looked up , we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.
"If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt," Decker said. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane.”
(Bergen Record, 9/14/01)


All in all there are twelve eyewitnesses who observe the white jet.
I wasn’t able to pinpoint the exact locations of the following eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a white jet as well: Susan Mcelwain, Kathy Blades, Dale Browning, Susan Custer, Robin Doppstadt and Bobby Lambert.

Dale Browning who witnessed the white plane, “the damndest darn thing”, remarked:
“Everybody's seen this thing in the sky, but no one can tell us what it is."
(Bergen Record, 9/14/01)

Here is what the FBI has to give as explanation:
“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.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

The “Independent” comments:
“The reason, as numerous people have observed, why
this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on 11 September, all
non-military aircraft in US airspace had received loud and clear orders more
than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport ; second, such was the
density of 911 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 ; and, third, with F-16s supposedly in the
vicinity, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time of tremendous
national uncertainty 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. “
(Independent, 8/13/02)

Theses are good observations but there are clearer reason why one should doubt the FBI’s explanation:
Besides Tom Spinelli also Susan Mcelwain and Susan Custer saw the white jet already before the crash. (Jim Brant and John Feegle heard the plane before the crash. Therefore also giving evidence of the white jets presence before the crash if we don’t want to assume the presence of another airplane coming from the east …) The others witnesses (most of them rushing outdoors after hearing the crash – that’s why their account doesn’t contradict the claims that the white jet was there already before the crash) saw it immediately after the crash. There is not a single eyewitness who observed a white jet descending several minutes after the crash. And anyway: How long would it take the Fairchild Falcon to finally arrive at 5000 feet…?!

Why does none of the eyewitnesses agree with the official statement that the white jet arrived several minutes after the crash and that it was at 5,000 feet?
Why do eyewitnesses see it much lower?
Is there any possible reason not to call the FBI’s explanation for the undeniable presence of the white jet at the crash site a clear lie?
The white jet was there. What did he do?


Leaving the question concerning the identity of the white jet aside we can sum up:
None of the eyewitnesses who saw the descending airplane from northwest saw the white jet coming from the east. None of the eyewitnesses who saw the white jet from the east saw the descending airplane from northwest. (and as all the eyewitnesses are close to the crash site we have to wonder why nobody saw the white plane before it approached Indian Lake)

There is only one exception: Lee Purbaugh.
He’s the only one eyewitnesses who saw both planes. Moreover he’s the only witness who saw the crash. He really should be able to solve the miracle what happened on 911 at Shanksville:

Lee Purbaugh (300 yards, west):
“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”.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

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

It’s unfortunate that Purbaugh doesn’t indicate at what moment he saw the white plane. But it’s very striking that the person that was best positioned to describe the white plane, it’s arrival and it’s behaviour offers in his accounts much less information that witnesses being 1 ½ miles away.
Why didn’t he “get a good look”?
What could possibly have prevented him from having a good look?
Why does he see less than people much farer away?

Nonetheless Purbaugh has a very clear opinion about the character of the white plane:
“Purbaugh, who served three years in the US Navy, said he did not believe it was a military plane. ”
(Independent, 8/13/02)

Anyway, Lee Purbaugh working just his second day at Rollock Inc. is of no help explaining what happened.
In any case we do have in any case a descending airplane from northwest and a white jet from the east arriving at the crash site more or less at the very same moment:
What happened at the very moment both arrived at the crash site?


III. Raining Debris:

Many eyewitnesses at Indian Lake not only observed a white jet but also raining debris.
Some accounts state that this happened “minutes after” the crash:
“Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw |b] a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signalled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/13/01)

“Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina, said he rushed outside Tuesday morning when he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. The wind was strong that morning, Brant said, and within minutes debris from the crash was ‘falling like confetti. ’”
(AP, 9/13/01 c)

“ Several minutes later , bits of white paper began to rain down , said Carol Delasko, a secretary at the marina.”
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

One account puts it right after the crash:
“His family lives at Indian Lake in Central City, three miles from where a hijacked plane crashed. His father, Joe, was home.
(…)
"He was on the phone and heard a big crash and went outside to see what it was, and stuff starting falling from the sky, " said Hughes, whose parents have turned the debris over to the FBI.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/20/01)
Remark: This eyewitness is not 1 ½ miles away from the crash site but three!

And the account of the witnesses that worked at Indian Lake Marina (Brant, Feegle, Spinelli and Delasko) that actually quotes them:
“We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.
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.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html


Other even before the crash:
“Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing. ”
(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/14/01)

And that’s what witness Tom Spinelli (Indian Lake, 1 ½ mile away) has to say about the official explanation:
“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 (Spinelli) raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: "Yeah, that's what they reckon."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

Indeed a quick glance at the official explanation that the wind carried the debris after the plane crashed shows that it doesn’t stand the test of logic. Indian Lake witnesses are 1 ½ miles away (one case mentioned is even three miles away) from the crash site. This means that the wind with a speed of nine or ten mph would need nine to ten minutes (already assuming that the witnesses are all in the exact direction of the wind on 911. In the case of the eyewitness being three miles away the wind would even have needed almost 20 minutes). But once and again there is not a single eyewitness who can support the official explanation. Even if one ignores accounts that debris started falling on Indian Lake before or right after the crash the most conservative estimation is “several minutes” which is certainly not the same as nine to ten minutes.

Moreover the official explanation is put to rest with the fact that also debris much heavier than paper was found:
“Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville said they found clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/14/01)
“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.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

And debris was not only found in the southeast but also in the south (Shanksville)
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
and in the west or northwest on Lambertsville Road:
“Lambert also said he also later found a couple of pieces of debris, one a piece of metal, less than 12 inches across, with some insulation attached.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...



For the “Mirror” the raining debris is highly important:
“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.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

Indeed all theses information about raining debris hints at a mid-air explosion. The only possible contradiction is that UA 93 was supposed to be the descending airplane from northwest and not a plane that crossed Indian Lake from the east before crashing!
So taking it for granted that one airplane cannot be at two different places at the same time:
Which airplane “lost” debris while overflying Indian Lake: The white jet or another (second) commercial airplane?
If it was the white jet: How could it have “lost” debris?
If it was another airplane: Which airplane was it and where did it go? Why wasn’t it recognized?


IV. Interesting eyewitness’ reports

There are three accounts I’ve withhold so far because they do stand a bit apart but they might turn out to be highly interesting:

Susan Mcelwain (location unknown):
"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. (…)
"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.
I didn'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.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...
(Bergen Record, 9/14/01)

Mcelwain’s account stand out as she believed it was the white jet that crashed. Unfortunately we can’t locate her position. But it is interesting that the white jet “hardly made no sound”. The white jet overflying Indian Lake Marina was roaring.
So would this imply that the plane that was roaring from the east wasn’t the white jet but another, a third plane?

But it’s getting stranger:
Georgetta and Alvin Guynn: (Vanderbilt, Fayette County. About 25 miles ! map)
“We looked up and there was this big jet going overhead and it was pretty low and we could not hear the engines. It was like they were off. And then about a minute or two later, we got some binoculars and we were looking through them and there was all this smoke in the air and we knew it crashed.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

Considering the distance from the witnesses to the actual crash site we might be victim of sloppy journalism. But nonetheless this report is interesting as here now an airplane is said to have made no engine noise.

Jim Stop: (Indian Lake, three miles)
“Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.
“ I heard the engine whine and scream, ” Stop said.
He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

Jim Stop is in the east but he doesn’t see the white jet. He had a perfect view. Nonetheless he speaks of “the plane” and not a white jet.
So, does he see the plane that was roaring over Indian Lake Marina?
Does he see the second plane from the east?
Does he see the plane that lost the debris?

Résumée:
Only three articles so far dared to question the official explanation of what really happened in Shanksville on 911.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...
(Independent, 8/13/02)

Not questioning the official explanation is not taking any of the eyewitnesses from the Shanksville area serious.
What happened at the encounter of the white jet and the airplane?
Where does the debris come from?
Which plane caused the crater?
What happened to the plane from northwest if it didn’t end up in the crater?

So the question simply is:
Why does not a single aspect of the official story about UA 93 correspond to what eyewitnesses actually saw?
Why do we still three years after 911 accept clear lies without challenging them?


P.S. Other nearby airplanes:
Besides the airplane that’s coming from northwest, the white jet from east and maybe even another airplane from the east that lost debris while overflying Indian Lake there are still more airplanes in the region of Shanksville:

“The FBI said that a civilian business jet flying to Johnstown was within 20 miles of the low-flying airliner, but at an altitude of 37,000 feet.”
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail....

"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetn...

The plane is a Fairchild Falcon 20.

“The FBI said there was also a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away that saw smoke or dust near the crash site, but that plane wasn't armed and had no role in the crash. That plane was flying at 24,000 feet.”
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail....

This is the very same C-130 that had already witnessed the crash into the Pentagon.
(Minnesota Star-Tribune, 9/11/02)

“James K. Will, a Berlin, Pa., farmer who pilots a white Cessna with red stripes and who has an airstrip near his farm, told Team 4 reporter Paul Van Osdol that he circled the scene about 45 minutes after the crash.
Will said he had just returned from Altoona and, when he'd heard about the crash, flew to the site to take photos of the wreckage. Pennsylvania State Police said that his plane may have been the one that many saw. (My comment: Is he really serious? Does he believe people can’t distinguish between before/right after the crash and 45 minutes later??)
Will's flight was intercepted by a state police helicopter and was escorted to the Johnstown-area airport. His plane was searched and he was released.”
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/961654/detail....


And last but not least let’s not forget the F-16!
“According to the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, FAA employees at an air-traffic control center near Boston learned from controllers at other facilities that an F-16 "stayed in hot pursuit" of the 757.
By 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, the Air Force had taken control of all U.S. airspace, the unidentified controller told the Telegraph. A few minutes later, the Boeing crashed in Stonycreek Township.
The F-16 made 360-degree turns to stay close to the 757, the Telegraph reported. "He must've seen the whole thing," the FAA employee said of the F-16's pilot. ”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

And maybe we can even add American 1060 to this list although it’s not completely clear how close this plane was but it sees the smoke of the crashed airplane.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.h...

And maybe we should also add the Executive 956 which was asked for information by Cleveland Center till the crash.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.h...


So, all in all we’ve six or seven airplanes in an area of 20 miles around Shanksville. Pretty much for a day when all planes had been asked to land at the nearest airport as fast as possible!

Surprise, surprise the officials don’t come to help:
“An Air Force spokeswoman at North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado, Capt. Adriane Craig, said the military could neither confirm nor deny whether an airplane was following the United 757.
Neither NORAD nor the Air Force releases information about where its jets are flying at any given time , or what their patrol routes are over metropolitan areas, Craig said.”
(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/14/01)


Special Thanks: to Team 8+ !
And to Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine who always insisted that the plane came from the east! They have done an extraordinary job!

[spooked911]

1. Great job! Doesn't this fit with the idea that flight 93 was shot down?

I don't have time to go through all this real carefully, but doesn't this story basically conform to the idea that UA93 was shot down by a military jet?

[John Doe II]

20. Thanks!

My opinion to the shoot down scenario is in post 19!

[philb]

80. This evidence appears to imply a plane from the east was shot down

and released debris over a wide area. It "doesn't" appear to fit that the debris came from the plane that was from the NW.
Thus if Fl 93 was from the NW, it wasn't the plane the debris came from. There seems more evidence the plane from the East was shot down than the one from the NW. Unless the plane from the east was
for some reason releasing fake debris. I can't imagion why it would.

Though it appears that the white jet and the plane from the NW were there at the crash site at about the same time.
And also its clear that the F16 could have shot down the plane from the NW any time it wanted to, and apparently it was ordered to do so by Cheney.

Does it seem likely that 2 planes were shot down? and the one from the east ended up in Indian Lake? How deep is Indian Lake?


Or did the plane from the NW fly beyond Indian Lake and then double back? no one seems to have witnessed this happening.


Something clearly happened here that wasn't consistent with the official version of Flight 93.

[Ian David]

2. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but two points

I won't pretend to know enough to either agree or disagree with your hypothesis, but I'd like to make a couple points on what I have read so far.

1) From what I have read here, I believe you are correct, that it doesn't sound like the plane was deliberately crashed straight into the ground.

2) To me, it sounds more like there was a struggle for the yoke in the cockpit. Perhaps terrorists trying to crash it while passengers tried to climb back up. I imagine any kind of tug-o-war in the cockpit would have looked pretty freaky from the ground, and likely resulted in a crash.

Or perhaps a passenger control but didn't know you what they were doing and made some insane zigs and zags.

Here is what I consider my most important point:

3) If the plane was deliberately shot down by the the airforce, it would have been in the government's best interests NOT to cover it up.

One very harsh criticism of the pResident is that he sat there goatwhacked while doing nothing for 22 minutes to protect us.

If someone could have said, "The President made the terrible, painful decision to shoot down the jet and save countless other lives," then our "war president" who is more concerned about being "decisive" than correct, would have rose tremendously in the eyes of many Americans.

Instead, we have an image of President Bambi sitting there re-living his glory days of third grade.

I've heard it argued that the "heroic passenger" story is perpetuated because it gives Americans a sense of pride that our own citizens were able to rise up to defend us.

Well, if the administration wanted to have it both ways, then ideally, the official story should have been:

"Thanks to the efforts of a handful of brave Americans, they were able to delay the terrorists long enough for our president and our air national guard to take the painful actions necessary to intercept the craft before it killed countless more people on the ground."

Again, I am not saying that you are wrong about this.

I don't enough yet to say either way.

I just thought I would make those two points, because those are two that stand out to me most right now.

I'll look forward to seeing where this hypothesis leads.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Your most important point is the best I've ever heard it put

Thanks.

[John Doe II]

15. Your points

Your first two points (to which of course I do agree) imply a huge cover up of the Joint Inquiry and the Independent Commission as both have presented the fate of UA 93 that the hijackers clearly decided to crash the plane deliberately.

You write if the government decided on 911 to shoot down UA 93 then it would have had a big interest in not covering up the story. I agree.

But: In my article I don't write with any word that my conclusion is that the US decided to shootd down UA 93.
What was important to me was to present a irrefutable proof that there was a very interesting encounter of the plane and a white jet at the crash site (based on the analysis of the eyewitnesses).
This demonstrates that the whole official explication of the fate of UA 93 is completely untrue.
I believe it's very important to stop at this point. If I'm right about this then this would be the first concret proof of a huge and lie in the story of 911.

That's why a don't see any dissent with your thoughts.

[Abe Linkman]

18. Sounds like what the perps did at the Pentagon - using extra planes to...

distract attention & set up a false, but plausible scenario. In the case of FL "93" - it may well have NOT been shot down (was there even such a thing as a real FL 93?). The debris field is as suspicious as the debris field on the pristine Pentalawn.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. The government had no desire

to take credit for bringing any plane down at that point. Nor do they want to even suggest that there may have been an explosion from a bomb on board. Why? Because of the liability.

It is one thing to bring a plane down with box cutters, which at the time people were allowed to carry such things. It's another matter entirely to admit that a bomb, even a fake bomb, had gotten through security.

Same thing with the idea of the US Military shooting down a civilian passenger jet. If that had happened the questions and liability issues would have been huge. What if they had made a mistake and this wasn't a hijacked plane? What if they were just looking for an airport to land at? What if the passengers could have gained control of the plane? Then the families could have sued the shit out of the government.

Hence the story of the great Americans who sacrificed themselves in order to save other Americans from becoming a terrorist target was hatched. No one's to blame and all the people on board are heros.

[tngledwebb]

25. It is not that clear at all what would be in this Govt's interest.

If any sane person can figure what the hell the BFEE is really trying to do after the past four years, please drop a note. I get that the chaos, torture and mass murder in Iraq plan is moving along swimmingly, but not much else.

[Kevin Fenton]

69. Lawsuit

My impression is that no sooner than the true explanation was put out, the government would have been engulfed by a whole pile of lawsuits filed by the relatives of the passengers shot down. This would hardly have helped unity the US.

Also, it's possible that the missile was fired (or the order to fire it/them was given) before the struggle ended and that the passengers won. Maybe the last transmission is one of the passengers saying they're won and asking ATC for a heading, then there's a bang and that's it. That would look pretty bad. Or maybe the struggle was ongoing when the missile hit and the passengers might have won, so why shoot it down when it was so far from anywhere; the relatives would argue that the passengers were winning and they should have got a fair go?

Also, I think we have to take into account the Bush administration's obsessive desire for secrecy and spin.

[Old and In the Way]

101. Very pertinent point in this discussion.

I, too, have wondered why this pResident's PR agency (if there's one thing they are good at, it's covering up incompetence and turning crimes into virtues) didn't promote this aspect of 9/11. Why wouldn't they counterbalance the Bush "Pet Goat" moment with a leadership narrative that would have us knowing the hard Presidential decisions Bush had to make. Seems to me, if they did give the shoot down orders, they'd have been calculating, in parallel, the best way to market this unprecendented Executive action. It was, obviously, a historical moment...one that would need the proper PR spin.

So I'm left with:

(1) There was no shootdown (where's the plane)?
(2) If they did the shootdown,and since they had prior knowledge of an attack (8/6/01 PDB), would they admit to it, in the moment? After all, if there had been an independent investigation, would the a priori evidence have made their decision tantamount to murder?
(3) Or, if they did order the shootdown, but their motivation was that 93 was not on script. Guess they'd make that decision a state secret in a hurry. Could a "off budget" jet fighter, disguised as a civilian aircraft with AAM capabilities, take it out? If so, why? Why not regular AF?

4 planes, 18 hi-jackers, the only direct evidence being the videotape of 175. Too bad we never really got an independent investigation on what happened that day. It would have explained why we'll experience another attack.

[GetTheRightVote]

3. Where in the world did you find this information, very eye opening

I am very worried now.

[John Doe II]

16. It took some time ...!

Many articles are from Lexis-Nexis. So even if I didn't give the URL the article (especially in case of Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Independent article was printed by a 911 homepage). So nit's worth searching.
In any case: If you or anybody wishes to read an entire article I quoted please drop me a line.

[philb]

86. Loud bang and then plane plunged; was the bang a missile hitting?

An unnamed witness says he hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/956371/detail.html

Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. She says she has an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes.

Laura Temyer of Hooversville: “I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.” (She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.)

Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: “I know of two people—I will not mention names— that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards ... This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day.” He adds that based on what he has learned, F-16s were “very, very close.”

[philb]

87. If Shepley & Purbaugh are believed; the plane from NW hit the crash site

Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: “There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head—maybe 50 feet up. ... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived.”

Does anyone have a reason not to believe them?
Why does it seem no one has followed up with the many witnesses to get clarification and more details?


And if the plane from the NW crashed at the strip mine site, where did the debris at Indian Lake come from???

[skylarmae]

4. WOW - this is long, but WOW!

secrecy and deception at every turn from this administration. If they did have to shoot the planes out of the sky, then why just not say so. I've never bought the fact that our Air Force was so inept as to not even scramble and get anywhere as to be able to do any good.

[spooked911]

6. if flight93 was shot down, it would destroy their carefully crafted

passenger rebellion myth.

[NV Whino]

5. As for why not claim the shooting down of UA93

Here are my 2 cents worth. First, there were many people making split second decisions that day. Second, I believe someone made the decision to shoot down the plane. Third, someone at that time, for whatever reason, decided it was not politic to claim that we shot down our own UA93. The decision, once having been made, becomes the "official" story. The passenger rebellion may or may not have happened, but the "story" of the rebellion gives us heros and distracts us from what really may have happened.

Think about how solidly the repugnants stick to their talking points. These talking points, stated often enough, become "the truth."

[mikelewis]

8. Superb work - a couple of questions

Which direction and heading do you believe Flight 93 was heading and why?

In your last statement, "And to Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine who always insisted that the plane came from the east!", I am not clear on why you believe this. With all of these flights in the air and the reported directions, I am getting confused. Could you elaborate on this or point me to a site which explains in greater detail?

I have heard several different thoeries concerning the planes. I am not giving weight to any of them because I have no idea what happened. This is what I heard.

I have heard that the hijcked planes were switched somehow with 767 refueling tankers and then remote piloted into the buildings.

I have heard that the hijacked planes were taken over by remote control using technology available on the GlobalHawk.

I have heard that it was the real planes and that the terrorists were special jihadists who worked as CIA operatives in this attack.

I have heard the "Official Story" that it was UBL and his mojo that did the trick.

I have no idea what to believe, I just know I don't believe "them". What conclusions do you draw from this material as they apply to the bigger picture of the attack?

What is your guess as to the intended target of flight "93"?

Have you personally contacted witnesses to the crash? If you haven't, is there some way we can get a hold of them, through e-mail, letters, whatever and ask them to comment on this article?

Excellent work BTW.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[spooked911]

11. Good questions-- and this is what most 9/11 researchers have been trying

to sort out. I don't think John Doe knows the answer and I bet he may not even want to speculate in this forum.

One thing that is very intriguing along the lines of what you are asking is the fact that NORAD was actually running a live-fly hijacking exercise on the day of 9/11. This was confirmed by Mike Ruppert and you can read about it in his book "crossing the Rubicon".

So my guess is that the 9/11 attacks were some bizarre spin-off from this hijacking exercise. But how exactly it was put together is not clear.

Clearly the government is covering a lot up about 9/11 and I suspect it is because there is major incriminating evidence of US government involvement in the attacks.

[John Doe II]

17. You seem to know me

"I don't think John Doe knows the answer and I bet he may not even want to speculate in this forum."

To some extent you're right.
I think it is very important to simply demonstrate that the story is a lie and that we can prove it is a lie.
Unfortunately if I would have included what I think really happened (as it is in the nature of any scenario there are still holes) all the OTC would have been happy to completely neglect the demonstration of the lie, the whole analysis of the eyewitnesses and would have only jocked at the hole in my scenario.
So, please understand me, that I patiently will wait a bit if there is anybody around DU who will try to challenge the article.

For what I think of the shoot down scenario (as you believe in it, too) please check out my thoughts in my answer just before your post.

Btw I'm working on my scenario. But till it will be solid enough to present it I'll need a couple of days....

[Old and In the Way]

102. Were 93, 175,11, and 77 involved in those exercises?

Why don't we know the answer to this question?

[MercutioATC]

103. We do know. They weren't.

[John Doe II]

19. I'll try some answers

Thanks a lot Michael Lewis (and everybody else who found the time to check this article out a bit).

Which direction and heading do you believe Flight 93 was heading and why?

In the first chapter I show (based on all the eyewitnesses who I was able to localise) that the plane was coming from northwest, west. This corresponds to the official flight path.


In your last statement, "And to Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine who always insisted that the plane came from the east!", I am not clear on why you believe this. With all of these flights in the air and the reported directions, I am getting confused. Could you elaborate on this or point me to a site which explains in greater detail?

Sure, I can. This last sentence is intended as crediting theses two investigators their research. In fact the whole idea of analysing the eyewitnesses and loclaising them came up when I had a discussion with them and they were convinced that the plane that crashed came from east across Indian Lake and not from northwest (as seen by eyewitnesses). I don't share this opinion but one thing has to be stressed: The raining debris is in the east and as I've shown can't have been from the crash site but neither from the shoot down of UA 93 (because it came from northwest and never crossed Indian Lake). Therefore either we assume that UA 93 crossed Indian Lake and caused the raining debris (then of course what the hell created the crater??) or we have to wonder where the debris is coming from: Is I pointed out: Either it was dropped on purpose by the white jet (clearly indicating that the destruction of UA 93 was planned long beforehand and NO last minute decision....) or we even have to assume another plane that has been mentioned NOWHERE so far.

What is your guess as to the intended target of flight "93"?
This is pure speculation and would like to avoid this so far because I would like all OTC to face the problem that they have to do some explanation to do. Here is the proof that the official story is BS.
But if you read between the lines you will easily figure out if I believe that Washington was the target or not ....

Have you personally contacted witnesses to the crash? If you haven't, is there some way we can get a hold of them, through e-mail, letters, whatever and ask them to comment on this article?

No, I haven't. So far I didn't see any need. All reports are from the days right after 911 and their stories are (with few exceptions) very coherent. I only really would like to know where Susan Mcelwain was located.

I think I read on another thread about UA 93 that there is a DU member leaving very close to the crash site. If this persons reads this lines I would like very much if you could please contact me if you have some details or if there could be a contact with witnesses.

Excellent work BTW.

Thanks very much. And thanks very much for your questions as well and I hope that answered them. Otherwise please don't hesitate to bring them again!

[philb]

96. What do you think about the plane from the East & debris at Indian Lake &

New Baltimore. Where did that come from and how did it get there?

[Andre II]

105. This is a very good question

and crucial, too.

[greyl]

106. edit: I regret contributing to the bump - self delete. nt

[planeman]

107. The New Baltimore story was just an erroneuse report.

These kinds of reports surface all the time during such tragic and unpredictable events.I do not see anything suspiciouse about the new Baltimore story.Just erroneouse reporting.

[Andre II]

108. Why do you think

the witnesses' accounts were erroneuse reports?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

10. That's a good piece-- thanks!

[Ian David]

12. Not all conspiracies are true, and not all conspiracies are false

The hard part is figuring out when the government is lying to us, when the government is simply mistaken, and when the gorvernment happens to actually be telling us the truth.

We have to be as skeptical about what the conspiracy theorists are telling us as we are about what the government is telling us.

[Abe Linkman]

13. After you read the article, you'll be better able to know which is which.

What makes it easier to know when the government is lying?

* Knowledge of history
* Knowledge of politics
* Knowledge of human nature (Govt's don't lie, PEOPLE do)
* Ability and willingness to THINK
* Ability to reason logically
* Knowledge of what the following groups want:
1.) Industrialists
2.) Military
3.) Mainstream religions
4.) Wealthy people

[Make7]

14. No conspiracy theories?

"There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber, so the newly invented psycho-babble that tries to explain the malady of conspiracy theorists, also needs to explain why millions of conspiracy theorists all decided not to theorize about those events. There is no psychological malady. There was simply no evidence to indicate a conspiracy." - Jolly Roger

No conspiracy theories?
__________

Pan Am Flight 103 - Speculation and Conspiracy Theories

What if...? Conspiracy theories on the Lockerbie Case

__________

"When the Unabomber was arrested I informed you that Kaczynski was the victim of a mind-control operation. And of course, as usual, nobody believed that such a thing could be possible... not in America. Unfortunately the America that the Sheople envision ceased to exist a long time ago. Alexander Cockburn confirmed my research when he revealed Tuesday, July6, in a Los Angeles Times copyrighted column, that Theodore (Ted) Kaczynski, the Unabomber, was a volunteer in Harvard conducted mind-control experiments sponsored by the CIA in the 1950's and 60's." - William Cooper Hour Of The Time (HOTT) Radio Broadcast

Understanding Unabom

__________

Perhaps, not as many conspiracy theories would have been more accurate.

Make7

[Ifonly]

24. Good job, Make7!

[Woody Box]

21. Absolutely brillliant - as usual! nT

[John Doe II]

22. Great

to have you back here, Woody!

[mikelewis]

23. Is it possible that the plane coming from the east...

was the switch plane?

According to a popular theory, the planes that flew into the towers and the pentagon were not the flights that were reported. The theory is that they were switched in flight, somehow. Would these 2 planes lend any credibility to this theory?

[spooked911]

29. yes-- makes sense to me.

if you buy such the plane switch theory, which seems plausible to me.

[meppie-meppie not]

33. I've heard about the switch plane theory but then what happened to

those passenger planes that were switched?

[spooked911]

35. That's the catch, isn't it?

If there WAS a plane swap. the most likely explanation is that the planes were flown out over the ocean and shot down--- possibly by a pilot who thought he was shooting down a passengerless drone.

The other possibilities are
1) assign everyone new identities and tell them to remain quiet about the whole event (very unlikely due to expense and hard to keep it secret)
2) they cleared out the planes and butchered all the flight people and passengers (hard to believe, but not impossible if it was really a US covert op)
3) every one from the first three planes was loaded onto flight 93, which then was shot down (tricky but not impossible)

The fact is, we simply don't know what happened.

[Abe Linkman]

37. One thing that we DO know.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie.

[meppie-meppie not]

40. when you people refer to the OCT are you referring to the one

wherein OBL's group orchestrated, financed and carried out the suicide hijackings?

[meppie-meppie not]

39. I'm about 1/2 way through "The Puzzle Palace" (the NSA) and I'm

reading about it and other spook agencies because I thinks it's important to understand about these "intelligence" agencies(for me anyway)since they figure so prominently in 9/11. All these various intelligence failures don't square with what I'm reading (books) so far. Your point #1, I'm with you. Too expensive and virtually impossible to keep it mum. Point #2, really gory and I find it difficult to fathom. Point #3, very tricky and I think going through all the flight logs etc there would have to be a record of the plane they were loaded onto somewhere, that plane landing to pick them up and take off and it would have to be more than one plane (I would think) because of the different locales of the passengers. Seems like a logistics nightmare.

So ya, I'm back at not knowing what really happened at this juncture.

[Abe Linkman]

41. Would you feel more comfortable just believing what unca gdub tells you?

You'll have lots of company, that's for sure.

[meppie-meppie not]

42. until I get ALL the answers that satisfy me, until there is a real

investigation into the before, during and after of 9/11 and until those responsible are held accountable, I'll just keep searching as I am now, thank you

[John Doe II]

26. Dear OTCler!

I admit that I'm a bit dissappointed...

This article clearly proves that there was a very strange encounter of the plane and a white jet exactly at the crash site.
Iit also proves that the raining debris can't have come from the airplane from the west that is supposed to have been UA 93.

Don't you have any questions?
Don't you have any counter arguments?
Or is this ok for you that the official theory is proven wrong?

[meppie-meppie not]

34. forgive me for a stupid question...

what is OTC?

[spooked911]

36. Official Conspiracy Theorist (I think)

[meppie-meppie not]

38. thanks spooked! I'll get the lingo eventually :-) n/t

[gbwarming]

27. Re part 1. The commission report agrees with the eyewitness reports.

Generally, flt 93 was descended, rolled to the right, and crashed. Nowhere does the report use the term 'nosedived'.

You seem to equate 'headed down' with nosedive when you wrote:
So we the Commission draws the image of a plane that during 48 seconds flys headdown at maximum speed into the ground.
I'd interpret it instead as 'began it's journey down'.

The commission report couldn't possibly match the all of the eyewitness accounts exactly because they have their own inconsistencies - Consider the altitude reports from Storystown of 2500 feet, 500 feet and 100-200 feet.

---
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf
The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.”With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville,Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington,D.C.


Added on Edit: speed - I don't see any speed description in the eyewitness accounts other than "It was moving like you wouldn't believe". How do you conclude that statement is inconsistant with the report's 580mph?

re the earlier NTSB estimate: It seems likely to me from the context of the original article that the "more than 200 mph" is based on observations of fragmentation of debris at the impact site rather than the radar track or FDR. In any case, "more than 200 mph" is not inconsisant with 580 mph.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09...

[John Doe II]

28. Thanks very much

for raising questions and having read the article in detail!

Concerning the nosediving:
The description of the Commission and the decision of the hijacker to crash the plane as fast as possible at the crash happening at maximum speed implies that the plane dived at quite an angle.
But unfortunately none of the eyewitnesses see a plane that descendes rapidly. On the contrary the plane flys for several miles at an altitude of a few hundred feet and flys rather horizontally (shaking its wings - which is NOT mentioned in the CR). Only behind the trees (already at treelevel) it nosedived.
Reading the eyewitnesses accounts: If there was a decision to crash the plane then it only happened at the very end at an altitude of 40 feet...
The story of hijackers being completely decided for 48 seconds to crash the plane and the slowly descending plane that wobbles to the left and to the right doesn't correspond at all.


Unfortunately the Commission doesn't consider ANY eyewitness (otherwise they would have a hard time explaining the white plane) and only the account of Linda Sshepley is in so far inconsistent concerning the altitude (and I mentioned her nonetheless because I wish to give a comlpete picture). Otherwise altitude is difficult to estimate and moreover two witnesses from the same village are not neccesarrily at the same point so I don't think it's strange that one give 500 and somebody else 100 -200 feet. Moreover all their observation concering th behavior of the plane is surprisingly coherent.

Concerning the speed: More than 200 mph is not inconsistent with 580 mph (but, sorry, it's a very surprising way of giving the speed in an official statement: How old are you over 20 if in fact you're 58 ...)
The New York Times article btw says 300 mph wich is clearly not consistent with 580mph.


But what do you think about my two main points:
The interesting meeting with the white jet.
And that the raining debris at Indian Lake can't have been from the plane coming from the west?

[gbwarming]

30. You're very polite, Thank you.

But you must also see that you have drawn two inferences in you first paragraph which are not in the report:
1. decision of the hijacker to crash the plane as fast as possible I don't see why you infer that.

2. crash happening at maximum speed implies that the plane dived at quite an angle It would take a detailed knowledge of the 767 performance to know what angle might be required to attain 580 mph at various power settings. I think it might not be very steep at all, but I'm just guessing. Do you have that information?

Coming back to the speed, I'm baffled at how you determined the "eyewitness' reports don't support the officially claimed speed of 580mph" since they don't make any speed estimates at all. The 300mph claim in the 9/14 NYT doesn't bother me at all since it is attributed to an unspecified "law enforcement authorities" with apparently no special qualifications to make that judgement. That was the day the flight recorder was recovered so it's obvious that it had not yet been analysed. The 200mph story also stated that the CVR and FDR data was not yet available.

It's not clear exactly when the eyewitnesses observe wing shaking or wobbling but the CR does talk about rolling and pitching up until 10:01.

I share your opinion that altitude estimate are very difficult to make. Hopefully the FBI will eventually release the NTSB data and these questions can be resolved. In the meantime I remain unconvinced that the CR contradicts the eyewitness accounts.

---
I have some comments on the other sections but I'm such a slow poster that I'll just make a couple to start with on #2.

The F-16 story comes from a single source - an unnamed Boston ATC who heard it from someone else. That's not much to go on.

I find it entirely normal that ATC would ask another aircraft under their control to look for a missing aircraft - they are the only quick way the ATC has to findout anything that's not on radar.

[tngledwebb]

31. Do you have any questions at all about the official story?

I am going to bet money that you don't. But try global warming instead, or the perhaps the legacy of Woodrow Wilson?

[John Doe II]

32. Some answers

But you must also see that you have drawn two inferences in you first paragraph which are not in the report:
1. decision of the hijacker to crash the plane as fast as possible I don't see why you infer that.

2. crash happening at maximum speed implies that the plane dived at quite an angle It would take a detailed knowledge of the 767 performance to know what angle might be required to attain 580 mph at various power settings. I think it might not be very steep at all, but I'm just guessing. Do you have that information?

The CR clearly states that the hijackers decided to crash the plane themselves because due to the passengers that were attacking the cockpit they felt that there was no chance anymore to fulfill their mission. So I think it's rather save to assume that the hijackers would try to crash the plane as fast as possible and not to go for a sightseeing tour. As I said the passengers could have gained access into the cockpit at any second. Therefore I think it's logical to expect a plane going down at quite an angle and the CR hints in this direction: "The airplane headed down" (CR, 14). But eyewitnesses don't see a plane that heads down trying to crash into the ground as fast as possible. This plane at the end flies horizontally and the actual movment that crashed the plane happened at treelevel. This was clearly not 48 seconds before the crash.

Moreover when the hijackers came to the decision to crash the plane the plane was maximum at an altitude of 6000 feet (Stacey Taylor, NBC, 9/11/02). (If we would believe the guys from Johnstown it was even lower already. But as I don't buy the Johnstown story anyway let's go for the conservative guess). Moreover let's assume the heading down happened at a speed of 500 mph (this again seems conservative guess in view of the official 580 mph). As it took 48 seconds from the decision to finally crash the plane we can conclude that the plane managed still 6,7 miles (Remark that this contradicts already eyewitnesses from Boswell who were 8 miles from the crash site and saw it at an altitude of 2000 feet). But even if we overlook this contradiction the official numbers imply that the plane descended at an angle of about 10°. Sorry, but this sounds more like a sight seeing tour than the planned crash of a plane to me.


Coming back to the speed, I'm baffled at how you determined the "eyewitness' reports don't support the officially claimed speed of 580mph" since they don't make any speed estimates at all. The 300mph claim in the 9/14 NYT doesn't bother me at all since it is attributed to an unspecified "law enforcement authorities" with apparently no special qualifications to make that judgement. That was the day the flight recorder was recovered so it's obvious that it had not yet been analysed. The 200mph story also stated that the CVR and FDR data was not yet available.

Putting it this way. I find it rather odd that the estimations of the speed vary that much. Adding to this no eyewitness talked of an airplane going extremly fast. Contrary to several eyewitnesses at the Pentagon.


It's not clear exactly when the eyewitnesses observe wing shaking or wobbling but the CR does talk about rolling and pitching up until 10:01.

No, it's very clear. Also the last witnesses to see the plane talk of the wobbling wings. As crossing the few trees before the crash site certainly took less than two minutes we can savely assume that the wobbling of the wings happened after 10:01 and therefore is not mentioned in the CR.

The F-16 story comes from a single source - an unnamed Boston ATC who heard it from someone else. That's not much to go on.

No, there are several sources and he is quoted directly: Shortly after 9/11, a flight controller in New Hampshire ignores a ban on controllers speaking to the media, and it is reported he claims "that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said. 'He must've seen the whole thing,' the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash." (AP, 9/13/01, Nashua Telegraph, 9/13/01) See Paul Thompson's Timeline.

I find it entirely normal that ATC would ask another aircraft under their control to look for a missing aircraft - they are the only quick way the ATC has to findout anything that's not on radar.

Ok. I quoted the Independent here and I put all this airplanes together cause I think it's pretty impressive what all is flying around there also the planes are requested for long now to land.


In general I'd be happy to hear your opinion about the two important and central aspects of the article (so far you only raised questions to aspects I had already presented in the thread "Flight 93: Too many contradictions"):

The encounter of the white jet and the plane. Completely omitted of course by the CR. And the explanation of the FBI is simply ridicolous.

And the raining debris in the east which can't have been from UA 93. So even a shoot down scenario wouldn't explain anything.
Where does the debris come from?
I think theses questions do really require answers!

[John Doe II]

43. Doubting the wind ...

SECTION: STATE, Pg.A-1

LENGTH: 1780 words

HEADLINE: BLACK BOX FOUND FROM SUICIDE FLIGHT

BYLINE: JAMES O'TOOLE, TOM GIBB AND CINDI LASH, POST-GAZETTE STAFF

DATELINE: STONYCREEK, Pa.

BODY:
After hours of sifting through the grave of United Flight 93, investigators unearthed a flight data recorder that could answer key questions about the deaths of 45 people here while pointing to the solution of the larger, still more horrific mystery of the four coordinated hijackings that struck the nation Tuesday.

The electronic device represents half of the most coveted goal of this crash site search -- the so-called black box that archived the final moments of the Boeing 757. Emergency workers were still combing a reclaimed coal mine and the surrounding countryside for the cockpit voice recorder that forms the other part of the black box.

Although they are called black boxes, the devices actually are housed in separate orange boxes.

The voice recorder could offer dramatic insight into the possibility that Flight 93 met its end after a desperate struggle between passengers convinced that they were doomed and terrorists who had taken over the jetliner.

"We're trying to find out exactly what happened ... the development that happened 15 minutes ago will help a lot," FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said as he interrupted a routine afternoon briefing to convey the news.

The flight data recorder, if intact, would allow investigators to determine crucial information including the course, speed, and maneuvers the plane made in the final moments before it plunged into a hillside. Crowley said he did not know if the flight data recorder was intact or if information could be extracted from it.

Almost immediately after its discovery at 4:20 p.m., it was on its way to Washington to be examined by experts at the National Transportation Safety Board.

The data recorder was discovered buried within the wedge-shaped crater that marks the impact of the plane. While discovering that crucial artifact at the exact center of the crime scene, investigators were at the same time casting their net over a broader area in response to discoveries of more debris -- including what appeared to some residents to be human remains -- miles from the site of the explosive crash.

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that the first human remains were removed from the site yesterday in a prelude to the somber challenge of identifying the 45 victims. While the investigation at the site began to settle into a grim routine, investigators were also preparing for possible visits to the site by families of the victims.

"We're prepared to do whatever we can to help them with the grieving process," said Crowley of the FBI's Pittsburgh office.

The investigation's chief priority now is the search for the cockpit voice recorder.

If found, it will be scrutinized for signs of what may have been a terrifying struggle that kept the fuel-laden Boeing 757 from hitting a potential target in a populated area. Cell phone calls from passengers have fueled speculation about such a scenario along with the fact that this was the only one of the four planes that crashed Tuesday that did not hit a populated, high-profile target.

Crowley, speaking hours before the data recorder surfaced, emphasized that the recordings might disclose "what everyone desperately wants to know: what was happening on that plane."

Also yesterday, state police Maj. Lyle Szupinka confirmed that bits of debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung spots, including the residential area around Indian Lake, approximately two miles from the crash site, and in New Baltimore, more than six miles away. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across debris in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville said they found clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some said they collected bags of items to be turned over to investigators.

Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake.

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.

Those discoveries, which ranged from a five-inch bone fragment to an endorsed paycheck as much as eight miles downwind of the crash site, sent investigators on a hunt across a countryside that is mostly farms and woodlands. Bits of debris probably blew even farther, Szupinka said.

Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."

When it got to Terry Lowery's 65-acre farm, about three-quarters of a mile away, "it just looked like it was raining down," Lowery said.

"Paper, insulation and mail -- I picked a bunch up," he said.

Yesterday, a state police helicopter circled overhead as much as five miles downwind of the crash site. Its mission: to find debris -- mostly paper, postage stamp-size pieces of rubberized material and strands of charred insulation.

On Wednesday morning, marina Service Manager John Fleegle found what he figured was a bone, washed up on one of the marina's concrete boat launches.

"It was maybe five inches long. It put me in mind of maybe a rib bone," Fleegle said. "I called the state police. They contacted the FBI, and they picked it up."

Six miles to the southeast, at New Baltimore, a town of 630 people, Andy Stoe was in his yard Wednesday night when he found two scraps of paper -- one an endorsed check for $698, made out to a San Jose, Calif. man who was not on the passenger list. The other paper was a financial statement, singed around the edges.

In Indian Lake, another crumpled financial statement lay amid thumbnail-size pieces of fabric and charred plastic, scattered across back yards.

On the Lowery farm, it rained financial statements -- enough that Lowery and wife Gerry had a handful in the three one-gallon plastic bags of debris they turned over to investigators.

"They said they found unopened mail," Gerry Lowery said of the mix of state police and FBI searchers who walked almost shoulder-to-shoulder through their fields all day Wednesday and yesterday. "They found a picture, a snapshot of a baby. That just caused goose bumps for me."

Szupinka said that lighter, smaller debris probably shot into the air on the heat of a fireball that witnesses said shot several hundred feet into the air after the jetliner crashed. Then, it probably rode a wind that was blowing southeast at about 9 mph, Crowley said.

"According to the NTSB, not only is that possible ... it is probable that this stuff is debris from this crash," he said. He and Szupinka said additional debris may be submerged in the lake, as well as in a drainage pond near the crash crater, and may have to be retrieved later by divers.

Responding to questions about recurring rumors that Flight 93 might have been shot down by a military aircraft in order to prevent it from reaching a strategic or more-populated target, Crowley said that no possibility was being ruled out at this early stage of the investigation. Yesterday afternoon however, he took pains to do just that -- trying to stamp out any notion that military planes were in any way involved with the end of Flight 93.

"There was no military involvement in what happened here," Crowley said. "I hope that ends that line of questioning and we can move forward with other issues."

Crowley also said that NTSB data showed that two other aircraft were within 25 miles of the crash. He said that he did not know if either was a military aircraft but he repeated that neither played a role in the crash.

Investigators also began to move human remains discovered from the crash site to a temporary morgue that opened yesterday in a nearby Pennsylvania National Guard Armory. There, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, other coroners from around the state and forensic experts will use equipment shipped in yesterday on a specially outfitted truck to analyze fragments of skin, bone, hair and teeth and compare them to victims' medical records..

That effort will be aided by Dr. Dennis Dirkmaat, a professor of forensic anthropology from Mercyhurst College in Erie, who yesterday arrived to assist with the recovery and identification of remains from the site. That task will be very difficult, Dirkmaat said, because of the relatively large size of the crime scene and the "extreme fragmentation" nature of the remains, but he said he and other forensic investigators were committed to identify as many victims as possible.

"It is very troubling to try to put a human face on this. ... We really feel very badly about what happened," he said. "On the other hand, we have a job to do for the families."

Investigators warned the media and the simply curious to stay off the crash site, saying that efforts to analyze evidence found there could be compromised if people have touched, walked on or disturbed it.

"Not only is this a crime scene, this is a temple burial yard for these victims," Szupinka said.

Indeed, the reclaimed coal mine where the plane crashed had taken on the guise of a memorial as several U.S. flags were duct-taped at half-staff to light standards and cellular telephone towers and on new flag poles that were hastily erected at the entrance to the site.

More flags, patriotic signs and expressions of sympathy to victim's families also sprouted in windows and yards in neighboring towns. Hand-made construction paper flags and the declaration "I Love America" filled every inch of the windows in the elementary school in nearby Friedens.

State police yesterday arrested two men who they identified as free-lance photographers on assignment for the New York Times Sunday Magazine after the men walked into and began taking photographs in an area of the crash site that has been off-limits to residents and reporters. The men, identified as William Wendt and Dan Mahoney, both of Great Barrington, Mass., were arraigned and released after pleading guilty to a charge of defiant trespass.

Troopers said they also arrested two sightseers Wednesday night after the pair attempted to penetrate the cordoned-off crash area in an attempt to take photographs. Police did not identify those people but said they were charged with disorderly conduct and possession of marijuana.

NOTES:
THE ATTACK ON AMERICA THE SOMERSET CRASH

GRAPHIC:
PHOTO: Steve Mellon/Post-Gazette photos: Above, John Fleegle, who works at a marina at Indian Lake, reaches into the water to retrieve small pieces of charred debris from United Flight 93, which crashed less than 2 miles away. Fleegle took FBI agents out into the lake. "They found papers with names on them, medical reports -- test results from a medical checkup -- checks from a checkbook, a picture. It must have been a picture of somebody's child," Fleegle said.
PHOTO: Below, a torn piece of paper bearing the logo of Morgan Stanley, a financial services company, was found under a stone several yards from the lake, apparently part of the Flight 93 debris.
PHOTO: An FBI agent in a field near Indian Lake carries a paper bag for any debris he might collect from the crash of United Airlines Flight 93.
INFORMATIONAL GRAPHIC: Associated Press; Los Angeles Times: (Black box found)
MAP: Post-Gazette: (Somerset crash site)

LOAD-DATE: September 14, 2001



Special Thanks to Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine

[John Doe II]

44. Enjoy the silence!

It's kinda of strange.
One proves in a very simple way that the official story is BS.
That the FBI lied about the white jet.
That the NTSB lied about the possibility of the wind being responsible for the raining debris and most likely they also lied about the direction of the wind on 911.
And the reaction of the people who never see anything to be seriously questioned about the story of 911 is complete silence.
No one so far has tried to challenge the prove.
Guys, what's up?

[Last Lemming]

45. Donald Rumsfeld told us

who was in that jet--
the same people that chop off heads in Iraq. . .

op. sit.

[John Doe II]

46. Second part out

There is a second part out which shows that the plane coming from the west can't have created the crater of UA 93.

Besides for all people having problems with the location of the eywitnesses while reading the second part: Maybe it's helpful to have a look at this post to see the locations and different maps.

[exploited]

47. The two distinct white jets theme is interesting.

Firstly the Falcon 20 clearly fits some descriptions. It's a loud mid-sized business jet. If I were to describe it's most distinctive feature it would be the large tail with the large horizontal stabiliser half way up -- the design is a bit unusual.



Feegle said. "It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail."
"The aircraft appeared to have an unusually tall vertical stabilizer"
'Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail'

If you want to question the pictured aircraft model please note that Fairchild, Dassault and Dornier are related companies due to capitalist fun'n'games and the Falcon 20 is also known as the Mystère 20

BTW is appears to have an operational descent rate of 2200fpm so expect around 13min to safely descend from 34000' to 5000'.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/cnt/5-1-D.htm

Now, the quiet white jet. The following description brings one to mind immediately.

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."

The A-10 warthog -- a specialist low altitude, low noise, twin engine, military aircraft with twin vertical stabilisers (fins).



"It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound."
"We looked up and there was this big jet going overhead and it was pretty low and we could not hear the engines. It was like they were off."

'The A-10 has two TF34-100 high bypass Turbofan engines. There was several reasons that the Turbofan engine was chosen for propulsion, including their low fuel consumptions, low heat-signature, an low noise-level. The A-10 is in fact so quiet, that during the Gulf War, pilots discovered that the Iraqi soldiers could not hear the plane if they flew above 5000 feet, making the A-10 a silent gun especially at night.'
http://kom.aau.dk/~august/a-10protect_2.htm

Interesting thread. More stuff to muddy the waters and strenghten my position -- I'm sure the difinite answers are either lies or speculation and I have no idea what happened.

[exploited]

48. FWIW, the 911 report contradicts the FBI Falcon 20 claim

Your question:
'Is there any possible reason not to call the FBI’s explanation for the undeniable presence of the white jet at the crash site a clear lie?'

One possible answer:
The 911 Commission report puts a C-130 at the crash scene 2 minutes after impact.

Here is what the FBI has to give as explanation:
"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."'

Well, 'some minutes after the crash' -- two minutes in fact -- the C-130 that witnessed the Pentagon crash was on the scene of the Flight 93 crash. The 911 report also raises questions about the possibility of two jets in the area "some minutes" before the crash.

Extract from 911 Commission Report

At 9:53, FAA headquarters informed the Command Center that the deputy
director for air traffic services was talking to Monte Belger about scrambling
aircraft. Then the Command Center informed headquarters that controllers
had lost track of United 93 over the Pittsburgh area. Within seconds, the Command
Center received a visual report from another aircraft, and informed head-quarters
that the aircraft was 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. United 93 was
spotted by another aircraft (a second aircraft perhaps? -- what masterful report writing), and, at 10:01, the Command Center advised FAA headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 "waving his wings."
The aircraft had witnessed the hijackers’ efforts to defeat the passengers’ counterattack.
The report timeline states that the passenger revolt began at 9:57

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington,
D.C.
(...)
Five minutes later, the 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.
Question for the FBI: Who asked the Falcon 20 for assistance "some minutes" after the crash? FAA and the CC were still speculating about the crash "some minutes" later
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
27 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.

911 Commission report, pp. 29-30.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Another issue:
The report states that the aircraft that witnessed the passenger revolt saw Flight 93 'waving it's wings'. I would like to raise another issue here.

No doubt the OCT can explain the waving of wings as a struggle for control of the aircraft but in aviation terms it can mean a signal to comply with an intercept aircraft's instructions.

INTERCEPTING Aircraft Signals
DAY-Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft and, after acknowledgement, a slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading.

Meaning
You have been intercepted. Follow me.

INTERCEPTED Aircraft Responds
AEROPLANES:
DAY-Rocking wings and following.

Meaning
Understood, will comply.
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html


My point here:
I lisenced jet pilot would be aware of this procedure. Rocking/waving wings is a signal -- a signal of compliance (it may also be a signal of distress but I can't find a reference). It must have been a fairly controlled manoeuvre for a pilot to describe it in those terms.

Reasons Flight 757 may have been rocking it's wings minutes before the crash:
* Some kind of cockpit struggle -- or perhaps we could expect a more violent flight pattern
* The hijacker pilot could'nt fly properly
* The hijacker pilot saw an intercept aircraft and responded accordingly -- except failed to follow and...
* It just gets wierd from here

BTW, why hasn't the Falcon 20 or pilot ever been identified? Did they make it home?

I'm not into CT's in a big way but I ask you -- how can you we not question the OCT (and look where the questions lead)?

[John Doe II]

49. Thanks a lot for all your info!

I'll try to come back to it a couple of days!
Thanks very much!

[exploited]

53. Maybe the waving of wings was for another reason.

I've done some more reading of the 911 report and drawn a few more assumptions:

1) The hijacker pilot deliberately waved the wings to unbalance the passengers but only during a 3 minute period.
2) The passengers probably never breached the cockpit.
3) A very specific flight data record exists somewhere yet this report only uses the information in an anecdotal manner which IMO obfuscates the true sequence of events.
4) The 911 report is a sloppy pile of crap.

This is a summary of the flight conditions of Flight 93 beginning at the time of the passenger revolt:

* Aircraft was rolling (waving wings) in the 3 minute period between 9:57 and 9:59:52
(Must assume that's what the Falcon 20 saw.)

* The aircraft was pitching (nose up and down) in the 11 seconds between 9:59:52 and 10:00:03

* Aircraft stabilised at 10:00:03

* No mention of any changed flight condition until 10:01:00 when the pilot 'stopped the violent manouvres' (?)

* Crash begins with a hard right turn at 10:02:23


Expanded timeline to describe the causes of the altered flight conditions

9:57
Passenger revolt begins -- people running up to first class.
Cockpit door closed.
At some time Jarrah (hijacker pilot) began rolling the aircraft left and right to try to knock the passengers off their feet.

9:58:57
Passengers trying to breach the cockpit.
Jarrah continues rolling.

9:59:52
Jarrah stops rolling, starts pitching nose up and down.

10:00:03
Jarrah stabilises the aircraft

10:00:08
Jarrah asks if he should finish it off (crash it)
Another hijacker says no, wait till they all come
Fighting still outside of cockpit

10:00:26
Passenger said,"In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!" (so presumably not in cockpit yet)

10:00:42
Passenger says "Roll it" (so maybe this is where the struggle for control begins -- or maybe not -- read on)

Now this is odd!

10:01:00
Jarrah 'stopped the violent maneuvers at about' this time. (WTF! is there a fight for control or not?)
Jarrah asked again about putting it down now and the response is yes.
The passenger assault continues

10:02:23
Hijacker says "pull it down"
Hijackers remain at controls.
Turn hard right and initiate crash descent.



Extract from page 14 of 911 report that contains the above info -- no need to read

At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated
phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers
ended her message as follows:"Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to
go. Bye."

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault
muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened
to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the
din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sus-tained.

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and
right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault.
(...)
At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked,"Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker
responded,"No. Not yet.When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of
fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the
aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said,"In the
cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,"Roll
it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said,"Allah is
the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, "
Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes,
put it in it, and pull it down."
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said,"Pull
it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have
judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them.The air-plane
headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.

[exploited]

50. One more thing

The A-10 doesn't just fire missiles. It's built around a very high powered, rapid fire cannon. In the Gulf War it's role was as a tank buster using this cannon to shred the enemy.

It could probably accurately take out specific control surfaces of another aircraft so that control is diminished to the extent that it just falls like a stone -- unlike the random nature of a missile strike. Then again, using the cannon would be bound to attract attention.

???

[MercutioATC]

51. Have you EVER heard of an A-10 being used as an air to air weapon?

All I know of A-10s is what I've read, but it was designed (and is used) as a close air support weapon (air to ground). I've never heard of it being used as an air to air weapon...I don't even know if it's capable of that.

[exploited]

52. I agree

I've only heard of air to ground attack. Like I say I'm only speculating here. Can you see any reason why it couldn't go air to air -- with the right missiles in the slots and that frickin great gun on the front? If "the powers that be" wanted to commission a low profile white intercept jet then I reckon it would be a good starting platform compared to the alternatives.

Also, I'm glad you responded here. Do you think the A-10 fits the description or can you think of any other aircraft that might (not necesserily military).

[MercutioATC]

54. I have issues with an A-10 being used.

It's slow. Bigtime slow, compared to other military planes (and to commercial passenger planes). It's also not a good air to air platform. With all of the possible planes at their disposal, using an A-10 just doesn't make sense.


The description doesn't sound like any jet I've heard of. I really think the eyewitness just saw the ExecJet that volunteered to check up on UAL93.

[exploited]

55. You could be right

420 mph is not exactly big time slow but it wouldn't chase down a charging 757.
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-10_warthog.pl#sp...

The A-10 doesn't make sense as a pursuit jet but what about as a remote stationed intercept? Short take off, fairly benign looks (witness wise -- compared to other military jets). Pull some big moves on the passenger jet, scare the speed off it, etc...

So the ExecJet (purportedly the Falcon 20) volunteered to assist or was it asked? Assuming the FBI BS story can't be true (if you believe the 911 report ) because the report says a C-130 was on the scene less than 2 minutes later, in a period when the FAA and Command Center were still speculating about the possibility of a crash. I assume that must mean it can only have volunteered, knowing of the hijacking and as a witness to the wing waving (in that 3 minute window between 9:57 and 10:00 - 911 report), somewhere around 20 miles northwest of Johnstown (911 report), while on it's way to the land at the nearest strip due the nationwide stop issued 27 minutes before. Sheesh! A navigator with flight maps would be needed to verify the feasibility of the sighting... or maybe an ATC, but you're on the debunker side I believe.

I suppose it doesn't matter if none of this makes sense to me. The 911 report doesn't make sense. It's all BS. The C-130 shot the shit out everything. Out.

[John Doe II]

57. Speed

Speed is not important.
The white plane came from the east. The official UA 93 from the west. So the white plane wasn't chasing UA 93 but had an interesting meeting with UA 93...
Moreover every shoot down scenario of UA 93 can't have happened on the west of the crash site. There where UA 93 flew officially and was seen bu many eyewitnesses. But nobody saw a white jet there. Nobody saw a shoot down and especially all debris that was raining down from the sky was EAST of the crash site. So if something was shot down it CAN'T have been the plane cominig in from the west that everybody assumes to have been UA 93. Then we would have two planes: The official UA 93 from the west and an unknown plane coming from the east that was shot down by the white plane. One plane destroyed and one plane .... vanished. This is the only possible scenario of a shoot down. And it immediately proves forknowledge and coordination that can't have been from our 19 hijackers .....

So, what everybody needs to understand. The typical excuse that well the US was forced to shoot down UA 93 and of course covered it up afterwards it simplpy isn't possible.

[exploited]

56. Seems I'm not the only one to suggest the A-10

This site has collated A LOT of info about Flight 93 and the rest.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html#white%20j...

Good stuff.

It claims the executive jet involved in Flight 93 was owned by NetJets and that company was owned by billionaire Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet spent the morning of 911 hosting a charity golf event at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, which is where the shrub flew to on Air Force One later in the day for safety.

P.S. I still reckon you could check the validity of the jet that did the waving wings sighting.

The 911 report puts it at a location in time and space. Check for the nearest airport that could accommodate a mid-size BizJet and assume it must be the destination. Connect the two points and trace the flightpath back to a point when the nationwide stop alert was given (some 30 minutes or so earlier I believe @ the Falcon 20 economical cruise speed of 470mph*). At this point check for the nearest airport that could accept the jet. If another airport is nearby then the sighting may be bogus. Coversely, if there are none it may be shown to be without doubt valid.

*
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=173

[John Doe II]

58. Airports

The closest is the very famous 911 Johnstown Airport who has the honor of an unexplained evacuation (all accounts are complete contradicitions see the Johnstwon Thread) and to be reason for a clear lie of the Commission (see The Commission lied). It's about 15 miles from the crash site. It's likely that there are closer and even extremely appropriate airports but I don't know what the minimum runway of our white jet would be.

[stickdog]

99. They have a bunch of A-10s at Willow Grove, PA. Just set an

intercept course, and you've got yourself a very effective air-to-passenger jet weapon.

[jschurchin]

100. One thing you have to admit...

though, an A-10 is a very unique looking aircraft. If you see one flying you would not mistake it for anything else. From the eyewitness's none of them report seeing anything resembling one. They all describe either a passenger jet or "the white jet", neither of which would be confused from the Wart-Hog.

[MercutioATC]

104. Not only that, the A-10 is SLOW.

Hardly the aircraft I'd choose as an interceptor...especially when the jet I was chasing was faster.

[philb]

67. Some of the witnesses shown pictures of options chose Swedish SAAB

military jet, not A10

The Swedish jet is fast and versitle.
But if it was not U.S. military they wouldn't have wanted to
fly it a Mach speeds.

[philb]

81. I thought that the witnesses confirmed jet was a swedish fighter

from pictures that have been circulated on the web.

SAAB I think. Who has the URL of the pictures of the the
SAAB and the A10? I've seen them widely, likely on DU too.

[John Doe II]

59. White plane

Any explanations for the presence of the white plane at the crash site? Any explanation for the fact that according to the eyewitnesses the white plane was clearly at the crash site at the moment of the crash or right after. Something the official tehory completely fails to explain?

[spooked911]

60. One thought I had was the white plane clearly wasn't

a missile-firing interceptor jet, like an F-16, and there weren't any flight 93 witnesses who described F-16s were there? But the physical evidence suggests that flight 93 was breaking up before it crashed.

In his new book, Webster Tarpley mentioned the idea that maybe flight 93 was destroyed in air by some high-tech microwave device or laser. Perhaps the white plane, which seems to be some ultra-secret military-type plane, was carrying some sort of high tech weapon that took down flight 93.

[philb]

82. The C130 was an electronic warfare plane that had ability to bring down

a plane by jamming its electronics, so some reports say.
There are a group of such planes used in electronic warfare operations, and the technology has been discussed on the web.

[hack89]

92. Nonsense

There is no such capability. The C130 was a cargo variant - I challenge you to show otherwise.

[philb]

94. I posted what I've seen said about the C130

If I get time I'll do a search, but can you produce documentation this one was a cargo variety. I'm aware some are electronic warfare platforms and it was said that this one was.

[hack89]

95. There is no ability to jam aircraft flight controls

as you originally stated. The EC-130 is used for radio frequency communications electronic eavesdropping and jamming.

[rs3787]

61. White plane theory

Great article, well written and with good use of witness statements and reports to make argument. A real eye opener.

Being in the UK I have not heard anything about UA-93 events except for the news reports at the time and was amazed by the discrepancies you highlighted.

I was interested by reports of a second plane and A-10 sounded right. A Google of US airbases that have A-10 showed one only 100 miles away from the crash site which really started me thinking!

So what happened to UA 93 crashed or shot down? For what it is worth, here is my take:


Flight Route
- 7.49am takes off
- 9.35 route u-turn (hijack takes place) Passengers start phoning friends and family. Mayday called
- At 9:46 the Command Center updated FAA headquarters that United 93 was now twenty-nine minutes out of Washington, D.C. knowing that two planes have already crashed into WTC
- At 9:49, 13 minutes after Cleveland Center had asked about getting military help, the Command Center suggested that someone at headquarters should decide whether to request military assistance:
FAA Headquarters: Theyre pulling Jeff away to go talk about United 93.
Command Center: Uh, do we want to think, uh, about scrambling aircraft?
FAA Headquarters: Oh, God, I dont know.
Command Center: Uh, thats a decision somebodys gonna have to make probably in the next ten minutes.
FAA Headquarters: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room
- 9.35 to 10.04 flight route suggests route to Philadelphia Airport
- At 10.04 flight path changes to south direct for Washington
- 10.06 UA 93 comes down

Witnesses report another plane in the area?
The 111thFW(ANG) was 100 miles away from Shaksville crash site and UA93 would have passed en-route
111th FW made up of F-16 and A-10s.
A-10 speed 420mph so would take 15 mins to cover 100 miles

Witnesses report that the circling plane had vertical tail planes.
Although both A-10 and F16 have vertical tail planes the F16 is instantly recognisable as a fighter jet, even though most witnesses did not identify. This suggest that the plane was more likely to be an A-10. A-10's entered service in the USAF around 1977, and as vulnerability of the A-10 was questioned it was slowly withdrawn in favour of the F-16. Although the A-10 was never exported, it was re-designated OA-10 for the Forward Air Control role. The only difference between the A-10 and OA-10 is that the OA-10 only carries smoke rockets and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defence.

The description of spoiler-like tail and vertical fins, white in colour is very close to the OA-10.
Colour light grey (often seems white against blue sky) and USAF markings very small (type OA-10 on Google images) Air to ground role allows tight turns over terrain which matches circling reports. F-16s too fast to circle area easily, witnesses would have reported a plane making passes instead.

One engine found 1 mile away and debris up to 6 miles away.
Armament of 2 AIM-9 plus Gatling Gun would support this. 4200 rounds per min would shred fuselage and AIM-9 is a heat seeking air-to-air missile, which would have targeted the engine.
The engines are quite close to the fuselage so any strike may blow open the fuselage or passenger compartment sucking debris out through air pressure.
Boeing 757 can remain flying on one engine at slower speed. Novice pilot would have trouble controlling (hence erratic flight path)

Reports that flight travelling at between 200 and 500mph and not cruise speed of over 800.
The hijackers were trained on small planes and had never flown airliners before so would keep speed down. Approach speed of Boeing 757 is only 152 mph so very low speed for size of plane manageable
If lost one engine from AIM-9 strike would have been slow and wobbling (as per reports)No smoke trail reported but if whole engine lost and fuel feed cut by pilot there would be no fire

Witnesses say no sound from second plane.
Witnesses in Iraq war say could not hear A-10s at 5000ft (low engine output on newer craft)I saw one in 1983 and it was at approx 1500ft. Engine noise like constant ripping/screeching sound, definitely not quiet! But that was 8 years previous so who knows how developed. Noise from UA93 and subsequent explosions would have masked also.

Low debris field.
If first AIM-9 took out one engine and a second AIM-9 used it may have ruptured wing (filled with fuel) when struck second engine? Flight would have blown apart in mid-air


Conclusion
UA-93 was chased and trailed by scrambled OA-10 from 111th FW
Normally operate with wingman but probably vectored separately to maximise poor air coverage around Washington (did a second go after flight AA-77?), or perhaps only one ready for flight.
Attack authorised once 10.04 change in course shows target route of Washington AIM-9 air to air missiles carried on OA-10.
Plane wobbling and goes low. This is a result of one engine loss, trying to evade OA-10 and managing passenger attack on cockpit.
Normally F-16s would overshoot and have difficulty engaging at slow speed OA-10 would manage with ease, hence sightings.
With attacks from both outside and inside the plane the hijackers knew they were not going to make their target.


Why not claim the shoot-down?
No matter how many lives are saved as a result no politician wants to be seen as the individual who ordered a military attack that killed innocent passengers on a civilian airliner no matter how desperate the times. There would inevitably have been relatives coming out questioning why they didn¡¦t hold-fire to see if the passengers could have regained control?

Rather than a conspiracy this just follows the normal modus-operandi of public life and service- never put your head above the parapet and never volunteer information unless necessary. 9/11 needed heroes and villains to explain events to a scared public. The villains were obvious and the heroes were the Fire Crews in New York and the passengers of UA93


Does it matter?
A suicide crash knowing that the passengers may take the plane back at any moment or brought down by an OA-10, the end result was the same.
Is it concerning that we may not have been told the truth by the Government? Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but since when did that start happening? We get just enough truth so that the masses dont panic, but could we handle the whole truth about everything? I doubt it...
These events were one of the first to be played out live on global media of TV, radio and internet. There is only so much control or spin that Government can put on it.

If an OA-10 brought down UA93 then that is a heavy burden for the pilot and it is probably right that he or she has not been subject to the media glare.
If the passengers actions brought UA-93 down or not they were still heroes for having a go.

Lesson to learn - If you are going to die, go down fighting.

[spooked911]

63. welcome to DU!!! And good post!

[Zaphod 36]

64. Shot down

Hallo rs3787,

Thank you for the informations about OA-10 and aviation.
I`m doubtful about your supposition that the OA-10 shot down flight 93.
Witnesses, especially Mcelwain saw the OA-10 flying very low(about 50ft!)just seconds BEFORE the explosion(alleged impact).
If this plane had intercepted and shot down flight 93, is it necessary or helpful to fly at this low altitude? I cannot imagine this.
Also in this area of Shanksville no witness mentioned seeing 2 planes.
So I think the crash at Shanksville was just simulated by a OA-10 with a missile and this was a red herring for another event nearby at the same time too.

At New Baltimore are existing indications and a witness that confirms the suspect of a shot down there, but obviously at a higher altitude.

If an interceptor will shoot down a plane with two missiles, does he fire the missiles at the very same time or when does the second missile follow?

If an engine is damaged, is it possible to give it a push just for few seconds?

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. One missile

might not have been aimed at Flight 93?

See my post bellow.

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. Could the 'white plane'

have been a missile?

A missile that could make a crater like this?




A missile that would make an explosion that looks like this?




I think the above site was actually a decoy, to distract everyone from the real crash site, Indian Lake. I get the feeling that they might have had too many passengers on F93. Possibly the passengers from F77 and F93 and they needed to hide the evidence. What better place then the bottom of a lake?

[rs3787]

68. Response to questions:

Ok - questions:

Was white plane a missile?
Why fly OH-10 so low?
Did the plane actually crash in Indian Lake?
Use one missile at a time?


Was white plane a missile?
There seem to be a number of witness reports about a white plane with unusual vertical tailfins circling the area. It would seem improbable that these people would mistake a plane for a missile. Also the speed of missiles make them hard to track from the ground. Again hard to mistake a missile at Mach2 for a plane?

Was the crater from a missile?
The crater seems compact compared to say Lockerbie. There you saw a big and definable debris field with fuel fires. One thing that may account for UA93 is that in this case it could have been a mix of mid-air explosion and ground impact. Fuel on board would have also been lower from original amount needed per schedule and distance already travelled, hence less impact area

Why fly OH-10 so low?
I have a great respect for the AH-10 (OH-10) from the most reliable of sources PlayStation2 !
The game Ace Combat 4 mirrors the abilities of actual aircraft and I find myself choosing the AH-10 over most of the other aircraft on offer from F117, F-16 and Sukhoi to Tornado, EuroFighter etc. Try it and you will see the plane is exceptional as a weapons platform.
If you want to minimise witnesses, fly low or extremely high. High makes it harder re use of short-range missiles. The Boeing was low so if you are shadowing, awaiting orders to attack get in behind to minimise detection. Behind and slightly below also gives the best missile lock angle.

Did the plane actually crash in Indian Lake?
I Google searched Indian Lake and it states that ‘Indian Lake is a 5-mile long horseshoe-shaped 750-acre lake with average depths of about 35 ft and 20 miles of shoreline. Because of its narrow contours and protective shorelines that contain and diminish wakes, Indian Lake offers some of the best water-skiing conditions in Pa.’
Firstly if you look at ariel shots of the lake you would have to say that it would be extremely lucky to have hit the water and not the shoreline as it is narrow. And with a depth of 35ft it is hardly a good hiding place as any diver could investigate it. Plus if you have seen footage of airliner water crashes there is always a hell of a lot of surface debris including parts of the fuselage which contains light foam and will float. Only small debris was reported.

Why use one missile at a time?
I have tried to search for standing orders with USAF for Sidewinder attacks but no luck. Plans for use against airlines are probably not even in the book. You could fire two missiles at once by targeting one at each engine but with only two Sidewinders loaded onto a normal OH-10 flight the temptation must be to use one and hold one in reserve. An airliner is a sitting duck and with wings full of fuel so the expectation would be that the chain reaction would be catastrophic from one missile alone.
Having said that it could be that both were fired at once. The sidewinder, as carried by the OH-10, is a short-range, air-to-air missile that uses an infrared seeker to target heat sources (aircraft engine exhaust) with a conventional warhead and guidance permitting all-angle attacks, even head on. The AIM-9M in use from 1983 on features a reduced-smoke rocket motor. This modification increases its ability to locate and lock on a target and decrease the missile's chances for detection (hence no missile trail for witnesses to report).
With an 18 mile range and speed of Mach 2.5 the Sidewinder is a 'dogfight' missile which launches and arms itself very quickly, thus allowing it to be employed at very short range. Once launched, the missile is guided to the target using IR homing and then detonates once the target is inside the missile's lethal radius. The target is usually destroyed or damaged by means of an explosive warhead, often throwing out fragments to increase the lethal radius, typically detonated by a proximity fuse (or impact fuse if it scores a direct hit).
The proximity fuse could account for one engine to have broken free and for fragments from the missile to have punctured the Hold (do UA flights carry mail also? That would account for cheques, statements found in lake?) It could also account for the second engine gunning as reported as it too suffered damage.
There isn’t much evidence of missile strikes against civilian aircraft but a Angolan Airlines Boeing 737 was hit by a SAM at 8,000ft in 1984 and managed to land with no casualties (even though plane overran runway and was written off). More recently in Iraq last year an Airbus was struck by a SAM. The proximity fuse on the SAM similar to a Sidewinder hit the aircraft’s left wing outboard from the engine. Damage from the missile severed the airplane’s hydraulic lines. However, the flight crew was able to return to the airport.
With UA-93 flying at 500mph it would only take one minute to cover 8 miles and only 20 seconds to travel 3 miles so a missile attack could have taken place some way back along the flight path to leave the trail found.
So it seems airlines don’t go boom like in the movies!

[John Doe II]

70. Thanks a lot

for your kind words concerning my article and thanks a lot for all your research you've come up with in only two post!
Welcome to DU!


I continued my work on this topic and so i like to stress that a simple explanation that UA 93 was shot down because of a last minute decision simply contradicts what we have: the eyewitnesses and physical proofs on the ground.
Eg the raining debris can't be from UA 93 that officially came from northwest and was seen by numerous witnesses. Moreover the altitude the witnesses mention for UA 93 seems to imply that the plane can't have crashed at a 90° yet the crater can only be explained by exactly this.

I'd like to hint at the analysis of the altitude and the crater:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and the analysis of the eyewitnesses and the physical evidences:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and a simple question concerning the crater:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'd be very interested what think about that!

[rs3787]

74. Crater and flight path

To be honest I did not find anything to pique my interest re the flight path and so did not mention it much!

The map on http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html is pretty accurate when you look at witness report and FAA recordings.

The flight originally headed west after leaving Newark. Once hijacked it went from 35,000ft to 700ft and turned to head east back towards Washington.

Controllers lost the flight on active radar by Pittsburgh and witness statements pick up when it gets to Stoystown. All say it was banking right and heading south.

Re the forest, a lot of the witnesses mention a forest but why is everyone assuming they mean the one by the crash site, u-turns etc?

If you look at the map on http://wtc2001ny.tripod.com/shanksville-map.html the whole area north of the crash site is forest. The witnesses in Stoystown could be referring to any of the forest range there.

Each witness as you get nearer the crash site is saying banking right. This would mean that the original hijacked Eastern route is changing to the South.

The witnesses are also saying that they are seeing the top of the plane. This would suggest that in each sighting UA93 is from the South West with the plane arcing around from north of the witness to the south east. This is again concurrent with the map.

If you look at the angle of the crash site it appears to be South West or at an angle of 7 to 8 o’clock if you think in terms of a clock face. This angle corresponds with the red arrow on http://wtc2001ny.tripod.com/shanksville-map.html


If UA93 keeps banking from East to South (re map on http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html ) then if the final moments were that ‘the control wheel was turned hard to the right and the airplane rolled onto its back’ ((/11 Commission Report) and crashed this would explain the South West direction.

Coming back to trusted Playstation2 (!) if you bank hard to the right the nose-dives down and you start to roll. Even if you roll onto your back in level flight the aeroplane naturally dives for the ground. The whole aerodynamics of a plane are to give lift, invert the plane and it will dive for the ground with the only chance of recovery being to roll back the right way up.

Re lack of debris the forest looks like it caught most of it and burned. If it was on a open field like in image http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/fdx1478/2.shtml then parts would spread but it looks like the forest contained it within the fuel fire area. Didn’t a report say they found an engine deeper in the forest? This concurs as an engine is the most solid thing on an aircraft and would have the best chance of surviving being thrown through the forest.

Re Zaphod 36s question re second missile causes mid-air explosion -sorry but I haven’t explained properly – I think the first took one engine off and the second caused wing, fuel damage. I think that UA93 was pretty intact when it ploughed into the ground but being inverted and diving and with the treeline you don’t see a natural aircrash debris pattern

Also as I started looking at witness statements re the route I found two very interesting statements that seem to confirm everything I have covered:

Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: "I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards... This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." He adds that based on what he has learned, F-16s were "very, very close."

Laura Temyer of Hooversville: "I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that." (She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.)


This would suggest that the UA93 coming from west to east and then banking right to run north to south gets hit by missiles near Hooversville and continues south until it crashes. This also means that the missiles originated from around Shanksville to the south on a head-on course south to north. This would also match reports that a’white plane’ was seen circling the crash site immediately, as if it fired by Shanksville coming north then it would have arrived at the crash site (midway point) at roughly the same time.

[Zaphod 36]

77. Good explanition, but

what`s about the paper trail from New Baltimore to Indian Lake?
In your scenario then another plane must be responsible for this?

We assume that Flight 93 needs an altitude of about 2000 Feet to realize a nose-diving straight down vertically. Is this correct?
If Flight 93 flew at this altitude, why the witnesses of the white jet didn`t saw this second plane, Flight 93?

If Flight 93 was shot down at Hooversville, why Laura Temyer didn`t saw the plane? It was not useful for the hijackers to fly at a very low level before the shoot-down.

I suspect that a remote-controlled Flight 93 was shot down at New Baltimore after an escape from interceptors at an altitude of 6000 feet. The plane was gliding and descending from New Baltimore to Indian Lake(paper trail) and the area of Hooversville, where it crashes in a prepared coal mine. Maybe Temyer heard the second missile hitting the plane. She didn`t saw the plane because it was flewing at a low level after the descend.
The crash at Shanksville was just simulated by a missile from the OA-10 and the crater there was prepared too.
What do you think about this scenario, rs3787?

[John Doe II]

71. Indian Lake

Sorry, I looked for your quote concerning the dimensions of Indian Lake. I couldn't find it with any search engine. Can you please provide the link?
Thanks!

[rs3787]

73. Indian Lake info

It took me ages to find any info on Indian Lake. You would think that websites like Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection would have that kind of info! Searched everywhere including fishing websites... I started to get very CT - didn’t the lake exist!?!

Finally found info on two realty websites:
http://www.gearyrealestate.net/indian_lake.htm and http://www.indianlakerealty.com/about.cfm

Many thanks re your comments on flight direction. I am rummaging away researching for answers. Will come back to you asap!

[John Doe II]

75. Thanks for the info!

I searched for ages myself and didn't find anything... So thanks a lot.
And I'm looking forward reading what you think about the other stuff.

[philb]

88. Second debris field at Indian Lake 4-8 miles away & jet sounds overhead

imply a plane that was shot down or exploded in that area; but this doesn't seem consistent with the official story???

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_...

'Crash debris found 8 miles away over a mountain
Stonycreek Township, Somerset County & New Baltimore borough
http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

F-16s trailing flight 93 & secondary debris field miles away
Of the 4 supposed "hijackers" of UA Flight 93, at least 2 are HijackersAliveAndWell DNA indentification questionable
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml

Indian Lake debris was SE as far as 5 miles
Somerset County Debris was over a mountain 8 miles NE

What direction was the wind blowing? And why did those at Indian Lake hear engines overhead and how could the debris get there so fast?

[philb]

89. Actually at least 3 separate debris fields in different areas/directions

the strip mine area near Shanksville

the area of Indian Lake 3 to 6 miles away to the SE

the Somerset County area 8 miles NE over a mountain

what could explain this?

[Zaphod 36]

72. More questions

Thank you very much for the great informations, rs3787!

I suppose that you mean the OA-10 fired a missile to Flight 93, hit the wing and brought it down with an midair-explosion. The fuel in the wing gets fire and caused the midair-explosion(?).
But it is strange that the witnesses who saw flight 93 seconds before the crash, don`t saw the white jet behind this plane and don`t mentioned a midair-explosion.
Unfortunately we cannot find out Mcelwains location, where she saw the white jet.

do UA flights carry mail also? That would account for cheques, statements found in lake?
Yes, the most cheques was found at Lowery`s Farm. There it was "raining" cheques. At New Baltimore there was found some cheques too, but there was also found Inflight-Magazines, flight manuals and a map of Guadalajara Airport in Mexiko(!).
The fragments of the missile must have been punctured the cabins too.

With UA-93 flying at 500mph it would only take one minute to cover 8 miles and only 20 seconds to travel 3 miles so a missile attack could have taken place some way back along the flight path to leave the trail found.
You are also convinced that Flight 93 came from Southeast direction? Remember that the official flight path says that the plane came from Northwest direction.
Look at the picture of the crater: The bank of earth pointed to Southeast. This implicates that the plane, missile etc. must be came from Northwest.

[rs3787]

76. Re more qustions

Re your question re second missile causes mid-air explosion -sorry but I haven’t explained properly – I think the first took one engine off and the second caused wing, fuel damage. I think that UA93 was pretty intact when it ploughed into the ground but being inverted and diving and with the treeline you don’t see a natural aircrash debris pattern

Also as I started looking at witness statements re the route I found two very interesting statements that seem to confirm everything I have covered:

Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: "I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards... This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." He adds that based on what he has learned, F-16s were "very, very close."

Laura Temyer of Hooversville: "I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that." (She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.)


This would suggest that the UA93 coming from west to east and then banking right to run north to south gets hit by missiles near Hooversville and continues south until it crashes. This also means that the missiles originated from around Shanksville to the south on a head-on course south to north. This would also match reports that a’white plane’ was seen circling the crash site immediately, as if it fired by Shanksville coming north then it would have arrived at the crash site (midway point) at roughly the same time.

More on post 74 - Crater and flight path

[philb]

85. This statement is very confusing to me?

you write:
"so a missile attack could have taken place some way back along the flight path to leave the trail found"

Are you talking about the plane on the NW flight path or a plane coming across Indian Lake??

I thought you had already documented that the debris found in Indian Lake and beyond could not have come from the plane on the NW path.
Unless the plane didn't crash at the supposed crash site and went towards Indian Lake and crashed somewhere else. But if so where?


Where are you suggesting the debris came from? Another plane that came from the East and crashed somewhere? at the alleged crash site? It appears you don't think it crashed in Indian Lake?

Are you suggesting the debris was planted and not from the plane that crashed at the alleged crash site?
If so, what would be the reason to do this? Since its not consistent with the official story?

[philb]

83. I think you mean a remote controlled plane rigged with a bomb

Lots of witnesses saw that it was a plane. But it might have been remote controlled rather than flown by a pilot.

[extrak]

78. UK radio broadcast

hi,

i just stumbled across this post by accident and was really intruiged.

i live in the UK and was sat in my office (i am a design engineer, at the time working for a large aerospace firm) listening to the unfolding shock of 911 on the radio, from the very first reports.

the one aspect which bothered me at the time and has stuck with me, was the fact that 30 mins or so into the events, reports came through of a remaining plane still in the sky.

the report said that this plane was being shadowed by US Airforce fighter pilot(s).

my immediate reaction was 'why isn't this plane being taken down then?'

sometime later the news came through of a crash, and the eventual passenger revolt.

i remember i felt at the time that it was totally unfeasible that the USAF didn't disarm the plane, knowing the events of the previous hour.. having seemingly been tailing the hijacked plane for 15 mins or so. (as was suggested)

i think the radio station was the BBC Radio 4 news channel. i'm not sure if any transcripts exist, but i am certain this was what was reported over here.



hope this is of some interest to you
thanks,

[Tab]

79. Probably because it was a commercial airliner

and there were a lot in the air. Just because the FAA says "everyone land NOW", which I might note I don't think had ever been done before, it doesn't happen instantaneously and they may not have been convinced all the planes knew about it, and no one wants the blood of shooting down an innocent passenger jetliner on their hands.

Not to say it might or might not have been the proper thing to do, but it was a very confusing morning and that was a very short window of time.

Heck, I remember a news report with the talking heads saying the FBI was investigating to see if there was foul play involved, after the crash of the second plane into the WTC. One plane, sure, it could be an accident (I figured it was a little Cessna or something), but two planes? That's no accident. News can be very unreliable when people have no information but the broadcasters feel compelled to say something because they have to be "covering the story".

As far as the plane being followed, I don't think it takes much authority to order jets to follow a commercial airplane. Shooting one down? That's probably a different set of authority altogether, a situation not improved much if the commander in chief is sitting in a classroom reading "My Pet Goat".

[petgoat]

84. Questions about 93

1. If it wasn't shot down, why not? ATCs heard screaming on the radio.
What else did they need to suspect the plane was hijacked? And the FBI
was in communication with the phone-call recipients who were told it
was hijacked.

2. If it was shot down, why in Shanksville? The flight attitude of the
plane indicated a struggle for control was going on. The FBI-monitored
phone calls indicated the passengers were going to rush the cockpit.
And there were ten minutes more before the plane started to threaten
Washington.

[Woody Box]

93. This was the FIFTH PLANE...

...and you're not the only one who heard about it on the radio.

It was reportedly still in the air after the Flight 93 crash, it was heading for Washington, it was intercepted by fighters...

...and escorted to Cleveland:

I'm sure there was a fifth plane involved that was headed toward Camp David; however, that plane was forced (yes forced, militarily) to land in Cleveland. I thought the target could also have be NASA's Glen/Lewis Research Center that is right next to the Cleveland Airport. The news reported that the plane landed because of a suspected bomb on board but they haven't released anyone that was on that plane. The closed NASA and transported everyone that was on the plane there for questioning. They are going through the plane and luggage with a fine toothed comb. The original flight plan was from Boston to LA.They closed all exits from the freeway to get into the airport and even bus drivers were told that if they attempted to exit, they would be shot. People that were already at the airport were forced to walk for miles to get transportation home because they were not even allowed to remove their cars from the parking lots.

This is a quote from

The Secret Hijacking

See also

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

See also


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[philb]

90. Wind direction facts on 9/11 document official story was bogus

'Crash debris found 8 miles away over a mountain
Stonycreek Township, Somerset County & New Baltimore borough
http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

(notice the contradictions)
New Baltimore is NE of crash site and over a mountain
Indian Lake is SE of crash site
(how could wind take debris to either of these sites?)

**********
“A southeasterly wind and a 3-year-old's keen eye brought the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 home to a family in tiny New Baltimore borough, more than eight miles from the Somerset County crash site. When Andy Stoe glanced at the paper, ready to toss it in the trash, he saw it was a charred payroll check made out to Antonio B. Costa of San Jose, Calif.

Investigators now concede the canceled check and a portion of a charred brokerage statement Stoe found nearby on Thursday afternoon are from the crash. Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.”

However later the revisionists came into play:

“Late yesterday afternoon, however, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said experts from the National Transportation Safety Board had checked weather reports and determined that lightweight materials might well have traveled over the mountain by a southwest wind that reached a speed of 9 knots.”
****************************

One problem however is that the wind doesn’t seem to have been out of the southwest that day.

And watching the video from webfairy one realizes that also the direction of the wind wasn’t east, southeast as officially claimed (and as necessary to somehow explain the raining debris at Indian Lake or southwest to explain the debris at New Baltimore).

Watch this video. The forest behind the crater is west. The camera is east of the crater. Does the smoke blow towards the camera or slightly left of the camera??
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm

The wind seems to have been from the NE. contrary to what was needed to explain either of the secondary debris fields as due to wind.

[philb]

91. A one plane scenario consistent with the debris fields

I don't believe this scenario but it seems consistent with the debris fields and one of the reports regarding wind direction on 9/11

One engine of the plane from the NW was hit by a missile fired by a trailing F16 when it was NW of Indian Lake and continued on with one engine, crashing into Indian Lake.

The 2nd air to air missile was off target due to the large rapid change in direction of Flight 93 after the first hit. The 2nd missile and the engine and debris from the first missile strike create the crater and debris at the alleged crash site.

Debris from the Indian Lake crash site is taken by the SE wind to New Baltimore (see news story in previous post)


however note the smoke direction in the previous post.

[Andre II]

109. Problem is

according to witnesses plane came in from northwest of crash site. Lambertville etc. Therefore it never crossed Indian Lake.

[MrSammo1]

97. The Neocon Flying Circus!

I would be very suspicious of any so called witness testimony.

No physical evidence lends credence to their stories.

Since it is obvious that the so called eye witnesses of the Pentagon crash were government shills, I'm sure the neocons were smart enough to salt Shanksville with some.

If anything Shanksville shouts of something gone terribly wrong in the neocon plan of things. (As does the Pentagon)

[philb]

98. Is there URL for a site that summerizes your information posted here?

[Lithos]

110. Locking

Restarting 2+ year old conversations is not productive.

Lithos
DU Moderator