Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What did happen to Flight 93?
The Mirror - UK ^ | May 13, 2003 | Richard Wallace, US Editor

Posted on 05/13/2003 9:11:54 AM PDT by Chirodoc

RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UA93: THE EVIDENCE

THE WITNESSES

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

THE DEBRIS

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

THE MOBILE CALL

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

THE F-16s

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

THE BLACK BOXS

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

THE SONIC BOOM

The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area but at 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: flight93; geeeznotthisbsagain; shanksville
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
This is news to me. I was researching other info and saw this and decided to post it. I'm not a conspiracy geek.
1 posted on 05/13/2003 9:11:54 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Wow, now we know whatreallyhappened maybe?
2 posted on 05/13/2003 9:14:06 AM PDT by Registered (RIP Baghdad Bob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
This is low, even for the Mirror. Yes, there were fighters in the area. Yes, they would've shot the plane down. But the passengers had already taken the fight to the terrorists.
3 posted on 05/13/2003 9:14:14 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Sorry, but posting this makes you "a conspiracy geek". :-)
4 posted on 05/13/2003 9:15:16 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
I think we need to take up a collection to ship a ton of Reynolds Wrap across the pond to the folks at the Mirror. This is some un-freaking-believable garbage.

}:-)4
5 posted on 05/13/2003 9:16:12 AM PDT by Moose4 (Mew havoc, and let loose the kittens of ZOT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
There was no smoke trail, as this picture shows....
6 posted on 05/13/2003 9:18:36 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (When news breaks, we fix it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
How long after it hit was that picture taken?
7 posted on 05/13/2003 9:20:09 AM PDT by Registered (RIP Baghdad Bob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.
Oh, yeah. We have lots of fighter-intercepters capable of noiseless, sub- and supersonic flight. And they can fly 50ft above your minivan and not blow you completely off the road.

And it was saucer shaped, right?
8 posted on 05/13/2003 9:20:14 AM PDT by Asclepius (as above, so below)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
There's at least a good chance that Flight 93 was shot down. President Bush did publicly give permission to shoot down any airliner that threatened to repeat what happened at the World Trade Center, and it was also publicly announced that permission to shoot was being delegated more extensively than had been the case before 9/11.

That said, we don't KNOW what happened, and perhaps we never will. In any case, there's no doubting the courage of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers.

IF the plane was shot down, it seems to me that it was justified under the circumstances. IF it was shot down, I'm sorry that the authorities don't trust the American people to have that knowledge, unpleasant as it is.

My own opinion is that IF it was shot down, President Bush would probably have acknowledged it if some cover-your-ass bureaucrat hadn't already begun the coverup process. Coverup is instinctive with these people, and the further it goes, the more embarrassing it is to lift the curtain.

In any case, I don't see anything here dishonorable either to President Bush or to the pilot who may have done his duty.
9 posted on 05/13/2003 9:20:25 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Crap. Unadulterated crap.

PLAYING upon the minds of a susceptable few with a select 'set of facts LONG after the memory has faded of all that came out in the way of numerous GTE Airfone calls and eyewitness accounts from people whe were on scene.

CRAP like this ALSO overlooks the dozens of eyes of CONTROLLERS in TRACONS in the area that watch air traffic control RADAR - eyes that are connected to minds that no doubt stil have functioning MOUTHS and FINGERS from which any 'coverup' would suffer endless 'leakage' ...

10 posted on 05/13/2003 9:20:29 AM PDT by _Jim (Guangdong doctor linked as source of SARS in China: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
It's a pretty moot point isn't it? Better that plane be shot down than turn the White House into a crater in the middle of a national emergency, mere hours after the opening salvo of WWIV.
11 posted on 05/13/2003 9:21:00 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Mind-altering drugs are evil except when used to pacify toddlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
So when George Bush laid a wreath yesterday at the crash site in a remote valley outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Dateline is May 13, 2003. Did I miss something yesterday?

12 posted on 05/13/2003 9:21:20 AM PDT by pettifogger (the dog ate my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
There's at least a good chance that Flight 93 was shot down.

YOU'VE got no PROOF and the totality of the evidence works AGAINST that hypothesis ...

13 posted on 05/13/2003 9:22:09 AM PDT by _Jim (Guangdong doctor linked as source of SARS in China: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
the white plane rocketed directly over her head.

US fighter jets are not white, Falcon jets are white.

F-16s are grey.


14 posted on 05/13/2003 9:23:21 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
Try the new stuff.  It doesn't stick to your forehead.
Reynolds Wrap® Release® Non-Stick Aluminum Foil

alt
General Info
FAQ
Recipes
Uses

alt

15 posted on 05/13/2003 9:26:07 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Sigh. There's nothing in this story that cannot be explained by the official version. Some of the "eyewitness" stuff is ridiculous.

For instance: I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side.

Simple math: if Flight 93 was 50 ft above him, coming down at 45 degrees, then Flight 93 landed 50 ft in front of him, and he's dead.

Or this: At least SIX witnesses, including Susan Mcelwain saw a small military type plane flying around shortly BEFORE UA93 crashed.

How does she know if it was a "military type plane?" Answer, she doesn't. She cannot even identify what type of plane it is: "I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets."

And then the egregious "sidewinder missile" theory. BECAUSE they found cloth and paper debris some distance away, and BECAUSE they found one engine about a mile off (and apparently no other big debris...) it MUST have been a sidewinder missile, even though it would have destroyed the engine and probably blown the whole damned wing off.

This article is nothing more than crap to feed the gullible.

16 posted on 05/13/2003 9:26:50 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
How long after it hit was that picture taken?

It would have to be soon -- given that there was an intense fire afterwards, there would have been a big black column of smoke.

17 posted on 05/13/2003 9:28:16 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: michigander
"Sorry, but posting this makes you "a conspiracy geek". :-)"

Darn. I was hoping that wouldn't happen.
18 posted on 05/13/2003 9:29:30 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
The original date of publication of this article was Sep 12 2002, and it was posted here several moths ago.

Expect to be flamed and ridiculed. When it was posted before, the vitriol became so bad it was banished to the SmokeyBackRoom ghetto.

However, I live near the crash site, in Johnstown, and many of the statements here are absolutely consistent with the firsthand stories I've heard from day one. Guess that makes me a conspiracy geek.

19 posted on 05/13/2003 9:31:35 AM PDT by Polycarp ("When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Darn. I was hoping that wouldn't happen.

I may even be one now just for replying.

20 posted on 05/13/2003 9:31:47 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Let's take the F16 example here ...

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

Now the eyewitness reported, "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side." Doesn't sound like an F16 to me. An A10 perhaps, but definitely not an F16.


21 posted on 05/13/2003 9:32:23 AM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pettifogger
Dateline is May 13, 2003. Did I miss something yesterday?

No. This article was written in September of 2002, nearly nine months ago.

The thread originator gave it today's date, which is incorrect.

22 posted on 05/13/2003 9:33:05 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
"I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."

Just to show you how unreliable these eyewitness reports are, if the jet was 50ft above him and coming down at a 45 degree angle, it would have hit the ground 50ft away from him. He would have been killed by the blast and debris.

23 posted on 05/13/2003 9:33:21 AM PDT by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
And assuming a normal minivan, without a transparent roof, if a Falcon went over your head at 50 feet you wouldnt get more than a fraction of a second to see it anyway.
24 posted on 05/13/2003 9:36:09 AM PDT by 2oakes (US citizen, ex-brit, and VERY glad of it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: michigander
LOL. Guilt by association.
25 posted on 05/13/2003 9:36:14 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It was published in Mirror today.
26 posted on 05/13/2003 9:37:38 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Chirodoc
this article leaves alot to be desired... like facts, for one thing.

So what if the engine ended up even ten miles away and there was a gaping hole in its side before it came down! I know Boeings are great planes, but are they engineered to be stunt planes? A bunch of guys fighting over the yoke would have a tendency to throw the plane around a bit, doncha' think? Stress on the airframe and all that?

And where does our govt. keep this white plane that makes hardly any noise? I want one.
28 posted on 05/13/2003 9:38:24 AM PDT by bigcheese (Acurracy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Chirodoc
It was published in Mirror today.

Then it was a reprint, because Bush was in New Mexico yesterday, nowhere near Shanksville, Pa.

30 posted on 05/13/2003 9:40:46 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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

GOVERNMENT DENIES KNOWLEDGE

31 posted on 05/13/2003 9:41:11 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
Why is it garbage? Did you see the crash? Were you an eye witness?

If not, then your statement carries no more weight than anyone else who wasn't there. Your government is not that forthcoming about it's actions and I suspect that the plane was in fact shot down. The only question I would have is, if it was, why on earth would the Government not admit it. It was a tragic but necessary act to preserve other lives on the ground. Those on the plane unfortunately were already forfeit.
32 posted on 05/13/2003 9:41:47 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (I AM the NRA and I VOTE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
Tin foil warning. The government admitted on 9/11 or 9/12 that the President had ordered flight 93 and any other presumably hijacked flight shot down that didnt land when ordered. They also admitted scrambling a jet to potentially down flight 93 but they said that the flight had crashed within minutes of when the AF fighter arrived on scene. If this Magazine is saying that the Government is saying that there was no chase and there was no other plane, than either he is a tin foil nut or a liar or damn uninformed from visiting too many crank websites.

By the way, US airforces almost shot down an Asian jet liner approaching Alaska on 9/11. It was forced to land in Alaska. If it hadnt landed it would have been "toasted."

33 posted on 05/13/2003 9:42:13 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mango Chutney
Wow! I didn't even notice the 9:11 post time. I'm a victim of a conspiracy in a conspracy. Going to kitchen for foil....
34 posted on 05/13/2003 9:43:07 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
It was published in Mirror today.

Their website updates the date daily, but this was published last September.

Go to the Mirror link, click on the "Printer friendly version" link.

That version gives the original date of publication.

I doubt they republished this old article in today's paper.

By the way, checkout the discussion on the original thread I posted the link to above. Interesting give and take there.

35 posted on 05/13/2003 9:44:12 AM PDT by Polycarp ("When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Then it was a reprint, because Bush was in New Mexico yesterday, nowhere near Shanksville, Pa.

The problem is that the current date appears on the Mirror page instead of the article date. I did a search and went to the page, and today's date is posted. But the article is definitely old. He must have got it e-mailed to him.

36 posted on 05/13/2003 9:44:39 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."
Warthog ?
37 posted on 05/13/2003 9:45:14 AM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton; Poohbah
Chirodoc
Since Mar 17, 2003

Doesn't this BS fall into the category that the Viking Kitties love to zot.

This lying and slanderous BS first appeared in some Islamofacist fish wrap shortly after 9/11. Then third party whackos and the DU types have trotted it out on a continual basis.



38 posted on 05/13/2003 9:45:38 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
By the way, US airforces almost shot down an Asian jet liner approaching Alaska on 9/11. It was forced to land in Alaska. If it hadnt landed it would have been "toasted."

This is correct. The plane was over Canadian airspace at the time and PM Chretien gave permission for a shoot down by U.S. jets if it did not respond to orders to land.

39 posted on 05/13/2003 9:47:10 AM PDT by mitchbert (Facts are Stubborn Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"Simple math: if Flight 93 was 50 ft above him, coming down at 45 degrees, then Flight 93 landed 50 ft in front of him, and he's dead."

LOL
40 posted on 05/13/2003 9:47:28 AM PDT by Chirodoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
If this Magazine is saying that the Government is saying that there was no chase and there was no other plane, than either he is a tin foil nut or a liar or damn uninformed from visiting too many crank websites.

this British chap got every single detail correct except the name of the Lake (Indian Lake, not India Lake.) He did his homework.

I have heard these same exact details about the white plane from locals from day one.

This account of locally known facts is accurate. The conclusion might be incorrect, but the fact there was another lowflying aircraft present at the time of the crash is irrefutable. It is a consistent story heard from day one, and those details have not changed in retelling.

41 posted on 05/13/2003 9:47:40 AM PDT by Polycarp ("When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
I didn't even notice the 9:11 post time. I'm a victim of a conspiracy in a conspracy.

See, it always starts with that denile. Then it just keeps growing and growing...

42 posted on 05/13/2003 9:49:36 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


43 posted on 05/13/2003 9:49:57 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
The link below is a thread started by a Freeper who actually heard the Flight 93 cockpit tape. He insists there was no shootdown.

No sound of missile hit on CVR

44 posted on 05/13/2003 9:55:41 AM PDT by mitchbert (Facts are Stubborn Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chirodoc
My recollection is that the planes inititally scrambled on 9/11 were forced to take off without any missiles on board. I recall that both the National Guard jets scrambled to protect Air Force One and to intercept flight 93 were weaponless. The pilots knew that if it became necessary to complete their mission, the only means they had for doing so was to ram the target.
45 posted on 05/13/2003 9:56:13 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigcheese
I know Boeings are great planes, but are they engineered to be stunt planes?

Well, the Dash-80 (precursor to the 707) famously performed a barrel roll on a demo flight:


How it really looked during the roll
Courtesy Boeing Historical Archives

46 posted on 05/13/2003 9:58:06 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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

Why? Will it make them feel any better (especially the victims' families)??

I agree that the government shouldn't hide things, but we all know - and hopefully accept - that the plane could not be allowed to crash in Washington - heck even the passengers knew that!!
47 posted on 05/13/2003 10:00:40 AM PDT by fawn796
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Obviously not very long, since that looks like a fresh smoke plume on a clear blue day.
48 posted on 05/13/2003 10:01:42 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (When news breaks, we fix it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This account of locally known facts is accurate. The conclusion might be incorrect, but the fact there was another lowflying aircraft present at the time of the crash is irrefutable. It is a consistent story heard from day one, and those details have not changed in retelling

I dont know where the conflict is. The government said there was another jet in the vicinity. There was a US military flight tasked with preventing flight 93 from reaching Washington, DC. The government says it arrived just about the time the airliner crashed. It did not fire although authorized to. Im not sure but if I remember correctly but its my recollection that the only jets they had fueled and ready to scramble at the time were not armed. So if the fighter was to take down flight 93 he would have had to ram it.

49 posted on 05/13/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
A barrel roll would be tame compared to the motions of a plane caused by a a few men engaging in fisticuffs in a small cabin. Or so I would think. Of course, I'm not a aerodymaics engineer. Or at least I don't think I am.

Reminds me, an aero engineer friend once told me that a 747 pilot decided, on a cloudy starless night, to perform a 1 g barrel roll over the Pacific with a full load of passengers. Says the guy pulled it off with no one the wiser... except he did get caught somehow ... dont remeber how, though. All well, its prolly bull anyway.
50 posted on 05/13/2003 10:06:39 AM PDT by bigcheese (Acurracy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson