Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Proof that official UA 93 story is a hoax

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-05 01:57 PM
Original message
Proof that official UA 93 story is a hoax

Proof that the official UA 93 story is a hoax

by Team 8+ and Zaphod 36

The official story of the last minutes of UA 93 is that the alleged hijackers decided to crash the plane themselves as they judged the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them (Commission Report, 14). According to the map in the Commission Report the plane came in from northwest (CR, 33). It crashed with a speed of 580 mph (CR, 14).
The innumerous contradictions about what is supposed to have happened aboard UA 93 have been already analysed in detail in UA 93: Too many contradictions :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
The following article will present the evidence we do have for what happened in Shanksville and will compare it to the official explanation. Afterwards all theoretically possible scenarios will be examined if they do account for the found evidences.


First of all we will present the evidences we do have for what happened in Shanksville on 911. Remark that all presented evidence is based on many different sources and many different witnesses. Remark that all witnesses accounts were made within days of 911.


I. EVIDENCE:

1. A plane coming in from northwest:
According to the official flight path in the Commission Report UA 93 came in from northwest. That indeed a plane came in from this direction is confirmed by at least 15 witnesses. Here is a list of theses 15 witnesses and their localisation which is north, northwest and west of the crash site.


(Remark: The locations of witness (blue spots) are approximate only)



Boswell: (about 8 miles away) Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry. They noticed the plane at 2000 feet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)

Oakbrook Golf Course: (about 8 miles west) Larry Williams heard the engines roar real loud and shut off.
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

Hooversville: (about 5 miles) Laura Temyer. She heard (but didnt 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 saw the plane.
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...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen...
(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
(Daily American, 9/12/01)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagenam...
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)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xm...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0...
(Plain Dealer, 9/12/01 b; US News & World Report, 10/29/01)

Lambertsville Road: (one mile) Paula Pluta saw the plane through her window.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
(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) saw it.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

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)

The witnesses are all very sure to have seen the last minutes of the hijacked plane:
Interviews today with 10 people who saw the plane in its final five minutes seemed to support the possibility of a cockpit struggle.
The witnesses said the jet was flying east-southeast, very low and wobbly above the steep hills of the Laurel Mountains before it slammed into the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...


The following eyewitnesses being west or northwest of the crash site saw the plane until it vanished behind some trees and supposedly crashed immediately afterwards:
Paula Pluta: (She) saw the plane dip sharply at a 60 degree or 70 degree angle as it flew southward and fall to the earth behind a line of trees in this area of cornfields and rolling hills. A fireball ballooned as high as 100 feet above the tree line, she said.
(New York Times, 9/12/01 d)

Eric Peterson: The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.
Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

We couldnt see past the tree line, but we knew it crashed. I didnt think it was going to clear these places. It looked like it tumbled.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html
Rob Kimmel: "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom," Mr. Kimmel said.
Within seconds , Mr. Butler and Mr. Kimmel said, they felt the concussion of the crash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...

Terry Butler: He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees. "It was eerie."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

And also Bob Blair is sure to have seen the plane that crashed:
I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene, said Blair.
(Daily American, 9/12/01)


Conclusion of first evidence:
We can summarize as evidence that at least 15 people witnessed a plane coming in from northwest to the crash site. 5 of them explicitly state (or implied) that they felt the crash right after the plane vanished behind the treeline.
A very approximate flight path would be:



Therefore we should be pretty sure that this plane was UA 93, shouldnt we?



2. A plane was coming in from the east:
But we dont only have at least 15 people who witnessed a plane coming in from the northwest but we do also have people who witnessed a plane coming in from the east. They are located at or close to the Indian Lake Marina:




Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before falling apart on their homes.
People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling,
a state trooper said.

(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/13/01)

One eyewitness that sees a plane is Jim Stop:
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 reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.
(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)


Being inside Indian Lake Marina several witnesses heard a plane crossing Indian Lake:
All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. 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.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

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.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)


Conclusion of second evidence:
Several people witnessed a plane coming in from the east just before the crash happened. All of them are sure that the plane they witnessed is the plane that crashed. Some also saw parts of the plane falling down.
Based on this the approximate flight path would be:





3. The raining debris:
Besides the crater of the plane two other debris fields were found:
Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week (at New Baltimore).
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Strangely the debris wasnt continuous.

The FBI at first had its doubts that debris could have landed on Indian Lake.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

"How it got there we're not sure," State Police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)

One day later the explanation sounds pretty clear:
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, (FBI Special Agent Bill ) Crowley said.
According to the NTSB, not only is that possible ... it is probable that this stuff is debris from this crash,"
he said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...

The FBI conclusion: "Nothing was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact. "
http://web.archive.org/web/20021113183810/http://news.i...

But the journalist of the Independent openly questions the official wind theory:
Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers
would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021113183810/http://news.i...

Watching the video from webfairy one realizes that also the direction of the wind most likely wasnt east, southeast as officially claimed (and as necessary to explain the raining debris).
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm
Also on several photos that show the smouldering crater the wind doesnt seem to blew the official direction.

But while the doubts about the real direction of the wind dont suffice to put to rest the official explanation the eyewitnesses do:

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."
"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling,"
a state trooper said.
Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.

(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)

The wind would have needed 10 minutes (given the reported speed of 9 or 10 mph) to blow the debris from the crash site to Indian Lake Marina.
But there is not a single eyewitness that supports the official explanation.
Some see the debris raining down on the lake before, some right after the crash and some within minutes after the crash.
Nobody speaks of ten minutes.


Also in New Baltimore (8 miles east) debris was found eg: a payroll check.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
This would imply that this check was blown by the wind for around 50 minutes without touching the water of the (not very small) Indian Lake it had to cross and to land in perfect condition in New Baltimore as it was still readable.
If this is difficult to believe the following eyewitness account from New Baltimore is in clear contradiction to the wind theory as the debris should have fallen on New Baltimore only about 50 minutes after the crash.:
The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.
"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.
"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020911roddy091 ...

For a list of the eyewitnesses and their accounts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Debris was also found that is much heavier than paper:
Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville said they found clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...

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
How can a wind of 9 mph blew pieces of seats over 1 miles?


Conclusion of third evidence:
The wind simply cannot have been responsible for the debris that was found on Indian Lake and in New Baltimore. The official explanation stands in sharp contrast to all eyewitnesses. Therefore the FBI and the NTSB lied.
The debris can only have come from a plane that was coming in from the east and crossing the Indian Lake. It cannot have come from a plane that was coming in from northwest.


Coroner Wallace Miller now claims that no human remains were found on Indian Lake: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

But right after 911 several accounts pointed out that indeed human remains were found on Indian Lake:
Brant has been taking FBI and ATF agents onto the lake to recover airplane parts and human remains.
(AP, 9/13/01)

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.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp...

It is hard to see why two eyewitnesses (working for the Indian Lake Marina) would lie about the human remains and why parts of seat cushions were found on Indian Lake (at least 1 miles east) but human remains (according to coroner Wallace Miller in his first statement about this topic which dates from March 2005) were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

If we believe the Jim Brant and John Feegle then also the human remains found on Indian Lake can only be from the plane coming in from the east. This is likely but we dont consider it as evidence as Wallace Millers word stands against it.


The crater:
A detailed analysis of the crater casts doubts that it can be possible that the plane coming in from the northwest caused the crater. The form of the crater indicates that the plane crashed at an angle of 90. If the eyewitnesses that estimated the altitude of the plane that flew horizontally before it vanished behind the trees arent completely wrong then the plane wouldnt have had the needed altitude in order to crash at an angle of 90.
For further details see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Remark that we dont consider this to be objective evidence. But it is still noteworthy as it casts serious doubts about the official theory.

Conclusion of the presented evidences:
Already at this point we can draw some disturbing conclusions:
We do have witnesses that saw a plane coming in from northwest and we do have witnesses that remarked a plane coming in from the east. Therefore it is quite likely that we talk about two planes. Both groups of witnesses were sure to have seen the plane that crashed. Given the fact that there was only one explosion and one fire as high as 200 feet it doesnt seem possible that we talk about two crashes. (Moreover there is only one crater and the fact that there was another crash would immediately imply a cover up).
We do have two planes coming in from opposite directions and one explosion. As it is hard to imagine that the plane crashed at the very same place exactly at the same time (but even this scenario implies a cover up) we have at least to assume that two planes were at the crash site within seconds of each other (otherwise we must ignore complete group of witnesses). In that case what happened with the second plane?


Before we examine all theoretical possible scenarios here a few remarks for a better background understanding:

- The coincidence that the very same C-130 that was present when the Pentagon was attacked is present when/or minutes after UA 93 crashed.
(Minnesota Star-Tribune, 9/11/02)
- The FBI knew since at least 15 minutes that the passengers tried to attack the hijackers (although bizarrely the FBI didn't give the passengers any advice via telephone).
- In case UA 93 really was shot down one has to remark as well that not a single eyewitness saw the white plane doing the required procedure of rocking the wings etc. before shooting down.
- The FBI officially declared that there has been no explosion aboard.



II. POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:
Now based on the evidences shown above we will examine all theoretical possible scenarios of what have happened in Shanksville on 911.
Decide for yourself the likelihood of every scenario.


ONE PLANE:

There was only one plane and it came in from the northwest:

This is the official theory. It corresponds with the flight path of the Commission Report and all the witnesses in the northwest of the crash site that saw the last minutes of the plane.
Problem: This theory cannot explain the raining debris east of the crash site. Nor does it explain the witnesses from Indian Lake.


There was only one plane and it came in from the east:
This scenario supported by the eyewitnesses in the east and it might also explain the raining debris.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. (Why should the government lie about this?) All 15 eyewitnesses in the northwest would have had hallucinations. While the plane in this scenario is the source for the falling debris we dont have the cause for the raining debris yet. If the plane was holed: By whom? If there was a bomb aboard that exploded: Why should the FBI lie about it? (only to protect one security agent at Newark?!)


A plane came in from the northwest crossed Indian Lake and made a U-turn over New Baltimore and then finally came from east to the crash site:
This theory explains the eyewitnesses from the northwest and from the east at the same time.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. This scenario is also in stark contradiction to the eyewitnesses. Five eyewitnesses saw the plane from the northwest vanishing behind the trees and heard then "within seconds" the sound of the crash. If the plane would have made the assumed U-turn it wouldn't have crashed seconds later but at least 3 minutes later (for the U-turn the plane needed to fly 17 more miles and to do a complete circle). But there are also not a single witness that saw the plane from the west flying towards New Baltimore. While for the last 8 miles of the plane from the west are at least 15 witnesses there would be not a single one for the 8 miles to New Baltimore. Moreover the plane was either holed or a bomb went off aboard.


A plane coming in from northwest and crossing then crossing Indian Lake
This scenario accounts for the eyewitnesses and implies that the witnesses in the east simply got the direction of the plane wrong.
Problem: Jim Stop sees the plane and the explosion. The witnesses inside the Indian Lake Marina hear a plane crossing the lake and then see the explosion. All the witnesses imply that it was the same plane. None mentioned that the plane crossing the lake was flying away from the crash site and therefore cant have crashed. Moreover even if theses witnesses got it wrong this scenario implies that the plane witnessed in the northwest didnt crash but simply crossed the crash site. As this is the only plane it implies the disturbing question what caused the crater then and which plane is in the crater?


TWO PLANES:
As all scenarios with only one plane are in strong conflict with the eyewitness accounts and the raining debris the logical move seems to assume the presence of two planes.


Two commercial planes:
Remark that the presence of two planes at the crash site is very coincidental to say the least.
Remark that right from the start this implies that the official side covered up the presence of one plane.
Remark that no commercial plane was scheduled to fly in this area.
Remark as well that one plane somehow managed to vanish after the crash as there is no eyewitness who remarked a commercial plane leaving the site after the crash.


"UA 93" came in from the northwest. Another commercial plane came in from the east:
Problem: The raining debris on Indian Lake can be from UA 93. The raining debris indicates that the commercial plane from the east was either holed or a bomb aboard went off. This certainly cannot have been made by the official hijackers. Why would a plane that wasn't UA 93 have been shot down? Or why was there a bomb? And officially UA 93 is in the crater so how can the commercial plane from the east have managed to mysteriously disappear after it was holed or had an explosion aboard?


A commercial plane came in from the northwest. "UA 93" came in from the east:
Problem: This contradicts the official flight path. The raining debris indicates that "UA 93" was either holed or a bomb went off aboard. Who could have shot down UA 93? How did the plane from the northwest manage to vanish after the crash?
This scenario clearly implies help on the ground and help with the cover up.


One commercial plane and the white plane:
While the scenario of two commercial planes is hardly believable we analyse now the possibility of a scenario involving the white plane that was seen at the crash site by at least seven eyewitnesses. Therefore theses scenarios dont have the problem of a mysteriously vanishing plane.


UA 93 came in from northwest chased by the white plane:
This scenario seem to correspond to a last minute decision to shoot down UA 93.
Problem: No explanation for the raining debris in the east nor for the witnesses in the east. Not a single witness in the west saw two planes.


UA 93 came in from the east chased by the white plane:
This scenario would be a shoot down scenario that explain the raining debris.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. At least 15 witnesses in the west would have had hallucinations. Not a single witness in the east remarked two planes.


"UA 93" came in from the northwest. The white plane came in from the east:
This scenario comes close to the believe that the US-government decided to shoot UA 93 down.
Problem: The raining debris in the east is not explained by this scenario as long as we don't assume that the white plane dropped debris on purpose. This of course implies an event that must have been planed before 911. It therefore proves that it was an inside job.


The white plane came in from the northwest. "UA 93" came in from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. This scenario is in conflict with the eyewitnesses from the northwest. Although many eyewitnesses saw the plane in the northwest flying at a very low altitude and none remarked that it was a white military plane but apparently all witnesses believed to have seen "UA 93". The raining debris indicates that "UA 93" was either holed (but not by the white plane because they reached each other only at the crash site) or a bomb went off aboard. In case of a bomb there is once again the question why the FBI should lie about it?
The coincidence that a bomb went off aboard UA 93 just before it met the white plane at the crash site and that it wasnt recognized by a single eyewitness as a white military plane is hard to believe.



THREE PLANES:
The last logical possibility would be that in fact there have been even three planes at the crash site. Two commercial planes (coming from northwest and from east) plus the white plane.
In general this assumption already implies that the government lied about the presence of a second commercial plane (remark there was no commercial plane scheduled to fly in the area of the crash site. Moreover all commercial planes had been asked to land at the next airport since .).


UA 93 and the white plane from the northwest. A commercial plane from the east:
Problem: Not a single eyewitness saw a white plane following a commercial plane in the northwest. As after the crash only the white plane was seen: How did one commercial plane vanish? How could that have been possible without help on the ground and a cover-up? Why did the commercial plane in the east loose debris?


UA 93 from northwest. A commercial plane and the white plane from the east:
Problem: Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming in from the east. The debris certainly didnt come from UA 93. Why did the commercial plane in the east loose debris? How could one plane vanish? How could this be possible without help on the ground (preplaned) and a following cover up?


White plane and commercial plane from the northwest. UA 93 from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. In case UA 93 wasnt holed (by whom?) the only explanation is that a bomb went off aboard. Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming from the northwest. How did one plane manage to vanish?


A commercial plane from the northwest. UA 93 and the white plane from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming from the east. UA 93 was either holed or a bomb went off aboard. How did one commercial plane manage to vanish? Without help on the ground (preplaned) and a following cover up?


Rsume:
We examined every single theoretical imaginable scenario of what happened in Shanksville on 911.
The official explanation stands in sharp conflict with several evidences.
All scenarios that would correspond to an unfortunate last minute decision to shoot down UA 93 cant explain all the found evidences neither.
In fact all scenarios that do account for the above mentioned evidences prove some officials had a clear pre-knowledge of what happened to UA 93. Therefore what happened to UA 93 was a prepared action from the inside and not the result of the alleged hijackers work.

Therefore we can draw the conclusion that whatever happened to the plane that crashed in Shanksville:
The official explanation is a lie.
This lie doesnt cover up an unfortunate last minute decision to shoot down UA 93.
Based on the presented evidences is seems extremely likely that what happened to UA 93 was not done by the alleged hijackers but was the result of an inside job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-05 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow
Thanks

Good find
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Conclusion?
Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 01:29 PM by paulthompson
I don't see their conclusion. To me, it's simple: the plane turned sharply, possibly more than once, not long before crashing. I even recall seeing some maps of the airplane's path showing this. For such comprehensive research, they curiously leave out witnesses who saw the turn. For instance,

Terry Butler, at Stoystown: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. It was moving like you wouldnt believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn. It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. (ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 9/12/01)

Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom. (AMONG THE HEROES, BY JERE LONGMAN, 8/02, P. 210211)

Also, from accounts of it doing all kinds of strange things: flying upside down, making strange noises, making jerky motions, even coming to a complete stop in mid-air before crashing, it seems quite probable to me it was spilling debris before it crashed. When you have a plane literally upside down (as the 9/11 Commission did note in one obscure sentence), it's clearly not a case of it just coming in from one direction and hitting the ground.

Both of the above accounts have a sharp right turn. If you follow the path of the plane from the direction shown in their first map, then make a sharp right turn over Indian Lake, the problem is solved. Why is it they quote both of the witnesses I mentioned above, but cut out the part about the turning? Someone should point that out to them.

To me, it's not a question of two planes, it's a question of why was the one plane doing such very strange things before crashing? It seems to be more than just a struggle over the cockpit, for instance, numerous witnesses heard loud bangs coming from the plane before it crashed (most heard one, some heard two), plus revving, gunning of the engine, sputtering, etc... It seems to me the engines were dying and in fact died, thus the complete stop in the mid-air and plummet to the ground.

Keep in mind that if the plane was travelling roughly 500 miles an hour, that means it went seven miles in one minute. So for it to get close enough to drop debris in the general vicinity of Indian Lake, six miles away, is not much of a detour at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I have to respectfully disagree
The two witnesses you quote haven't been "curiously" left out but are mentioned as witnesses who saw the plane coming in from northwest.
And the question is indeed decisive where the plane came from.
Either UA 93 came from northwest or it crossed the Indian Lake coming from the east. Given the witnesses who saw one plane from northwest and also witnesses who remarked the plane from the east, moreover the raining debris that cannot be explained by any wind the article simply presents all possible scenarios.

The article also proves that the official explantion is clearly refuted by evidences.
The article also proves that every scenario that implies a last minute decision to shoot down is clearly refuted by evidences.
The article proves that all scenarios that account for the evidences clearly prove that what happened to UA 93 was an inside job.


Therefore it is iof minor importance what and why the plane coming in from northwest was doing strange maneouvres and strange sounds (although this question deserves attention) but it presents a case that proves the official theory is a hoax. This proof is as far as I can see a irrefutable proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I updated my above message
Check it out again. They curiously left out those two witnesses' accounts of a turning - isn't that just a little bit relevant to their question?!?

To me, yes, the eyewitesses saw many things that have been ignored by the official accounts (including the whole small white jet mystery). But a right turn over Indian Lake solves the "two passenger plane" "riddle."

I don't see anything in the Indian Lake witness accounts suggesting the plane was coming from the east. For instance, the most specific account says it flew over Indian Lake. Yes, that would be consistent with a right turn scenario. None of the Indian Lake witnesses, zero, give a direction of where it was coming from or where it was going to, they merely state the plane was flying overhead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The article also deals with U-turn
The scenario of a U-turn is also dealt with in the article.
That is a plane coming in from northwest and doing over Indian Lake (but more likely even above New Baltimore in order to account for the raining debris found there).
As stated in the article this is contradicted:
the fact that several witnesses from northwest said the plane crashed "within seconds" after vanishing behind the treeline (and not two or three minutes later. This would have been the necessaru time to do a 180 turn and fly 6 or (New Baltimore 17 further miles).

Yes, no witness in the east gives a direction of the plane they witnessed.
But wouldn't have Jim Stop mentioned the curious fact that he saw a plane crossing the Indian Lake going east (AWAY from the crash site) and ANOTHER plane was crashing west of Indian Lake. The same goes for witnesses inside Indian Lake Marina.
Moreover if the plane they saw went east. That means that the plane behind that crashed at the official crash site cannot be responisble for the raining debris but only the plane that didn't crash and that managed to cross the lake.
Even this scenario which in my eyes is very unlikely PROVES that the official explanation is a hoax and has the problem of one plane to much. No explanation for the raining debris.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm sorry...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 02:46 PM by paulthompson
I normally agree with you, but I find this argument extremely implausible and resting on the thinnest shreds of evidence. Jim Stop at the marina was three miles from the crash site, not six, as probably most of the Indian Lake witnesses were, since the lake is between the town of Indian Lake and the crash site. It would take the plane 30 seconds to travel from him to the crash site, less if it was going closer to 600 mph, as some say. Is this "seconds later"? Yes, it is. Where is the treeline? I don't know - who does? Could the northwest witnesses have seen the plane turn BEFORE the treeline? Yes. In fact, that's what at least two of them saw. The idea of a U-turn is a construct of the authors of that article. If the plane was a couple of miles further to the east, which is just as plausible from eyewitness accounts as where they chose to draw the line, it would have been a right turn (consistent with eyewitness accounts), not a U-turn.

>But wouldn't have Jim Stop mentioned the curious fact that he saw a plane crossing the Indian Lake going east (AWAY from the crash site) and ANOTHER plane was crashing west of Indian Lake. The same goes for witnesses inside Indian Lake Marina.

I have no idea what you're talking about - you're putting ideas into his head. He might just have heard a loud roar and not gotten a good bead on where it was going or where it was coming from, or he just happened not to have mention the direction, clouds in the area, sun in his eyes, or all sorts of things. Eyewitess accounts are frequently inaccurate in any case, whereas in the first posting, the most logical account is dismissed based on one witness, when it fact what he saw in no way suggests two planes. The postulation of two planes is an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence to back it up, and I don't see it.

If there were two planes, there would have been eyewitness accounts of one of them leaving the area, or another crash site, or something. Use Occam's Razor - the two plane idea makes no sense. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

What's sad to me is that by focusing on this very dubious theory, the important questions about the crash are ignored. If you're in contact with the authors of that essay, tell them to turn their research focus to questions of what was happening to Flight 93 before it crashed, and can all its strange behavior be explained as a cockpit struggle or not, plus the small white jet, and other significant phenomena. I agree the raining debris is important, but in no way does it necessitate the existence of two planes!

By the way, the wind most definitely could have been responsible for the debris found at New Baltimore, all of which appears to be paper debris. The timing is extremely vague, and people can make mountains out of poorly worded reporting or poorly worded witness accounts. All we know is that for hours after the crash, people were picking up paper debris in New Baltimore. Do we know exactly when they started? No. If there's an eyewitness who clearly states "I was picking up debris within X minutes of hearing the crash," or something to that effect, then one can start looking into that seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Two planes
Paul, nobody in the article states that there was a U-turn. In fact the article analyses ALL theoretical possiblities.

The treeline is definitely west northwest of the crash site as can be seen on all photos and maps. Moreover this is exactly what eyewitnesses from northwest state: They see a plane coming in from northwest vanishing behind the treeline. Then it crashed "within seconds" fine.
Then we have four witnesses in the east who see or hear a plane. Fine as well.
Based on this the article analysed all scenarios.
It's simple as that: Just tell me which scenario do you think is plausible and have a look at the mentioned problems and let's discuss them.

About the statement "within seconds".
The witnesses see a plane coming in from northwest and crashing "within seconds" after vanishing behind the treeline. Maybe this could have been 30 seconds later but then the very same plane would have been at Indian Lake. Ok. But now it in fact has to do a U-turn. This is the only logical solution if exactly this plane is supposed to crash in the official crash site. A plane from New York that crashed in Dallas and is seen by witnesses in LA has to do a U-turn if it is supposed to be the same plane that crashed in Dallas.
Nowhere does the article state what happened.
But not a single scenario that corresponds to the official nor to a last minute shoot down decision doesn't conflict heavily with the presented evidence.

Jim Stop:
He not only sees the plane of course he heard it, too.
The same goes for people inside Indian Lake Marina.
But, even if the plane went east and they got it wrong. This scenario is dealt with in the article as well.


And for the raining debris;
As shown in the article there is one witness in New Baltimore and the article clearly implies that the debris was there NOT 52 minutes after the crash.
In fact there is not a single witness who supports the wind thesis. Not a single one. Indian Lake Marina is about 1 1/2 miles east. The people heat the crash run outside and see the raining debris. This is certainly not nine minutes later.
Two articles clearly state that a plane lost debris.
The State Trooper reported 911 calls.
Btw there were also stuff found that was heavier than paper.
Btw even the wind directio as seen on webfairy video and numerous photos where you can see the smoke (therefore before 12:00) seem to contradict the official wind direction.


And nowhere does the article state that the raining debris necessite a second plane. Only a plane that crossed the area where the debris was found. Unfortunately this cannot be a plane that came from northwest and crashed BEFORE crossing Indian Lake.


I'm one of the authors and I have worked on the white plane see: First part of "... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!" and I've worked on the innumerous contradictions in "UA 93: Too many phone calls" and on the impossibility of the 10:03:11 crash time in view of Jeremy Glick's phone call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. reply
>Paul, nobody in the article states that there was a U-turn.

The article postulates a U-turn and you continue to suggest one had to have happened in order for there to be debris over Indian Lake. Not so, because I think the plane travelling southeast line your group drew on the map is wrong. One of the witnesses says the plane was flying east-southeast. That's what I would think, too, which is different than your postulated line. Then the plane makes a sharp right turn, which certainly can be done the time period involved. Flight 77 made a complete 360 in the same or lesser amount of time. That would have put the plane briefly over Indian Lake. As Jim Sharp notes, it was raining debris as it flew over. Thus the solid debris in that area. The New Baltimore debris is entirely paper debris and the timing of that is very vague. Point to me one witness who definitively states the debris reached New Baltimore within an hour of the crash. I don't see any. Plus, if the plane was raining debris over Indian Lake, it would have had less of a distance to travel to reach New Baltimore (about five miles instead of eight - I don't know where you get 17 miles).

>About the statement "within seconds".

Look at your map again. You have people from miles away from the plane seeing it. Some people could have seen it from the northeast at the same time that it was flying over Indian Lake. in fact, we have no idea where she was standing from article descriptions, but Linda Shepley says she saw it for the whole last two minutes. She probably was on a hill. We don't even know how many treelines we're talking about. Any witness in a valley is going to lose sight of the plane when it flies over a treeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Answer to your questions
Paul, you wrote:
The article postulates a U-turn and you continue to suggest one had to have happened in order for there to be debris over Indian Lake.

I like to repeat once again:
This article presents all witnesses for a plane from northwest and all the witnesses for a plane over Indian Lake. All witnesses that could be located have been presented here (save Lee Purbaugh but from his description it is not possible to figure out where the plane came from he saw crashing).
There is no interpretation or even speculation
and no, Paul, this article does neither favour a U-turn nor the presence of two planes (either two commercial planes or one commercial and one white jet).
In fact it is the very structure and the very idea of this article to present all theoretically possible scenarios (of course including a U-turn and the presence of a second plane) and to point out the contradictions that do arise.

You wont find a single sentence that states what really happened. Not a single one.

Therefore saying But the suggestion that this could imply two planes is so at odds with all the facts brought up that it leaves me speechless. (post 10) isnt correct.


Witnesses from the east:

Lets have a look again at the witnesses from the east.
You write:

None that I see quoted give any timings or any directions.


The Timing
Here all the people clearly indicate to have witnessed the plane just before the crash:


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

All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. 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.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

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.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)

Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html


The direction

Concerning the direction of the plane that was witnessed over Indian Lake.

You write:
Yet the essay concludes: "Several people witnessed a plane coming in from the east just before the crash happened." Why east??? Show me one of these witnesses who claims it came from the east. It could have been coming or going to any direction, from their descriptions (post 10)

The possibility that the plane that was seen over Indian Lake was coming from the west and is going east is ALSO dealt with in the article. So even if for us it is clear that the witnessed plane came in from the east the other possibility is not excluded.

Imagining the witnessed plane flies east when it was witnessed.
The plane was witnessed before the crash (as seen above) and flies AWAY and not towards the crash site. Therefore logically this plane cant have been the one the people witnessed crashing.
I had present this argument already and you answered:
I have no idea what you're talking about - you're putting ideas into his head.

But logically the plane can only fly towards the crash site while overflying Indian Lake (this would be it came in from the east as assumed in the articles conclusion) or it flies away from the crash site in that case it cant have crashed and here comes the only conclusion: as there is no doubt a crash happened it must have been a second plane that crashed.
To say that clearly I dont favour the idea that there was a second plane but it is logically necessary if you propose the possibility that the plane that was witnessed at Indian Lake flew away from the crash site.


Position of the witnessed plane

You write:
Furthermore, eyewitnesses often get things wrong. Certainly some of the eyewitnesses here had misimpressions, were misquoted, and so forth, yet their accounts are being treated as gospel. It could have seemed like it was overhead when it was two miles away, and so on. If I were sitting on a boat in a lake in some rural location and saw a jet plane flying low and pass by just two miles away, I would probably say something to the effect that it practically flew right over me. A controversy is being made here where there is none.

I dont think witness accounts are treated like gospels but I think its simply a question of objectivity not to censure witnesses but to present them all. And in fact the witnesses at Indian Lake are very coherent in their description. Without a single exception all of them state that the plane was overhead . There is not a single witnesses east of the crash site that witnessed the plane coming in from northwest and then crashing west of Indian Lake.


Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before falling apart on their homes.
People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling, a state trooper said.

(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/13/01)

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 reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.
(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)

All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. 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.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

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.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)


So, I dont know how you can conclude:
A controversy is being made here where there is none.


The raining debris

You write:
The New Baltimore debris is entirely paper debris and the timing of that is very vague. Point to me one witness who definitively states the debris reached New Baltimore within an hour of the crash. I don't see any. Plus, if the plane was raining debris over Indian Lake, it would have had less of a distance to travel to reach New Baltimore (about five miles instead of eight - I don't know where you get 17 miles).

(First of all the 17 miles simply come from adding the way from the crash site to New Baltimore and back.)
Unfortunately we do only have one witness account from New Baltimore but it is quite precise in its description:

The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.
"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020911roddy091 ...

I think its rather safe to assume that then doesnt mean around 50 minutes later.
The quote continuous:

"I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.
"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020911roddy091 ...

The fact that Ms Hankinson learnt from the television of the crash in Shanksville AFTER she was told about the debris found in her garden proves as well that the wind cant have blown it from the crash site. The news of UA 93 crashing certainly was shown before 10:50 on the television.


The altitude of the plane before the crash

You write:
By some accounts, the plane was at about 2000 feet altitude just before it crashed. (post 10)

This isnt correct. In Boswell (8 miles) Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry see the plane still at 2000 feet. But afterwards the plane flies extremely low BEFORE vanishing behind the treeline (the only exception is Linda Shepley, 4 miles away, estimating 2,500 feet).
Terry Butler (4 miles) 500 feet.
Rob Kimmel (4 miles) 100 or 200 feet
Eric Peterson (two miles) 300 feet.
Nevin Lambert (less than half mile) was afraid because It looked like it was coming right to my house (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/04) implying that the plane was very low.
And Lee Purbaugh being only 300 yards away from the crash site sees the plane at an altitude of 40 or 50 feet.
(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...
For more info on the alitudes:
and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!

Therefore (exception of course Linda Shepley) wee see a slow and constant descent of the plane. The fact that the plane crosses the treeline at an altitude of 100 to 300 feet (and certainly not 2000 feet) is in fact the reason why I expressed doubts that the plane coming from northwest could have caused the crater. This is mentioned in the article but not as an evidence.
For more info: Part II: and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!


The treeline

You wrote:
Everyone of course is entitled to their opinion, but frankly, personally I'm surprised that people I respect here such as yourself and John Doe would formulate or seriously contemplate a second plane hypothesis when a single plane can easily explain all the eyewitness accounts. And by failing to mention the two eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the plane make a sharp right turn, the authors cherrypicked only the evidence that was to their liking. That is very disappointing.

Im sorry, Paul, but this is a very serious accusation. Maybe the worst one can make for a 911 researcher.


You also wrote:
Where is the treeline? I don't know - who does? Could the northwest witnesses have seen the plane turn BEFORE the treeline? Yes. In fact, that's what at least two of them saw.

This is true. The treeline the witnesses are talking about is between Lambertville Road and the crash site. Therefore if the witnesses being northwest of the crash site saw the sharp right turn BEFORE the treeline then it logically follows that the bizarre turn changes absolutely nothing that the witnessed plane crashed within seconds after disappearing behind the treeline that is flying southeast. Therefore this plane in no way can account for the witnesses and the debris on Indian Lake.
Therefore the sharp right turn changes nothing.
Therefore its not a kind of cherrypicking but the assumption that the localisation of the witnesses are decisive.


The right hand turn
One of the witnesses says the plane was flying east-southeast. That's what I would think, too, which is different than your postulated line. Then the plane makes a sharp right turn, which certainly can be done the time period involved. Flight 77 made a complete 360 in the same or lesser amount of time. That would have put the plane briefly over Indian Lake. As Jim Sharp notes, it was raining debris as it flew over. Thus the solid debris in that area.

Here you present the same idea of the sharp right turn as happening over Indian Lake. Just not to have no misunderstanding: Just point out to me please which one of the flight path shown below you have in mind!









(The turning point would be exactly over Indian Lake Marina. Or would you more think of turning in the north of Indian Lake? In case I completely misunderstood you Im sorry and propose that you simply load the first image of the article on your computer draw your wanted line and put it on the net with the help of http://www.imageshack.ws / Thanks a lot)


Im sorry. I really hate to argue with you, Paul. You surely do know how much I appreciate your work. But your posts imply some quite heavy accusations about the credibility of my research and I think its normal that I dont let this stand like this and defend myself and the article. And in any case the discussion can only help to find something we certainly both want to find: The truth.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Precising the position of the plane from northwest
All the witnesses that point out the position of the plane they saw agree in their estimation that the plane flew over their heads. Therefore the approximate flight path shown in the original article is highly likely to be true:

"I actually thought it was going to hit a house here in town," said Peterson. It blew out windows of a nearby farmhouse when it crashed.
As it went over started going end over end, Peterson said, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded. Peterson saw a flash and then a mushroom cloud of smoke.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0...


He (Joe Wilt) heard from a relative who worked at a small business less than one mile to the west that the plane had passed low overhead, heading southeast before crashing.
(Boston Globe, 9/12/01)

Linda Shepley, 47, of Stoystown, Pa., said she saw the plane fly over her back yard as she hung laundry on her clothesline. "I could see there was no landing gear down," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagenam...

(Nevin Lambert) saw the jetliner fly overhead , banking hard to the right. It was only one or two hundred feet off the ground as it crested a hill to the southeast.
I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom.

(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes, 295)



As already shown in the post above all witnesses in the east point out that the plane was flying overhead, too.
Therefore also the approximate flight path in the original article is highly likely to be correct.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Precision
It had been shown already that numerous witnesses remarked a plane coming in from northwest, that the crash happened within seconds after the plane vanished behind a tree line.
The same goes for witnesses from the east. They remarked the plane right before the crash. As there is only one crash site. Only one fire and smoke this poses serious problems to the official explanation.

Here a few new details to refute that one plane might have accounted for witnesses accounts in the northwest and in the east.

Position of the plane:
All eyewitnesses that do precise the position of the plane they saw state that it was overhead. They all agree on that. There is not a single contradiction.
Especially important that theses witnesses are very close to the crash site:

Bob Blair Stoystown I saw the plane flying upside down
overhead and crash into the nearby trees.

Linda Shepley Stoystown Linda Shepley, 47, of Stoystown, Pa., said
she saw the plane fly over her back yard

Rob Kimmel Stoystown He saw the jetliner fly overhead .

Terry Butler Stoystown Terry Butler works at Stoystown Auto Wreckers,
which is in the flight path of the doomed plane.
(remark this is my interpretation but I think a logical one)

Kelly Levernight Stoney Creek Township of Shanksville "I heard the plane going
over
.

Relative of Joe Wilt one mile west He heard from a relative who worked at a small
business less than one mile to the west that the plane had passed low overhead .

Eric Peterson Lambertsville I actually thought it was going to hit a
house here in town,
"
(again interpretation but again I believe its logical to assume that he saw the plane overhead)

Nevin Lambert Lambertsville Road It looked like it was coming right to my house.
It came over the junkyard


Therefore I think its hard to refute that the plane they saw came in indeed from northwest.


The tree line:
Again all eyewitnesses agree on another detail. All witnesses that precise where the plane disappeared from their view talk of the tree line. Maps of the area show that in fact the crash site is surrounded in the west by trees shielding the view for witnesses from Lambertsville Road, Lambertsville and Stoystown.

Here the list:
Terry Bulter Stoystown He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a
ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared , he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees. "It was eerie."

Eric Peterson Lambertsville As it went over started going end over end,
Peterson said, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded .

Paula Pluta Lambertsville Road Mrs. Pluta said she did not believe the plane
had rolled over. She was shielded by trees from the crash, but saw a huge fireball ascend.

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.
(I cant locate him exactly but as there are no near trees east of the crash site I think it is save to assume that hes talking about the same tree line)


All witnesses also are coherent in not mentioning that the plane was coming towards them. So given the combination of the coherent description of the plane being overhead and disappearing behind the tree line I think all witnesses clearly talk of a plane coming in from northwest and not from east.

The altitude:
All witnesses (without the only exception of Linda Shepley who lives in Stoystown) give very similar altitudes of the plane (between 100 and 500 feet) Paula Pluta speaks of treetop level: Paula Pluta, who said she heard a roar about 10:15 a.m. and rushed to her front porch to catch a glimpse of the jetliner at treetop level. But a much higher altitude would be needed for a crash that happened apparently at an 90 angle.
But none (exception Linda Shepley but shes still 4 miles away) sees that.

Ok. Lets assume for a moment that the plane flew at an altitude of 2000 feet (a helpful soul from DU who is an OTCler btw calculated for me this as a necessary altitude to do a 90 turn downards) but we can even take 1000 feet for the sake of the argument.
How come not a single witness being mile or a mile from the crash site seeing a plane at that altitude flying towards him and then doing a 90 turn downwards wouldnt mention the panic. That for one second he believed he would be hit. But not a single witness mentions this. Again theyre coherent.
But even if this might be still a matter of psychology of perception. If the plane was indeed at an altitude of 1000 feet and made this sudden 90 turn it would have been visible for witnesses quite far away . Everyone (save exception where one was surrounded by a building trees etc and couldnt see. But no witness mention theses kind of obstacles) Everyone should have clearly seen the 90 downward turn. And the plane wouldnt have disappeared it would have fallen and crashed.
But again nobody witnessed that. What people witnessed is this:

He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees. "It was eerie."

If you see a plane falling literally nose first in a 90 you would talk differently.
You would have seen at least a free fall of the plane for 800 feet!

As far as I can see all indicators we can find in the accounts of witnesses speak coherently without a single contradiction that the plane they saw was flying over their heads coming from northwest, vanished behind the tree line and then explosion, fire and smoke.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
49. In view of these posts
I must say that I see no way how a U-turn of the plane could explain the phenomena witnessed east and northwest of the crash site.
Note that witnesses northwest of crash site see plane vanishing behind the trees and within seconds see and explosion. How can a plane manage "within seconds" to do a complete U-turn (especially at this low altitude)??

Moreover: Everybody wondering about the credibility of the witnesses at Indian Lake (that is east of the crash site) has to find an explanattion for the raining debris.
As the wind is no explanation as shown in another thread the debris logically can only come from a plane that overflew Indian Lake (east of the crash site). So eyewitnesses at Indian Lake can't have mistaken a plane a few miles west of them for this very plane because the plane must have been indeed above their heads (based on physical evidence).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. The maneuver
Hallo and greetings to all members of DU!

Paul wrote:
When you have a plane literally upside down (as the 9/11 Commission did note in one obscure sentence), it's clearly not a case of it just coming in from one direction and hitting the ground.

I don`t think that the plain was just flying upside down.
Lets have a look to some eyewitness accounts:

Thornsberg:
"Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds"

Eric Peterson:
He sees a plane flying overhead unusually low. The plane seemed to be turning end-over-end as it dropped out of sight behind a tree line.

Bob Blair:
He sees the plane spiraling and flying upside down before crashing. Its not much higher than the treetops.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10...

Remember Ernie Stull saying he knows two people who heard a missile.

I think the plane at first made a sharp right turn, than a spiral(by flying upside down) and than it climbed the ridge.
It was only one maneuver, in a very low altitude.
It made this sharp turn because it fired the missile. The plane had to avoid the explosion or the blast wave.

This maneuver was not done by a boeing.
It was done by a military jet: the "white jet".
The big explosion was not a boeing-crash, it was a missile.

Greetings, Zaphod 36
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Hi Zaphod
I hope you don't mind my criticism of the essay you cowrote. I think there's a lot of great research in there, I just object to the needless second plane postulation.

>I don`t think that the plain was just flying upside down.

I agree. I hope you and others look into such issues. I have a personal hunch about what happened, though it's just a hunch. Let us assume MIHOP for a minute and pretend you're one of the evil plotters and you want to destroy Flight 93. If you use a fighter to shoot it down with a missile, that's dangerous because you might have witnesses who see the fighter, the explosion, and so on. Wouldn't it be better to take it down without a missile? It turns out there is a way. Here's an entry from my book:

August 13, 2002: Electronic Warfare Methods May Have Brought Flight 93 Down
The Independent carries a story entitled, Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93, a rare critique of the official version of events around that planes crash. Most of the information is a summation of what was reported before. However, there is one interesting new theory. Theorizing why witnesses did not see smoke from the faltering plane, the article points to the 1996 research of Harvard academic Elaine Scarry, showing that the Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on electronic warfare applications with the possible capacity to intentionally disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that U.S. Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed electronic suites in at least 28 of its C-130scapable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals. (INDEPENDENT, 8/13/02)

---

Not only was there a C-130 within range to take it out electronically, but curiously it was the same C-130 only a couple of hundred yards from Flight 77 when it crashed. I don't know what that means, but it's damned curious.

Everything I've heard about Flight 93 before it crashed sounds to me like a pilot trying to keep it in the air but slowly losing control. It appears to have been very low to the ground, then actually went up to about 2,000 feet, when it came to a complete stop and plummeted straight into the ground. Before that, it was sputtering, revving, turning over, wobbling, etc... Big passenger planes are no lithe fighters and travelling that fast that low to the ground would have been EXTREMELY stressful on the plane in the first place (some say it's not even possible for that kind of plane to fly that low that fast for very long and not break up in mid-air). Then add the extra difficulty of the electronic attack. So I imagine stress from all of this caused the plane to leak contents even before it crashed. This would also explain why there was no smoke, or not much.

Anyways, just a hunch. I think looking into these things would be much more fruitful than second plane theories. Perhaps you could follow up on your work with a more detailed map of witnesses, everything we know them to have said, and thus get a better idea of what was happening to the plane in its last few minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. From New Baltimore to Lowery
Hi Paul,

<Not only was there a C-130 within range to take it out electronically, but curiously it was the same C-130 only a couple of hundred yards from Flight 77 when it crashed. I don't know what that means, but it's damned curious.>

The C-130 probably has radar functions. Can it also operate with cyclops system? Stanley Hilton mentioned the cyclops system, that was used for the remote control of the crashed planes.

I think that in the Shanksville-Area no Boeing was involved. The "crash scene" was completely simulated. The blue container near the crater, the location out of the way and the scrap company Rollock nearby are more indications for this suspect.
But indeed there was a second plane in the indian lake area, that made a trail of broker statements etc. from New Baltimore to Indian Lake.
I think this trail ends at Lowerys farm. Article of Lowery:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...
Does anybody know, where Lowerys Farm is exactly located?

Jim Stop and other residents saw a boeing flewing over indian lake and loosing debris.
I think Flight 93 was hit by a missile from an interceptor, but this was an accident and not planned from the conspirators
Flight 93 came from Johnstown and immediately tried to escape the interceptor. But it was "shot down" near New Baltimore and made there the U-Turn.

Hi Woody,

<But I don't think it made a U-Turn.>
Fritz in the Johnstown tower mentioned a 180-degree turn (about 25 miles of Johnstown?)
http://library.triblive.com/interconnect/intercon.dll (type fritz+johnstown+180)

Can this 180-degree turn happened near New Baltimore?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-05 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. A fireball going up several HUNDRED FEET into the air from the crash???
"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."

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? That sounds extremely unlikely to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Fire
By far not all witnesses reported seeing the fire but quite a few did.
Here you are:


Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen...

A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0...



The explosion unleashed a firestorm lasting five or 10 minutes and reaching several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who lives a quarter mile from the crash site.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...


A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)


And of course there is the famous photo showing the mushroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-05 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. Interesting idea. But how on earth was the crash scene simulated?
How did they plant human remains in the trees and bodies in the ground?

Or is that all a lie?

I'd like to hear more about your theory.

And what is this blue container?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. How
do you know there was a plane? I've seen nothing in the way of debris equaling one?
Just because people said they saw a jet........doesn't mean one crashed?

Verbal hearsay isn't any better than printed hearsay.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. "To me", "I think", "It seems"
dear Paul, dear JohnDoeII,

I would love so much to join in exchanging opinions about the flight route of the plane(s). But curiously I have problems in understanding how a plane technically can U-turn with a speed of 7 miles per minute. And I have problems with one plane at two places in the same time - because the impact followed the sighting immediately according to the witnesses from both sides/sites.

What the heck has happened? One plane at two places in trhe same time? This sounds so familiar. Hmmmh.
It sounds like hijackers being in Afghanistan an Hamburg in the same time, being in Boston and Florida in the sme time and so on.

Why, dear Paul, are you always so kean to decide ("to me ...") which version is right and which is wrong ? Why dont you, why dont we just acknowledge that there are two versions (at least) existing ?

What is John Doe`s work about ? It is the fruitfull statement that the official version is not consistent. It would be, like in all the other cases, if the officials would DISCUSS and dismiss other versions. But they do not. They just tell the public: "this is what really happened."

"this is what really happened." is a sentence which earns all my disgust from whom it ever comes as long as he does not provide the evidence for it AND the discussion of evidence contradicting the statements.

What is our task ? Not to state "real events". We are not the owners of the provess. We are not the owners of the evidence which would solve so many questions in one second. I.e. here the RADAR-screens tapings from ARTCC Cleveland, Johnstown, i.e. the voice redorders and FDRs, i.e. fotos and videos and so on. Our knowledge is not secondhand, it is third hand: witnesses who are quoted by newspapers.

So let us demand the evidence. John Doe provided good questions to do so by stating the contradictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. reply
>Why, dear Paul, are you always so kean to decide ("to me ...") which version is right and which is wrong ? Why dont you, why dont we just acknowledge that there are two versions (at least) existing ?

I would hardly say that I am "always so keen to decide which version is right and which is wrong." As a matter of fact I very rarely diss other people's ideas or theories at this forum, whereas you often make very critical comments about other people's ideas or theories. And you should - that's your right. Why can't I?

The reason why I am making an exception to my usual practice is because I think this two planes idea is very detrimental to figuring out what happened to Flight 93. It muddies the waters. Certain things I will dismiss because I find them so completely inplausible that they serve no useful research purpose and only muddy the waters. One example of this is the idea that no planes hit the WTC, but they were holograms instead.

Yes, there is a lot of good research involved here, yes, it brings up many good issues such as debris fields. But the suggestion that this could imply two planes is so at odds with all the facts brought up that it leaves me speechless. It's akin to noting that there is a whole range of claimed times for when the planes hit the Pentagon, thus a whole bunch of planes must have hit it, one after the other. Yes, the confusion about the times is a good point, but the explanation is completely non-logical, because if a whole bunch of planes would have hit the Pentagon many other things would have to be true that we know aren't true.

In the same way, a whole bunch of extremely implausible things would have to be true for this second plane idea to be true. Where did the plane come from? Where did it go? Where was its radar tracking? Where were the eyewitnesses of it before or after Indian Lake? What would its purpose be? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, in my opinion.

The Indian Lake witnesses were extremely vague in their descriptions. None that I see quoted give any timings or any directions. Yet the essay concludes: "Several people witnessed a plane coming in from the east just before the crash happened." Why east??? Show me one of these witnesses who claims it came from the east. It could have been coming or going to any direction, from their descriptions. Furthermore, eyewitnesses often get things wrong. Certainly some of the eyewitnesses here had misimpressions, were misquoted, and so forth, yet their accounts are being treated as gospel. It could have seemed like it was overhead when it was two miles away, and so on. If I were sitting on a boat in a lake in some rural location and saw a jet plane flying low and pass by just two miles away, I would probably say something to the effect that it practically flew right over me. A controversy is being made here where there is none.

You say that there are people in Indian Lake who saw a different plane
at the same time as the people seeing one coming in from the northwest. Who's to say these plane sightings happened at different times? Or, who's to say these people didn't see the same plane at the same time, from different angles? If you look at Jim Sharp and such witnesses, they're only three miles from the crash site! This is very hilly terrain and there's bound to be much confusion as one person sees the plane disappear over one ridge and other person sees it disappear over another. By some accounts, the plane was at about 2000 feet altitude just before it crashed. So many people from many miles away in many directions would have seen the plane just before it crashed.

You say:

>It sounds like hijackers being in Afghanistan an Hamburg in the same time, being in Boston and Florida in the sme time and so on.

If I see multiple accounts, of say, Atta being in Boston and Florida on the same day or days, that to me is significant evidence pointing to two Attas. But what if someone said, "On Sept. 7, Atta was seen in Miami, and then on the same day, three miles away, also in Miami? Aha! There must be two Attas!" I would say that person can't be serious to conclude that means evidence for two Attas, because one Atta could have easily been in both places that day. It's the same here. If Indian Lake were say, twenty miles away and the eyewitness timing could be pinpointed better to be proven to conflict, then one might postulate a second plane. But Jim Sharp was three miles away, and we know the plane was making a sharp right turn from two other witnesses! There's no two planes mystery.

Everyone of course is entitled to their opinion, but frankly, personally I'm surprised that people I respect here such as yourself and John Doe would formulate or seriously contemplate a second plane hypothesis when a single plane can easily explain all the eyewitness accounts. And by failing to mention the two eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the plane make a sharp right turn, the authors cherrypicked only the evidence that was to their liking. That is very disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. U- turns and muddy waters
My personal U-turn

dear Paul

is the withdrawal of the word "always". Yes you are right, it is at least you who takes one side, obviously in your timeline work. Here in the forum you were sharp in following the Saudi trail and now in this UAL93 question. That is not always. It is, let`s count, about .. two times ? The average would be about one time in two years ...
I am not going to argue against your right to have and to express an own opinion. Maybe I am astonished because it is so seldom.

"One example of this is the idea that no planes hit the WTC, but they were holograms instead." Yes again. That is why I am so eager to express clear opinions here myself against conspiracy theories. Including the "melting steel" explosions in the WTC when everybody knows how to bend or to break iron and steel without explosions and excessive heat - see any car accident, see wires, see bridges and railways in the summer heat. (BTW - I would have appreciated if you were participant in clear words at this issue too, Paul).

Back to the "two planes". You have good arguments but not good enough to dismiss John Does findings. Your Atta example is a good one. Let us take it again. What if a person similar to Atta has been seen 3 miles away ? That is why I want to keep the discussion open. We do know several planes were in the region - although they should have been out of that airspace, on the way to get landed or aleady on the ground. We even know the flight number of the executive jet, the name of the pilot of the C-130. We know fighter jets (at least one) were there, circling.

We do not know what they were all doing, we cannot bring them into a timeline and in a place line according to the witnesses positions. We do not know if the witnesses witnessed the UAL93 or other flights, if their accounts about time, location, size, direction were correct.

So we must not agree to the conclusion John Doe takes about two IDENTICAL planes, about proof of anything. I do not dismiss a U-turn, not two planes, not UAL93 and another plane and other possibilities.

I welcome the mass of evidence, of accounts. I appreciate to have more material to deal with. And I urgently asks everybody to join in demanding the Bushists: open your evidence ! Appeal to the ATCs: speak out in public what you have witnessed. To the pilots: give your timelines. What we need is a real commission, best by the U.N. organization because it was affected by the "war on terror" which was real war and still is.

Let us keep the conclusions open, but let us collect evidence and dismiss mud in the waters. Except if it is debris in Indian lake :))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
41. At this point I think Paul's scenario is the most likely, but ...
and the one best supported by the evidence.

But there is much very strange about the whole incident, and obviously there is deliberate disinformation in the mix.

Does anyone have more details about the big military plane that was also at the Pentagon that has been conjectured to have jamming equipment capable of bringing down Fl 93 without a missile??

Why hasn't this been more discussed, since some of the eyewitness accounts fit with this scenario?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. My 2 cents
This is great work again, John and Zaphod, and I like your method: "conclusio ex negativo".

I disagree with Paul that you suggest the existence of two or more planes - you're examining all possibilities which are mathematically possible just to show that none of them adds up. But.

Among your scenarios, I have a clear favourite: A plane coming in from northwest and then crossing Indian Lake. I think the witnesses in the Northwest and the witnesses at Indian Lake saw the same plane. But I don't think it made a U-Turn. The plane approached the lake from west and exploded in a fireball right over the lake. The debris rained down and vanished in the water.

My favourite witness is Jim Stop because we know his position very good: 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.

Here's a picture from Indian Lake:



As you see, the lake is surrounded by trees, like many lakes. I have difficulties to accept that Jim Stop saw a fireball three miles away and 100 ft in the air - the trees would have blocked his view.

My guess is the plane came in from the west or northwest (I agree with Paul that no Indian Lake witness explicitly says he has seen the plane coming in from the east) and exploded over the lake, probably shot down by the mysterious white plane. But a closer topographic examination is necessary to support this thesis.

Just my 2 cents, but I think Occam is on my side.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. My 2 dollars (raising the stake)

John and Zaphod, I have to correct myself: Your piece is not great, it is a cornerstone because it draws the mysterious crash of UA 93 into the spotlight, and this topic is much more fertile than the pod phenomenon, for instance.

One of the first fruits is here:

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



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Sorry, I overlooked your answer!
Thanks a lot and hopefully others are getting interested in this topic as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-05 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Clearly the official story of 9/11 is wrong in many respects--
a fat lot of good it does us!

My bias is towards two commercial planes. I don't see how a jet moving that fast can turn sharply so abruptly and so quickly around a three mile area.

I suspect one plane crashed and one plane kept on flying. Flight 93 probably was the one coming from the east. The one acting crazy from the northwest may have been a drone that was losing control or was acting crazy on purpose.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Inside job
Your scenario implies that 911 is an inside job. (I'm not judging if you're right or wrong in describing what really happened on 911):
But do you see any possible scenario that is not heavily in conflict with the presented evidences nor that implies that 911 was an inside job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. I am trying to work out these flight 93 scenarios again. I think this is
Edited on Fri May-20-05 02:15 PM by spooked911
a very important post and I think now, flight 93 may really be the weakest link in 9/11-- if all the parts of the official story are put together:

1) planes coming from two different directions around Shanksville; the plane coming from the northwest was flying close to the ground and in a helter-skelter manner
2) quite a bit of debris falling over Indian Lake, east/southeast of the official crash site-- debris that must have originated from flight 93 and contains parts of airplane seats and some human remains
3) a crash site that cannot have come from the real flight 93-- either the crash site was faked or it was a special remote control drone
4) cell phone calls that cannot have been made from high in the air
5) phone calls made from passengers on the flights that do not tell the same story, they conflict badly with each other
6) the improbability of flight 93 being taken over by knife-wielding hijackers without the pilots being warned and alerting ground control
7) an interceptor jet that at least one air traffic controller said must have witnessed what happened with flight 93 but wasn't officially there
8) multiple reports that flight 93 was hit by a missile, a few witnesses support the idea that something exploded or hit a plane flying near the Shanksville crash site.
9) a strange white plane that witnesses saw around the crash site at the same time as the crash
10) a C-130 officially witnessing the crash of flight 93-- the same one that also saw the Pentagon hit (yet officially no interceptor reached flight 93)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. The scenario
Hi spooked911,

let me try to answer to your points.

1) planes coming from two different directions around Shanksville; the plane coming from the northwest was flying close to the ground and in a helter-skelter manner
The plane coming from northwest was the white jet, who made the maneuver to fire the missile and simulate the crash of UA93, at 10:06.
The real UA93 came earlier from New Baltimore, flew over Indian Lake and was seen by Jim Stop and other Indian Lake residents as it lost debris(after shoot down at New Baltimore.

2) quite a bit of debris falling over Indian Lake, east/southeast of the official crash site-- debris that must have originated from flight 93 and contains parts of airplane seats and some human remains
This debris indeed was originated from UA93 as it overflew Indian Lake, because it was hit by a missile from an interceptor jet.

3) a crash site that cannot have come from the real flight 93-- either the crash site was faked or it was a special remote control drone
I think the crash site was completely faked. I don`t think the crater was made by a drone, because the furrows consist with the wingspan of a boeing 757. This furrows must be digged before.

4) cell phone calls that cannot have been made from high in the air
Which persons made cell phone calls? Maybe this calls was done on the ground on Johnstown airport.

5) phone calls made from passengers on the flights that do not tell the same story, they conflict badly with each other
The primary phone calls can be faked. This phone calls can be made at the hijacking before arriving Johnstown airport, except Edward Felt. It is importent, which time exactly this phone calls was made. I read this phone calls are under closure.

6) the improbability of flight 93 being taken over by knife-wielding hijackers without the pilots being warned and alerting ground control
I don`t think the hijackers had only knives. Maybe this flight was part of the terror drills and the pilots knew about that.

7) an interceptor jet that at least one air traffic controller said must have witnessed what happened with flight 93 but wasn't officially there
Yes, indeed. He must have seen all the passengers of the four hijacked planes that landed in Johnstown before and put into this plane.
Just remember Winfields quote, that implicate the witness of the interceptor in the crash.

8) multiple reports that flight 93 was hit by a missile, a few witnesses support the idea that something exploded or hit a plane flying near the Shanksville crash site.
Flight 93 was hit by a missile at New Baltimore. John Doe had already posted the source.

9) a strange white plane that witnesses saw around the crash site at the same time as the crash
The white plane fired the missile to the crater. Mayor Stull mentioned the missile. Susan Mcelwain saw the white jet just before the "crash".

10) a C-130 officially witnessing the crash of flight 93-- the same one that also saw the Pentagon hit (yet officially no interceptor reached flight 93)!

The C-130 was operating the remote control(cyclops) as it did before at the pentagon. At the pentagon it was "AA77", in Shanksville UA93.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Zaphod 36
Zaphod 36,This all sounds so logical! And having all the bodies mostly recoverable in the Indian Lake area for expediant forensic verification.This makes extremely good sense to me. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Thanks for your wonderful answers, BUT I do have a few questions
Edited on Fri May-20-05 10:44 PM by spooked911
1) why couldn't the crash site have been made by a 757-sized drone?

2) how could a missile from the white plane mimic the crash site? Where did the airplane parts come from? Were they pre-planted?

3) why was the crash site faked in the first place?


4) What exactly was the C-130 operating by remote control, since it wasn't around for much of flight 93?

5) You don't think there was any plane-swap operation for flight 93?

6) Is there any evidence for all four 9/11 planes being at Johnstown airport? If so, what is it? I have never seen it.

7) what happened to flight 93 after it was hit by a missile? I have a hard time believing the whole plane blew up over the lake-- the lake is not that big.

Thanks very much!

by the way, Tom Burnett and Ed Felt definitely made cell phone calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Try to answer your questions
1) why couldn't the crash site have been made by a 757-sized drone?

There was no airplane parts on the crash site. If the plane came from southeast, then normally there must be some airplane parts(especially the tail)in the field to the Rollock direction. If there was airplane parts they would publicize the photos, because this photos are very good stuff for the officially version.
There is also no accumulation of earth in this direction.
The witnesses in Boswell saw the plane at 2000 feet. Stacey Tayler and Fritz talked about 6000 feet descending. I think UA 93 was heading to Johnstown in his final minutes after the shoot down and 180-Return(Fritz also mentioned). It was descending from 6000 to 2000 feet, overflewing the indian lake area and just gliding.

2) how could a missile from the white plane mimic the crash site? Where did the airplane parts come from? Were they pre-planted?
There was no airplane parts, just scrap from Rollock nearby(scrap-recycling company). They digged the crater before and planted the scrap(and other things) inside. They digged the furrows too.
On an airphoto shortly after the "crash" you can see a blue container near the crater. Why was there a blue container when there was no building site(coal mine) on this location? I guess there was a building site shortly before 09/11...

3) why was the crash site faked in the first place?
It was the officially crash site and a red herring one and all.
The real crash of flight 93 was at another coal mine. It was planned to do both things simultaneously. But this project was disturbed by the interceptor. So the missile hit the crater 3 minutes too late.

4) What exactly was the C-130 operating by remote control, since it wasn't around for much of flight 93?

A remote pilot, two sensor operators, support staff, along with a ground control station carried by a C-130 transport plane, are required to operate a Predator. A group of SWARM planes will be managed by a single person using equipment as commonplace as a PDA.
http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=8

Stanley Hilton mentioned the crashing planes was remoted by cyclops system. Probably the C-130 was operating with cyclops.
Flight 93 departed with all hostages of the four hijacked planes with destination to Afghanistan. But the final destination of the plotters are a coal mine nearby. They took control of the plane with Home Run("Flight Path Change Request") and remoted Flight 93 with cyclops to the coal mine.
The official path of Flight 93 was a red herring and done with another aircraft(UA91?)

5) You don't think there was any plane-swap operation for flight 93?
I think, UA93 and UA175 landed in Johnstown(around 09:30) on the way to Cleveland. A third plane (Buffets plane or UA91?) continued the official Flight Path.
This plane landed in Johnstown(Buffets plane landed in Johnstown!) and was swapped by the remoted UA93 from Johnstown.
I found also this:
Shortly before it went down, another call was made to the Westmoreland County 911 center from a Mount Pleasant Township resident who said he could see a large plane flying low and banking from side to side.
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/tribute.asp?i...

Why is the banking plane seen near Mount Pleasant, north of Johnstown? Was it seen shortly after the departure in Johnstown in north direction? In which direction the planes starting at Johnstown airport?

"John Hugya, an administrative assistant to U.S. Rep John Murtha, said *he has been told that the plane initially flew over Cambria County Airport in Johnstown.* There was no communication from the plane, and the plane was not responding to Cleveland Center, which is how they knew it was one of the hijacked planes."
This is quotet from your last posts. The overflew of Johnstown is in contradiction to the official version. Maybe the plane was not overflew Johnstown, it landed there.

6) Is there any evidence for all four 9/11 planes being at Johnstown airport? If so, what is it? I have never seen it.

No, but it is strange enough that Bergen Record wrote about the evacuation of Johnstown at 09:20. After this evacuation there was no independent people, who can witness the landing of the hijacked plane.
The day before there was a drill named "Amalgam Virgo"? What do you think about that?

7) what happened to flight 93 after it was hit by a missile? I have a hard time believing the whole plane blew up over the lake-- the lake is not that big.
It made a return after it was on the run unsuccessfully. It was gliding and descending to the abandoned, prepared coal mine out of the way in this area. It nosedived in this coal mine.
They borrowed the CVR, maybe some DNA or mostly of the plane. Or the whole plane was buried in the coal mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. According to Longman, there was a front landing gear found near the crash
site plus the engine some way away (a few hundred yards south). I agree there was no tail, and that is very fishy. This is one of the reasons I don't think a normal plane crashed there. But I still wonder if some sort of exploding drone could have crashed there-- where the tail was designed to self-destruct (this might explain what happened at the Pentagon as well).

So where was this coal mine where the real flight 93 crashed? Is it near Shanksville? Why would they fake a crash site and crash the real flight 93 somewhere else? Do you think the flight 93 that crashed contained all the 9/11 passengers?

All in all, I impressed by your scenario-- it is something I am trying to piece together. Do you have the whole thing written out or published anywhere?

Thanks for taking time to answer my questions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. My suspicion
Maybe he landing gear, which was found few hundred yards south, is a lie. Why a photograph of this landing gear does not exist?
The landing gear can also be put into the crater before the "crash" and smashed by the missile-explosion to this place.

So where was this coal mine where the real flight 93 crashed? Is it near Shanksville?
Yes. I have a strong suspicion. Take a closer look to the witnesses and you can find it.

Why would they fake a crash site and crash the real flight 93 somewhere else?
I think nobody has a plausible explanation where all the passengers are brought.
I think the passengers were "dumped" into an abandoned coal mine. But this must be done in secret. So the plotters must simulate the crash at the same time when the real Flight 93 crashes into the prepared abandoned coal mine at the other location few miles from the faked crash site.

Do you think the flight 93 that crashed contained all the 9/11 passengers?
Yes, the passengers and the hijackers. I think the hijackers wanted to bring this plane with the 200 hostages to Afghanistan. This said Moussaoui and was written in the very known PDB published by the Commission.
In this german side is written a story about a young arab at the fbi, who tells a story about a planned hijacking of an US-plane to Afghanistan:
http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/?id=511820&p=2&nv=c...

Do you think, the flight plan change request can be a "Home Run-Hijacking"?

The other 3 planes can be departured immediately after the reloading to Orlando, where the real 09/11 pilots, Al-Omari, Bukhari and Kamfar came from(Vero Beach near Orlando). Two pilots missing their pilot uniforms, who got caught and founded in Boston.
Maybe they leave the plane in Orlando in private clothes or they catched uniforms from the dead pilots.
The 3 hijacked planes were brought out from Orlando to Saudi Arab with the Bin Ladens at the next days. The story with the Bin Ladens were already confirmed by the officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. whaddaya think?
To insure the absolute guarantee that the commercial flights would be successfully brought down and replaced by drones I contend that the passengers,crew, and would be hijackers would have been subdued by gassing and brought in via remote interception. By flying phantom 93 all the way to Cleveland would have bought the time to place all the gassed passengers and crew onto the 93 drone. Just conjecture on my part...whaddaya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The hijacking
Hi demodewd,

I think the commercial flights was brought down by a "conservative" hijacking. The hijackers didn`t need to gass the passengers and the crew. The hijackers thought they can bring the plane down to Johnstown and continue the flight with all passengers in one plane to Afghanistan.
The pilots of the hijackers were double agents. The hijackers was armed with weapans like guns, so it was a good guarentee to bring the planes down. The guns was smuggled with ramp passes, remember that one was found in a car in boston.
The phantom 93 was a plane without passengers. This time all the way down to Cleveland and back gave the time to place all the passengers onto flight 93. Maybe Delta 1989 continued the flight path of UA93 to Cleveland and Buffets commuter plane replaced Delta 1989 in the radar hole over Cleveland.

P.S.: Thank you for your positive reaction in your last post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Wow, I'm really impressed with the level which you have this figured out!
Have you written out your theory any where? Or is this all in your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. other details
Take them all to Afghanistan as hostages to demand what? So where do the double agents go when they land their planes at Johnstown? They don't board the plane there,so wouldn't there be a reaction from the other hijackers? Who would fly this plane that carries all the passengers? Or are they all gassed before they are loaded onto the plane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-22-05 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Planes to Afghanistan
Take them all to Afghanistan as hostages to demand what?

To press free the blind sheikh oft the WTC-attack of 1993. This is written in the PDB and Moussaoui told this in the judicial hearing. He also mentioned the plan of the hijacking of a boeing 747 to Afghanistan.
I think they changed the plan to hijack four planes to get more hostages and demand more things. Dont forget the crisis between US and Afghanistan before 09/11. An invasion in Afghanistan was not far away. Maybe they had to take the hostages against an invasion.
If the USA refused the demands they can use the four planes for attacks against four US-targets(Moussaoui crash into the white house)
I remember a report after the commission hearing of Bush and Cheney that told they have ment terrorists planned an attack from a foreign country.

So where do the double agents go when they land their planes at Johnstown?

They flew their empty planes to Orlando. Ex-Flight12`s destination(remember Betty Ongs and Sweeneys "Flight 12") even was Orlando.
The other hijackers ment they will fly to Afghanistan over the Atlantic and will divert from the hijacking flight with the hostages. Maybe Flight 93 was planned to fly to Guadalajara(plan of this airport was found in New Baltimore) to refuel and continue the flight over the pacific to Afghanistan.
Al-Omari, Bukhari and Kamfar had their residence in Vero Beach.

They don't board the plane there,so wouldn't there be a reaction from the other hijackers?
As I mentioned before, the hijackers ment they will fly to Afghanistan too.

Who would fly this plane that carries all the passengers?
Good question. Maybe Bukharis brother, who was not dead.
Some or one of the 19 hijackers was pilots, I remember. Was it Al-Ghamdi?

Or are they all gassed before they are loaded onto the plane?
I don`t think they were gassed before they were loaded onto the plane.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-22-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. It makes sense to me that the hijackers thought they would hijack planes
to take them to Afghanistan with hostages to make demands.

But wouldn't it be muich easier if they hijacked a 747 and flew straight to Afghanistan? Why would they want to make extra stops? Who would be coordinating these movements and allow them to switch planes? I suppose they thought if they had hostages they could demand new planes?

And why would they put all the passengers on one plane? Just so it's easier to handle them? Who on the American side was coordinating the passenger movements? Someone at the airport had to allow this.

I like your idea a lot, but there is still a lot I don't understand. It sure would be great if you wrote it out somewhere!

And it sounds like the hijackings were real in your scenario, but I have trouble imagining real hijackings for the four 9/11 flights. They seem fake to me for a few reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-22-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #38
45. Is this gassing what Ed Felt was referring to?
I wonder if the plane was on the ground and they gassed the passengers while Ed Felt was in the bathroom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. About "home run"
I assume that means the remote control program Joe Vialls referred to, some call the Global Hawk.

As far as if "the flight plan change request can be a "Home Run-Hijacking""-- I have no idea. I just don't know enough about the program.

As far as the three hijacked planes being brought out with the bin Ladens, that is an interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to support it, or is it an assumption?

Again, it sounds like you have a lot of this figured out, have you written the whole plan down anywhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zaphod 36 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-22-05 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Home Run and Cyclops
As I know, Home Run was created to take control of a hijacked plane.
The hijackers are loosing the control of the plane. The controllers (NORAD?) can choose an airport for the landing(normally the next airport) and the plane is landing autonomous at this airport.(that means Home Run)

So I think the Flight Path Change Request never existed, the controllers placed the code DCA(Reagan Airport Washington) into the Home Run System. But they never planned to land the plane at DCA. It was just necessary to put a code into the system. Normally they had to put the Pittsburgh code into this system, if they really want to bring the plane down.
The coal mine was not in the Home Run-system(only airport codes), so they must activate the Cyclops-System too, to control the plane manually and bring it down to the coal mine-target.

I don`t have written the whole plan down, I just discussed it. You can ask John Doe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
31. Moreover, how does this story fit in with the flight 93 story?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...

Pt.2
What's happening at Johnstown-Cambria Airport?
By John Doe II

What's happening at John P. Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport
on 911?

In the days after 911 the following story is widely reported:

"Dennis Fritz, the air traffic manager, got a call from controllers in
Cleveland warning the Johnstown airport -- which has no radar of its own
-- *that a large aircraft was 20 miles south and had suddenly turned on
a heading for Johnstown.*

*"It was an aircraft doing some unusual maneuvers at a low level, which
is unusual for an aircraft that size,*"Fritz said last night.


""Supervisor Dennis Fritz and controller Thomas Hull picked up
binoculars -- the tower has no radar -- and scanned the horizon to the
south. The day was clear and, from the highest point in the area, they
could spot radio towers in neighboring Somerset County. *A large plane
would have stood out.*



"We didn't see a thing," Fritz said."

(This was) leading Fritz to believe that the plane was flying somewhere
in the 2,800 foot high ridges in that part of the Allegheny front.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...


"Dennis Fritz, director of the municipal airport in Johnstown, Pa., said
the *FAA called him several times as the plane approached his city*, and
even warned him to evacuate the tower for fear the jet was going to plow
into it.

(Washington Post, 9/13/01)

"When they (Cleveland) called back a minute later, it was 15 miles away.
They suggested we evacuate the tower and the airport because they didn't
know what was going to happen here. The aircraft was not communicating."

(Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/13/01)

*"'On the first call from Cleveland, they said a 757 was heading in our
direction at about 6,000 feet and descending,'* Fritz said. "They were
repeatedly trying to raise the pilot on the radio, but there was no
answer. " Within minutes, Fritz said, he began to move people from the
tower but hesitated to abandon it completely because he felt the
incoming plane might be in distress and need to make an emergency
landing."

(Bergen Record, 9/14/01)



*"Ninety seconds later (after first call), Cleveland called back. The
plane was now 15 miles south and heading directly for the Johnstown
tower. ***

"We suggest you evacuate," they told him.

Fritz ordered trainees and custodial staff out of the 85-foot tower. He
and Hull stayed at their posts and scanned the south with binoculars. It
occurred to Fritz that the plane must be flying below the level of the
mountain ridges around them."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93main...



""Dennis Fritz, chief air traffic controller at the Johnstown airport,
said he ordered the evacuation of nonessential employees at the tower
and the airport around 10 a.m. Tuesday after being alerted to 'a large
aircraft 20 miles to the south.'"
(Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/13/01)

"Forty-five seconds after telling Fritz to evacuate the Johnstown tower,
Cleveland Air Traffic Control phoned again.

"They said to disregard. The aircraft had turned to the south and they
lost radar contact with him.'"

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93main...

"Then, somewhere within the air zone, about 15 miles south of Johnstown,
the plane turned again toward the south."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

The plane crashed 16 miles south of Johnstown Airport.

(Bergen Record, 9/14/01)



This story of the third and last evacuation happening on the flight path
of UA 93 (Cleveland and Pittsburgh, too) bears many questions.

All accounts that give a precise direction of the suspicious airplane
heading towards Johnstown Airport agree that it was from the south.

(AP, 9/12/01 l)

(Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/13/01 b)

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93main...

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...


It might be rather surprising that Johnstown Airport was ordered to
evacuate as it certainly is not a target one could imagine the hijackers
to be interested. So while the FAA ordered Pittsburgh control towers at 9:49 to evacuate
no skyscraper in Pittsburgh was evacuated.

But if the FAA wants to run no risk on 911 and evacuate all airports that could be touched then again it's rather surprising that the advice was only given while UA 93 was
only 20 miles away.

Assuming a speed of 500 mph (it crashed with the official speed of 580 mph) this means that Johnstown had only 2 minutes to evacuate. Which certainly is not sufficient especially as
Dennis Fritz doesn't decide immediately. So if the FAA wanted to run no
risk when then wait so long?

But leaving this point aside and having a closer look at what happened
at Johnstown Airport on 911 there are several very bizarre points that
stand out:

Not only is the final crash site of UA 93 16 miles *south* of Johnstown
Airport (so when first noticed as heading for Johnstown UA 93 is almost
exactly at the very location it will later crash (being apparently lower
than 2800 feet it is surprising that no eyewitness remarked this plane
then)) but this direction is in contradiction to the official flight
path of UA 93. If one has a look at the map and follows the official
flight path the plane would be west or maximum southwest of Johnstown
Airport. So, who is right?

There is one account that contradicts all the quoted statements that UA
93 was heading from the south to Johnstown Airport:

"John Hugya, an administrative assistant to U.S. Rep John Murtha, said
*he has been told that the plane initially flew over Cambria County
Airport in Johnstown.* There was no communication from the plane, and
the plane was not responding to Cleveland Center, which is how they knew
it was one of the hijacked planes."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0...

But this seems even less believable than the above mentioned accounts.

If UA 93 flew over Cambria County Airport in Johnstown then certainly
Dennis Fritz would have remarked it?!

The next problem is the moment when Johnstown is signalled that there is
no more danger:


"Then, somewhere within the air zone, about 15 miles south of Johnstown,
the plane turned again toward the south."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

In clear this means that UA 93 managed 5 miles in the very time
Johnstown had been alerted and finally been evacuated and the big
relieve came.

Assuming that UA 93 was heading with 500mph (it crashed with official
speed of 580 mph) *than the whole period when Johnstown was in danger
lasts 36 seconds! *


This is rather surprising and difficult to believe.

As UA 93 "turned again towards the south" "about 15 miles south of
Johnstown" it is basically exactly at the very place (within a mile)
that it will crash. This again is quite unlikely. Nobody reported a 180
turn of UA 93 in the very last minute of its flight. And no eyewitness
has recalled this.



One last question is also why Johnstown Airport neither sees UA 93 nor
the white jet that seven eyewitnesses remarked at the crash site.
Cleveland stated that UA93 was flying at an altitude of 6000 feet and
descending. This is also reported by Cleveland controller Stacey Taylor
who was in charge of UA 93 (NBC, 9/11/02). So if it was a clear day, a
big aircraft would stand out and it was obviously flying above 2800 feet
why then wasn't it seen?

But why does Johnstown Airport have no radar forcing the staff to use
binoculars?

On June 15, 1999 the following information is made about Johnstown
Airport on the site of the Airport Traffic Control Service:

"Control tower services have been taken over by the Department of
Defense. ATC services are provided by Federal Employees of the US Air
Force."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020201000201/www.airnav.co...

and we find the following information:

"ATCT OWNED BY CAMBRIA CO/OPERATED BY BARTON ATC INC."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020204130525/www.airnav.co...

So, how come they hadn't no radar on 911?

Why does nothing of this story that explains the evacuation of Johnstown Airport makes any sense? Or in other words: It makes as little sense as the explanation surrounding the evacuation of Cleveland tower and Cleveland Airport.

Crazy stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. I just noticed something very interesting in Todd Beamer's call
says at one point the plane is going down, turning around and he thought it was going north.(!) (Longman, p 200).

This would be consistent with the plane going to Johnstown airport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
46. And ......
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 06:29 AM by John Doe II
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
47. Another reason
to question the UA 93 crash!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-07-06 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
48. In view of
the threads dealing with many instances where there have been TWO "UA 93" this thread needs a
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC